Submitted by ComputerWorld checks out Vista RC1 on a MacBook Pro. “I can say at least this much about Vista: I’ve had fun using it so far. Yes, Vista is still a work in progress and there are some annoyances that go hand-in-hand with running Windows – the User Account Control window, for instance, pops up a lot. But so far there have been no show-stoppers. To paraphrase the praise usually reserved for Apple’s Mac OS X, it just works. And on Apple hardware, it just works exceptionally well.”
I found that the MacBook Pro got a score of 4.7, no doubt..
Awkward,my old AMD64 XP3000+ 2.2GHz 1GB desktop ram gets a 3.0 rating.I think bootcamp is a bit hogging.
i think Vista is the problem
bootcamp doesn’t do anything else than to fake a bios and let you select os
That is absolutely amazing logic! A MacBook Pro performs better than some AMD machine with a slower processor (performance-wise, not necessarily raw external CPU clock, which means little) and (possibly: it wasn’t stated what it had) possibly slower video card and maybe a bunch of other things, and you say Vista has the problem? And yet, you also state bootcamp doesn’t do anything else than to fake a bios and let you select os?
I think this is a matter of Microsoft bashing for the sake of bashing, and not based on facts. Quite possibly the AMD system doesn’t have as good of drivers, or the hardware otherwise simply isn’t as good for some key thing. After all, a system is only as fast as the weakest link allows it to be for a given task. I’d start first by considering the processors.
After all, a system is only as fast as the weakest link allows it to be for a given task.
And thats exactly how the Vista rating thingy works. You can have a score of 5 on video, cpu, memory and haVe a 1.2 on your hdd and your overall score will be a 1.2… Vista explains this stuff on its performance meter program when you run it.
Its not rocket science.
Edited 2006-09-09 21:02
Whoa, easy there. Bootcamp doesn’t do anything but fake a bios and let you select the OS. Other than the BIOS, the Macbook Pro is a standard Intel machine — it doesn’t *need* to do anything else.
And I think you completely misunderstood the comment before rushing to the defense of Microsoft. The OP was expected the MBP to perform better than it did.
OOOHHHH, I *HATE* that you can’t edit a comment beyond 20 minutes. OF COURSE I KNOW Bootcamp doesn’t do anything beyond providing a BIOS solution, and I was quoting the poster above mine, but mistyped my surrounding explanation. I should have proofread it before I posted, that’s all.
No, I didn’t misunderstand the post at all, and I didn’t “rush to the defense of Microsoft” but rather merely rushed to the defense of how things really are. Helf’s post in combination with mine explains why the Mac got a better score: it is, indeed, a “weakest link” balancing to a large part, and well, the Mac simply came out better for providing the Vista experience: that doesn’t mean that Vista (the OS) is flawed, but rather that either the hardware involved is better supported by good Vista drivers or is better on the Mac, period, where it matters for providing what Vista requires. Then again, you often seem to be against Microsoft and closed source anyway, so you’re likely to find a way to bash anything that doesn’t go along with your ideology and what you like.
No, I didn’t misunderstand the post at all, and I didn’t “rush to the defense of Microsoft” but rather merely rushed to the defense of how things really are.
You misunderstood the post, and you continue to misunderstand the post. Read the comment that started the thread. The poster of that comment expressed surprise not at the fact that the MBP was faster, but because it wasn’t as fast as he expected compared to his “old” Athlon64 machine. That’s the only interpretation in which his claim that “Bootcamp is a bit hogging” makes sense.
Now, when Mellin says “I think Vista is the problem”, he can’t possibly mean that “Vista is slow”, since we’re talking about two machines both running Vista here. The only interpretation of his statement that makes any sense is “Vista is probably not well-optimized for an Intel Mac”, which is where your bit about the weakest link and whatnot comes in.
Thus, you’re whole rant about Microsoft bashing was moot. Nobody was bashing Vista here.
Read the posts in question again, then read my post again. If you still don’t get it, you’re hopeless.
Edited 2006-09-10 03:11
The only interpretation of his statement that makes any sense is “Vista is probably not well-optimized for an Intel Mac”, which is where your bit about the weakest link and whatnot comes in.
That’s not the only interpretation. The overall discussion was about the rating. Vista being “the problem” could’ve also been interpreted as the poster thinking the rating system (WinSAT) was flawed, which has been a frequent point of discussion during Vista’s development. People think their systems are better than the rating for whatever reason, so they blame the rating sysem. Unless we get more context from Mellin, his statement is open to interpretation.
yes i didn’t mean that vista is slow
What’s so weird about it? The MacBook Pro gets a score about 60% higher, despite the fact that its got a processor clocked 40 MHz slower.
the rating system is a good thing; maybe now we’ll see companies put out balanced machines rather than machines with a insanely fast CPU with little or no regards spent to makeing sure that the hard disk of a decent speed, that there is a decent amount of memory, that the GPU has enough grunt to get the work done.
In my years working in the IT industry, I have seen some real dungers, 2.6ghz machines with 256MB ram, slow hard disks and crappy integrated memory – customers need to be educated that when you look at the computer, look at the whole computer, not just one component.
Edited 2006-09-10 06:58
How HP and Gateway, for example, build their machines really sickens me.
HP puts in a really cheap graphics chip with the Best AMD processor around, which means the machine doesn’t shine when you start to actually run those graphics apps. Last time I checked you couldn’t actually buy an AMD laptop from HP with the best graphics chip installed.
Gateway, again, in a corporate machine, that I didn’t configure, put in such a cheap graphics chip that the windows shrink and expand on context switches. It’s like going back to the first IBM PC’s with the green or amber monitors. This is with an Intel processor that really runs very well.
The “save a buck” attitude really stinks.
“Since installing Vista, I have found that my MacBook Pro runs hot. No doubt Microsoft hasn’t worked on power management issues that might affect Apple hardware, which leaves me to wonder whether I’m slowly cooking the motherboard of my laptop.”
Maybe someone better informed knows the answer. What exactly is this ‘Apple hardware’? Isn’t the Pro just the Apple branded version of the Asus W2jb, but without bios?