It isn't a fair contest, and it won't be anytime soon

One thing sorely missed... and invalidates the article entirely: Windows is designed to run a multitude of configurations. Ones Microsoft themselves couldn't even plan for. Just drop by TomsHardware, see how many motherboards, video cards, cpus, etc. etc. exist that run Windows.

So which ONE of these is Windows optimized to run on?

Sure Mac OS X is (better be!) optimized for the hardware Apple pumps out. But even if Windows isn't, it's still going to be a fair race. The speed issue will indeed be highly analagous once Windows boots on an Intel Mac (assuming there isn't something whacked).

And indeed we should expect Windows to run faster. Mainly in terms of UI... Teh Snappy, Windows got it, OS X don't.

Will this decide EVERYTHING once and for all? No. Most Mac Users prefer OS X to Windows, and I've never -- read NEVER -- heard anyone say it's because OS X is faster.

I agree with several of the posts: this was a bad article, and really does this site -- and the Mac users at large -- a disservice.

-Pie

I don't think its coming to a showdown, but I think Microsoft is clamboring to get back lost ground and in the end lose more ground in the process. I believe this for the following reasons.

Microsoft is in fierce competition and has taken strong opposing positions against Google, Apple, and Sony.

First of all, the war for the living room. Apple is already staking ground with their Imac and now MacBook Media capabilities and remote. Its not secret that Microsoft wants to move into the living room. This is a battle that still to me remains undecided, seeing whether or not people really want computers controlling more of their lives. There is not a huge demand for it, but there is (as always) infinite potential for the next big "trend" to be in the living room.

Next, the console war. In my humble opinion, I feel this is a war that Microsoft is going to lose. The X-box had a rushed release. No core or head turning games were available at launch for the quick push for release. In short, No Halo.

Now people tend to feel that Halo as Microsoft's ace in the hole. While it is an advantage to have a game with a loyal following, i fail to see how this is a guarantee for victory. FPS have always come and gone, with each following installment losing more and more of its fan/consumer base.

Sony on the other hand, its system is superior atleast in specs.The blue ray technology is a far step up in terms of Hi definition gaming as well as increased storage capacity. Furthermore, playstation 3 has the loyal support of several 3rd party software companies. Though business ties can come and go, I feel that sony will have stronger "exclusive" titles to the playstation 3 model, such as Killzone, Metal Gear, Grand Theft Auto, Final Fantasy, and a couple of throw back titles that already look eye appealing. (Warhawk, for example.)

Furthermore, Microsoft is already engaging in an MP3 war against Apple with the launch of the MTV based store, which is incompatible with itunes or an ipod. Now objectively, IPODs hold a significant amount of the portable mp3 player market. 80% at last I checked. Going against Apple whose far dug in into this ground is just suicide. Economic Suicide

Lastly, the war against google. "Google gives away what Microsoft tries to sell." Google is the number one search engine of the time. Yet the short history of the internet has taught us that internet companies can come and go faster than a fad. Google continues to take ground at everyturn against Microsoft, offering free desktop searches, etc. Google has taken quite a bit of ground. Yet rumors of ad driven google coming into play may change a lot of peoples hearts, yet Microsoft is driven to destroy Google, and may fall even flatter on their faces.

While my opinions are a bit shoddy and film without any real research except what I have read, this is merely a rant to see what others think about Microsoft finally falling and the monopoly being over. While some argue about whether or not Microsoft has a monopoly, I think that people are becoming comnputer saavy enough to want to desire a computer system of their own. Components from all walks of life made from people from all over the board. Why can't we have an apple made computer running windows using crucial ram to surf webpages using firefox while playing Counterstrike Source?

Jarad makes an excellent point, and while Dell and Apple aren't the same thing, they are certainly very similar. Sure, Dell doesn't spend as much time on their case-design as Apple does, but then again, that's not what Dell's after. Dell wants to move 8 bagillion computers, and they don't give a crap what they look like

---

Tell that to the guy who put flames on the side of the Dell Gaming rigs.. *shudder

Furthermore.. Jarad is a ditz. Look at the name of this blog. Of course they're going to say Dell is crap. Move along.. nothing to see here

Why is it always a speed comparison?
You might have a faster car but which would you rather have to steer it with: a padded leather steering wheel with grips or a lug wrench?

I think this article and most of the replies miss the ACTUAL point entirely. Except for high-end games, transaction servers, and renderer number-crunching, the processor performance doesn't matter much in 99% of PCs sold.

The only real test is to use software to get stuff done, and see how long it takes on each system. And Intel or PowerPC in the Mac isn't going to change one's ability to do that metric at all.

I just find it funny that this site always tosses the Windows user into the 'Dell' club (I myself have never owned a Windows system that wasn't IBM or self-built), then proceeds to bash them unmercifully before moving on to the important job of pedestaling the Mac.

As pervious posts have mentioned, you don't have to run on the same system to have the same hardware, the fancy little event known as CES makes it quite obvious that the Yonah/Core Duo and Intel chipsets that follow are very much similar to the Apple hardware in the Intel Macs (the MacBook and the Acer Travelmate 8200 seem strikingly similar.)

I agree with Jarad and though you didn't mean to be a fanatic you played the part to a 'T' and it only hurts the blog, I may want to see the latest in Apple news, but I can do without extreme bias. If I wanted MS bashing and vague Dell hating I could go to any old forum and save myself the visit here.

I'm really not seeing these "performance issues" running OSX on my IBM ThinkCentre. Once I swap it's original (intel integrated media accelerator 900, just like in the dev kits) it'll be 3d accelerated too.

Running an OS that actually takes advantage of this P4 with HyperThreading is great.

The people with performance issues either haven't removed the TPM files or are trying to run a patch on an SSE2-only processor. Animated graphics effects like the dock animation and minimizing windows and stuff is fine.

@TUAW

Jarad makes an excellent point, and while Dell and Apple aren't the same thing, they are certainly very similar. Sure, Dell doesn't spend as much time on their case-design as Apple does, but then again, that's not what Dell's after. Dell wants to move 8 bagillion computers, and they don't give a crap what they look like. Apple happens to think that something you use as often as your computer should be pleasing to the eye. I, for one, appreciate Apple's attention to detail and their commitment to solid case design (and I'm willing to pay more for it).

Inside the computer, however, is a different story. BOTH companies have an ever-watchful eye on their bottom line. Don't for one second think that becuase Apple spends more time and money on their case design that they NECESSARILY do that for their internal hardware. It simply isn't the case. Apple and Dell BOTH cut costs on the internal hardware in their computers. They're both looking to cut costs, Dell is just willing to sacrifice style to offer you a cheaper computer.

The hardware Apple puts in its computers is equally as "crappy" as Dell's, it's just in a prettier box.

I've also got *plenty* to say about OS X vs Windows (and why "Mac Zealots" are their own worst enemies in that battle), but that's for a different post.

I don't really care about WIndows anymore. The only I have to deal with it is when my parents PC crashed which happens frequently (windows users dont annoy me - viruses do happen to people with all that anti-malware installed) and that's just it. I have switched to Mac and to be honest I don't really care about the gaming on the PC. Nothing can match Mac OSX's sense of security (it may be infallible or it may be not) and stability. There I go starting a fight which I don't have the energy to end. Why can't people just say what OS they like and that be it. Have OSes become our new religions?

Ok, so Windows won't run on a Mac and OS X won't run on a Dell, so what. As you said, they were never meant to. However, they now both use essentially the same hardware. A PC can be configured with the same processor, memory, hard drive, graphics card, etc. as a new Intel Mac, so a fairly accurate side by side comparison of operating system speed can be made. No, it will not be a perfect test. But you can run the same benchmark on the same computer twice in a row and get different results, so nothing is perfect. It will be close enough to see the strengths of each. And to some people that is important.