Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 73 of 73

Thread: Mac OS X 10.6.3 vs. Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu 10.04 Benchmarks

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Dec 2008


    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Commodore and Atari both had far superior OS's as well back in those days and were one some of the cheapest hardware to be found. Even they still fell victim to the Windows movement because other then gaming they didn't have much at all in the way of productivity software.
    Amongst the suite of productivity software the Amiga did have were some pretty usable and what could be be considered for the time fully featured productivity apps. I'd still consider the Mac's apps at that stage to be better but the hardware was a lot more expensive than either an Amiga or a clone so was a no goer for many. The quirkiness of the Mac's physical layout probably wasn't exactly helpful either.

    Technical reasons aside, a fair bit of the lack of adoption seemed to be driven by the "it's not what I'm used to using" factor. As well as that you had a healthy serving of "my favourite platform's better than yours" mentality as well. While it's still very common these days, back then PC enthusiasts, (both corporate and private) would poo poo alternative platforms to theirs for no valid technical reasons. Many then, and sadly many still do, seek to engineer reasons (no matter how weak) for why people must use a particular platform (their personal choice).

    While Commodore didn't produce the most effective marketing for corporate folk (to say the least), for people who think of themselves as gods gift to computer noobs, many IT people sure did make a point of ushering people away from and decrying the benefits of the other more advanced platforms until their own preferred platform had them as well, and then, boy, it was amusing to watch their new dog and pony show with them proclaiming just how fantastic GUI's and multi-tasking really were now.

    Word processors, DTP packages, spreadsheets and databases were all there to be had for the alternative platforms. It was back then just as mandatory as it is now to have at least those bases covered for each and every platform. While there were some really good packages for MS DOS there were for the other platforms as well and when combined with those other platforms intrinsic benefits it really does make ya think. There was a decent emphasis on games and graphics titles for both the Atari and Amiga platforms around launch and through their lifetimes but they also strongly pushed the benefits for productivity of their GUIs environments not to mention pre-emptive multi-tasking for the Amiga.

    There was a bit of a trajectory for an IBM and clone dominated industry being set even by 85 or 86 or so, but not to the extent that the newer platforms on a purely technical level would've been able to overcome in a neutral market place. The power of the FUD was as strong as ever during those days.

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    MS courted that market, gained acceptance by the corporate sector and started their road to dominance.
    One thing that shouldn't be understated was Microsoft's efforts behind the scenes to like you say "court" the market. Some may say they were at times a little unethical while doing so.

    I should say though that if the IBM PC platform was a complete piece of junk it wouldn't of succeeded no matter how strong the lobbying, etc. It was at least a serviceable, and later quite a compelling platform. Just not always the most compelling available.

  2. #72
    Join Date
    May 2010


    Ok I have registered just to point out that these tests may be flawed, at least those run under OS X.

    See my own results (same OS, same games and settings, same GPU, a slightly faster CPU and more RAM):

    3 to 4x higher frame rates at low res, which seems more on par with performance under Windows 7. There is something wrong with the published results, maybe their Mac mini went out of RAM during some of the runs under OS X.

  3. #73


    Quote Originally Posted by jeanlain View Post
    3 to 4x higher frame rates at low res, which seems more on par with performance under Windows 7. There is something wrong with the published results, maybe their Mac mini went out of RAM during some of the runs under OS X.
    If OS X is such a RAM eater there's nothing wrong with the tests. They test out of the box performance. Ubuntu had composition enabled, so I could say the same - tests are flawed, but only when they'll judge which system has better 3D (like some misleading title and intro of another article) - not when they just benchmark out of the box performance. Afaik there were some regressions fixed in os x updates.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts