why are my mac's always slower than my neighbour's pc?

[nino]

I've been using Macs for about 15 years now, OS X for about 12 months. I've always been happy to pay a bit extra and buy a reliable and aesthetically pleasing Mac than skimp and get a cheap and nasty pc. I loved OS 9, and now that I'm used to OS X, I love that too. Most Mac software is terrific, and iPhoto, iTunes, iCal, Mail and many of the other bits and pieces that come with OS X are works of art. The only thing that really disappoints me about my Macs is that they always seem to be a whole lot slower than pc's. I have an 800 MHz G4 iMac, and with OS X going it chugs along nicely, but today I got hold of a Dell 2 GHz machine and that really seems to fly. Acrobat Reader opens in less than a second on the Dell, it takes several on the iMac. New document windows flash open on the Dell, on the iMac they seem to just glide open. Web-browsing ALWAYS seems HEAPS faster on the PC's around my workplace than on any macs I've ever had. I used to think that a Mac with a given clock speed would be faster than a pc with a similar or somewhat higher speed, but that never seems to be the case.

So, my questions...

Am I expecting too much from Macs?

Should I be surprised that the 2 GHz Dell is faster than an 800 MHz iMac?

Can I expect my iMac to do ANYTHING faster than the Dell?

My workplace is dominated by pc's, and my area is one of the few remaining bastions of Apple products. It would be nice if I could justify the extra expense of my Macs with something more than their external beauty.

[zed]

How much memory do you have in the mac?

The mac is very memory intensive, specially OSX

I think if you put more memory in it should go faster...

However I generally a 2Ghz CPU will do more operations per second than an 800Mhz System, but it's what you do with those ops that counts and the Windows OS is very bad at that and the Mac/Unix is very good..

Cheers,
---Zed :cool:

[nino]

512 MB RAM...on my older macs I was always running short of memory, so I got more than usual this time.

[Phil St. Romain]

Should I be surprised that the 2 GHz Dell is faster than an 800 MHz iMac?

No. A better comparison would be between the Dell and one of the newer Mac towers.

Can I expect my iMac to do ANYTHING faster than the Dell?

It will run Mac software faster than the Dell. :D

Seriously, if your primary criterion is speed in opening programs, the PC will win with those specs. What's it like once a program is open, however? Pretty much the same, I'd suspect, except that web surfing will probably be faster in the PC. Many of us open our apps and just leave them open for weeks.

[Wintermute]

Originally posted by zed
...
However I generally a 2Ghz CPU will do more operations per second than an 800Mhz System...


Actually, as i will illustrate, this is not necessarily the case.

A typical CISC (Complex Instruction Set Computer) processor has 100 to 500 instructions with up to 20 variations of each. It's easier to program and require fewer lines of code.
The RISC (Reduced Instruction Set Computer) processor on the other hand, has mere 20 to 60 commands. But these commands require fewer clock cycles per instruction (CPI).

It is easier to build a CISC processor with a high frequency, and easier to program it. But a well programmed RISC processor will be faster than a CISC, even when running at less than half the frequency.

For those of you who haven't guessed: Intel use CISC. Apple use RISC.

Originally posted by zed
...but it's what you do with those ops that counts and the Windows OS is very bad at that and the Mac/Unix is very good..


Actually it's not the OS that's most important, in regard to performance as a function of frequency, but the kind of processor. But I definitely agree to Zeds' point, that it is important to make every instruction count to get the full potential out of each clock cycle. (And what I disagree on is only mere definitions.) But what I'm trying to get through is that frequency is a very useless measurement when it comes to a computers performance. It is not even suited to measure the processors performance.
If there could be established a good standard for measuring CPU performance, and applying this to a formula which takes into account BUS-speed, Cache and Memory size, number and speed of Registers, and so on and so forth, one might end up with a figure that makes it possible to easily compare the performance of an Intel running XP to a Mac running X. But then again, world peace would probably be an easier achievement.

[Andrew LaGow]

I think it's also important to point out that over time PC/Windows performance tends to degrade. The first six months of my Gateway P4 1.7GHz's life were fast and stable, but these days performance is way down. Logging in and out of user accounts is even more tedious than it is on OS X, which is saying something.

By the way, Wintermute, love your nick. Bad computer!

[sighup9]

Speed is relative and comparing the performance of different processor plaforms based on their clock speed is fruitless.

I've never cared how long a system takes to boot or how long it takes to load an application with CPM, Solaris, Linux, Windows, or OS X. What is most interesting is how stable the OS is, how many different things run simultaneously and how the system performs with multimedia applications.

--Evan

[beedee]

I'm not so sure this is really a Mac vs. PC issue. I'm pretty sure that if you were to put my 800mHz Dell up against your 2Ghz, you'd find similar performance discrepancies.

However, put that same 2Ghz next to a G4 dual 1Ghz, and you will have a better basis of comparison.

A guy here at work was bustin' my chops about how Macs haven't broken the 1.42Ghz barrier, and PC's are approaching 5Ghz. I honestly don't see much performance difference between the two, though. Besides, if you've got a dual 1.42 Ghz G4, it's going to fly past a 3Ghz PC.

Think of them both as pizza delivery shops. Papa G4's got two new Lexus, and PC Hut has one souped up Ferrari. Who's gonna deliver more pizzas per hour if Papa G4's always got a car making deliveries and another picking them up while PC Hut only has one car that has to go back and forth for each delivery? Papa G4, no question. Not to mention that the store managers at Papa G4 are a lot smarter and more organized than the college dropout who's in charge of PC Hut.

Hope this helps!

[mervTormel]

mmm, pizza.

although, sometimes i lament waiting, here on this 500Mhz G4, the trade-off is "it's not windows!" :D

[Andrew LaGow]

Would a dual G4 450 constitute two Toyota pickups?

[bluehz]

I gave up this battle years ago... it just going to be faster on a PC... hate to say it - but learn to deal with that and you save yourself a lot of grief.

Sure people throw around numbers, and facts and figures, but what it all boils down to is when you sit down at this computer or that - your concept of speed at the moment is what you use to judge. Sure its purely subjective and all your own experience. I personally absolutely hate PC's - its a Mac thing... been there since day 128k.... so I won't have PC's... but I have to say when I am forced to sit down at a PC and use it - it always feels more responsive. Now when I say responsive - I mean FEELS responsive..... in other words the GUI is faster... because anyone who has ever installed PC software or in general used a PC - knows the PC Mantra "PLEASE WAIT...." ... but .... like I said it FEELS faster.... because of the GUI. That?s what tricks us into believing it IS faster. Its a battle best left unfought - I have never once converted a PC user to Mac by speed alone. Everyone of them - the first words out of their mouths when they use a Mac is "WOW this thing is slow..."

Sad but true....

[keiths]

also please quit comparing a dual processor mac to a single processor pc. if you want to compare a dual processor mac, compare it to a dual processor pc.

[AKcrab]

Oh, ok Keiths. We're real sorry.

[Schiffi]

I have found that Word opens faster on my new Mac than it did on my PC. Of course my PC was 800Mhz/384MBRAM and my new PB is 1GHz/1024MBRAM. Not a fair comparison, but what's a man to do?

[aarony]

I wish the Macs used Intel/AMD processors so there could be a real apple-to-apple comparision (no pun intended). ;)

[rmcellig]

It's funny because my wife as a PC with a 2GHZ processor to run all of her CAD intensive stuff. I have a G4/400 and I must say that it keeps up with her PC nicely overall.

[sighup9]

Originally posted by rmcellig
It's funny because my wife as a PC with a 2GHZ processor to run all of her CAD intensive stuff. I have a G4/400 and I must say that it keeps up with her PC nicely overall.

Even funnier: I just "downgraded" from a 1 Ghz TiBook to a 667 DVI TiBook and do not notice much difference in performance. I don't do a lot of intensive graphics work so not sure about how that would be affected. All other aspects do not seem to be much different.

--Evan