Mac OS X versus Vista, RAM division

[shiv]

=============================================
As I noted earlier this week, I’ve begun using a MacBook (the basic white model) and keeping a log of my experiences.

Yesterday, I received the adapter cable I needed to hook this machine to an external monitor so that I could use it in a desktop configuration. (A note to the thrifty: Don’t pay Apple $29 for this mini-DVI cable. Instead, go to Monoprice.com and pick up the generic adapter for $9.96. With shipping, it was still under $12, and it works just fine.)

Now that I have this system up and running on a full-sized screen, I’m ready to make some head-to-head comparisons with Windows. Because this system has a mere 1GB of RAM, I was curious to get a sense of how thrifty OS X Leopard is when it comes to memory usage. I was especially curious to see how Leopard compares to Vista, which as been slammed by critics as a resource hog.

To get started I opened Safari and opened a single web page, then began playing an MP3 track in iTunes. With those tasks running, I checked the results from Activity Monitor.

As you can see, the OS reports that 581MB is in use, with 430MB free.

Next, I launched a similar set of tasks on a system running Windows Vista Ultimate. To make the comparison fair, I used the System Configuration utility to disable all but 1024MB of memory in the system, which has 4GB of RAM. This system is using the full Aero interface (disabling it had no significant impact on the RAM footprint). I opened Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer, began playing the same MP3 tune and browsed to the same page that was open on the Macbook. Here’s what Task Manager showed for memory usage.

For those keeping score, the Vista machine is using 594MB of RAM, which is roughly 2% more than its Mac counterpart running the same set of tasks.

Vista gets a bad rap for lots of things, including its reputedly voracious appetite for memory. As you can see, Vista compares favorably to OS X in this regard and doesn’t deserve that reputation.

source: blogs.zdnet.com
====================================

Hehe, interesting...

[Bladerunner]

=============================================
As I noted earlier this week, I’ve begun using a MacBook (the basic white model) and keeping a log of my experiences.

Yesterday, I received the adapter cable I needed to hook this machine to an external monitor so that I could use it in a desktop configuration. (A note to the thrifty: Don’t pay Apple $29 for this mini-DVI cable. Instead, go to Monoprice.com and pick up the generic adapter for $9.96. With shipping, it was still under $12, and it works just fine.)

Now that I have this system up and running on a full-sized screen, I’m ready to make some head-to-head comparisons with Windows. Because this system has a mere 1GB of RAM, I was curious to get a sense of how thrifty OS X Leopard is when it comes to memory usage. I was especially curious to see how Leopard compares to Vista, which as been slammed by critics as a resource hog.

To get started I opened Safari and opened a single web page, then began playing an MP3 track in iTunes. With those tasks running, I checked the results from Activity Monitor.

As you can see, the OS reports that 581MB is in use, with 430MB free.

Next, I launched a similar set of tasks on a system running Windows Vista Ultimate. To make the comparison fair, I used the System Configuration utility to disable all but 1024MB of memory in the system, which has 4GB of RAM. This system is using the full Aero interface (disabling it had no significant impact on the RAM footprint). I opened Windows Media Player and Internet Explorer, began playing the same MP3 tune and browsed to the same page that was open on the Macbook. Here’s what Task Manager showed for memory usage.

For those keeping score, the Vista machine is using 594MB of RAM, which is roughly 2% more than its Mac counterpart running the same set of tasks.

Vista gets a bad rap for lots of things, including its reputedly voracious appetite for memory. As you can see, Vista compares favorably to OS X in this regard and doesn’t deserve that reputation.

source: blogs.zdnet.com
====================================

Hehe, interesting...

Since trying Vista for myself I'm a proud supporter of it.

[Zana]

=============================================
As I noted earlier this week, I’ve begun using a MacBook (the basic white model) and keeping a log of my experiences.
====================================

Hehe, interesting...

Great infos still the Mac OS beats the windows OS by 2 % hehehe..
But if windows Vista optimised some of its GUI compnents they can reduce the memory consumption by at least 10% rouphly , perhaps a little bit more more ...
But Vista has extra services running, and people have been cpmparing it as Vista vs XP which is the same as comparing win 98 vs XP.
If you upgrade your hardware with your OS upgrade it wont be painfull and there would be less moans, but thats all got to do with money... and Vista is klike everyone says is the best 64 bit way with PC / But XP 64 is best choice if your hardware is constraining and dont have buclks rather wait and save for new system... But i dont see anyone one complaining between the different versions of Mac os like windows users with vista vs xp..
Love and hugs
Danielle

[shiv]

Since trying Vista for myself I'm a proud supporter of it.

Even if Vista does run well on modern hardware (and with latest SP and updates of course), it still is bloated and full of DRM.
That's a deal breaker for me.
I'm (still) testing out Windows Server 2008, awesome!!
This is what Vista should've been: modularized and lean.
If I run into serious problems (especially games), then i might consider Vista, but by then Windows 7 will be floating around, haha.

But if windows Vista optimised some of its GUI compnents they can reduce the memory consumption by at least 10% rouphly , perhaps a little bit more more ...

Vista could've beat OS X simply by cutting out the crap.

[hamin_aus]

Why do people do this....

Who cares if Vista is faster or slower than OSX

The two do not compete on the same hardware. You will never have a representative benchmark.
Even if you have similarly spec'd Mac and PC and run benches on them - it doesn't mean anything.

Add the fact that Macs are used predominantly by hippies and pretentious turdburglars and you can see why nobody should care about whether Vista is faster or slower than OSX.

Wait... let me rephrase that... Nobody should care about OSX period.

[shiv]

Why do people do this....

Who cares if Vista is faster or slower than OSX

The two do not compete on the same hardware. You will never have a representative benchmark.
Even if you have similarly spec'd Mac and PC and run benches on them - it doesn't mean anything.

Add the fact that Macs are used predominantly by hippies and pretentious turdburglars and you can see why nobody should care about whether Vista is faster or slower than OSX.

Wait... let me rephrase that... Nobody should care about OSX period.

The point of that article was to demonstrate that Vista isn't the only OS that consumes resources.
As for hardware, it shouldn't matter, cos Mac OS X can run on Intel hardware now.

Anyway, you are right, who cares about OS X anyway??

[hamin_aus]

The point of that article was to demonstrate that Vista isn't the only OS that consumes resources.

It's still pretty pointless going up against OSX.

Thats like a normal person competing in the Special Olympics *

And they used Safari and iTunes resource consumption and compared it to IE and WMP.

Whoever wrote this "article" is a grade A moron IMO.



* I would just like to aplologize to the one physically challenged and 700 mentally challenged people on this forum for comparing you to OSX.

[shiv]

The point of that article was to demonstrate that Vista isn't the only OS that consumes resources.

It's still pretty pointless going up against OSX.

Thats like a normal person competing in the Special Olympics *

And they used Safari and iTunes resource consumption and compared it to IE and WMP.

Whoever wrote this "article" is a grade A moron IMO.



* I would just like to aplologize to the one physically challenged and 700 mentally challenged people on this forum for comparing you to OSX.

I get your point, lol.
But they are comparing both OS doing the same tasks (although different programs).
Anyway... let's leave it at that, lol lol

* I would just like to aplologize to the one physically challenged and 700 mentally challenged people on this forum for comparing you to OSX.

haha

[Hex_Rated]

Add the fact that Macs are used predominantly by hippies and pretentious turdburglars and you can see why nobody should care about whether Vista is faster or slower than OSX.

Wrong. Hippies use Linux.

[hamin_aus]

Artsy-fartsy people like Maxxis like using Macs.

I consider them hippies.

[Hex_Rated]

OK, hippies with money use Macs. Hippies (and communists) without money use Linux.

[ryanrich]

OK, hippies with money use Macs. Hippies (and communists) without money use Linux.

[Frozenfireside]

OK, hippies with money use Macs. Hippies (and communists) without money use Linux.

Agreed but even my 'springbok for scouts lets-go-out-and-camp-and-kill-something-and-then-eat-it' friend loves his Mac.

[GreyWolf]

OK, hippies with money use Macs. Hippies (and communists) without money use Linux.

Agreed but even my 'springbok for scouts lets-go-out-and-camp-and-kill-something-and-then-eat-it' friend loves his Mac.

hippie in denial