apple news/media reports
03/22/2006, 11:35am, EST
Wednesday, March 22nd
MacBook Pro faster than other PCs
The MacBook Pro Core Duo runs Adobe Photoshop faster than other laptops originally designed for Microsoft Windows, according to Benchmark tests of Windows XP running on PCS and other Intel-based Macs: "The MacBook Pro is the fastest Core Duo laptop we've tested running the Photoshop scripts. It's faster than other laptops originally designed for Windows. This bodes very well for the performance of an Intel-accelerated OS X Photoshop, when that finally appears." GearLog tested the performance of Windows XP on a Mac mini, an iMac, and a MacBook Pro, according to Macworld UK. Testers used a guide available from OnMac, discovering that each computer requires a different version of software to help the machines choose between operating systems on start-up. Although no video drivers yet exist for the dual-boot machines, testers found that once Windows was installed, it had no problem running at the full 1,680 x 1,050 resolution of the 20-inch screen. "We got Ethernet, wireless networking, and the headphone jack (but not the internal speakers, iSight or the remote) working using drivers suggested by OnMac," testers said.
Filed under: Apple
, 
, 23
, 
, 
, 
, 
, 
Top
subscribe to comments
for this article
Fuel to be put in many a Windows pipe and smoked.
let's see max OS X running on an intel box instead.
Z
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/hardware/x60.ars/4
I really hope Apple will make the best systems and that Rosetta and VPC-whatever can lower all barriers to switchers and all, but the costs have to get down a bit more. I don't think Apple can continue to add the cost of iApp development onto the machines. Perhaps if Vista doesn't work well or if people see that they have to invest in upgrades on Wintel machines they may see a reason to switch to Macs, but if that doesn't happen, we will see Macs only improve in the minds of Mac people and geeks like these.
No, it won't. Because it is NOT, and won't be, a supported installation. So the only people buying macs to run windows (and there won't be many) will have to hack their computers or run special software to do it. Then hope someone has come out with drivers for all the hardware that Windows doesn't support in the machine, and for which Apple doesn't support either.
And while mac users are already trained that they should spend more money on their computers for the sake of spending more money, plus to get something that looks 'stylish' (ooh, it looks good, well worth the extra $300), Wintel users don't think that way. They're like normal people, concerned about overall costs. And being that they have alot more choices of hardware suppliers, they can get a PC that actually meets their needs, with features they want, and, just as important, not loaded with crap they don't want.
Who cares if its bad for apple. Is it good for the consumers? Wouldn't running OS X on a PC box sell more copies of OS X? To me, being a proponent of one side of the argument (getting windows to run on a mac) should mean you support the other half (getting OS X to run on a wintel box). That way we can get cheaper hardware, more options/features, etc. And with more OS X sales, you could even see more support for OS X from hardware AND software vendors.
Allowing a mac to run windows would, if anything, give hardware/software vendors a reason NOT to support OS X (what, you want to run the latest Quickbooks on your Mac? No problem, just boot into windows and install that sucker!)