<p>Some people have said that macbooks run more slowly than other notebooks yet I have heard quite the opposite, any opinions?</p>
<p>Macbook pro included as well…</p>
<p>The operating system runs faster then Vista, or at least faster then an unoptimized vista, but the parts aren’t any faster so it all depends on the software.</p>
<p>The chips used in Apple computers are the same as those used in other consumer computers. While Apple used to use PowerPC processors, they switched to Intel processors a few years back. There’s no difference in the processor between a non-Apple laptop with a certain chip (say, the T9300) and a MacBook with the same chip.</p>
<p>In my experience Macs have always run faster. We have a Microsoft PC desktop and laptop at home and I own my own Macbook. I’ve found start-up, opening applications etc. to always have been faster on my Macs. Anything to do with the actual operating software. Programs themselves are separate from Macs and PCs so they, most of the time, run at the same speeds.</p>
<p>I’ve had an iBook, Powerbook and now have a Macbook Pro and none have ever skipped a beat. And I mean, never. If you ever have to wait for something on a Mac, there’s something wrong. Sounds pretentious, I know, we are, but if you buy one you’ll start saying the same thing.</p>
<p>In some ways, Macs run more slowly and in other ways, it’s comparable with Windows and in other ways it runs faster.</p>
<p>Macs run over a variant of Unix with X-Windows which uses a client-server model. This is generally more expensive than Windows but provides benefits such as being able to pipe an application to another X-client (say, on another machine). Windows is generally known for faster graphics performance, even with the same hardware.</p>
<p>Windows systems require antivirus software unless you leave them turned off all of the time. This Antivirus software takes time to startup, check your activities and update. So you have additional CPU, memory and disk i/o overhead on Windows that you don’t have on Mac OSX. You can buy antivirus programs for Mac OSX but I don’t know if they really do that much.</p>
<p>Background processing performance should be similar on similar hardware.</p>
<p>I find Mac OSX to be a far more efficient operating system. I can get about five hours of use on my MacBook Pro on Mac OSX but only about 2.5 hours on Windows XP.</p>
<p>With the same software, the Macs and PCs of the same hardware would pretty much be the same. After all, a Mac is just a PC made by Apple. However, there will definitely be differences between running OS X and XP on a MacBook. Apple only has to worry about making an operating system for a few sets of hardware, so they can optimize the operating system for that hardware. Windows, on the other hand, has to support a vast array of hardware over which Microsoft has little control. In fact, Microsoft doesn’t write most of the drivers for interaction between the hardware and Windows - the hardware manufacturers do. A lot of the drivers are really shoddy because of this. When people complain about Vista’s hardware compatibility issues, they should realize that Microsoft isn’t responsible for all those drivers.</p>
<p>As far as anti-virus goes, I stopped using it years ago (though I’m rarely using Windows). It seems to just slow down your computer even more than the viruses would. As long as you don’t click on random links and run random exe’s, you’ll be fine without antivirus. Just make sure you have a software firewall if you’re using a laptop, or a hardware firewall, if you’re using a desktop.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Come on, this is a ridiculous exaggeration. I’ve waited for the beach ball to go away plenty of times - on a Mac Pro with 2x Intel Xeon 2.6 GHz with 4GB RAM.</p>
<p>At one point in time (not too long ago), macs ran windows faster than a pc!!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>(I’m assuming you’re talking about running XP on a mac through boot camp? If not, disregard this)
Keep in mind this could also be due to the fact that the processor speed is kept at full when running XP on a Mac. On other computers, depending on your battery settings, the processor speed is throttled so that battery isn’t wasted. This isn’t the case on a mac running XP.</p>
<p>ummm…not sure if this is what you are looking for…but when I turn on my pc…it takes like 2-3 minutes for everything to settle it…</p>
<p>when I turn on my MBP…it turns on in like 30 seconds…</p>
<p>^^ yes!!! my mom’s computer (a newer windows xp) takes WAY longer to boot than my MBP. i would trade my life for my baby :)</p>
<p>If you optimize your vista computer you can get it to boot up in about 40 seconds.</p>
<p>I find MAC slow. Even loading a page or entering a hyperlink took more than 15 seconds. I thought I was running a 14.4K. I always thought people like MAC because of their fancy designs. Maybe it’s just me. But if I was to work with anotheer MAC again, I think I won’t have the patience to wait for the snail to make it to the finish line. And I only used it once in my university just for the heck that the majority PCs are occupied.</p>
<p>WOW! It seems as though we have arguements for both sides of the issue. Putting that aside though, how many people would definitally reccommend Mac antivirus??? Thanks for all the imput so far!</p>
<p>Intel processors going back to at least the Pentium 3 offered Intel Speedstep. AMD offered Cool 'n Quiet in their Athlon 64 processors which throttled CPU frequency during low demand. Intel and AMD have been in a race to decrease power consumption since that time. Windows XP, Vista and Mac OSX take advantage of the deep power down states offered by modern processors. On Windows XP, there are a variety of power settings that you can set to set the balance between power consumption and performance.</p>
<p>For those that want to get a little more extreme, it’s pretty easy to find Windows programs to underclock your processor for better battery life. This is the process of deliberately lowering the speed of your processor to improve battery life.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Okay, slight. 
But I’m kind of serious. I’ve never had to wait so long that I’ve gotten frustrated, told it to hurry up, tapped fingers etc. And that’s been while five other programs are running in the background. I just mean comparatively. Every time I’ve used my parents’ or brother’s PCs I’ve ended up really frustrated over how long their computers have taken to load anything. And my brother’s is a fully decked out gaming PC with insane amounts of RAM and awesome graphic processors. I’m not even gonna try and give you the specs, but it cost a lot so I KNOW it must be good, lol.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. Completely unnecessary. Don’t bother unless you’re concerned you may inadvertently pass on a virus from someone else’s PC to another via email or chat etc.</p>
<p>How about spyware protection?</p>
<p>In response to BCEagle…a better solution than underclocking would be to undervolt. No loss in speed, reduced heat, and a longer battery life. You have to have a ton of patience though to get the settings right.</p>
<p>“In response to BCEagle…a better solution than underclocking would be to undervolt. No loss in speed, reduced heat, and a longer battery life. You have to have a ton of patience though to get the settings right.”</p>
<p>On my Compaq Presario (A64 3200+) laptop, voltage levels fluctuated with CPU demand. I could set the voltage manually but most of the time I didn’t bother. With the new MacBook Pro, I have over five hours of battery life compared to about 100 minutes with my old laptop. I could get about 120 minutes underclocking it. Some of the next generation MID devices or notebooks based on the Atom processor should be able to do eight or more hours on a charge.</p>
<p>I’m planning on picking one of these up to leave around in the living room. Intel can’t keep up with the demand for these chips right now from gadget manufacturers.</p>