Mac vs. PC Speed: It Doesn’t Matter
April 16th, 2008 (11:00am) Mike Gunderloy 12 Comments
We’re about to be subjected to another extended argument in the blogosphere over the relative merits of Mac and Vista personal computers. That’s because Popular Mechanics just published the results of their “ultimate lab test,” a supposedly objective comparison of laptops and desktops including benchmarking for raw speed and perceived speed. They found the Macs to be superior on these measures, which will no doubt lead to crowing among Mac advocates and challenges from Windows users.
But you know what? If you’re a web worker looking to settle on a computing platform, this sort of speed test doesn’t matter. Certainly you should make the decision with some care, but my advice: don’t even bother reading benchmark results like these. There are much better ways to decide which way to go.To begin with, the plain fact is that either platform is almost certainly fast enough for what you need to do. If the entry-level systems that Popular Mechanics looked at are sluggish, you can spend more and get a high-end system of either flavor. True, you may have to invest thousands of “extra” dollars - but if your billing rate is reasonable, that’s money that you’ll make back.
So how should you decide? You need to look at two things: software choices and network effects.
Mac users are fond of pointing to graphics packages and video editing tools that run best on OS X, but this sort of thing cuts both ways. If you want to develop .NET software, for example, you will probably have the best results running an actual Windows box. Yes, you could run that instance of Windows on the Mac using Boot Camp or virtualization, but most users are more efficient when they’re not switching between different operating systems frequently. If my focus was still on Windows software development, I’d work on my Windows box, not on a Mac that also runs Windows.
In most cases, though, whatever software you need can be found on either platform. In that case, look at network effects: not the computer network, but your personal network. What platform are your clients using? What platform are your peers using? While you can be a Mac in a PC world - or a PC in a Mac world - eliminating friction will normally make you a better web worker. If you’re constantly having niggling issues around things like the format of shared files and how to schedule appointments, then you’re on the wrong platform.
To some extent, of course, working on the web insulates us from these issues. If your work is 100% in the browser, then you can usually just pick the computer that appeals to you personally based on style or prejudices (unless your work involves something like developing sites that run best on Internet Explorer). But most of us aren’t yet in that happy state: if your work hasn’t moved entirely to the cloud, it’s still worth thinking about how to best fit in with your customers.
12 Comments Post your own comment
Eric says: April 16th, 2008 11:30am
There’s nothing ultimate about that test. The PC computers they chose sucked, and are horribly over priced. Never-the-less, it’s still suprizing that Gateway can’t build a faster machine when they used 3x the RAM.
Windows might suck, but it doesn’t suck THAT bad. Lets not forget how long it took OS 9 to boot compared to Win 2k too.
People who still fight Mac Vs. PC are wasting their time. Use both and get over it.
elgarak says: April 16th, 2008 12:22pm
I disagree.
I work in Mac OS X, but I also tried Vista (via Boot Camp) on the same machine. I found Vista to be sluggish, slow, a pain to work in. But those are subjective descriptions.
How do you objectify those findings? Doing (carefully selected) benchmarks is one approach. That’s all they did.
Avonelle Lovhaug says: April 16th, 2008 1:51pm
Funny. I do all my development inside VMware virtual machines (Windows XP), with a Mac Pro running Vista 64x (via Boot Camp). I have to say I’ve found this set-up to be relative spiffy for my needs.
I very rarely boot into OS X for purposes of keeping my operating system up to date.
So, even with bootcamp AND virtualization, speed might not be a problem.
Mike K says: April 16th, 2008 1:59pm
I’ll serve up another round of disagreement here.
“While you can be a Mac in a PC world - or a PC in a Mac world - eliminating friction will normally make you a better web worker.”
How 1998 of you! If we’re speaking about web-workers, you can quite happily work on your platform of choice these days. Want to exchange documents with your Office-using PC friends? Install Office on your Mac. Or if they don’t need to edit, send them PDFs. Conferencing? Skype works just fine on both platforms, thanks. Web development? There are excellent tools available for both platforms.
The *only* reason why you might need to align your computing platform to match your customers’ is if they run some kind of niche application with proprietary formats. If so, ask yourself: “Is this going to be my *only* customer? Does it make sense for me to change my computing habits to suit a couple clients?”
Of course not. On the Mac, tools like VMware Fusion and Parallels allow you to run those niche apps without having to alter your entire computing environment. Unfortunately for Windows users, there isn’t a solid way of running OS X in emulation reliably (yeah, I know about VMware and osx86project, but Apple updates often b0rk things up). But there’s always Linux or Cygwin (in case your Mac customers run Unix apps).
Bob Kawaratani says: April 16th, 2008 3:08pm
Good post. As I’m a Mac fan boy and consultant/technical translator, I occasionally encounter compatibility problems with files generated on Windows versions of office. The converse occurs and other translators using Windows versions of office note that the same happens between different versions of MS office.
Also, human networking, network bandwidth and other factors are just as important or more important platform in some cases.
Ganesh Kulkarni says: April 16th, 2008 10:37pm
Thanx for a saner voice…I am using Vista for 9 months and no glitches, believe me…
TT says: April 17th, 2008 2:37am
Developing software for only one platform sure is a great business model!
Juanito says: April 17th, 2008 4:46am
i’m switcher. After 20 years using microsoft operating systems y found the holy grail. I’ts no comparable. Speed, usability, etc. Actually i’m working with mac for flex and web development ( more productive). I’m using vmware fusion with windos xp to develop with delphi and vs 2005. No problems. vmware crash more times on windows xp as host than osx.
i’m working with linux in vmware fusion. Perfect.
ulrich says: April 18th, 2008 1:18am
the keyword for webworkers should be: diversity! diversity and open standards make (and keep) the web interesting and useful. unfortunately, on the desktop, i see an epic fail by both apple and microsoft. cross platform is not just apps. it’s file system, network stack, etc… and cross platform at this level just stinks.
Mr. Crash says: April 18th, 2008 11:20pm
familiarity with your environment impacts productivity far, far, more than OS choice.
OS choice is just that, a choice.
If you work well with windows then stick with it.
If you work well with OSX then use that.
Personally, XP and Vista both seem to work nicely for everything I do (3d animation, some web design, video editing and a lot of sound engineering/production work)
Frankly - i’d love to give Apple a go. But, money doesn’t talk - it screams.
And it screams “I’m better spent elsewhere”
At least that’s my situation. Better to buy a new camera or new microphones or new sound desk than spend money on a new apple rig.
Mr. Crash says: April 18th, 2008 11:22pm
Please note: I live in Australia… Most computer companies (apple included) enjoy charging an awful lot more here than they do stateside.
David Hatch says: April 20th, 2008 12:46am
I’ve owned MAC, and will never go back. Vista has worked 99% flawlessly since I got in back in Jan 07. I am a VERY big power user and I use my machines to death. I have Vista on EVERY machine in my house (x64 bit mind you). My main machine is faster, and just as “reliable” as a MAC. It also only cost me about $1600, as opposed to a $2400 PowerMac. This includes, a Quad Core, 8 gigs of RAM, and an 8800 GTS 512. Not to mention that I’ve installed OS X on my PC as well (I own a legit copy, I LOVE YOU EFI!!!). I will pit my machine against a POWERMAC ANY DAY! Vista doesn’t run slow, unless you are running it on hardware that’s old or at the “min. requirements”. I have it also running on a Dell Laptop with 1 gig of RAM and a 1.6 GHz Pentium M. It runs just fine. Not any slower than XP. That machine would probably beat that Gateway too. My point is, this whole argument is retarded. Vista is great for the enthusiast who wants a great PC for LESS money than a MAC. If you want a MAC simply because you are a “mac boy”, then you obviously can’t be open minded enough to realize that Apple does two things 1) they “make” their own hardware, thus making them proprietary, expensive, and yes, making an OS that’s “stable” (I’ve had OS X on me crash more than Vista, and that’s on a real MAC). 2) the hardware in the MAC is essentially the same that PCs use for crying out loud. The chipsets and everything are the same, they just brand them Apple. Does Apple make good products? Sure. Is it really worth the cost? Not by a long shot. Hence why I own a Zune and not an iPod.
Vista user for over 15 months now. Not a single problem, and bloody fast!