Wired.com: Macs Are Slower At Surfing Than Windows PCs
by Bryan Chaffin, 12:00 PM EDT, April 19th, 2002
Wired.com has published a piece titled 'Why Do New iMacs Surf So Slowly?' As the title suggests, Wired.com says that Macs are much slower when surfing the Internet than comparably equipped Windows PCs, and even much cheaper PCs. From the article:
Tests conducted by Wired News confirmed reader complaints that a new 800 MHz iMac takes an average of twice as long to render Web pages as a comparable or cheaper PC running Windows XP. Even on broadband networks, the iMac's default Internet Explorer browser took an average of 10 seconds per page to render several popular sites, including CNN.com and the Apple Store homepage [sic].
Using the Mac OS X Dock. The Mac OS X Dock is a handy device for launching applications and accessing important folders and files. You can customize the look and location of the Dock.
Command & Conquer: Generals is a real-time strategy video game and the seventh installment in the Command & Conquer series. It was released for Microsoft Windows and Mac OS in 2003 and 2004. The Windows version of Generals was developed by EA Pacific and published by EA Games, the Mac OS X version was developed and published by Aspyr Media.The Mac OS X version was re-released by Aspyr. You can now use a DUALSHOCK 4 wireless controller via Bluetooth for Remote Play on an iPhone, iPad, or Mac. Update to the following OS to use this feature. IOS 13 iPadOS 13 macOS Catalina. Some features, such as the touch pad and the vibration function, may not be available on the iPhone and iPad.
Tests on other Apple platforms showed a similar performance gap between a $1,500 Dell notebook and a freshly unboxed, $3,000 PowerBook G4. The frog king mac os.
The article also included a cheap pot shots at 'Mac zealots':
Several correspondents asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation by Mac zealots, who have been known to e-mail 1,000 or more harangues to the work addresses of those who criticize the huggable device.
The article then goes on to say that the problem lies not with Apple's hardware, but rather with Mac OS X
The culprit, it turns out, isn't the new iMac's hardware, but its operating system, which Apple focused on getting to market first and bringing up to speed later. In order to let OS X support as many existing software applications as possible, 'Apple supported a number of legacy technologies designed to ease their transition to the new operating system,' said Nathalie Welch, the company's public relations manager for hardware. As a result, Welch said, 'We are merely at the beginning of the performance opportunities in Mac OS X.'
Jimmy Grewal, Microsoft's program manager for the Mac version of Internet Explorer, agreed that the problem lies with OS X, not the browser. In particular, he said hardware graphics acceleration was largely missing from OS X at this stage in its development. 'The effort of drawing something to the screen (on Windows) can be offloaded to a graphics card, but in OS X the CPU is heavily involved,' he said.
Crazytap mac os. Grewal defended Apple's strategy of releasing a slow version of OS X now rather than a faster one later. 'That was a conscious decision Apple made,' he said. 'They optimized for user experience rather than raw performance.'
There is more information, including additional quotes from developers, in the Wired.com piece that we did not quote, and we encourage you to read it.
The Mac Observer Spin:
Retaliation Mac Os X
It's interesting to note that a Microsoft Mac Business Unit employee was defending Apple's decisions. Spot checking the magazine's test figures shows comparable numbers (11-12 seconds to render the CNN or Apple Store home page on a 667 MHz TiBook). While the beginning of the article has a particularly nasty tone, the point remains valid: Mac OS X is slow at rendering Web pages when compared to Mac OS 9 or Windows. For most Mac OS X users, including us, the trade-off in functionality and multi-tasking more than outweighs that one slowdown, but what do you think?iAd: Apple's Retaliation to Google
Retaliation Mac Os Download
Ancient future mac os.
Recently I attended a speaker panel regarding corporate competition and how leading companies develop a competitive edge in the market. Microsoft was one of the companies represented in the panel.
When asked about why they heavily promoted Bing even though their previous search products (Live, MSN Search) failed to succeed, the speaker cited that because of Google's entry into Microsoft's core products, Microsoft must retaliate by attacking Google's core product: search and advertising. It didn't matter whether Microsoft was losing money over Bing: so long as they take profits away from Google, Microsoft was winning as long as it gains market share.
It is clear now that both Apple and Microsoft have one common competitor: Google. Google has entered both companies' dominant markets with force and much fanfare, chipping away market share and media attention bit by bit. The once search-based company created a number of products that match or are arguably better than each respective companies' dominant markets: Google Docs for Office, Chrome for Internet Explorer/Safari, Chrome OS for Windows/Mac OS X, and Android for iPhone.
With iAd previewed with iPhone OS 4 yesterday, Apple has officially retaliated against Google's entrance to the mobile phone industry by attacking Google's core source of revenue: advertising. Nearly all of Google's revenue is generated through advertising, and Apple wants to threaten Google in the exact same way as how Google threatened Apple with the Android. As Steve Jobs allegedly stated quite bluntly a couple months ago, Google fired the first shot by 'entering the phone business' with Android. Apple is merely firing back without entering the Google-dominant search industry, as iPhone users do not search on the web but rather use a specific app for information. With hundreds of thousands of apps backed with millions of developers around the iPhone OS platform, it appears that Apple is attacking Google with full force.
As with Microsoft's response with Bing, Google will most likely respond with tweaks and enhancements to its services, possibly creating a similar mobile advertising platform on Android. However, with Android being an open source based platform, anyone could easily get rid of the advertisements by tinkering with the inner coding.
Time can only tell, but one thing is for sure: advertisements are going to become more interactive rather than flashy and static. More developers are going to implement iAd simply because of its ease of use and integration with their own app experience overall. The iPhone App Business Model may simply change because of iAd.
My take on it? I would prefer not to have any ads at all, no matter how innovative the ad or who it's from. Taking up an eighth of my tiny 3.5' screen in an app I paid for, simply because the developer wants to make more money is, in my opinion, unjustifiable.
Recently I attended a speaker panel regarding corporate competition and how leading companies develop a competitive edge in the market. Microsoft was one of the companies represented in the panel.
When asked about why they heavily promoted Bing even though their previous search products (Live, MSN Search) failed to succeed, the speaker cited that because of Google's entry into Microsoft's core products, Microsoft must retaliate by attacking Google's core product: search and advertising. It didn't matter whether Microsoft was losing money over Bing: so long as they take profits away from Google, Microsoft was winning as long as it gains market share.
It is clear now that both Apple and Microsoft have one common competitor: Google. Google has entered both companies' dominant markets with force and much fanfare, chipping away market share and media attention bit by bit. The once search-based company created a number of products that match or are arguably better than each respective companies' dominant markets: Google Docs for Office, Chrome for Internet Explorer/Safari, Chrome OS for Windows/Mac OS X, and Android for iPhone.
With iAd previewed with iPhone OS 4 yesterday, Apple has officially retaliated against Google's entrance to the mobile phone industry by attacking Google's core source of revenue: advertising. Nearly all of Google's revenue is generated through advertising, and Apple wants to threaten Google in the exact same way as how Google threatened Apple with the Android. As Steve Jobs allegedly stated quite bluntly a couple months ago, Google fired the first shot by 'entering the phone business' with Android. Apple is merely firing back without entering the Google-dominant search industry, as iPhone users do not search on the web but rather use a specific app for information. With hundreds of thousands of apps backed with millions of developers around the iPhone OS platform, it appears that Apple is attacking Google with full force.
As with Microsoft's response with Bing, Google will most likely respond with tweaks and enhancements to its services, possibly creating a similar mobile advertising platform on Android. However, with Android being an open source based platform, anyone could easily get rid of the advertisements by tinkering with the inner coding.
Time can only tell, but one thing is for sure: advertisements are going to become more interactive rather than flashy and static. More developers are going to implement iAd simply because of its ease of use and integration with their own app experience overall. The iPhone App Business Model may simply change because of iAd.
My take on it? I would prefer not to have any ads at all, no matter how innovative the ad or who it's from. Taking up an eighth of my tiny 3.5' screen in an app I paid for, simply because the developer wants to make more money is, in my opinion, unjustifiable.