This much is at least true. The good ol' dual 133MHz BeBox could boot up BeOS R3 in under 15 seconds, from hitting the power button to being ready to work. Does that mean it's faster than my Mac Pro? No.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Vista/Tiger startup speed comparison
- Thread starter ambience
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This much is at least true. The good ol' dual 133MHz BeBox could boot up BeOS R3 in under 15 seconds, from hitting the power button to being ready to work. Does that mean it's faster than my Mac Pro? No.
I played with the Veesta machines
for another hour tonight at BB. Played with laptops exclusively tonight, Toshibas, HPs, Sonys and Gateways. First off, why did Microsoft even bother to waste the time to slighty tweak iTunes and call it media player or whatever it is, why didn't they just paste their TM on iTunes, it would have saved them money! Movie Maker is competent, not based on iMovie, but not quite as functional, but I was able to crank out a compilation clip in short order.
OK, thread drift aside...Every laptop I looked at had a not perfect fitting lid...oh that's another thread too ....OK, every laptop I looked at had 60+ processes running with no applications open, every laptop I looked at had >40% of its RAM consumed with not one single application open. 1gig machines had 400 to 475MB consumed, 2gig machines had 800 to 950MB consumed. My MBP has 9 processes without widgets and 1.72GB of free RAM. No matter what the start times, the Mac has more resources available at all times than a similarly equipped machine running either XP or Vista. I'm reasonably sure that doesn't hurt start times.
Windows user since '91, switcher in '06
for another hour tonight at BB. Played with laptops exclusively tonight, Toshibas, HPs, Sonys and Gateways. First off, why did Microsoft even bother to waste the time to slighty tweak iTunes and call it media player or whatever it is, why didn't they just paste their TM on iTunes, it would have saved them money! Movie Maker is competent, not based on iMovie, but not quite as functional, but I was able to crank out a compilation clip in short order.OK, thread drift aside...Every laptop I looked at had a not perfect fitting lid...oh that's another thread too
....OK, every laptop I looked at had 60+ processes running with no applications open, every laptop I looked at had >40% of its RAM consumed with not one single application open. 1gig machines had 400 to 475MB consumed, 2gig machines had 800 to 950MB consumed. My MBP has 9 processes without widgets and 1.72GB of free RAM. No matter what the start times, the Mac has more resources available at all times than a similarly equipped machine running either XP or Vista. I'm reasonably sure that doesn't hurt start times.Windows user since '91, switcher in '06