Is Mac to Mac faster than Mac to PC?

Someone told me something which doesn't make sense to me, but I could be wrong. Is it true that a website made with my iMac is opened faster than, say Windows PC? This is what the person wrote to me. I don't know how to respond.
She wrote:
*'I know that but when you are working with the same exact equipment it goes faster too doesn't have to convert back and forth. That I know too.”*

Website speed varies by web standards and web browsers used. See my FAQ* on what web standards are, and what web browsers exist:
http://www.macmaps.com/browser.html
Connection speed also varies widely unless you have a dedicated internet line. Not even ADSL is truly dedicated because your upstream is capped and connections on websites are as much a function of upstream as downstream traffic.
- * Links to my pages may give me compensation.

Similar Messages

Is firewire 800 on mac mini 2010 faster than sata2 ?

is firewire 800 on mac mini 2010 faster than sata2 ?

No. SATA at its slowest is 1.5 Gb/s while FW800 is 800 Mb/s. SATA is available on some Macs at 1.5, 3.0, or 6.0 Gb/s depending on the model and when it was made.

Mac faster than PC's?

Hi everybody.
I already have a iMac 21,5" but i'm considering to buy the next Macbook Apple publish.
I hope they make a Macbook Pro inside a Air body, but thats not what this threat is about.
I often her that people say that if a Mac and a PC had the same specs, the Mac would still be faster?
That is also my experience, but why is that? I thougt that a PC that had better specs would run faster than a Mac?
Is specifications all that matters when you buy a computer?
Of course it's individually what you like best when it comes to software, but do the software make you computer run faster?
I think my Mac run a lot faster than my PC, and they have someway the same specs.
That was a lot of questions

Mac's can be faster than PC's and PC's can be faster than Mac's.
It all depends upon the processors, graphics capability and other factors, age of each machine, data on the drive, etc.
If you put Windows and OS X on the very same type hardware, freshly installed on each hard drive, everything matches. Likely OS X would be a hair slower than Windows.
It's because OS X renders the UI with a finer degree of detail.
However when it comes to hardware, PC's outstrip Mac's in that department not mainly in the processors, which they both share the same Intel ones (Mac's sometimes gets theirs before PC users) but rather the video card upgrade choices and tweaking ability Windows towers users enjoy and Mac owners do not.
http://www.cbscores.com/index.php?sort=ogl&order=desc
So if your considering a 3D gaming machine, your choices are simply a Win 7 tower.
Generic PC's also have another advantage, one can replace Windows with the lighter Linux, I've done that with HP XP netbooks that were going for a song, slapped Linux on them and they make great portable use machines for the basics. I even use a UI that looks like OS X so I feel at home.

Downloading faster than restoring :S

Hi there again,
I just figured out that I'm actually downloading faster than restoring up :s
Picture this:
I have a internet connection of 20mbit, my average download speed is around 19mbps I can download around 6/7Gb a hour.
At the moment I'm restoring a map with high-res RAW images (16MB each). the map is 5,5Gb large and the estimating time is 4 hours.. This means that the restore speed is around 13mbit / h. How is this possible?
And the fun part: I can download while I'm restoring and it doesn't effect my download/restore speed???? Connected with a wire to timecapsule 500gb.
Hope someone can clear me out.. I can't figure it out...
Message was edited by: rover87 - spelling

Mac's can be faster than PC's and PC's can be faster than Mac's.
It all depends upon the processors, graphics capability and other factors, age of each machine, data on the drive, etc.
If you put Windows and OS X on the very same type hardware, freshly installed on each hard drive, everything matches. Likely OS X would be a hair slower than Windows.
It's because OS X renders the UI with a finer degree of detail.
However when it comes to hardware, PC's outstrip Mac's in that department not mainly in the processors, which they both share the same Intel ones (Mac's sometimes gets theirs before PC users) but rather the video card upgrade choices and tweaking ability Windows towers users enjoy and Mac owners do not.
http://www.cbscores.com/index.php?sort=ogl&order=desc
So if your considering a 3D gaming machine, your choices are simply a Win 7 tower.
Generic PC's also have another advantage, one can replace Windows with the lighter Linux, I've done that with HP XP netbooks that were going for a song, slapped Linux on them and they make great portable use machines for the basics. I even use a UI that looks like OS X so I feel at home.

Why is Mac Pro 2.66 only 1.3x faster than 2.7 G5 on CPU intensive stuff?

I produce DVDs so my Compressor DVCam -> MPEG2 encoding is the most time consuming task. Take the MacWorld benchmarks, I was dissappointed the QC 2.66 was a third faster than a DC 2.7 G5 running Compressor.
I would have expected almost 2x as fast, basically halving encoding times. The Mac Pro took 107s vs G5 137s only 1.28x as fast OR put another way jobs complete in 78% of the time taken for the G5.
This is key reason for me to have just sold a G5 DC 2.3...but I'm dissappointed with these early indicators. Would it be reasonable to assume Apple have not optimised Compressor for Intel - surely not at this late stage?
G4 Dual Gigabit Mac OS X (10.4.7) ATI 9800 Pro

Terpstar,
I was wondering if you have had a chance to use Motion yet. I have a MBP, and using Zapfino fonts with SciFi Glow crashes my system every time. I would be interested to see if this is the case on other intel based systems. This has led to a failure of my main logic board twice over the last month. See my thread:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=614641&tstart=25
Also, of the two GB ram I have installed, FCP doesn't seem to utilize more than 100MB of RAM. Although the VM size is several GB for the app. I noticed that in order to utilize both cores on my MBP, Airport had to be turned off.
Also, as Ned Snowing was saying, there is no doubt that there are going to be many software bugs that must be sorted out. Especially since this program is being adapted for intel macs, and not re-written.

New Mac Pro 8-core / D700 not much faster than an iMac... in PPro CC.

So.... my very preliminary testing with our new Mac Pro using the plugin I use most (filmconvert -FC) anyway, shows that Premiere CC needs more optimization for the dual GPUs. In fact, I'd say the CPU utilization is not up to snuff either.
I know FC only uses one GPU presently from the developer. That will change. In the meantime, using a couple of typical projects with that plugin as an example, I'm only seeing 25-45% speed up in renders over our maxed out iMac (late 2012, 27") exporting the same project. That's significant of course but not the 100%+ one would think we would be seeing at the least given the MacPro config of 8 cores and dual D700s. Premiere Pro CC seems in fact to never maximize CPU (never mind GPUs). I have yet, in my very limited testing, see it "pin the meters" like I did on the iMac.
Of course that's just testing now two short (under 5 min) projects, and it depends on what one is doing. Some stuff is much, much faster like Red Giant's Denoiser II or Warp Stabilizer VFX. The improvement there can be 3-4x faster anecdotally. I used to avoid them for speed reasons unless absolutely needed a lot of the time but now they are fast enough to rely on quickly. Other stuff unrelated top PPro CC like DxO PRIME noise removal on RAW stills is much faster too, as is Photoshop CC. Some effects like blur, sharpening, resize there are nearly instant now even on giga pixel files in Photoshop CC.
And of course FCPX is much faster on it but I hate the whole editing paradigm. The timeline is just horrid on it; simple things like replacing a word in someone's dialogue is a multi click, multistep process that is nearly instant in Premiere and most every other NLE. Just to try to see your whole timeline is a chore, to see what your edits and sound are in detail are problematic, trying to keep things in sync is a chore, and you can't even zoom your timeline window to full screen! If anybody has edited for any amount of time, I do not understand how they use FCP X. If they start with that program, for example if they are young, then that is a different beast.
I'm sure Adobe will improve over time. They have to to stay competitive. In the meantime I'll take my 45%... but I wish I saw much more improvement given the cost and hardware differential. Unfortiunately, for now, the mainstream reviews I have seen regarding PPro performance on this machine were right.

That statement about 4k/5k in Premiere CC with the nMP is false, insofar as performance goes.
I just tested 5K Red raw files just dragged into Premiere Pro CC (latest version). I expected this to be slow, given my HD experience. However, on my 8 core/D700, I can play 1/2 just fine, full speed. And I even can also do that with a very streneous plugin/filter attached - FilmConvert (in OpenCL mode), also at 1/2 which is quite impressive. I can even add a bunch of other Premiere filters and SG looks and it still stays at full speed at 1/2.
Ironically, this is quite faster than FCPX which can't seem to play back 5K at all with that filter attached (it doesn't stutter, but it's not smooth... low resolution at "best performace" and reduced frame rate). Even if I remove all filters FCPX plays back Red 4k (again not transcoded) about the same as CC at 1/2, but with a seemingly lower resolution to keep it smooth. It's a head scratcher. It's like Adobe's Red handling is much better coded than Apple's in this case.
Or... it has to be attrituable to that particular plugin (other FCPX motion-based plugins don't suffer the same fate and are fast). But either way, filter or no, Premiere Pro CC is definitely and sharper looking at 1/2 when cutting Red 4k/5k with no transcode, playback in real time, than FCPX which needs to bump it down to what looks like a 1/4 or less rez to keep it smooth. So I have no idea what is going on.
This experience is the opposite with HD, where FCPX is significantly faster (using the same filters/plugin, using C300 Canon XF for HD and 4 and 5K RedRaw alternatively). Premiere seems slower in HD than FCPX by a good amount in HD and signficantly faster with Redraw 4k. Go figure.

Photoshop 7 faster than CS 3 on Mac Intel .....

How come Photoshop 7 running on a MacIntel so via Rosetta emulation mode is really really quite faster than the CS 3 which is native !!
It clearly shows the lack oof optimisation of adobe softwares and that after each update they are becoming more and more gaz factories !!
It is clear that softwares with competitors are really better than others, the flagrant exemple of Lightroom vs Aperture !
Plus the prices ...
CS 3 Standard Edition is in Europe 2032 vs 1199 $ in Northern America reported in US $ 2985 $ vs 1199 $ !!! European customers have to pay 2,5 the price for the same crap !!
It is clearly that you take your customers for pigeons !!
Thank you i tried CS 3 the slowlyness and the few more feature will not justify to pay 2,5 more !!

But its it faster than CS3 on an Intel Mac with Leopard.
You also have clearly confused the people here on the forums (OTHER USERS) with Adobe.
Also instead of getting mad at Adobe in America Maybe you should be asking why Adobe distributers in your part of the world see the need to jack the price up. I have a feeling it has more to greed on your end than our end.
>i tried CS 3 the slowlyness and the few more feature will not justify to pay 2,5 more !!
Well if you really do own Photoshop 7 instead of just a pirate copy you might want to upgrade now as Adobe's policy world wide is 3 versions back. As soon CS4 is released you will no longer be eligible for upgrade pricing.

Apperture faster on old IMac than Mac Pro

OK so I've been slaving away for weeks in the studio using my 2.66 Quad core Mac Pro with 3GB RAM and putting up with slow, really slow performance from Aperture thinking that I really must upgrade my RAM.
Then tonight I just want to look at some family pics at home on my iMac with a measly 1.5GB RAM and I find it is lightning fast in comparison. Any suggestions? I have the Radeon 512 card in the Mac Pro and a 30" cinema display. This should be faster than the iMAc right?

The generation of previews is to allow sharing of images with ilife and other apps, the also allow drag'n'drop from aperture to the desktop. They can be switched-off universally or all on or on with a per-project basis (i have it this way).
The settings are at the top of the project pane (cog) and in the prefs (for their quality and ON for importing). I suspect if you check the task panel under window it will show its generating previews. Leave it until its finished it does take a long time to complete, but the MP should still be useable, albeit slower until its done. when i recently deleted all my previews which were set at a high quality level of 10, i regenerated them all at 6 and it took over 24 hours, but saved over 10% in disk space without detriment to occasional preview use in ilife. My library is 80% .cr2 raw, 100GB.
J

Faster than 2010 Mac Pro?

HI,
I am wondering if anyone can tell me if the new Mac Mini is actually faster than my current Mac Pro Tower?
It's a Mac Pro "Twelve Core" 2.66 (2010/Westmere)
Thanks

based on these:
http://www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/products/creativesuite/production/cs6/ pdfs/adobe-hardware-performance-whitepaper.pdf
http://provideocoalition.com/f/story/adobe-premiere-pro-and-multiple-gpus
You Mac Pro is faster and can likely be improved like adding an SSD boot drive
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/6836500
and maybe upgrading the graphics card

PowerMac faster than intel Mac when running video programs?

Hello everyone! Having a question now so wonder if any of you have the same experience?
Recently i have many video works to do. I have a powerbook, which is the lasted 17inch powerbook and an intel imac (early 2008, 2.66GHz). I run the same version of finalcut pro and compressor. But thing become very strange, which is that when i run compressor to make final video files, my powerbook is much faster (about 2 times faster) than intel iMac. When i run XDCAM program to import video clips to finalcut from Sony XDCAM blueray reader, powerbook is also much more faster than intel iMac, and which is about 10time more faster than intel iMac. So it become very strange. I list my configurations below, and any of you can help me to solve the 'problem' or explain the strange fenominal.
Maybe theres anything wrong with software configurations, any one can also help me with that?
Thank you very much!
Powerbook G4 17inch:
CPU: powerpc G4 1,67GHz
RAM: 2GB (two 1GB module)
HDD: 120GB IDE
System: Mac OS X Leopard 10.5.8
Program: Final Cut Studio 2
iMac 20inch Early 2008
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo 2,66GHz
RAM: 4GB (two 2GB module)
HDD: Cosair 256GB SSD
System: Mac OS X Lion 10.7 (tried also on Snow Leopard)
Program: Final Cut Studio 2 (tried also Final Cut Studio 3 on friends imac with the same configuration)
Camera:
Sony XDCAM PDW530 Broadcast Camcorder.
Media:
Sony XDCAM blueray disk
Reader:
Sony XDCAM blueray disc drive
Program:
XDCAM transfer for Final Cut Pro 2.12
XDCAM browser software 1.20

Of course it depends on what you're doing and how well you know how to use available resources... the general rule for Logic is:
>>>Fastest machine with the most RAM you can afford.<<<
That said, someone who knows what they're doing can get an amazing amount of effects and virtual instruments on an old PPC G5 computer running Logic 8.
So, while fast machines will allow more plugins/VI with less overloads... knowing what you're doing will take you further so that the difference between machines would not make a difference in the music.
pancenter-

Airport Fast on Windows than Mac

Airport Express / PBG4 1.5ghz 1GB RAM OsX 10.4.11 / HP Compaq Pentium 4 WIndows XP 512MB RAM
Both running Safari 3.
I find that the PC is much faster on my ADSL conection via Airport & Ethernet than my PowerBook G4.
Is there any particular reason for this?
Christo.

davidoff wrote:
Arguably an R rather than Arch question I realize but:
my colleague and I both have brand new Lenovo ThinkCentres. Same specs but he has more RAM (I don't think that's the issue). We run the same program
length <- 2*10^6
a <- runif(length)
b <- runif(length)
print(summary(lm(a~b)))
I take 16 seconds in Arch 64, but never bump against a memory constraint (looks like about 1/3 of RAM used max).
My colleague, with Windows, takes 7 seconds.
The R documentation says 32 bit R is about 10% faster in some cases, but that doesn't explain a 50% difference.
I *think* I have compiled 32 bit R on my system and it doesn't seem to go any faster.
By contrast I run a python loop a bit faster than my colleague.
Thoughts?
If I run that on my Arch64 box, it takes 23 sec. If I run it a second time it takes 6 sec.
Jay

I m using apple mac pc, when we start windows 7 , apple mouse doesn't work properly it take to much time to gain signals from the pc and many times it not work but when we use mac it moves fastly and works properly. please suggest me. thanks ravi

i m using apple mac pc, when we start windows 7 , apple mouse doesn't work properly it take to much time to gain signals from the pc and many times it not work but when we use mac it moves fastly and works properly. please suggest me.
thanks
ravi
<Email removed by Host>

sounds more like Bluetooth rather than moue, but w/o knowing w/o posting mac model type/year we... will... not... know... what you have
All computers are personal computers, a PC though is also "non-Apple" in common usage.
Mac also is platform and OS.
Very confused reading what you are trying to tell us.

Is Quad slower than Mac Pro?

I read Apples benchmarks about the speed of the Mac Pro. However, as they were so far off with other models in the past I thought I would ask here what Quad users are finding as a speed difference between the basic retail Mac Pro and the Quad.
Geek Patrol says overall it is a 7% difference:
http://www.geekpatrol.ca/blog/135/
I bet the Quad will actually be the speed winner when it comes to Adobe applications for the next year.
In addition, the Quad has a faster PCIe bus. See the barefeats article for details at:
http://www.barefeats.com/quad05.html
Happy Mac'ing,
Michael

Here is some more tests that indicate that the Quad is 20-37% faster than the Mac Pro when used with Adobe applications. However, the Mac Pro can be 35-47% faster when working with Final Cut and iMovie.
See details here:
http://www.barefeats.com/quad06.html
Michael

Which connection is faster for Mac-iPod syncing?

I have recently been reading about the switch from power adapter/usb/firewire bundle to usb only for iPods and after reading a couple of reviews i've come across quite a few people saying the the Firewire connection from a mac to an iPod is actually faster than a USB connection even though the speed of usb is theoretically greater than that of a Firewire conenction. I have sold my old iPod mini to upgrade to the 6GB version so i now only have a USB cable but i'm going to New York in september (From UK) and i'm going to be doing some shopping in the apple store to take full advantage of the price difference and i'm wanting to know whether it's worth adding a the apple stereo connection kit (charger, dock, firewire cable, stereo cables) to my list which already includes the Dock?
I know it's a bit long winded but i got carried away. Basically i want to know if and how the Firewire conenction is faster than the USB connection.
Thanks in advance

I don't know which dumb manager decided to not include the firewire cables anymore. But that was a stupid move on Apples part, I think.
They could have sold two versions, one with a Firewire cable and another with USB cable. That at least would give us a choice.
Mine came with the both cables, but since I only have USB 1, I have always used the Firewire cable.
As Allan has stated, I still believe the firewire connection is far superior, even though USB 2 is better than USB 1. But I think it's a marketing and cost saving approach on Apples part. Most Windows PC's don't ship with Firewire, only USB 2.

Looking to upgrade Powerbook G4 to Power Mac G5 or faster

I currently have a 12" Powerbook G4 (40gHD/768RAM/1Ghz proc) from 2003 running 10.2.7. I'm having trouble surfing the net and stuff cuz most browsers require at least 10.4 as most of the sites like youtube,myspace and facebook and flash players as well. Not to mention I want to run Pro Tools for audio recording.
So I am thinking of just buying a used G5 instead of spending over $2k on a new machine or sinking in money by upgrading my PB. I have noticed that most of the used G5's on ebay do not come with the OS restore discs? I am guessing that most people keep them and install them on other machines? My question is, I always thought that you can only load the OS on the disc on the original machine it came with because of the serial number it asks you for? It seems like this is not true? any info?
One of the used machines I'm looking at is this one:
http://rochester.craigslist.org/sys/1559933824.html
I haven't puchased a new Mac since my Powerbook in 03, what NEW Apple computers you think would be comprable? I noticed that they can go up to $3k these days but I'm guessing thats WAY more than I need? Would it be better to just buy a used G5 for around $4-$600 or can I find something new for a little bit more thats just as powerful?
Any info would be appreciated- thanks!
Message was edited by: Frank Madonia

Hi Frank, they're supposed to include the OS Install Discs with them, it's the License to use it.
You might look into a new Mac Mini, faster than most G5s.

Is Mac to Mac faster than Mac to PC?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for