OS X v Windows XP on 1.66 1GB

Question

Hi, I'm fairly new to a MAC though I used an Amiga 1200 a long while ago which also uses the Motorolla chip...so I feel at home with the OS. I boght my Mini as the cheapest option with an Intel chip so that I could try Bootcamp and start to enjoy the web without loads and loads of protection etc... I opted for 1GB RAM as I read it was essential. So far I've really taken to my Mini but need to clarify issues re hardware performance...
Questions - Does OS X really have to occupy 17GB of my drive? It was this size when I received it. XP 2GB...
Why does software run slower in OS X than in XP? This seems mad for hardware to run slower on its native OS. Resizing and moving Powerpoint presentations with a few slides open (with large pics in them) makes my mini feel like a Pentium II 400mhz - the images move in stages as if the VRAM is exhausted. Is this really due to Rosetta - I've run emulators on a PC that are faster. A dual Core 1.66 with 1GB RAM ought to do better.. Has anyone got a link to a benchmark site that compare MAC XP like for like?
I've run Speed 20 and got a score of 94.7 - is this about right?
Thanks in advance for any replies - if my post should be elsewhere please point me in the right direction. Dont get me wrong I'm sure a dual boot Mac is the answer long term but feel I should get more from the hardware.

Answer 1

I think 17Gb would be about right, but that really isn't just the OS, but also the supplied applications such as iTunes, Quiktime, Garageband, iMovie, Mail, Safari, the test drives for iWork etc. There are also lots (many many, many) foreign language resources and print drivers etc which can actually be deleted to free up space. Applications such as Monoligual can perform that cleanup, though I'd suggest you leave them alone for the time being unless and until you begin to run out of space, though if you do remove them you can always put them back on the system anyway of course!
It's true that MacOS was built for this architecture, but then so was Windows, and performance issues are really more about user perception of the way each is optimized. Or indeed, user perception as a whole. Personally I've always found that all else being equal, Windows tends to have a slightly snappier feel, but I know from lap tests that it's as much in screen redraw and menu reaction than in data handling because that's what MS know will appeal to most users. Apple aren't entirely averse to the same user-oriented issue, but they also know that to make the system as smooth and integrated as it is, considerable effort has to be focussed on that too. As a video editor, I know the MacOS method works best for creative workflow, but as a system admin, I know Windows appeals to those who want the feel of better power. Sadly, I think the days are long gone that that it was really possible to engineer a neat, lean and capable OS that wasn't power hungry to the degree of requiring compromises and trade-offs.
Neo Office is certainly native, and seems very stable in the systems I've used it (I don't actually use an Intel Mac because I need software that isn't native yet, so I stick to PPCs as yet, but I set them up and test them out for users). I've included NeoOffice on 3 or 4 now, and the users like it, and certainly find it much better in performance terms than MS Office 2003 or 2004 edition.
I suspect that a PC virus could indeed reside on the Mac partition, but you could throw on a copy of ClamXav to keep that threat under control. Also open source as you likely know, and quite effective. I use it to mop up infections that AVG misses or fails to clean up - something that seems a tad more prevalent since last week's release of 7.5, which doesn't seem to have been fully stabilized yet!
Where the future of OS X and Windows is concerned, I think the greatest issue isn't so much whether Vista's security features improve sufficiently as much as it is in the fact that in the malware community as a whole, MS is seen as the bad guy in a big way, making the authoring of malware to target it a major activity. When you add the fact that over time, more and more malware is authored not for disruptive purposes but for criminal intent, and it's reasonable to think the targeting of Windows will continue, and if anything intensify with the volume of email, spyware and browser traffic. But there again, the weakest link in any system security is the user - and as ever the worst problems are caused as a result of those who simply don't understand the need for security or the degree of adequacy (or otherwise) of security on their own systems.
I'm not sure if there's a forum to address the XP/Intel Mac converts, but within this community,you could look at http://discussions.apple.com/forum.jspa?forumID=1165 as a place to start.
I probably missed addressing some of your issues - apologies if so, but shout out and I'm sure loads of people will jump in with their thoughts and suggestions!