So, it falls down to non DMA generic MS driver.
The ATA chipset driver is missing from Win7 since Apple didn't really put nv9300 chipset in exact way.
It installed all the drivers and even clever to figure mainboard driver giving direct link to nvidia driver exe which is absolutely a very serious risk but anyway. On latest gen (nv9300 based) Mac Mini, I have installed Win7 64bit.
You can't really compare VMWare or Parallels performance because it's running Windows on top of Mac OS X, it is of course going to consume more resources. It's either Windows or the Intel or NVidia drivers.
There is a reason that the battery dies quicker and since there is no layer of Mac OS X between Windows and the hardware I doubt it's because Apple did something wrong. Mac OS X offloads a lot (all) of the desktop rendering to the GPU while the Windows XP desktop doesn't and although Vista's top-end version does, it is offset by the amount of graphics that need to be rendered and the low-end version still doesn't.
So it seems like Windows has an issue with the Intel or NVidia chipset, the processor or just plainly consumes more resources than Mac OS.Ī good comparison would be to install Linux on the other side and see what it's battery life is then. It's also possible to install Linux on the other side for example. Of course, I think that he won't publish about something that breaks a license agreement, so we'll have to wait for another site with fewer legal worries does it.īoot Camp just resizes the hard drive so it can accomodate a Windows install and then you are able to dual-boot your system. What he needs to do to finish investigating this power difference is install OSX on, say, a Lenovo laptop and see whether battery life improves dramatically.
Somehow its power savings are vastly better than those in Windows.Īnand has also made some mistakes, I think, like talking about the 6 hour battery life on new Macbooks and claiming that there are no PCs that can match that time, which is absolutely false. This is the one area where OSX is the unequivocal champion. Have you ever wondered why Macbooks often have 50-100% more battery life than a similar non-Mac with very similar specs, including a battery of the same capacity? It's the OS.
Anandtech broke this story in October 2008 (), so Slashdot is picking things like this up about as quickly as usual. It's (probably) not perfectly benign on an identical x86 machine. Bloat doesn't magically appear when you put an Apple logo on something. It is unlikely that a "bloated codebase" would chew through the battery like nobody's business on one x86 machine and suddenly become perfectly benign on a practically identical x86 machine. Macbooks are essentially the same hardware as Windows machines, down to battery capacity. Or Vista is telling the driver to keep it on. Is the Mac made Drivers for Vista keeping those lights on. I know for an instance Windows Vista with boot camp keeps the lights on the keyboard while OS X is a bit smarter then that. Boot Camp Drivers Cover most of them, Windows handles other ones. But all those little features OS X knows about and uses properly. You will find that the prices are about the same. When I say All I mean ALL, no excuses like I don't need that anyways. Go to Dell or Lenovo and try to build yourself a Laptop that matches all of Apples features. It is more expensive because there is a lot of little things built in that add up.
Apple Hardware isn't more expensive then normal PC's because Apple is making so much more per copy. The case of how does Windows 7 handle the hardware or the Drivers handle the hardware or a combination of both. To each their own.Ī computer is more then just the CPU. Personally, I wouldn't say any single OS is better than another in every way. Saying Apple users pay more so they can brag to Windows users, is like saying Windows user pay more so they can brag to Linux users. In some cases, Apples are better suited for a given task than MS is. Apples use a completely different OS and way of doing things there's now cheaper priced Mac OS they can get. If there was a comparable car in the Honda line when I got this car, I would have gladly purchased it.Īs for thinking people just Apples because they want to brag, I don't understand that logic. I myself drive a Acura TL and refer to it as a Honda all the time. Honda makes Acura, Toyota makes Lexus, Nissan makes Infinity, etc. The closest you will come is if you compare the low end Acuras (IE: TSX to the Honda line). If you drive a TL and then drive an Accord, there is no way you will confuse the handling, finish, or features of the too. Acura is the upper end line, while Honda is not.
Acura and Honda are made by the same company, but are not the same exact car.