5 ms·
Run != Run well or with any usable experience. Don't forget how demanding OS X can be on machines.
by Zev 18y ago
Run != Run well or with any usable experience. Don't forget how demanding OS X can be on machines.
- sjs382 18y agoIs that comment based on first-hand experience? The Macbook Air debuted not too long ago with a 1.6ghz chip. It wasn't an Atom processor inside the Macbook Air, but is the performance that much different?
- GHFigs 18y agoYes, the performance difference between a Core 2 Duo and an Atom is significant. On the other hand, I just recently installed Leopard on my January 2003 model PowerBook, with an 867Mhz processor and I'm entirely pleased (to put it mildly) with the performance, so I can't see these faster systems having any trouble.
- sjs382 18y agoMy bad... That was poor choice of wording on my part. What I meant to ask was "Is OS X's performance on these netbooks really that bad?"
- jws 18y ago> ... is the performance that much different? Yes. The Atom 330 (Dual core, hyperthreaded 1.6GHz atom) I use builds code at about 1/4 the speed of a 2.4GHz Core2 Duo (two cores, no hyperthreading) I previously used. Irrelevant information: avoid the 330 boards with the 40mm 7200rpm fan on the heatsink. The fans are loud, awful, and will fail causing mayhem. I do not believe there are currently alternatives. I pulled the dead little fan from mine and mounted a 120mm fan over the heat sinks and just flood the board with air. I will buy another, but not until they get rid of the 40mm fan.
- jodrellblank 18y agoThe Mhz==Performance state of affairs really ended(+) around the time Intel first hit 3Ghz with the classic P4. (+)Not that it was ever really true, but it was an accurate enough measure for most normal people talking about x86 processors for a few years. With the glaring exception of the Celeron - same speed, yet cheaper and less performant.