backtop


Print 85 comment(s) - last by Totally.. on Apr 29 at 6:21 AM

New study shows that Apple's 13" MacBook Pro running Boot Camp is the most reliable Windows notebook

Apple vs. Microsoft, OS X vs. Windows -- these are comparisons that pit fanboys from each side against each other with little middle ground. The two sides have bickered for years with Windows fans bragging about lower prices and larger market share, while OS X backers cite high quality, reliable machines and the lack of significant malware penetration.
 
Today, however, an Israeli PC management firm has added a slight twist in the age-old Mac vs. PC debate. Between January 1st, 2013 and April 1st, 2013, Soluto monitored 150,000 notebook computers running Windows and analyzed the data from:
 
224,144 crashes
250,791 hangs
84,251 BSoDs
1,346,000 boot cycles
62,476 hours spent on boot
 
After analyzing the above data and giving each machine a "Soluto Score", the results of the study were quite surprising. The results showed that the most reliable "PC" was the 13" MacBook Pro (mid-2012 model) running Boot Camp.
 
Soluto attributes this victory to the fact that a MacBook Pro running a copy of Windows via Boot Camp is free of the typical bloatware that comes with a brand new Windows machine. To this point, Soluto opines, "PC makers should look at this data and aspire to ship PCs that perform just as well as a cleanly installed MacBook Pro."

 
To those that say that a clean install of Windows on a MacBook Pro isn't a fair comparison, Soluto offers this consolation, "One could argue that we should not compare a cleanly installed MacBook Pro with an OEM-imaged PC from Acer or Dell… But – for this first report we simply compared the real PCs in the field, some with original images and some reinstalled by their users. We believe it’s more representative of reality."
 
Rounding out the top five entries were the Acer Aspire E1-571, Dell XPS 13, Dell Vostro 3560, and the Acer Aspire V3-771. The 15” Retina MacBook Pro, three more Dells, and a single Lenovo entry fleshed out the top 10. Notebooks from ASUS, Samsung, Toshiba, and Samsung were nowhere to be found on the list.
 
ZDNET's Ed Bott reckons that the reason for the strong showings by Acer and Dell in the study is the companies’ relatively bloat-free installs, with very few third-party utilities to muck with users' computers. On the other hand, Samsung, which didn't make the list, is notorious for filling machines with needless third-party software junk.

Sources: Soluto, ZDNet



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: uh, what?
By chemist1 on 4/25/2013 12:12:02 AM , Rating: 2
Speaking as someone that uses all three major OSs (Windows, OSX, Linux), here’s my attempt to give a balanced view: Essentially, your choice of primary OS should determine your choice of hardware. And with some exceptions, it makes no sense to buy a Mac unless OSX is your primary OS. While Apple offers beautiful hardware, what you’re really paying for with the Apple premium is OSX. And if that’s not your primary OS, you’re not getting the full benefit of your extra $$. Note also that, while the retina display is very nice, its native resolution is not (as I understand it) well-supported in Windows. And while this may have changed with the new Macs, as of late-2011 BootCamp did not support a SATA driver for the storage interface, leaving you with IDE. So if you have a fast SSD, you can’t get its full benefit when running Windows in BootCamp on a Mac.

So which OS to choose? Let me offer these three categories:

1) Gamer: The choice is clear -- you should get Windows (for the superior selection of gaming software) and a PC (so that you can custom-optimize your hardware via CPU overclocking, video card choice, etc.).

2) Scientist or engineer that does a lot of coding: Linux or OSX, since both offer a native *nix interface, which is very power for code development. One can get this in Windows with Cygwin, but what Cygwin offers is very limited compared to a native *nix interface.

3) Someone doing serious office productivity work (such as a scientist putting together publications incorporating text + equations + tables + graphics): Here OSX is the clear winner. It is by far the most powerful OS for doing heavy-duty office productivity tasks. When I wrote my thesis I typically had 10 programs open, with about 10 windows in each, and needed to rapidly navigate among them. Using a combination of Expose and Spaces on OSX, this was easy and fluid. With Windows it would have been hopeless, and with Linux not much better. That’s why one group among which Macs are very popular is physical scientists like myself (chemists and physicists).


RE: uh, what?
By chemist1 on 4/25/2013 12:21:40 AM , Rating: 2
"So if you have a fast SSD, you can’t get its full benefit when running Windows in BootCamp on a Mac."

Let me be more precise: you can't get the full benefit if you are running Windows *natively* in BootCamp on a Mac. But if use a VM (like Parallels), and run Windows from within OSX (and this works quite well), then you do get the full SSD speed, because you are using OSX's SATA interface.


RE: uh, what?
By chemist1 on 4/25/2013 12:41:00 AM , Rating: 2
" ...BootCamp did not support a SATA driver for the storage interface, leaving you with IDE. So if you have a fast SSD, you can’t get its full benefit when running Windows in BootCamp on a Mac."

Arrgh -- this is what happens when you don't proofread. Correction is as follows:

" ...BootCamp did not support an AHCI driver for the SATA interface, leaving you with IDE."

Mea culpa.


RE: uh, what?
By inighthawki on 4/25/2013 12:43:17 AM , Rating: 2
I kind of feel like your own preferences have biased your opinion. I, for example, can't stand doing programming and development on Unix. I find it a horrible experience and I find the standard Unix libraries to be amongst the worst APIs I've ever touched. But that's also my opinion.


RE: uh, what?
By chemist1 on 4/25/2013 2:56:30 AM , Rating: 2
Understood. I can see how some might not care for Unix, making my point no. 2 the most subjective of those I've listed. But I strongly stand behind my other two points, especially no. 3.


RE: uh, what?
By TakinYourPoints on 4/25/2013 1:07:32 AM , Rating: 4
As someone who also uses multiple operating systems, I totally agree with this post. You're in physical science but what you said about development mostly applies to many of my friends in software development as well. OS X + Win7 in a VM is their preferred work environment. As for UI, OS X is so good for juggling workspaces and applications. What they introduced in 10.4 really made me move my main work desktop from Windows to OS X. Still love Windows for games though.


RE: uh, what?
By JPForums on 4/25/2013 9:41:06 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
As for UI, OS X is so good for juggling workspaces and applications.
Agreed. Out of the box OSX is much better at this than Windows/Linux. Programs like VirtuaWin (Windows) and Gnome 3's Overview mode (Linux) can close the gap with respect functionality, but OSX is still a smother experience as it was a design consideration up front and not an add on. In my particular work environment, Linux + Win7 VM is the necessary work environment, but I can definitely see why OSX + Win7 would be popular if your work flow didn't require Linux.


RE: uh, what?
By Pirks on 4/25/2013 3:20:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Scientist or engineer that does a lot of coding: Linux or OSX
Nah, quite far from truth, I was working as an applied researcher prototyping mocap postprocessing software that would find the best fit of the facial 3D model bones to the set of scanned facial mocap markers, and I was using Windows Matlab for that, it was head and shoulders above any scientific/math software I ever used on Unix in my grad school. So no, Windows quite often is the best tool, things like Matlab leave no choice to any serious applied mathematician.

Second point - if you are really advanced numerical computation guy and you work for military, government, big oil etc, and you develop massively parallel simulation code - then Windows with CUDA is light years ahead of any Unix/OS X kids toys. Big guys with $$$ to spend usually choose Windows for the best tools for doing grand scale stuff like CUDA or Distributed Matlab. Small fish - yeah small guys often use Linux 'cause they don't need convenience of Windows, or they can't afford it or they don't need to do big overly complex stuff. For small cheap things Mac or Linux is not too bad, maybe. Here I may agree with you, more or less.
quote:
a scientist putting together publications incorporating text + equations + tables + graphics
I wrote my MS thesis on Windows too, don't remember LaTeX distro I used for that, TeTeX maybe? Anyway, I used both this LaTeX thing and emacs in cygwin to write 200 pages of my thesis, the formulas, the index, contents, illustrations, graphs - it was all pure pleasure to work with. The topic was techniques to compress mocap data and also applications of sequential quadratic solvers in motion data compression, it was based on a few very interesting papers by Zoran Popovic from UofW.

I was able to write my thesis while running the best version of Matlab, shooting some imps in Doom 3 once in a while, running other fancy games when I felt like it, watching any video, any rip I got form torrents, plus my huge industrial music collection etc etc etc. Everything existing out there at my fingertips, no lack of software like on Macs or Linux ;)

And all of that on a cheapo $800 PC desktop with some Pentium 4 inside, then Athlon XP etc. OS X or Linux are nowhere close to comfort and universalism of Windows. They are much more narrow minded systems, OS X is more like for design freaks and Linux is for people who like to tinker in computer internals and debug their own kernels.

Windows is for the rest of us :)


RE: uh, what?
By JPForums on 4/25/2013 10:21:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
OS X or Linux are nowhere close to comfort and universalism of Windows.
True. Windows tries to be all things for all people and does a reasonably good job of it.
quote:
They [OSX/Linux] are much more narrow minded systems
Another word for this would be focused. The implication here is that there are specifics that these platforms are designed to do better than Windows. Windows isn't as good as OSX at task management out of the box due in large part to the lack of multi-desktop support. VirtuaWin can address this, but I'd estimate that most people who need it don't know about it. Further, while many tools (Matlab, Xilinx ISE/Plan Ahead, etc.) work better in Windows, there are also tools (I.E. Cadence and Mentor graphics ASIC design tools) that work better in Linux. I would be remiss if I didn't again call attention to the suitability of *nix operating systems in a server environment.
quote:
I was able to write my thesis while running the best version of Matlab, shooting some imps in Doom 3 once in a while, running other fancy games when I felt like it, watching any video, any rip I got form torrents, plus my huge industrial music collection etc etc etc. Everything existing out there at my fingertips, no lack of software like on Macs or Linux ;)
Perfect example of how Windows is suitable for a diversified role. It doesn't necessarily do everything the best, but it does have the greatest chance of doing everything you want at least reasonably well.


RE: uh, what?
By royalcrown on 4/26/13, Rating: 0
RE: uh, what?
By chemist1 on 4/26/2013 6:33:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
if you are really advanced numerical computation guy and you work for military, government, big oil etc, and you develop massively parallel simulation code - then Windows with CUDA is light years ahead of any Unix/OS X kids toys. Big guys with $$$ to spend usually choose Windows for the best tools for doing grand scale stuff like CUDA or Distributed Matlab. Small fish - yeah small guys often use Linux 'cause they don't need convenience of Windows, or they can't afford it or they don't need to do big overly complex stuff. For small cheap things Mac or Linux is not too bad, maybe.


Pirks, this statement is so ridiculous it's clear that that you're only interested in trolling. Fermilab and CERN both use Scientific Linux to handle their enormous computing tasks: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Linux. The LHC in particular produces ~ 15 petabytes of data annually, and analyzing it is one of the largest computing tasks currently in existence. For this, they use Scientific Linux/Ubuntu (http://news.techworld.com/operating-systems/336822...

“We use it [Linux/Ubuntu] every day in our analyses, together with hosts of open software, such as ROOT, and it plays a major role in the running of our networks of computers (in the grid etc.) used for the intensive work in our calculations,” continued the source.

“In terms of data analysis, Windows could be used in principle. We could also use some type of device that manipulates symbols on a strip of tape according to a simple table of rules. Linux is used because it is most appropriate for the job.”

And (http://malandes.web.cern.ch/malandes/cc.html):
"All physics computing is done using the Linux operating system"


RE: uh, what?
By Cheesew1z69 on 4/26/2013 7:20:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Pirks, this statement is so ridiculous it's clear that that you're only interested in trolling.
It's been obvious since I have been on this site.


RE: uh, what?
By JPForums on 4/25/2013 9:24:42 AM , Rating: 2
I see many valid points here, but I respectfully disagree with some of your assessment. It's not that I think your points are necessarily wrong, but rather that your purview is a little limited.

quote:
1) Gamer: The choice is clear -- you should get Windows
I agree. Games are making their way to OSX and Linux, but as things are now, both the absolute number of games and the number of high quality games across all genres are overwhelmingly in Windows favor. For what it's worth, I believe OSX is currently in better shape than Linux at the moment (even if Valve is working to change that).
quote:
2) Scientist or engineer that does a lot of coding: Linux or OSX, since both offer a native *nix interface, which is very power for code development.
I represent the engineering side of this coin. I would qualify your choice depending on what you are developing in particular. I'm not really sure what you are referring to as the *nix interface advantage. I'd probably give *nix the advantage for certain languages (like python) and command line interfaces. If you need an IDE, Eclipse works well enough, but I think Windows has the advantage once you get away from the command line (not really my thing, though). Matlab and Xilinx tools seem to be easier to use in Windows, though again, use of Xilinx at the command line and scripting was more natural on *nix. I've had better luck with Cadence ASIC design tools on *nix. What little I've done with CUDA was definitely superior in Windows. I have yet to find a situation in my field where OSX is better than or even equal to *nix so my choices end up being *nix or Windows depending on workload.
quote:
3) Someone doing serious office productivity work (such as a scientist putting together publications incorporating text + equations + tables + graphics): Here OSX is the clear winner.
I'll agree that OSX is the winner here. Though, there are some things you can do to get a lot closer with Windows and *nix. For Windows, a little program called VirtuaWin (with hotkey switching) can be used quite effectively in conjunction with the built in Flip3D and Aero Peek for workspace/task switching. If you want something closer to the expose experience you can use Emcee Desktop Organizer. Add to that the combination of Windows native applications, your choice of LaTeX editors, and programs like Emacs that you get access to with cygwin and you get a windows environment well suited to productivity. In *nix a workspace switcher is par for the course, though I'd make sure I got a window manager that supports hotkey switching. For Expose like functionality, you can use Gnome 3's overview mode. I believe there are plugins for Compiz and KWin that give similar functionality as well. LaTeX is easy to get a hold of, but the Office applications may not be up to snuff, depending on what you are doing. Again, OSX is definitely the out of the box winner here, but it's not as if you are out of luck with a different platform. They just need a little help.


RE: uh, what?
By robinthakur on 4/26/2013 12:38:59 PM , Rating: 2
Whilst I build my own pc's, I have to say that if you use an iPad and an iPhone or work issued you with them, it makes life a lot simpler to use a Mac as well because of the way iCloud/iMessage/Facetime etc. all work together seamlessly.

I bought a Macbook Pro relatively recently and rarely use my PC now, partially as I've installed Windows 8 and find it hard work. The way the track pad and gestures work perfectly and reliably on a MBP changes the way I use the machine 1000% and has absolutely made me far more productive. Simply using gesture and finger combos, you can scroll, drag, lookup, show/hide launchpad, check notifications, scroll between full-screen apps etc, I don't know why PC manufacturers are still stuck in the dark ages. Whenever I have to use a pc laptop, even on modern machines on sale now, I am still shocked that the track pads don't seem to have been properly planned out and gestures added as a barely working afterthought. The fact that the build quality of the mac itself is incredible is also important, there is no flex in the materials and features like the magnetic power lead are genius.

I can remote into my work environments or my VM dev environment or Visual Studio/SharePoint on the pc for Windows and it work fine, but still have all the benefits and fun of OSX and the avenue of iOS development to explore. I do view OSX as marginally more secure (despite having Java on it) as anything which could cause issues requires elevation and for one to type the admin password, which takes time when you can consider whether you should be doing it! When they tried this in Windows Vista, users were up in arms at the interruption to their work and now you have a far less secure "click to elevate" as standard.


RE: uh, what?
By chemist1 on 4/26/2013 9:44:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

quote:
[quote from my post:]
2) Scientist or engineer that does a lot of coding: Linux or OSX, since both offer a native *nix interface, which is very power for code development.


I represent the engineering side of this coin. I would qualify your choice depending on what you are developing in particular. I'm not really sure what you are referring to as the *nix interface advantage. I'd probably give *nix the advantage for certain languages (like python) and command line interfaces. If you need an IDE, Eclipse works well enough, but I think Windows has the advantage once you get away from the command line (not really my thing, though). Matlab and Xilinx tools seem to be easier to use in Windows, though again, use of Xilinx at the command line and scripting was more natural on *nix. I've had better luck with Cadence ASIC design tools on *nix. What little I've done with CUDA was definitely superior in Windows. I have yet to find a situation in my field where OSX is better than or even equal to *nix so my choices end up being *nix or Windows depending on workload.

quote:
[quote from my post:]
3) Someone doing serious office productivity work (such as a scientist putting together publications incorporating text + equations + tables + graphics): Here OSX is the clear winner.


I'll agree that OSX is the winner here. Though, there are some things you can do to get a lot closer with Windows and *nix....Again, OSX is definitely the out of the box winner here, but it's not as if you are out of luck with a different platform. They just need a little help.


Thanks for your comments.

Regarding my point no. 2, by *nix I mean any flavor of Linux or Unix, which thus includes Apple's version of BSD Unix in OSX.

More importantly, in point no. 2 I should have been more precise and instead wrote: "Scientist or engineer that does a lot of coding using the command line interface." For most of our heavy-duty scientific computing, we did our development work locally on our personal machines, and then sent the jobs to one of our computer clusters (two use Linux, and the other uses OSX, which means Apple's flavor of Unix -- the commands are nearly identical). Interaction with the clusters, as is typical, was entirely through a *nix command-line interface. Thus doing our development work locally via a *nix command-line interface (I used OSX) made for much more seamless porting to the clusters. And of the three big OSes, only OSX and Linux offer native *nix command-line interfaces. Alas, I found that what you can get in Windows with Cygwin is a poor substitute. See also my response to Pirks, where I note that Linux is the standard at computationally-intensive scientific institutions like CERN, and it's the standard for a reason. If you're doing a very different kind of programming from the type of scientific computing that falls within my purview, the optimum OS could, as you point out, be very different.

I should add that the remainder of my scientific computing was done via Mathematica, which I assume runs equally well on all three platforms.

Regarding point no. 3, I respect what you are saying, but I think you may be overly minimizing what I suspect could be a substantial real-world difference in functionality between native OSX and Windows + add-ons. Please take a look at my reply to Nikon133, and note the extent to which I was stressing the navigation and windows management capabilities of the UI when I was writing my thesis. As I'm sure you can understand, I'm highly skeptical whether, under such conditions, Windows+the add-ons you mention could come close to providing the efficiency, ease and fluidity I got from OSX.


RE: uh, what?
By nikon133 on 4/25/2013 6:43:08 PM , Rating: 2
I cannot discuss programming part as I am not programmer.

However, my wife is senior lecturer and research fellow (physical chemistry), so I have a bit on insight re that topic.

Academics are rarely DTP experts, and rarely are really good in Office apps (use of styles, for example). As such, all of them (that my wife has frequent collaboration with, that is) use MS Word for their articles and books. Apparently Word's built-in equation editor, tables, graphs etc. are enough for them to put paper together.

After Word come Excel and PowerPoint. Parallel to those, they will use specific apps like Sigma Plot and Chem Window.

There is also a bit of CorelDraw, which seems to be much easier than Illustrator for whatever drawings they cannot achieve in specialised chemical structure drawing apps.

Of course, when their files end up with actual publisher, they will be processed with whatever desktop publishing software (and hardware) being used by that publisher, but that part of work is not done by academic staff themselves, not in her environment at least.

Their lab equipment - NMR Spectroscopy, EPR... is all rigged to Windows machines.

They also use Windows network infrastructure for collaboration - Exchange, SharePoint...

My wife's PhD thesis was done on modest Toshiba Satellite 1000 (at home) and Dell desktop at Uni, between 2002 and 2005. Research gave around 600 A4 pages of text, tables, graphs. It seems to have been reasonably serious research, as part of it ended up in patented IP with good commercial potential (according to Uni's lawyers).

I'm not saying that all that could not be done on Macs. I'm just saying that all that you consider serious office work can be done (and is being done) on Windows too, as well at least.


RE: uh, what?
By chemist1 on 4/26/2013 8:55:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Academics are rarely DTP experts, and rarely are really good in Office apps (use of styles, for example). As such, all of them (that my wife has frequent collaboration with, that is) use MS Word for their articles and books. Apparently Word's built-in equation editor, tables, graphs etc. are enough for them to put paper together.....

I'm not saying that all that could not be done on Macs. I'm just saying that all that you consider serious office work can be done (and is being done) on Windows too, as well at least.


Thanks for your comments. First, I should mention that while almost all of us academics do use Word, many physical scientists prefer and use LaTek for producing large technical documents. While I myself use Word extensively for simpler documents, I personally found LaTek much more powerful and stable than Word my thesis. It's also much better at handling complex equations (that's a large part of what it was originally designed for) than Equation Editor.

Also, I think you may have misunderstood my point no. 3 (and that may have been partly my fault, for not being more explicit). It certainly wasn't my intention to say you couldn't do office productivity work in Windows. Indeed, in an earlier job my colleagues and I used Word+Excel in Windows to put together three publication-ready books, and it worked fine.

What I should have said is that OSX is the most suitable OS I've found if you are doing serious office productivity tasks, where by "serious" I mean those that push the core functions of the OS's UI (which are navigation and windows management) to their limit. For the book-publishing task I mention above, at any one time it was not necessary to have more a than ~ 10 windows open. Windows is fine for this.

Now as regards my thesis, I needed to combine text, tables, equations, vectorized graphics, bibliographic cross-references, etc., into a very large (225 pages) LaTeX document. And I could have done this in Windows, if my preferred work style was to do the graphics in one session, the tables in another, the text in another, etc. However, I personally found it most efficient to do it straight through, rapidly switching back and forth as needed from graphics to calculations to text, etc. Thus I wanted to be able to rapidly access all needed material and programs as I was typing. This meant having perhaps a dozen windows open, simultaneously, in each of the following programs: Adobe Illustrator, Word, Entourage, Mathematica, Adobe Acrobat, Excel, and Safari -- plus a few Windows in each of LaTex, BibDesk (bibliographic software), and XCode (source code editor). This meant nearly 100 windows total. Ever tried to easily keep track of, and move among, 100 different windows in Windows? In OSX, however, it was easy: Using OSX's Spaces, I created four virtual desktops: I. Writing Desktop (LaTeX, BibDesk, and Word); II. Graphics/Papers Desktop (Adobe Illustrator and Acrobat); III. Calculation/Spreadsheet/Coding Desktop (Mathematica, Excel, and XCode); and IV. Internet and Email Search Desktop (Safari and Entourage). Each virtual desktop contained all windows for its assigned programs, and no others. Then, within each virtual desktop, I used OSX's Expose to explode all windows for a given program, or all windows in the virtual Desktop. Thus whenever I needed to, say, modify a vectorized graphic in my document, I'd just toggle from Desktop I to Desktop II, click the middle button on my five button mouse (yes, you don't have to use the silly Apple 1-button mouse!) to pull up a dock of the (two) programs open in Desktop II, select Illustrator, move my mouse to the upper left corner to simultaneously display all dozen or so graphics I had open in Illustrator (on a 24” monitor, they’re easily distinguishable), click on the one I wanted, modify and save it, then switch back to Desktop I.

I don't know this for certain, of course, but my guess is that your wife didn't write her thesis the way I did -- with about 100 windows open simultaneously -- which is why Windows was adequate for her purposes. And note I'm not saying my approach is any better than anyone else's -- I'm simply saying that my approach to technical writing (which is dictated by my personal preference in work style) necessitated a UI that could allow me to easily and efficiently navigate among an enormous number of open program windows. And in my experience, there's only one OS that offers this capability -- OSX.

As to the contention, by another commenter, that there are add-ons to Windows that allow it to work as well as OSX in this regard, I would need to see that demonstrated.


RE: uh, what?
By royalcrown on 4/26/2013 2:22:44 PM , Rating: 2
Mac does indeed allow AHCI in Bootcamp, at least my 2010 27 did. As for the rest of all that, i'll just agree with you because I do not use all that.


RE: uh, what?
By chemist1 on 4/26/2013 9:53:36 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting that it's natively supported in your 2010 machine. In the 2011 models, it's not -- it can be done, but it's a serious hack that disables some of BootCamp's features:
http://www.ocztechnologyforum.com/forum/showthread...


RE: uh, what?
By royalcrown on 4/27/2013 1:08:53 AM , Rating: 2
Well they did redo the motherboard in may to support the new Sandy bridges, maybe it had something to do with that. I purchased mine in January...right before the upgrade.grrr..


"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki