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 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.


"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer














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