Mac vs. PC: The Ultimate Lab Test for New Desktops & Laptops

Popular Mechanics ^ | May 2008 | By Glenn Derene

[Swordmaker]

This computer rivalry has been elevated to a cultural divide on par with Pepsi versus Coke. Taking it beyond personal taste, PM crunches the numbers—with some surprising results (and detailed benchmark scores).

We all know the stereotypes. Apple’s popular commercials have painted the picture in stark terms: There are two types of people, Mac people and PC people. And if the marketing is to be believed, the former is a hip, sport-coat-and-sneakers- wearing type of guy who uses his computer for video chatting, music mash-ups and other cool, creative pursuits that starchy, business-suited PC users could never really appreciate unless they tried them on the slick Apple interface. Then again, Windows PC enthusiasts probably think that Mac guy is a smug slacker with an overpriced toy that can’t do any serious computing anyway. Funny thing is, both stereotypes are wrong. With a 7.5 percent market share, Macs are no longer just the computer choice of artists and unemployed writers. (Apple is, in fact, the fourth largest computer manufacturer in the world.) And now, more than ever, the guts of both platforms are remarkably similar. Both types of machines use Intel proc­essors (although some PCs can be configured with processors from AMD). Both buy memory, hard drives and graphics cards from the same small pool of suppliers. The underlying operating systems have distinctly different flavors, but in terms of functionality, Microsoft Windows Vista and Mac OS X Leopard have surprisingly similar built-in multimedia, Internet and productivity applications.

Yet what makes the platforms feel so dissimilar is their approaches to these applications. Internet Explorer versus Safari, Windows Media Center versus Front Row, Photo Gallery versus iPhoto, Backup and Restore Center versus Time Machine—these system components from Microsoft and Apple are designed to accomplish essentially the same goals. To users, however, the position and movement of the virtual knobs and levers make all the difference.

These things are largely matters of preference and style, but you can still make a reasonable attempt to quantify them, and we did. We tested two all-in-one desktops and two laptops—one Mac and one PC per category—and assembled a panel of testers with a range of experience and preference that ran the gamut from expert users to my wife’s stepfather, who, by his own account, had never actually turned on a computer. Our testers were asked to set up the computers right out of the box and explore the machines through everyday tasks such as Web surfing, document creation, uploading photos, downloading Adobe Acrobat files and playing music and movies through Media Center and Front Row (the entertainment software suites integrated into Vista and Leopard, respectively). Our testers were instructed to divorce themselves as much as possible from their previous technological preferences and rate their experiences with each computer’s software and hardware.

Usability surveys are like taste tests—a useful look at the subjective appeal of a device. (Is it fun? Is it easy? Would I be happy to live with this thing?) But beneath their packaging, computers are data-crunching machines that can be run like racehorses. So the second component of our test regimen was about pure performance.

Our computers were closely matched, but in the interest of full disclosure, we’ll spit out the caveats: The Gateway One PC had a processor that runs 400 MHz slower than its iMac competitor (not a heck of a difference in this age of dual-core chips), but it also had two extra gigabytes of DDR2 memory. In the laptop category, our Asus M51 had a 2.2 GHz processor, compared to 2.4 GHz for our MacBook. But the Asus had a larger screen, a more sophisticated graphics card and an extra gig of RAM.

All that extra RAM may seem to give an advantage to the PCs. Vista, however, is a noted memory hog, so throwing more RAM into PC computers is probably less of a perform ance booster for manufacturers than it is a new baseline hardware specification.

Before we pulled out our stopwatches, we turned to two industry-standard, cross-platform benchmarking tools—Geekbench from Primate Labs and Cinebench from Maxon—to get third-party results. We ran both benchmarking programs on our Mac and PC desktop and laptop computers before our testers got their dirty little hands on the equipment to ensure that no confounding software could poison the results.

These benchmarks are reliable indicators of performance, but the numbers feel somewhat meaningless to ordinary users. Which is why we created our own suite of tests to meas ure the speed of everyday tasks. We logged boot-up and shutdown times, and launch times for the Internet browser and media player built into each operating system, as well as for common applications such as Microsoft Word and Adobe Photoshop. We tested how long it took for each computer to rip a CD and install a few big software suites. The laptops were forced to play the longest movie we could find (Saving Private Ryan—2 hours, 49 minutes) until they wheezed, sputtered and shut down. Finally, we put all four computers through a stress test. We ran three video sources (a YouTube clip, a DVD and an .avi file), DivX encoding, instant messaging, Word, Adobe Acrobat and a spyware scan simultaneously—then retimed our launch of Photoshop.

The results gave us a clear winner in the performance categories, but the big surprise was how little difference we found in user preferences. Turns out, both platforms are capable and easy to use, but only one was the victor.

---

iMac | $1499

SPECS
Hardware	20-in. screen, 2.4 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor, 1 GB DDR2 RAM, 320 GB hard drive, built-in Bluetooth and Wi-Fi, 8x CD/DVD burner, remote control, ATI Radeon HD 2600 graphics card.
Software	OS X Leopard, iLife '08 (iTunes, iPhoto, GarageBand, etc.), Front Row, iWork (30-day trial).
USER RATING
Design
Ergonomics
Internet surfing
Digital photo management
iWork
Front Row (movies, music, etc.)
Overall

SPEED TEST | Click here for detailed benchmark scores
Boot	Average startup	28.7 sec.
	Average shutdown	4.0 sec.
Install	Microsoft Office	4 min. 17 sec.
	Adobe Creative Suite 3	31 min. 44 sec.
Program Launch	Safari (Internet browser)	3.3 sec.
	Microsoft Word	4.2 sec.
	Adobe Photoshop	4.0 sec.
	Stress-launch Photoshop (w/ 8 apps running)	21.36 sec.
	CD rip	3 min. 35 sec.

Gateway One | $1800

SPECS
Hardware	19-in. screen, 2.0 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor, 3 GB DDR2 RAM, 500 GB hard drive, built-in Wi-Fi, 8x CD/DVD burner, remote control, ATI Radeon HD 2600 graphics card.
Software	Windows Vista Home Premium, Microsoft Works 8.5, Media Center, Microsoft Office (60-day trial).
USER RATING
Design
Ergonomics
Internet surfing
Digital photo management
Works
Media Center (movies, music, etc.)
Overall

SPEED TEST | Click here for detailed benchmark scores
Boot	Average startup	1 min. 13 sec.
	Average shutdown	44.3 sec.
Install	Microsoft Office	6 min. 25 sec.
	Adobe Creative Suite 3	25 min. 45 sec.
Program Launch	Internet Explorer	6.3 sec.
	Microsoft Word	5.2 sec.
	Adobe Photoshop	5.5 sec.
	Stress-launch Photoshop (w/ 8 apps running)	40.0 sec.
	CD rip	3 min. 35 sec.

---

MacBook* | $1299

* As tested on an Apple MacBook containing an Intel Penryn processor. Because the new Penryn version of the MacBook was not available at press time for the May 2008 print edition of PM, the test results appearing in the magazine reflect the previous version of the MacBook. to see the non-Penryn MacBook results that appeared in the magazine.

SPECS
Hardware	13.3-in. screen, 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo (Penryn); 3GB DDR2 RAM, 160 GB hard drive, 8x CD/DVD burner, built-in Bluetooth and Wi-Fi.
Software	OS X Leopard, iLife '08 (iTunes, iPhoto, GarageBand, etc.), Front Row, iWork (30-day trial).
Weight	5 pounds
BATTERY TEST
With the DVD drive spinning and screen at full brightness, the MacBook made it through our movie, but fell short of Apple's stated 6-hour battery life: 3 hr. 34 min.
USER RATING
Design
Ergonomics
Internet surfing
Digital photo management
iWork
Media Center (movies, music, etc.)
Overall

SPEED TEST | Click here for detailed benchmark scores
Boot	Average startup	41.6 sec.
	Average shutdown	3.9 sec.
Install	Microsoft Office	2 min. 57 sec.
	Adobe Creative Suite 3	34 min. 54 sec.
Program Launch	Microsoft Word	5.3 sec.
	Adobe Photoshop	4.1 sec.
	Stress-launch Photoshop (w/ 8 apps running)	16.2 sec.
	CD rip	5 min. 49 sec.

Asus M51SR | $1299

SPECS
Hardware	15.4-in. screen, 2.2 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor, 2 GB DDR2 RAM, 250 GB hard drive, ATI Radeon HD 2400 graphics card, 8x CD/DVD burner, built-in Bluetooth and Wi-Fi.
Software	Microsoft Vista Home Premium, Works, Media Center, Office (30-day trial).
Weight	6.5 pounds
BATTERY TEST
Many users liked the Asus’s 15.4-in. screen, but that large display is a drain on the battery. The Asus couldn’t make it through our 2-hour, 49-minute movie: 1 hr. 30 min.
USER RATING
Design
Ergonomics
Internet surfing
Digital photo management
Works
Media Center (movies, music, etc.)
Overall

SPEED TEST | Click here for detailed benchmark scores
Boot	Average startup	1 min. 51 sec.
	Average shutdown	25.4 sec.
Install	Microsoft Office	4 min. 46 sec.
	Adobe Creative Suite 3	21 min.
Program Launch	Microsoft Word	6.2 sec.
	Adobe Photoshop	5.2 sec.
	Stress-launch Photoshop (w/ 8 apps running)	25.5 sec.
	CD rip	3 min. 9 sec.

---

The Verdict: Apple

Mac: In both the laptop and desktop showdowns, Apple’s computers were the winners. Oddly, the big difference didn’t come in our user ratings, where we expected the famously friendly Mac interface to shine. Our respondents liked the look and feel of both operating systems but had a slight preference toward OS X. In our speed trials, however, Leopard OS trounced Vista in all-important tasks such as boot-up, shutdown and program-launch times. We even tested Vista on the Macs using Apple’s platform-switching Boot Camp software—and found that both Apple computers ran Vista faster than our PCs did.

PC: Simply put, Vista proved to be a more sluggish operating system than Leopard. Our PCs installed some software faster, but in general they were slower in our time trials. Plus, both PCs showed weaker performance on third-party benchmarks than the Macs. Our biggest surprise, however, was that PCs were not the relative bargains we expected them to be. The Asus M51sr costs the same as a MacBook, while the Gateway One actually costs $300 more than an iMac. That means for the price of the Gateway you could buy an iMac, boost its hard drive to match the Gateway’s, purchase a copy of Vista to boot—and still save $100.

Detailed Benchmark Scores: Desktops

Benchmark Test	iMac 20-in screen; 2.2 GHz Core 2 Duo; 1GB DDR2	Gateway One 2.0GHz Core 2 Duo; 3GB DDR2
Geekbench
Overall	3180 (2651)	1903
Integer	2766 (3398)	2324
Floating Point	4460 (2675)	1713
Memory	2299 (1720)	1597
Stream	1916 (1819)	1707
Cinebench
1 CPU	2619 (2429)	1979
2 CPUs	4840 (4641)	3739
Graphics	4819 (3834)	2913

*Scores in parentheses are for Macs running Vista in Boot Camp.

Detailed Benchmark Scores: Laptops

Benchmark Test	MacBook 2.2 GHz Core 2 Duo; 1GB DDR2 (Out of production)	MacBook 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo (Penryn); 3GB DDR2	Asus M51 2.2 GHz Core 2 Duo; 2GB DDR2
Geekbench
Overall	2885 (2465)	3156 (2657)	2445
Integer	2536 (3099)	2734 (3421)	3102
Floating Point	3959 (2429)	4395 (2660)	2444
Memory	2156 (1730)	2378 (1785)	1636
Stream	1809 (1850)	1853 (1717)	1772
Cinebench
1 CPU	2409	2741 (2561)	2214
2 CPUs	4468	5216 (4838)	4198
Graphics	2027	2040 (835)	2495

*Scores in parentheses are for Macs running Vista in Boot Camp.

[discostu]

Never heard of it. That’s what happens when I create users. Don’t like it? Too bad. Don’t really care what a guy who turns discussions personal for no good reason likes.

[Spktyr]

Mmm-hmmm.... suuuure.

The thing is, what you see is not what 99% of the people running Windows XP sees or gets. So, basically, so much for that “don’t run as admin” advisory, because unless you’re a developer running the special developer version AND you know the lusrmgr.msc snap-in is there... you’re running as admin when you add a new user, by default.

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

"Yes we almost all do run as admin, heck even I do most of the time..."

On WinXP, I do, following the same hygiene and cautions you mention. XP's nonprivileged user accounts are just too limited and annoying. On Linux, however, where I do my "personal" computing, I very very rarely ever need to invoke my root password or switch to su, and never actually log in as root. Linux user accounts are way more functional than XP's. And, in principle, if you do something really stupid like opening an infected email or following a malware link, you risk only your particular user account. At least that's the status right now, with Linux registering merely a blip on the desktop-o-meter. That might change, with hundreds of thousands of Eees and things like that out there, which log you in as root... tempting for the malware writers.

[discostu]

A lot of the problem with non-Admin accounts in Windows aren’t actually MS’s fault. Third party developers, including the people are work for, tend to be rather lazy and do things in a way, especially during install, that requires administrative privileges, but that way isn’t actually necessary. There are cleaner ways to do things that will work fine when done by non-admin users but nobody does it. All those same things you can do under Linux that keep you from having run as root can be done under Windows, it’s just harder programatically so nobody does it. MS has been trying to address this but so far it’s not working, it’s hard to change the habits of so many companies, especially since MS does a poor job of leading by example.

It’ll be interesting when enough programmers and users of Linux and Mac have developed bad habits that the malware guys are willing to put the work into infecting those systems. I know a few people at MS that will be laughing so hard they’ll be at risk of being committed. Not to say Windows doesn’t have plenty of its own security holes, but people with bad habits will always be a big hole.

[HAL9000]

It’ll be interesting when enough programmers and users of Linux and Mac have developed bad habits that the malware guys are willing to put the work into infecting those systems.

Linux exists in a state of chaos, so "bad habits" are a real risk there.

Malware is less likely to succeed in exploiting programming errors on Macs. Mac OS X has a stable, mature application framework that can help avoid coding errors which could result in vulnerabilities. Developers are strongly encouraged to use the framework (but are not required to).

[discostu]

I’m mostly thinking Mac becomes vulnerable if the install base starts getting up over 30%, at that point you’ll have a lot more people programing for Macs who can’t be bothered with things like the framework, and a lot of users hanging out in the dark corners of the internet and not being smart about it. If you take the “iloveyou” virus as symptomatic then about 10% of the people out there are just dumb, when you have a 5, 10 or 15 million user install base the dumb 10% are still a small enough number that they don’t comprise their own heard that catches all the viruses. If you start getting a 60, 70, 80 million user install base all of a sudden that dumb 10% is a lot of people. If Mac ever actually does become the Windows killer they’re going to inherit all these people, Mac will be able to survive it better because it is a more secure system, but the day when Mac users can blithely say “what’s anti-virus software, never heard of it” will be gone.