Oh why is Live so much slower on OSX vs Bootcamp'd XP

sqook · Post by **sqook** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:52 pm

b0unce wrote:so will there be an osx 10.4 version of bootcamp ? or will 10.4 users just keep using the last bootcamp beta ?

I don't know, and apple obviously ain't sayin'. My guess is that it will be available to both platforms for awhile, and then at some point apple will introduce some type of software "incompatibility" that will leave 10.4 users out in the cold after most people have switched over to leopard.

Daurix · Post by **Daurix** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 2:01 pm

If anyone is having trouble with heat on their Macbook when running XP in Bootcamp, try SMC Fan Control. You can set it up on OSX, then when you boot into XP the next time, your fans will continue to run at the speed per your previous setting.

b0unce · Post by **b0unce** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 2:07 pm

sqook wrote:
b0unce wrote:so will there be an osx 10.4 version of bootcamp ? or will 10.4 users just keep using the last bootcamp beta ?
I don't know, and apple obviously ain't sayin'. My guess is that it will be available to both platforms for awhile, and then at some point apple will introduce some type of software "incompatibility" that will leave 10.4 users out in the cold after most people have switched over to leopard.

my guess is they'll leave 10.4's bootcamp on its last beta, and use the 'carrot & stick' approach to get bootcampers onto 10.5 - such as a performance boost, and support. I'm guessing at that stage 10.4's bootcamp [beta] will be provided 'as-is' ..i.e non-existent support, no further updates

in this situation, I don't see how 10.4 bootcampers will be left out in the cold. It's not like they paid for the beta, and if the beta doesn't have a time-limit that's also pretty generous imo.

forge · Post by **forge** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 2:29 pm

I think you're missing the jist of bootcamp - it's not alot different to EasyBCD or GRUB and that other Linux one

they are essentially just ways of manging the MBR aren't they?

which means they have bugger all to do with performance

the things that will make the difference are drivers because they are involved when the system is booted

I may be wrong, but from what I understood Boot camp only gets involved in the installation stage

the point is Tim had 16 reverbs in XP and 12 in OSX on a macbook pro

I had the same number on both platforms

we both had different soundcards, to me that is the issue - the drivers

b0unce · Post by **b0unce** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 2:39 pm

I might be missing the jist of bootcamp, sure.
It makes sense to me that it's probably a driver issue.
but couldn't it be a driver issue caused by a bootcamp issue ?
and dont driver issues often amount to performance issues ?
and if that's true couldn't bootcamp issues amount to performance issues [with certain setups/drivers] ?

... I reckon there are probably errors with bootcamp that could be fixed. and they probably wont be fixing them for the freebie beta users on 10.4 as a means of making 10.5 more desirable...

forge · Post by **forge** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:23 pm

I'm not sure

If you're setting up any dual boot system on a PC, with Linux, XP and Vista or OSX86 the main thing stopping you doing that is that they all handle the master boot record differently - the MBR is a small sector on the HD that tells the computer where the OS is

on a PC you get aroud this with things like EasyBCD or use the Linux one, GRUB

when installing OSX86 you usually have to go back and do a repair with the windows disk after wards because OSX has done it's own thing with the MBR

so in my understanding all Bootcamp is is an Apple version of these for installing a dual boot system

so in other words, once it is done, it's done

the only part Bootcamp should play in the whole thing is when booting up and telling the computer what OSes are available on what partitions

once the OS has booted it is forgotten

b0unce · Post by **b0unce** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:35 pm

so...right now, bootcamp is perfect ?
I mean...when you put it like that, it doesn't seem like there is much to bootcamp and the bootcamp coming with leopard can hardly improve ?

I mean, my logic is that the current bootcamp probably isnt perfect and that there are improvements to be offered somewhere...

Mesmer · Post by **Mesmer** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:41 pm

forge wrote:... it's not alot different to EasyBCD or GRUB and that other Linux one
...

LILO. It's been greatly displaced by GRUB of course.

b0unce wrote: but couldn't it be a driver issue caused by a bootcamp issue ?

No. Forge's understanding is dead-on correct. The boot loader is only an ante-chamber offering you a doorway into each OS you have installed in your HD and properly declared in the bootloader config file. The OS wakes up and knows nothing of this.

I'd have to say, as others in this thread that:
guess1. OSX definitely has more eye-candy and bells-and-whistles with it's hot-corners, dashing dashboard and transluscent everything. That eats up ram, right?
guess2. might be an NTFS vs. UFS or whatever filesystem the macs are using. Coming from Darwin, i'm inclined to beleive this filesystem is more roboust .... at the cost of engaging more the HD, it's cache, etc. Even too small or too large a block size could account for the difference. This guess is a guess ("almost bollocks mate", there).

Mesmer · Post by **Mesmer** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:46 pm

b0unce wrote:so...right now, bootcamp is perfect ?
I mean...when you put it like that, it doesn't seem like there is much to bootcamp and the bootcamp coming with leopard can hardly improve ?

I mean, my logic is that the current bootcamp probably isnt perfect and that there are improvements to be offered somewhere...

Ease of use. Better GUI. Cooler custom splash. There's always improvements to be made making it compatible with the latest HDD tech, latest brands, latest speeds. Also some nuances regarding OSS's being finicky with it touching the HD's MBR. Like in the beginning of "last-round", If you put GRUB after making a plain vanilla XP install it wouln't boot because it "sensed" someone touched it's private parts .. I mean, it's MBR.
that's all I can think of right now.
I'm pretty sure Mac user's could live without this BootCamp... and opt for some Open Source alternative instead.

b0unce · Post by **b0unce** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:51 pm

Mesmer wrote: No. Forge's understanding is dead-on correct. The boot loader is only an ante-chamber offering you a doorway into each OS you have installed in your HD and properly declared in the bootloader config file. The OS wakes up and knows nothing of this.

well then...do macs [osx] & pcs [xp] with identical spec deliver the same performance ? if yes, then sure it makes sense to wonder why a bootcamp'd XP is running faster than OSX......otherwise, why expect them to match ?

if memory serves me, XP has always been known to be the 'beefier' performance....why expect OSX to match XP just because it's now on the same machine ?

b0unce · Post by **b0unce** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 3:55 pm

Mesmer wrote: Ease of use. Better GUI. Cooler custom splash.

...I wasn't speculating those kinds of superficial improvements....so I guess by your statement, and forges, that the current bootcamp is indeed pretty much functionally perfect ? and by virtue of what it simply does, cant really improve any further and offer any pertinent improvements in performance ?

I'm not disagreeing by the way, just trying to get a clear picture of what's being said.

I've been waiting for leopard to use bootcamp and buy an XP license, perhaps I'll just use the bootcamp beta on 10.4 when it updates for the last time

forge · Post by **forge** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 4:04 pm

I think the fact that OSX86 for me performed pretty much identically to Vista - and mind you I think my machine did pretty well considering it's a dual 1.73 and Tims is a dual 2.4 - mine only did a couple of reverbs less

maybe if I had XP it would have let me have another 4 reverbs

I dont know

but I have a feeling maybe the vast difference is more likely a driver issue

we really need someone else to try it who has XP and OSX

forge · Post by **forge** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 4:10 pm

b0unce wrote:
Mesmer wrote: Ease of use. Better GUI. Cooler custom splash.
...I wasn't speculating those kinds of superficial improvements....so I guess by your statement, and forges, that the current bootcamp is indeed pretty much functionally perfect ? and by virtue of what it simply does, cant really improve any further and offer any pertinent improvements in performance ?

I'm not disagreeing by the way, just trying to get a clear picture of what's being said.

I've been waiting for leopard to use bootcamp and buy an XP license, perhaps I'll just use the bootcamp beta on 10.4 when it updates for the last time

I tried to do the bootcamp thing on my girlfriends macbook and something in the license thingy worried me a bit - something about it being time limited and running out after a while - I dont know what that meant

in the end it didnt work because the CD I had wasnt SP2 or something, so I never got to try it

noisetonepause · Post by **noisetonepause** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 5:34 pm

sqook wrote:Bootcamp will go to "stable" status when leopard is released... which is currently scheduled for "whenever".

"October".

Mesmer · Post by **Mesmer** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 5:48 pm

b0unce wrote:
Mesmer wrote: No. Forge's understanding is dead-on correct. The boot loader is only an ante-chamber offering you a doorway into each OS you have installed in your HD and properly declared in the bootloader config file. The OS wakes up and knows nothing of this.
well then...do macs [osx] & pcs [xp] with identical spec deliver the same performance ? if yes, then sure it makes sense to wonder why a bootcamp'd XP is running faster than OSX......otherwise, why expect them to match ?

if memory serves me, XP has always been known to be the 'beefier' performance....why expect OSX to match XP just because it's now on the same machine ?

bro, i'm not sure I'm following you:
"bootcamp'd XP" is the same as XP. bootcamp plays no part in XPs performance. XP and OSX installed in the same machine should by definition be equal to XP and OSX installed in "identical spec" -ed machines. Aside from that, I do not follow the BootCamp's project page, so I couln't say how close to their "perfect" status they are. But around other circles I've read that beta is pretty much as good as it gets , functionally, and anything else would be superficial/economical. As I said, It should be relatively straight forward to get yourself GRUB or whatever it was that yellowdog linux used before that, to have the same boot loader functionality, rock stable, tweakable, pretty, etc. etc.

feels like beating around the bush... and it pains me a little to have *factual* reports about what will be my next OS underperforming my actual OS

kind of makes me think about comparing Vista's performance to XP's. Vista is the only reason I'm switching, err... camps, for music prod.

-h