Heresy: Windows XP performance on Apple Mac benchmarks (and what’s ‘best’ about both worlds?)

“The Mac cult, er, I mean, community seems to be of two minds about the fact the Apple has switched to Intel processors for its computers: One group seems to believe that this is tantamount to sacrilege and Apple has forever sullied its good name. The other group thinks that this is just the right move to motivate all those poor Windows suckers (the meager other 89 percent of all computer users) to finally move over to the Mac platform–also known to some as ‘the light side of the force,'” Daniel A. Begun blogs for CNET in a post headlined with “Heresy: Windows XP performance on a Mac.”

Begun writes, “While my vastly oversimplified exaggerations might incur the wrath of die-hard Mac fanatics, the truth is that the rest of us can easily enjoy the best of both the Mac and Windows XP worlds on a single system–as long as that system is an Intel Mac.”

MacDailyNews Take: Best of both worlds? What exactly is best about the Windows XP world? More applications. That’s it. Some developers make Windows-only applications. Of course, if they’re good and/or popular apps, they are usually found on both platforms, but there are some exceptions (AutoCAD, custom apps for businesses, etc.). Mac OS X has tens of thousands of applications available, but, still, WIndows does have more. Everything else however, from UI to stability to security to attention to detail, is “best” in Mac OS X. So the only thing Windows offers that Mac doesn’t is that it’s more “popular,” therefore it has more applications. And Fords have more aftermarket cup holders available for them than BMWs do, too. So, ironically, the only reason for the use of the word “best” in “best of both worlds” in regard to Windows is based on quantity, not quality.

Begun continues, “CNET Labs ran a few of its home-brewed benchmarks on a MacBook Pro with the Mac OS, Boot Camp, and Parallels Desktop to see how application performance stacks up between the three.
For our tests we used a 17-inch Apple MacBook Pro , running Mac OS X Version 10.4.6, with a 2.16GHz Intel Core Duo processor, 2GB of DDR2 SDRAM, a 100GB 7,200rpm hard drive, and an ATI Radeon X1600 graphics chip. Boot Camp was set up with a 10GB partition for Windows XP; while the Windows XP virtual machine in Parallels was set up with a 20GB virtual disk.”

Full article and benchmarks here.

[UPDATE: 12:54pm EDT: Changed “Honda” to “Ford.” Honda was too good for the analogy.]

Introducing the super-fast, blogging, podcasting, do-everything-out-of-the-box MacBook.  Starting at just $1099.
Get the new iMac with Intel Core Duo for as low as $31 A MONTH with Free shipping!
Get the MacBook Pro with Intel Core Duo for as low as $47 A MONTH with Free Shipping!
Apple’s new Mac mini. Intel Core, up to 4 times faster. Starting at just $599. Free shipping.
iPod. 15,000 songs. 25,000 photos. 150 hours of video. The new iPod. 30GB and 60GB models start at just $299. Free shipping.
Connect iPod to your television set with the iPod AV Cable. Just $19.
iPod Radio Remote. Listen to FM radio on your iPod and control everything with a convenient wired remote. Just $49.


  1. Apple switched to Intel because IBM has no interest in producing chips that will run cool enough in a desktop or laptop. They are going after the server market (where loud fans don’t matter as much) and the consumer electronics market (with chips that are too specialized and underpowered for desktop/laptop use). They have even said so in their press releases. The real question should be “Why did Apple go with Intel and not AMD?”

    Let the speculation begin…..

  2. Let them (Windows users) install Windows on their Intel Mac’s if they want – it’ll still show up as a Mac sale in the market share numbers.

    It’s is the same way that a PC user, (who, on buying a new Windows PC, erases Windows and installs Linux, or gets Linux installed when it’s bought) their purchase shows up as a PC (and therefore WIndows) on the market share numbers.

    Apple then will find it a lot easier to switch that Windows user (who is running Windows on an Intel Mac) to the Mac, than before because they won’t have to purchase a new computer to do so.

  3. The author didn’t speculate why WInXP booted so much faster in Parallels. My last reboot was incredibly fast in Parallels. I cannot explain it either.

    Yeah this article was a bit short on, well everything.

  4. Did anyone else notice how in the Photoshop benchmark test it says next to “Mac OX 10.4.6” that it’s Native. Yet under it, it says that is was an unfar test because the application isn’t Native yet. They try to make it seem that Macs suck at everything no matter what…… and that the only reason you should get a Mac is to run windows and have a fast PC box. God i hate CNet they always try to make it look like the Mac is the runner up compared to there lovely Winblows running Dull boxes…….. always with the unfair accusations.

  5. I’ve been a Mac user since about 1988 (an SE/30) and I bought my first Mac in 1991 (Mac Classic). But, I use Chief Architect CAD software so I was happy to be able to install Windows on my 20″ iMac. I’ve tried the various CAD programs for the Mac but none have met my needs the way Chief Architect does.

    It feels strange to boot into Windows on a Mac but I’m able to do my work without the need for a POS PC cluttering my office.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.