Sorry, but if I see a “photoshop under XP vs photoshop under mac” benchmark where XP/mac loses, I’ll think that Photoshop sucks under XP/mac, not that XP/mac sucks. Or maybe it’s using some native win32 functions and on mac os x it uses cross-platform non-performant glue? (or the reverse) Or maybe the windows version is compiled with Microsoft compiler and the Mac OS X version with the gcc/ibm compiler, and we’re benchmarking compilers, not apps? And then there’s this stupid trend of using 3D games to benchmarks OSes in the same platform, when games are all about 3D and it’s the driver quality who is going to influde more than any other variable, not the OS.

So, where does that difference comes from? Maybe the application needs to read a lot of data from disk, and one of the operative systems sucks on heavy disk I/O?. Frontend for windows Launchbox: 1.1 Frontend for windows Radnor: 1.0 Frontend for Mac OS X dosboxer: 1.0 Win,Linux,Mac OS X frontend Jamyda: 1.0 Frontend in java DOSBox Game Launcher: 0.93 (0.74-3 compat) Frontend in java DOSBox Gui: 0.7 Frontend for Zeta Boxer: 0. Just pair a Bluetooth controller or Steam Controller to your device, connect to a computer running Steam on the. In a perfect and unrealistic world, those numbers would be the same under both operative system, since it’s the same program. Windows XP, Vista, or 7 (or OSX) 512 MB RAM.

In June 2008 the entry level iMac, Apple's baseline desktop system. Sorry, maybe it’s just me but those numbers don’t tell me anything, and that’s ignoring the fact that they’re benchmarking mac os x’s photoshop running under the rosseta emulator (duh) Guide for Mac OS and Guide for Windows, released in 19, respectively.

Windows xp emulator for mac os x