Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mac OS X 10.5 vs. Ubuntu 8.10 Benchmarks

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Mac OS X 10.5 vs. Ubuntu 8.10 Benchmarks

    Phoronix: Mac OS X 10.5 vs. Ubuntu 8.10 Benchmarks

    Last week we published Ubuntu 7.04 to 8.10 benchmarks from a Lenovo ThinkPad T60 and had found Ubuntu's performance degraded peculiarly over the past year and a half. We then published Fedora 7 to 10 benchmarks covering the same time-frame and from the same exact Intel notebook computer, but the newer releases of Fedora were only marginally slower in a few tests. In our performance exploration of Ubuntu we now have additional tests to publish this morning. This time around we're switching out the hardware we're testing on to Intel's newer Core 2 series and we're comparing the performance of the x86 and x86_64 editions of Ubuntu 8.10 against Apple's Mac OS X 10.5.5 operating system.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=13080

  • #2
    very intresting. this proves without doubt that ubuntu sucks. :|

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by MetalheadGautham View Post
      very intresting. this proves without doubt that ubuntu sucks. :|
      Warning; hater alert!

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by MaestroMaus View Post
        Warning; hater alert!
        I think, he did not read the article. But Ubuntu is getting slower. It becomes slower every release. I am using Ubuntu since feisty and there is a bit desktop responsiveness problem since Gutsy or since kernel version 2.6.22 I think. Fedora is less affected, but the problem exists too. Intrepid is currently unusable for me. My systems freezes for more than 20 seconds, while updating or using a disc intensive application. I switched to Fedora 10. It's not as awful as Intrepid. I hope Jaunty Jackalope will be as fast as Feisty.

        Comment


        • #5
          I'm switching from 8.04 to something else when I get home, not because it's slow but because it's just so boring ()

          Given that the six-month 'updates' consist mostly of providing updated packages (wth?) I might as well use a rolling release distro, I can't see what's so special about what Ubuntu offers except the ugliest desktop since Windows 95.. (not Ubuntu's fault, but it is their fault for using default GNOME! so bland, so boring..)

          Maybe I'll try it again once they follow up on Shuttleworth's wish to 'top Apple' in the GUI department but they're going to have to do something unique rather than just slapping their logo on the latest GNOME and call it a day..

          But it is sad that it's getting slower instead of faster for each release. Especially given the netbook focus as of late, the Atom isn't exactly going to help things.
          Last edited by joffe; 11-06-2008, 08:35 AM.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by joffe View Post
            But it is sad that it's getting slower instead of faster for each release. Especially given the netbook focus as of late, the Atom isn't exactly going to help things.
            so i am typing this on a samsung nc10 (a atom-based netbook). But i have no problem with the speed, i have 20 tabs openend with epiphany and it works all well.

            because fedora is also effekted with this decrease in speed i think linus did something wrong.

            if you dont like gnome ( i love it ) feel free to use kubuntu or another distri. but blaming this on ubuntu is a bit unfair i think.

            Comment


            • #7
              Ubuntu sucks? Did you really check the results for the 64bits version? Personally I find them quite convincing.

              I'm quite surprised by the differences between the 32 and 64bits version. It's "only" benchmarks though, is this difference also noticeable in everyday use? I'm only using 32bits version of Ubuntu, would it be interesting to try 64bits version?

              Comment


              • #8
                i cannot believe this recent rabid ubuntu rant. specifically, two things -
                (1) since when did ricers and speed-freaks start using ubuntu. i have been using gentoo for three years and have finally started using ubuntu for last few months - simply to save myself some effort and i finally felt that ubuntu is mature enough since 8.04.1 (no, 8.04 was still raw ). i can say that the performance is very very good, and not to mention the stability. i do not see any difference - perhaps only better, with newer versions of software. ubuntu has not only inherited the debian goodness, they have done a lot of hard work too.

                (2) sure the default artwork might not suit one's taste, but thanks to the community, there is so much choice and a little effort on luser's part is all that is required. i myself hate the orange brown theme to the core (even though the light brown feisty and the hardy heron bird were pretty cool to my taste). i changed my entire system to all blue (including usplash boot and grub theme!). for the interested, look for 'bluman' theme in ubuntu-art.org. also i picked the nodoka gtk theme and echo icon theme and bluecurve cursors from fedora. (http://137.110.115.18/nodoka-theme-kde/mydesktop.png.)
                Last edited by hdas; 11-07-2008, 03:05 AM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  btw, just to make sure the fairness , regarding the benchmarks involving disk speeds, please note that the later (inner) partitions of the hard disk are significantly slower than the first partition (outer part of disk), a difference of about 10 to20 MB/s !.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    In the filesystem and SQLite tests, the Ext3 filesystem gave Ubuntu a huge disadvantage. It's generally slow, and its default journalling mode is seriously buggy. You should have tested using a better filesystem, for example JFS.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Pesho View Post
                      In the filesystem and SQLite tests, the Ext3 filesystem gave Ubuntu a huge disadvantage. It's generally slow, and its default journalling mode is seriously buggy. You should have tested using a better filesystem, for example JFS.
                      Each OS was left in their stock mode, which is why JFS or any other FS wasn't used.
                      Michael Larabel
                      http://www.michaellarabel.com/

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        My love for Phoronix reports keeps growing and growing! Great job on this extensive comparison between Mac OS X and Ubuntu. Given the results, I have to say that I wouldn't expect Linux to win on a Mac Mini hardware both in the OpenGL and disk benchmarking area, because Apple will always have the upper hand here. That said, the SQLite results are not so good for Linux. BYTE Unix Benchmark, way to go! And looking forward to all the GEM and kernel-based mode setting goodness to kick in.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I'm glad you're doing these benchmarks. Timing people makes them want to try harder. I haven't noticed any bad regressions in ubuntu yet, but the only way to get performance right is to always be aware of it.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I think it's time to make a Windows Vista vs Ubuntu benchmark. of course use NVIDIA as GPU.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by hdas View Post
                              (2) sure the default artwork might not suit one's taste, but thanks to the community, there is so much choice and a little effort on luser's part is all that is required. i myself hate the orange brown theme to the core (even though the light brown feisty and the hardy heron bird were pretty cool to my taste). i changed my entire system to all blue (including usplash boot and grub theme!). for the interested, look for 'bluman' theme in ubuntu-art.org. also i picked the nodoka gtk theme and echo icon theme and bluecurve cursors from fedora.
                              I know, this is what mine looks like (http://www.isarapix.org/pix35/1225188868.png). My point is that if I'm going to customize it extensively I might as well use something like Arch where I get to trim away all the crap I don't need and where I am spared from the Debian package management system - Ubuntu is supposed to be a turnkey distro, and I would just love for it to be turnkey beautiful instead of turnkey 1995. Not just for myself but the image and the adoption rates that would lead to. Lots of people bought Vista purely on the eye candy. Many people who buy Macs buy them because the OS (and the hardware) is pretty. The GUI is the face of the OS, doesn't matter how solid it is, if users are met with grey task bars and some ugly brown splatter they're going to be less positive about it. I'm looking at this from a 'competing with Win/OSX' perspective which Shuttleworth claims is his goal.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X