Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu 11.10 vs. Mac OS X 10.7.2 Performance

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

  • ruel24
    replied
    Originally posted by liam View Post
    Apple doesn't produce super expensive computers. If someone wants to join the Apple club, they can get a pretty decent laptop for $1000.
    You're speaking to the choir here, but a whole lot of Linux users run on old equipment and like their software free as in beer because they're cheap. I am a Linux user, so I do know this. People don't understand that Apple not only has high grade parts, such as beautiful IPS screens in iMacs, but they also build in subsidized costs such as OS upgrades for $29 and iWork for $79. I've owned Macs in the past, and my next computer will probably be a Mac. Right now, I run a home-brewed Core i7 that was stout when I built it, running Win 7 and PCLinuxOS as well as Mageia Linux distros.

    Leave a comment:


  • curaga
    replied
    A simple question, why os x doesn't even exist in server or enterprise?
    Not completely true, 4chan is (was?) hosted on a Mac Mini cluster

    Leave a comment:


  • kraftman
    replied
    Originally posted by ruel24 View Post
    What a stupid comparison. So, what you're basically saying is, not only does Ubuntu have a goofy UI and lots of UI problems, it's also slower than Mac OS? Honestly, if Mac OS would Open Source tomorrow under BSD or GPL license, we wouldn't even know who Ubuntu was. The only thing keeping many Linux users from being Mac users is the price of admission.
    Ubuntu is not only far better, faster (like benchmarks show), has much better graphic support (like OpenGL 3 with Intel while os x doesn't), it's much better as a gaming platform - Linux + wine kills os x. Os x users must be idiots, because os x is pure crap. In this comparison where os x has lead in some benchmarks it can be explained by different compiler versions being used: 4.2.1 vs 4.6.1 - it seems the later regressed in some tests. A simple question, why os x doesn't even exist in server or enterprise? It's damn slow and it's a real shame it's called an unix.
    Last edited by kraftman; 01-31-2012, 07:25 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • mitcoes
    replied
    It is not only the OS price

    It is not only the OS price, it is freedom
    In Linux you have a lot of desktops to choose, KDE, razor-qt, Gnome Shell, Cinammon, Unity, Xfce, Enlightment, LMDE, fluxbox, openbox, and Parthenon - in alpha - and there are some more.
    And when you need a program you can find it free, it is not Linux is the GNU, only Libreoffice instead of MS Office, or Gimp instead of photoshop is a lot of money or not piracy.
    I know people with Macs machines using Linux, and Mac users that install hackintosh at atom computers, every one has their own preferences.

    Linux desktops has grown from 1% to 1.4% a 40% in 1 year, and Android is the king of mobile and soon tablet OSs, but there are other projects as Aliyun from Alibaba - mobile linux with an Android compatibility layer - as good as Android or future Tizen or actual Meego, that would be impossible without Linux kernel being open source.

    FreeBSD is also a great kernel, but not better than Linux, that is why OSX is not better than Linux in many ways, and I do like far more other desktops than OSX one, being OSX desktop an excellent one. As I do like Mate more than Unity, is a personal choice.

    I recommend OSX to not at all techie people that will use 10% of computer capabilities, but Linux to everybody else except hard PC gamers, and I hope future Android games played with Android Compatibility Layers will change this.

    Leave a comment:


  • liam
    replied
    i really wish this myth would die...

    Originally posted by ruel24 View Post
    What a stupid comparison. So, what you're basically saying is, not only does Ubuntu have a goofy UI and lots of UI problems, it's also slower than Mac OS? Honestly, if Mac OS would Open Source tomorrow under BSD or GPL license, we wouldn't even know who Ubuntu was. The only thing keeping many Linux users from being Mac users is the price of admission.
    Apple doesn't produce super expensive computers. If someone wants to join the Apple club, they can get a pretty decent laptop for $1000. The club just isn't that exclusive. If the price of admission were so high as to be worth anything, as a status symbol, you wouldn't see an Apple store in damn near every mall (for whoever goes malls anymore... perhaps those impervious to being mocked for flouting a so cheaply had status symbol as an iDevice on which their identity as a cool person resides).
    Cheaply had status is not worth having, and neither is a Mac unless it runs software that you need and cannot run on any other platform.
    That aside, Apple has made a damn fine OS, but, if Tanenbaum is right, it runs its BSD core inside of Mach kernel space (although I confess I have no idea they managed to do that) thereby negating the point of using a microkernel.

    Leave a comment:


  • ruel24
    replied
    What a stupid comparison. So, what you're basically saying is, not only does Ubuntu have a goofy UI and lots of UI problems, it's also slower than Mac OS? Honestly, if Mac OS would Open Source tomorrow under BSD or GPL license, we wouldn't even know who Ubuntu was. The only thing keeping many Linux users from being Mac users is the price of admission.

    Leave a comment:


  • squirrl
    replied
    Comparisons and contrasts

    But aren't you really comparing Linux to BSD?

    They both utilize GNU tool sets. But the kernel running the Mac is BSD/Mach.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael
    replied
    Originally posted by Shining Arcanine View Post
    CFLAGS do not appear to have been set. These benchmark numbers are meaningless. Practically no one uses binaries that were compiled without proper CFLAGS settings. :/
    It's the stock CFLAGS for the package / test profile, most of which default to -O3 (or -O2 in other cases), but just lacking would be march/mtune native mostly, but again this stock OS article is about measuring stock performance. If someone wants a tuned-to-death-OS comparison, please give me a public page detailing such generally accepted tweaks by the respective projects/vendors.

    Leave a comment:


  • Michael
    replied
    Originally posted by mitcoes View Post
    i do like benchmarks, and as MS WOS is a 95% market share, as reference i do like to see it benchmarked.

    I posted - shared - your entry at G+ from g reader and the comment I received was exactly that what about MS WOS?

    Not at this article, my suggestion is to make another database - as there are several at many sites as Tom's hardware, with a synthetic benchmark with a mac mini base, in order to benchmark several Linux / OSX / MS WOS systems and hardware configs.

    This database can become an excellent tool for geeks or tech users to decide what to buy - probably installing Linux OSs if you are a phoronix reader - but having visits from MS WOS users in order to select their hardware, and perhaps, a way of making some of them at least try any Linux OS because of some benchmark.

    It was not a critic, I do enjoy a lot Phoronix, and I read almost all the posts and at least the beginning of all of them. It was a suggestion, sorry, english is not my first language, and I am not as polite as i would like to asking suggestions.

    As I am a benchmark lover I do like as more data better and as more easy to read to everybody, better, i do know how to read, and I remember older benchmarks, but as i love stats - I studied also 4 stats at my economics career - the maximum credits I can choose - I do like them to be clear for people that are not so in love with maths.

    A well known product as Mac mini would be a great KISS tool, normal people would understand more any benchmark in terms of 25% faster than a mac mini or 3x a mac mini.

    i do not like monolitic benchmarks, you know that if you make 30 tests you wiil have different results, and an average and an standard deviations and that is important, it is not the same an average result with a low sd than other with high sd, benchmarks use to show averages but not sd of the tests.

    And i would like you to have some income from advertisers, at least at the openbenchmarks page. and of course with more than 700 followers at G+ many of them enjoy some sharing I do from some of your entries, but I select the more for "general public". even i have a lot of techie following me this page need in benchmarks an aditional effort to be easily understand by non techie people that likes benchmarking.

    And sorry again I'm rare, I love stats and I love computer science - also computer science engineering studied but not finished, for pleasure, not for work - and I like to share, and sometimes Phoronix articles are only for very techie people when with a little twist without loosing accuracy it can be enjoyed by more people.

    That is all, and of course thanks I enjoy you a lot, i only want other people to enjoy it too and you to have more audience / visits.
    Read some of the OpenBenchmarking.org articles and poke around at http://openbenchmarking.org/ and you should find most of what you're after has been accomplished by it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Shining Arcanine
    replied
    CFLAGS do not appear to have been set. These benchmark numbers are meaningless. Practically no one uses binaries that were compiled without proper CFLAGS settings. :/
    Last edited by Shining Arcanine; 01-30-2012, 07:13 PM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X