Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Mac OS X 10.5.6 Benchmarks

[bugmenot]

i'd like to see this benchmark with a Macbook with an Nvidia card..

[Sewje]

This comparison is flawed, it's a know issue in Jaunty that the intel drivers have problems with the new Xorg implementation. Even ATIs driver is broken in Jaunty, the best system to test would be one with nVidia GFX cards.

[Danyul]

I understand you perform the tests for out of the box solutions. But, the MacOS kernel is obviously optimised for the hardware they put in there. Why not compile a custom linux kernel that cuts out all the crap that is there for the wide range of compatibility.

Also, the intel driver that shipped with 9.04 is the WORST graphics driver I have ever come across performance and stability wise (and I worked through all the ATI mess). My wife's laptop has intel and upon installing 9.04 totem would not work, the computer locked up frequently (once every 2 - 10 mins), and when the computer WAS running it performed like a 2 legged greyhound.

On my computer I cut the crap outa the kernel and I get substantial increases in performance. When I regressed my wife's computer back to the intel driver included in 8.10 the computer stopped locking up and worked better than it had in 8.10.

All I'm saying is, while I believe MacOS will still come out on top in a few areas, linux doesn't stand a chance when you put something that is not optimised up against something that is.

[yotambien]

I don't get this. So, since it is known that Ubuntu 9.04 has quite a problem with intel cards, the test is flawed, unfair and not representative?

On the contrary. This is the sort of representative shit you get with Ubuntu (and with whatever distro that plays bleeding edge), and the benchmark just shows it. Perhaps you would suggest to use an older version that doesn't have those performance regressions? Ah, but then you would point out that the GCC versions were different or some bull like that.

It is very simple, folks. You buy a Mac, you install Ubuntu on it--TODAY--and you check what runs better. What's your problem? Kernel optimisations, different gfx manufacturer, hardware targeted at linux...jeez, all this crying is making me sad.

[kraftman]

I don't get this. So, since it is known that Ubuntu 9.04 has quite a problem with intel cards, the test is flawed, unfair and not representative?

On the contrary. This is the sort of representative shit you get with Ubuntu (and with whatever distro that plays bleeding edge), and the benchmark just shows it. Perhaps you would suggest to use an older version that doesn't have those performance regressions? Ah, but then you would point out that the GCC versions were different or some bull like that.

It is very simple, folks. You buy a Mac, you install Ubuntu on it--TODAY--and you check what runs better. What's your problem? Kernel optimisations, different gfx manufacturer, hardware targeted at linux...jeez, all this crying is making me sad.

Actually Ubuntu isn't bleeding edge and those results have nothing to do with real life experience (except slow graphic performance). The point is those benchmarks don't show what runs better (except 2D and 3D). Don't read and you wouldn't cry

P.S. Do you consider proper kernel config and benchmarks used in proper way don't have influence on results?

[mendieta]

I think Michael earned the respect of the community with all his hard work, including a wealth of info on hardware that runs in linux (and how it runs), and the test suite work.

Having said that, I think this article sounds (unintentionally) like FUD, the way it was posted, and it would be nice of Michael to update it a bit, maybe change the title (this is _not_ a representative comparison of the operating systems), etc.

Cheers, and peace out

[spykes]

And what about the X86-64 version ?
It was performing better with the 64 bits version on the previous bench.
I am no more using a 32 bits distro those days.

[kraftman]

@mendieta

Micheal benchmarked those systems in their default configurations. But FUD in my opinion is quite good term here. I wonder who's interested in sqlite, postgre, unixbench tests if their results are meaningless probably for everyone in this case (no influence on desktop experience and meaningless for people interested in real world performance)? As a desktop user I would be more interested in system start up time, working or not hibernation, number of available apps, instalation time etc.

[SyXbiT]

embarrassing for us linux users...
we can't claim better usability
can't claim more compatibility
and now, not performance
just that it's open source, and stable/secure

[joshuapurcell]

SyXbit: The comparison is not embarrassing in any way. Read the rest of this thread and come to an understanding of what is actually being compared, what open source is, and how it all comes down to how various projects each with different development timeframes are able to come together at a specific point and compete against an operating system that has a single development timeframe, a single architecture, and a single developer/company behind it. Even under these circumstances this Linux system does relatively well... if you start working on optimization (which has already been done on the Mac side) then you would get even better results than what is posted here. Nothing embarrassing about that.

Another thing regarding compatibility... without a doubt Linux is more compatible than any other operating system with the available hardware. Not sure what else to say about that.