Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Mac OS X 10.6.3 vs. Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu 10.04 Benchmarks

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

  • Mac OS X 10.6.3 vs. Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu 10.04 Benchmarks

    Phoronix: Mac OS X 10.6.3 vs. Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu 10.04 Benchmarks

    Last week we delivered the first of our Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu 10.04 benchmarks to much anticipation, but now we have the results for Apple's Mac OS X 10.6.3 operating system to tack in too. In the first part of that Windows 7 vs. Ubuntu Linux performance examination, we looked closely at the OpenGL gaming performance across six different systems and a whole slew of tests. More articles are on the way looking at the performance and later in the week we already delivered some initial disk benchmarks. However, now it is time to see how Microsoft Windows 7 Professional x64, Ubuntu 10.04 LTS, and Apple Mac OS X 10.6.3 compete with one another.

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=14905

  • kraftman
    replied
    Originally posted by jeanlain View Post
    3 to 4x higher frame rates at low res, which seems more on par with performance under Windows 7. There is something wrong with the published results, maybe their Mac mini went out of RAM during some of the runs under OS X.
    If OS X is such a RAM eater there's nothing wrong with the tests. They test out of the box performance. Ubuntu had composition enabled, so I could say the same - tests are flawed, but only when they'll judge which system has better 3D (like some misleading title and intro of another article) - not when they just benchmark out of the box performance. Afaik there were some regressions fixed in os x updates.

    Leave a comment:


  • jeanlain
    replied
    Ok I have registered just to point out that these tests may be flawed, at least those run under OS X.

    See my own results (same OS, same games and settings, same GPU, a slightly faster CPU and more RAM):
    http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...2447-26334-461
    http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...214-5260-23058
    http://global.phoronix-test-suite.co...140-19051-1705

    3 to 4x higher frame rates at low res, which seems more on par with performance under Windows 7. There is something wrong with the published results, maybe their Mac mini went out of RAM during some of the runs under OS X.

    Leave a comment:


  • mugginz
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    Commodore and Atari both had far superior OS's as well back in those days and were one some of the cheapest hardware to be found. Even they still fell victim to the Windows movement because other then gaming they didn't have much at all in the way of productivity software.
    Amongst the suite of productivity software the Amiga did have were some pretty usable and what could be be considered for the time fully featured productivity apps. I'd still consider the Mac's apps at that stage to be better but the hardware was a lot more expensive than either an Amiga or a clone so was a no goer for many. The quirkiness of the Mac's physical layout probably wasn't exactly helpful either.

    Technical reasons aside, a fair bit of the lack of adoption seemed to be driven by the "it's not what I'm used to using" factor. As well as that you had a healthy serving of "my favourite platform's better than yours" mentality as well. While it's still very common these days, back then PC enthusiasts, (both corporate and private) would poo poo alternative platforms to theirs for no valid technical reasons. Many then, and sadly many still do, seek to engineer reasons (no matter how weak) for why people must use a particular platform (their personal choice).

    While Commodore didn't produce the most effective marketing for corporate folk (to say the least), for people who think of themselves as gods gift to computer noobs, many IT people sure did make a point of ushering people away from and decrying the benefits of the other more advanced platforms until their own preferred platform had them as well, and then, boy, it was amusing to watch their new dog and pony show with them proclaiming just how fantastic GUI's and multi-tasking really were now.

    Word processors, DTP packages, spreadsheets and databases were all there to be had for the alternative platforms. It was back then just as mandatory as it is now to have at least those bases covered for each and every platform. While there were some really good packages for MS DOS there were for the other platforms as well and when combined with those other platforms intrinsic benefits it really does make ya think. There was a decent emphasis on games and graphics titles for both the Atari and Amiga platforms around launch and through their lifetimes but they also strongly pushed the benefits for productivity of their GUIs environments not to mention pre-emptive multi-tasking for the Amiga.

    There was a bit of a trajectory for an IBM and clone dominated industry being set even by 85 or 86 or so, but not to the extent that the newer platforms on a purely technical level would've been able to overcome in a neutral market place. The power of the FUD was as strong as ever during those days.

    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    MS courted that market, gained acceptance by the corporate sector and started their road to dominance.
    One thing that shouldn't be understated was Microsoft's efforts behind the scenes to like you say "court" the market. Some may say they were at times a little unethical while doing so.

    I should say though that if the IBM PC platform was a complete piece of junk it wouldn't of succeeded no matter how strong the lobbying, etc. It was at least a serviceable, and later quite a compelling platform. Just not always the most compelling available.

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by Apopas View Post
    Huh? That's totally irrelevant.
    It's not irrelevant at all. It's one of the biggest reasons why people buy new machines. They buy new machines to run the new versions of Windows or to have the capability of running their favorite app.

    Also remember that OS X wasn't even around until 2001 and windows already had a dominance in the marketshare because of it supporting applications. The biggest reasons that people do not switch is because xyz OS does not run their apps. We have all seen those reasons "I'd switch but xyz isn't available on zyx OS" given too many times to count. Apple was still playing around in the System 1-9 era. When Windows 95 debuted it effectively took all of Apples OS advantages and matched them but still allowed people to use their old DOS based applications. There were also periods in Apple history where they did license out their OS's and allowed clones to be built. Those clones had hardware prices often equal or lower then their PC counterparts and those companies still failed to make any appreciable change in marketshare. Commodore and Atari both had far superior OS's as well back in those days and were one some of the cheapest hardware to be found. Even they still fell victim to the Windows movement because other then gaming they didn't have much at all in the way of productivity software. MS courted that market, gained acceptance by the corporate sector and started their road to dominance.

    Leave a comment:


  • Apopas
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    I also add that people buy and upgrade their system more often when a new version of their OS comes out. It's the OS's and their accompanying software that sells the majority of computer systems out there and not so much the hardware determining the sale of the OS.
    Huh? That's totally irrelevant.

    Leave a comment:


  • Apopas
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    Not at all. The OS is only one piece of the puzzle. People buy computers to do a certain tasks that they want to achieve. If the applications to those tasks are not available to run a OS then they switch to one that does have those applications available.
    The switch comes by those who have knowledge. The vast majority of people have less than basic knowledge about computers. The matter is that these tasks that you are talking about aren't exotic at all and OSX provides them plus many many more plus third party support. It persuaded almost 10% of computer users in US to switch because of these. If it was coming preinstalled to every PC the people buy, then the third party support would be even greater.
    The result? Probably OSX would have the current windows and OSX's share, Linux would be with it's 2-3% and windows would be a distant history.

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    I also add that people buy and upgrade their system more often when a new version of their OS comes out. It's the OS's and their accompanying software that sells the majority of computer systems out there and not so much the hardware determining the sale of the OS.

    Leave a comment:


  • deanjo
    replied
    Originally posted by Apopas View Post
    First of all speak better deanjo.
    Second, I'll do just one question. If today OSX was preinstalled in every PC, you believe it wouldn't dominate the market in the very same way windows do atm?
    Not at all. The OS is only one piece of the puzzle. People buy computers to do a certain tasks that they want to achieve. If the applications to those tasks are not available to run a OS then they switch to one that does have those applications available.

    Leave a comment:


  • Apopas
    replied
    Originally posted by deanjo View Post
    Sorry gotta call BS on this. If you knew anything about the history of PC's at one time there was more PC's installed with Deskmate and Desqview then any version of Windows. There also was a time where Apple's OS ruled the market share as well. IBM's until 1995 came with an option, first boot you got to choose Windows and OS/2. Despite all these obstacles and being the inferior solution, Windows still became the number one OS.
    First of all speak better deanjo.
    Second, I'll do just one question. If today OSX was preinstalled in every PC, you believe it wouldn't dominate the market in the very same way windows do atm?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X