How does Linux compare to Mac OS X? - Powerpc

This is a discussion on How does Linux compare to Mac OS X? - Powerpc ; On 2006-04-13 18:37:13 +0300, Tom Stiller said: >> It is about very simple thing that Yahoo serves using FreeBSD yet >> everyone in Yahoo (clients) in windows/OS X. >> >> Windows and OS X are better on Desktop (client), more ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 35 of 35

Thread: How does Linux compare to Mac OS X?

  1. Re: How does Linux compare to Mac OS X?

    On 2006-04-13 18:37:13 +0300, Tom Stiller said:

    >> It is about very simple thing that Yahoo serves using FreeBSD yet
    >> everyone in Yahoo (clients) in windows/OS X.
    >>
    >> Windows and OS X are better on Desktop (client), more capable but it
    >> has some "costs" as overhead. Linux and FreeBSD/Darwin/OS X Server is
    >> more optimized for serving, serves better on that purpose.
    >>
    >> Sorry for saying it in a very complex way (I guess?)
    >>

    >
    > Yahoo?! Who said anything about Yahoo?


    OK- I get it, you either can't understand a simple, non native english
    speaker english or you have a problem with me.

    Or you like those "1000 article per thread" usenet fights.

    I am writing the exact thing as Timothy Larson giving a real life example.

    OS X is a very good Unix CLIENT, X Serve is a good server OS,
    FreeBSD/Linux/Darwin are great for RAW SERVERS. Those machines not even
    having a graphics card.

    I am very tired investigate my (or google) usenet archive about why
    this "I can't understand" game happens.

    Not falling into it of course.

    Ilgaz


  2. Re: How does Linux compare to Mac OS X?

    In article <4a7dl6Frpen2U1@individual.net>,
    Ilgaz Ocal wrote:

    > On 2006-04-13 18:37:13 +0300, Tom Stiller said:
    >
    > >> It is about very simple thing that Yahoo serves using FreeBSD yet
    > >> everyone in Yahoo (clients) in windows/OS X.
    > >>
    > >> Windows and OS X are better on Desktop (client), more capable but it
    > >> has some "costs" as overhead. Linux and FreeBSD/Darwin/OS X Server is
    > >> more optimized for serving, serves better on that purpose.
    > >>
    > >> Sorry for saying it in a very complex way (I guess?)
    > >>

    > >
    > > Yahoo?! Who said anything about Yahoo?

    >
    > OK- I get it, you either can't understand a simple, non native english
    > speaker english or you have a problem with me.
    >
    > Or you like those "1000 article per thread" usenet fights.
    >
    > I am writing the exact thing as Timothy Larson giving a real life example.
    >
    > OS X is a very good Unix CLIENT, X Serve is a good server OS,
    > FreeBSD/Linux/Darwin are great for RAW SERVERS. Those machines not even
    > having a graphics card.
    >
    > I am very tired investigate my (or google) usenet archive about why
    > this "I can't understand" game happens.
    >
    > Not falling into it of course.
    >
    > Ilgaz
    >

    Getting back to, and clarifying, my original question, what would y'all
    recommend as a better single-user OS for home use for "MS Office" style
    apps, e-mail/Web/Usenet, graphics/sound workstation? ...and I guess
    never mind about gaming, as I'll accept whatever limitations either OS
    places on game performance, if any.

    Please keep sharing your thoughts and experiences.

    Happy computing,
    Eric

  3. Re: How does Linux compare to Mac OS X?

    In article ,
    Eric P. wrote:
    ....
    >Getting back to, and clarifying, my original question, what would y'all
    >recommend as a better single-user OS for home use for "MS Office" style
    >apps, e-mail/Web/Usenet, graphics/sound workstation? ...and I guess
    >never mind about gaming, as I'll accept whatever limitations either OS
    >places on game performance, if any. ....


    Better is quite subjective and there is no substitute for *you* getting
    some experience on each platform to see what you like. That said...

    MS-Office apps: If you really need MS-access, then winXP is hard to avoid.
    If you can do with another database (or none) and you don't need to
    frequently share a document for editing, then you should be fine on
    either MS-office on windows, MS-office on Macintosh, or open office
    on any platform.

    e-mail: If you have a corporate requirement for a particular client, then
    you might be locked into a particular piece of software. Otherwise,
    proprietary and free clients abound for all platforms. Tastes vary.

    Web: Likewise, browsers abound on all platforms. If you have a real need
    for Internet Explorer, you have my condolences. Firefox is a great
    browser for all platforms and Safari is often fine as well. Many options.

    Usenet: Tastes vary here and there are many options. I like trn compiled on
    this macintosh. Other solutions are too numerous to name.

    Graphics/Sound - This covers many applications and it might help if you
    could mention a specific application. I find the iLife suite from
    Apple to be very useful for consumer-level photo/movie/sound work.
    You might have something else in mind entirely.


  4. Re: How does Linux compare to Mac OS X?

    ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.powerpc.]

    On 2006-04-13, Daniel Packman wrote:
    >
    > Web: Likewise, browsers abound on all platforms. If you have a real need
    > for Internet Explorer, you have my condolences. Firefox is a great
    > browser for all platforms and Safari is often fine as well. Many options.


    As someone else pointed out (perhaps only to colp), browser support on
    linux-ppc is fine, but browser plugin support is spotty at best. No
    flash, difficult or older java, no shockwave, no streaming media. If
    that's very important to the OP, OS X is probably a better choice
    (though dual-boot is always an option).

    --keith

    --
    kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
    (try just my userid to email me)
    AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom
    see X- headers for PGP signature information


  5. Re: How does Linux compare to Mac OS X?

    On 2006-04-13 21:43:32 +0300, "Eric P." said:

    > Getting back to, and clarifying, my original question, what would y'all
    > recommend as a better single-user OS for home use for "MS Office" style
    > apps, e-mail/Web/Usenet, graphics/sound workstation? ...and I guess
    > never mind about gaming, as I'll accept whatever limitations either OS
    > places on game performance, if any.
    >
    > Please keep sharing your thoughts and experiences.
    >
    > Happy computing,
    > Eric


    I clearly suggest OS X for client. Only thing would be "it is not
    totally opensource/gpl" against it but in case you don't know, the
    nvidia and ati drivers on Linux are already closed source binaries.

    OS X is called "the most successful unix on desktop". It offers best of
    closed source and open source. One can use an entirely open source/GPL
    program suite on it if he wishes. That is the thing making it powerful.

    Ilgaz


  6. Re: How does Linux compare to Mac OS X?

    On 2006-04-12, Eric P. wrote:
    > Hello,
    >
    > I'm interested in hearing from anyone who's compared the performance of
    > Linux (specifically YDL) and Mac OS X (the more current version, the
    > better). I want to install each of these systems and check 'em out, and
    > I'd like any useful information and interesting observations folks may
    > have from their experiences.


    I can't really compare performance because I can't test OS X (I don't
    have it), but giving both systems a try for two or three months is a
    good idea; you'll find out what suits you best, and if you find yourself
    using the "other" OS you didn't want to test that day, that gives you a
    clue as well, doesn't it?

    The learning curve on linux is generally considered a little steeper,
    but, in my opinion, it's never a bad idea to learn something about the
    tools you are going to use before getting to work. That's what any
    worker must do during his or her education... Learning to avoid the
    "smashing one's finger with a hammer" and a few other do's and don't's
    in a computing context seems to be a good thing.

    > Since both systems were born of UNIX, does it make sense to run both on
    > a single machine? I'm wondering which of the two systems would be best
    > for use on a G4/450 single-processor system. That's the machine I have,
    > currently with 640MB of RAM, but I plan on maxing it out sometime soon,
    > then changing the graphics card to a GeForce 4 Ti (hope Linux supports
    > this!), and later a processor upgrade.


    If you use both systems, it makes sense to have both installed.
    By the way, if I remember correctly, mac-on-linux can start OS X under
    linux in a window, it'll be a little slower but usable. So you don't
    have to do without OS X even if linux is running at the moment - you'll
    get the best of two worlds, even if one of them is a little slower.

    About performance: I'm running a G3 at 300 MHz (1 MB L2 cache) with 384 MB
    of RAM under linux, and I'm quite satisfied with its performance; it's only
    too slow to watch DVDs without a lot of frame skipping. The G3 will also
    outperform my K6-2 at 500MHz (same amount of RAM) for most tasks unless
    you're watching movies. Your G4 is probably quite a bit faster, and DVDs
    should play just fine with the AltiVec instruction set that the G4 supports.

    I'm writing this because I hope it gives you some idea what to expect,
    even if it might not exactly apply to your situation.

    > I'm looking for the best performance I can get from my machine in speed
    > and stability. Wherever there's a choice, I favor more stability, of
    > course. I want to make my system the best it can possibly be for
    > Internet use, graphics and sound editing (later including audio
    > recording), word processing/spreadsheeting/database work, and gaming. I
    > don't ask for much, do I? *L*


    You want a system that is optimal for any use one can imagine? Tell me
    when you found it, we'll sell it together and get rich!

    Seriously though, stability is generally considered good for both
    systems.

    > Any and all feedback will be greatly appreciated! For e-mail response,
    > please send to "thustar at yahoo dot com."
    >
    > Thanks and happy computing,
    > Eric


    Thanks, and happy computing back to you!

    Manuel
    --
    Homepage: http://www.hinterbergen.de/mala
    OpenPGP: 0xA330353E (DSA) or 0xD87D188C (RSA)

  7. Re: How does Linux = Mac OS X? Linux GAMING LISTS!!!

    Richard E Maine wrote:
    > Eric P. wrote:
    >
    >
    >>I'm looking for the best performance I can get from my machine in speed
    >>and stability. Wherever there's a choice, I favor more stability, of
    >>course. I want to make my system the best it can possibly be for
    >>Internet use, graphics and sound editing (later including audio
    >>recording), word processing/spreadsheeting/database work, and gaming. I
    >>don't ask for much, do I? *L*

    >
    >
    > The question mostly doesn't make sense to me. "Performance" normally
    > refers to speed. I see that you are asking about both speed and
    > stability, but still....
    >
    > 1. Stability. Both operating systems are good in terms of stability.
    > What issues you might have in that area are going to have a lot more to
    > do with the specific applications than with the operating system.
    > Stability of the OS just isn't a basis for selecting between those two
    > options.
    >
    > 2. Speed. Most of the things you listed just aren't speed critical. Word
    > processing? Internet stuff has speed issues, of course, but they seldom
    > have much to do with your system. And then...
    >
    > Games. You are kidding, right? It is a really rare game where there even
    > exist versions on the multiple operating systems so that you can make a
    > speed comparison. Some exist. But not many at all. You probably wouldn't
    > have to use a second hand to count them, much less take off your socks.
    > Neither Linux nor Mac OS are particularly strong in the game market at
    > all. Both have some games, but the selection is limited. And the big
    > question is almost always not whether a particular game will perform
    > well, but whether it exists at all for those systems.
    >
    > In short, I don't see that it makes sense for you to be asking about
    > performance (either speed or stability). Sounds to me like a *FAR* more
    > significant issue is the question of what applications are available and
    > whether they suit your needs.
    >
    > If you really want a gaming machine, then Windows is pretty much where
    > it is at. (That or a console). Even with all the flaws of Windows, the
    > big decider turns out to be that, given some random game you might want,
    > it will usually be available on Windows and not on Linux or OS-X. That's
    > not true 100% of the time, but it is sure so a lot of the time.
    >
    > I might suggest an Intel Mac with dual booting. Use OS-X for most
    > everything except the games - Windows for the games.
    >

    Games? 1400 of them run on Linux! And, according to tests at PC Gaming
    mag, expect a MINIMUM 8X faster response/processing on GNU/Linux!
    http://www.icculus.org/lgfaq/gamelist.php?license=free
    http://transgaming.org/gamesdb/
    http://www.happypenguin.org/
    http://lhl.linuxgames.com/
    http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/sa...s_6072312.html

    Lots MORE! But this should hold you for a while! Don't forget, your
    Quake Servers run really great, when they are GNU/Linux!!!
    http://www.linuxgames.com/ is where you cn check out the QUETOO
    project! Among others!

  8. Re: How does Linux compare to Mac OS X?


    "Ilgaz Ocal" wrote in message
    news:4a7dl6Frpen2U1@individual.net...
    > On 2006-04-13 18:37:13 +0300, Tom Stiller said:
    >
    > >> It is about very simple thing that Yahoo serves using FreeBSD yet
    > >> everyone in Yahoo (clients) in windows/OS X.
    > >>
    > >> Windows and OS X are better on Desktop (client), more capable but it
    > >> has some "costs" as overhead. Linux and FreeBSD/Darwin/OS X Server is
    > >> more optimized for serving, serves better on that purpose.
    > >>
    > >> Sorry for saying it in a very complex way (I guess?)
    > >>

    > >
    > > Yahoo?! Who said anything about Yahoo?

    >
    > OK- I get it, you either can't understand a simple, non native english
    > speaker english or you have a problem with me.
    >
    > Or you like those "1000 article per thread" usenet fights.
    >
    > I am writing the exact thing as Timothy Larson giving a real life example.
    >
    > OS X is a very good Unix CLIENT, X Serve is a good server OS,
    > FreeBSD/Linux/Darwin are great for RAW SERVERS. Those machines not even
    > having a graphics card.
    >
    > I am very tired investigate my (or google) usenet archive about why
    > this "I can't understand" game happens.
    >
    > Not falling into it of course.
    >


    Ok, but I don't understand you either.

    Greg



  9. Re: How does Linux compare to Mac OS X?

    In article ,
    pack@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:

    > In article ,
    > Eric P. wrote:
    > ...
    > >Getting back to, and clarifying, my original question, what would y'all
    > >recommend as a better single-user OS for home use for "MS Office" style
    > >apps, e-mail/Web/Usenet, graphics/sound workstation? ...and I guess
    > >never mind about gaming, as I'll accept whatever limitations either OS
    > >places on game performance, if any. ....

    >
    > Better is quite subjective and there is no substitute for *you* getting
    > some experience on each platform to see what you like. That said...
    >
    > MS-Office apps: If you really need MS-access, then winXP is hard to avoid.
    > If you can do with another database (or none) and you don't need to
    > frequently share a document for editing, then you should be fine on
    > either MS-office on windows, MS-office on Macintosh, or open office
    > on any platform.


    I have no need for Access. My database app of choice has always been
    FileMaker Pro. I will do all I can to avoid ever owning any version of
    MS Windows, but still the possibility exists...at some point...if I find
    a sufficiently valid reason to own and use both an Apple and a PC.

    > e-mail: If you have a corporate requirement for a particular client, then
    > you might be locked into a particular piece of software. Otherwise,
    > proprietary and free clients abound for all platforms. Tastes vary.


    E-mail is purely a personal choice. I favor Eudora (and not just because
    it's free). Any similar and ideally non-MS mail app would do just fine.

    > Web: Likewise, browsers abound on all platforms. If you have a real need
    > for Internet Explorer, you have my condolences. Firefox is a great
    > browser for all platforms and Safari is often fine as well. Many options.


    No real need for IE. That's another program I avoid whenever possible.
    Currently, I favor Mozilla, and I've used (and liked) Camino under OS X.
    My old standby is always Netscape. I've used Safari, but like it less
    than Netscape. I have no experience with FireFox as of yet.

    > Usenet: Tastes vary here and there are many options. I like trn compiled on
    > this macintosh. Other solutions are too numerous to name.


    MT-Newswatcher does it for me. Any similar newsgroup reader would do.

    > Graphics/Sound - This covers many applications and it might help if you
    > could mention a specific application. I find the iLife suite from
    > Apple to be very useful for consumer-level photo/movie/sound work.
    > You might have something else in mind entirely.


    For image editing, I use Photoshop and GraphicConverter.
    For sound editing, I use SoundApp, Sound Studio (Felt Tip), and rarely
    SoundEdit. As I'm studying audio engineering, I'm interested in sound
    editing software with more features (namely effects processing), but
    that may be a whole nother realm. I have to ultimately decide if my
    current computer shall be an audio or a visual workstation, and then
    plan to buy another machine to handle the other.

    I don't work with video at all, and have no plans to start.

    Hope this helps direct more feedback.
    Thanks,
    Eric

  10. Re: How does Linux compare to Mac OS X?

    In article <00s2h3xa97.ln2@goaway.wombat.san-francisco.ca.us>,
    Keith Keller wrote:

    > ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.powerpc.]
    >
    > On 2006-04-13, Daniel Packman wrote:
    > >
    > > Web: Likewise, browsers abound on all platforms. If you have a real need
    > > for Internet Explorer, you have my condolences. Firefox is a great
    > > browser for all platforms and Safari is often fine as well. Many options.

    >
    > As someone else pointed out (perhaps only to colp), browser support on
    > linux-ppc is fine, but browser plugin support is spotty at best. No
    > flash, difficult or older java, no shockwave, no streaming media. If
    > that's very important to the OP, OS X is probably a better choice
    > (though dual-boot is always an option).
    >
    > --keith


    Yes, flash and Shockwave support are essential to me in a browser. I
    don't need skads of plug-ins, but a small and well-rounded selection is
    desirable.

    OS X is looking like the ideal choice for me at this point, but a part
    of me still wants to explore the world of Linux...then there will be the
    matter of which distribution will best suit my interests.

    Thanks,
    Eric

  11. Re: How does Linux = Mac OS X? Linux GAMING LISTS!!!

    In article ,
    Whaxiac wrote:

    > Richard E Maine wrote:
    > > Eric P. wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>I'm looking for the best performance I can get from my machine in speed
    > >>and stability. Wherever there's a choice, I favor more stability, of
    > >>course. I want to make my system the best it can possibly be for
    > >>Internet use, graphics and sound editing (later including audio
    > >>recording), word processing/spreadsheeting/database work, and gaming. I
    > >>don't ask for much, do I? *L*

    > >
    > >
    > > The question mostly doesn't make sense to me. "Performance" normally
    > > refers to speed. I see that you are asking about both speed and
    > > stability, but still....
    > >
    > > 1. Stability. Both operating systems are good in terms of stability.
    > > What issues you might have in that area are going to have a lot more to
    > > do with the specific applications than with the operating system.
    > > Stability of the OS just isn't a basis for selecting between those two
    > > options.
    > >
    > > 2. Speed. Most of the things you listed just aren't speed critical. Word
    > > processing? Internet stuff has speed issues, of course, but they seldom
    > > have much to do with your system. And then...
    > >
    > > Games. You are kidding, right? It is a really rare game where there even
    > > exist versions on the multiple operating systems so that you can make a
    > > speed comparison. Some exist. But not many at all. You probably wouldn't
    > > have to use a second hand to count them, much less take off your socks.
    > > Neither Linux nor Mac OS are particularly strong in the game market at
    > > all. Both have some games, but the selection is limited. And the big
    > > question is almost always not whether a particular game will perform
    > > well, but whether it exists at all for those systems.
    > >
    > > In short, I don't see that it makes sense for you to be asking about
    > > performance (either speed or stability). Sounds to me like a *FAR* more
    > > significant issue is the question of what applications are available and
    > > whether they suit your needs.
    > >
    > > If you really want a gaming machine, then Windows is pretty much where
    > > it is at. (That or a console). Even with all the flaws of Windows, the
    > > big decider turns out to be that, given some random game you might want,
    > > it will usually be available on Windows and not on Linux or OS-X. That's
    > > not true 100% of the time, but it is sure so a lot of the time.
    > >
    > > I might suggest an Intel Mac with dual booting. Use OS-X for most
    > > everything except the games - Windows for the games.
    > >

    > Games? 1400 of them run on Linux! And, according to tests at PC Gaming
    > mag, expect a MINIMUM 8X faster response/processing on GNU/Linux!
    > http://www.icculus.org/lgfaq/gamelist.php?license=free
    > http://transgaming.org/gamesdb/
    > http://www.happypenguin.org/
    > http://lhl.linuxgames.com/
    > http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/sa...s_6072312.html
    >
    > Lots MORE! But this should hold you for a while! Don't forget, your
    > Quake Servers run really great, when they are GNU/Linux!!!
    > http://www.linuxgames.com/ is where you cn check out the QUETOO
    > project! Among others!


    This looks like good news to me! The games I like aren't many, but most
    make demands of hw and sw...Quake III Arena, Unreal Tournament, Baldur's
    Gate, Diablo II, Warcraft III, Civilization...those kinds of games.

    Thanks,
    Eric

  12. Re: How does Linux compare to Mac OS X?

    Eric P. wrote:

    >
    > OS X is looking like the ideal choice for me at this point, but a part
    > of me still wants to explore the world of Linux...then there will be the
    > matter of which distribution will best suit my interests.
    >


    It's fairly straightfoward to make a PowerPC Mac dual boot OS X and
    Linux (Yellow Dog, OpenSUSE and probably others). This will probably
    also be true for Intel Macs soon, and virtualization probably isn't far
    behind.

    Paul

  13. Re: How does Linux compare to Mac OS X?

    Ilgaz Ocal writes:
    >Only thing would be "it is not
    >totally opensource/gpl" against it but in case you don't know, the
    >nvidia and ati drivers on Linux are already closed source binaries.


    I don't know that, and my computers which happily run Linux on ATI
    graphics cards (and earlier an Nvidia card), don't know that either.
    The drivers I use and used for these cards are free software, and
    available in source.

    There are proprietary binary-only drivers from ATI and Nvidia for some
    platforms, but there free drivers for all of them. And Linux/PPC is a
    platform where only the free drivers are available.

    Followups set to colp.

    - anton
    --
    M. Anton Ertl Some things have to be seen to be believed
    anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen
    http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html

  14. Re: How does Linux compare to Mac OS X?

    Manuel Tobias Schiller wrote:
    > On 2006-04-12, Eric P. wrote:
    >
    >>Hello,
    >>
    >>I'm interested in hearing from anyone who's compared the performance of
    >>Linux (specifically YDL) and Mac OS X (the more current version, the
    >>better). I want to install each of these systems and check 'em out, and
    >>I'd like any useful information and interesting observations folks may
    >>have from their experiences.

    >
    >
    > I can't really compare performance because I can't test OS X (I don't
    > have it), but giving both systems a try for two or three months is a
    > good idea; you'll find out what suits you best, and if you find yourself
    > using the "other" OS you didn't want to test that day, that gives you a
    > clue as well, doesn't it?
    >
    > The learning curve on linux is generally considered a little steeper,
    > but, in my opinion, it's never a bad idea to learn something about the
    > tools you are going to use before getting to work. That's what any
    > worker must do during his or her education... Learning to avoid the
    > "smashing one's finger with a hammer" and a few other do's and don't's
    > in a computing context seems to be a good thing.
    >
    >
    >>Since both systems were born of UNIX, does it make sense to run both on
    >>a single machine? I'm wondering which of the two systems would be best
    >>for use on a G4/450 single-processor system. That's the machine I have,
    >>currently with 640MB of RAM, but I plan on maxing it out sometime soon,
    >>then changing the graphics card to a GeForce 4 Ti (hope Linux supports
    >>this!), and later a processor upgrade.

    >
    >
    > If you use both systems, it makes sense to have both installed.
    > By the way, if I remember correctly, mac-on-linux can start OS X under
    > linux in a window, it'll be a little slower but usable. So you don't
    > have to do without OS X even if linux is running at the moment - you'll
    > get the best of two worlds, even if one of them is a little slower.
    >
    > About performance: I'm running a G3 at 300 MHz (1 MB L2 cache) with 384 MB
    > of RAM under linux, and I'm quite satisfied with its performance; it's only
    > too slow to watch DVDs without a lot of frame skipping. The G3 will also
    > outperform my K6-2 at 500MHz (same amount of RAM) for most tasks unless
    > you're watching movies. Your G4 is probably quite a bit faster, and DVDs
    > should play just fine with the AltiVec instruction set that the G4 supports.
    >
    > I'm writing this because I hope it gives you some idea what to expect,
    > even if it might not exactly apply to your situation.
    >
    >
    >>I'm looking for the best performance I can get from my machine in speed
    >>and stability. Wherever there's a choice, I favor more stability, of
    >>course. I want to make my system the best it can possibly be for
    >>Internet use, graphics and sound editing (later including audio
    >>recording), word processing/spreadsheeting/database work, and gaming. I
    >>don't ask for much, do I? *L*

    >
    >
    > You want a system that is optimal for any use one can imagine? Tell me
    > when you found it, we'll sell it together and get rich!
    >
    > Seriously though, stability is generally considered good for both
    > systems.
    >
    >
    >>Any and all feedback will be greatly appreciated! For e-mail response,
    >>please send to "thustar at yahoo dot com."
    >>
    >>Thanks and happy computing,
    >>Eric

    >
    >
    > Thanks, and happy computing back to you!
    >
    > Manuel

    My problem with the MAC OSX is that the Heirarchal File System (HFS) is
    a bit screwed, in a couple ways, and no one has figured out why, and
    then, how to fix it so it doesn't happen!

    1. The system seems to slow down after initial dozen hours of use.
    2. The file tree gets garbled, after further useage.

    I work a MAC certified repair center, that is independant, but has
    attained some notoriety for prompt solutions for warranty and
    out-of-warranty customers.

    We do several tricks on each OSX system that comes in the door, before
    we can begin to release them to the owner. One is Disk Warrior, after a
    program wipes out all the Urdu,Swahili,French, German, Russian, Chinese
    and 90 other language files that total about 2Gb of space!

    I also service PCs, and the XP system is hitting 8 years old before
    anyone will see Vista. Our tests of Vista Test base convinced me that
    Vista is truly going to stand for huge expenditures to buy new DRM
    'certified' Monitors, hardware, plus it will take you 6 Gigabytes for a
    minimal install!

    GNU/Linux doesn't screw up the file system, has had a really great
    'desktop' presence since about 2000, getting better all the time!
    The 1600 applications normally included in a LiveCD install, and the
    fact that every peice of hardware I have tested over the past 9 years
    automatically installed, have sold me on GNU/Linux for all my home systems.

    I would like to mention that there are the Ext2, Ext3, and Reiserfs
    journaling systems that do not seem to kludge the File System, like both
    MS and MAC do!

    When somebody fixes the MAC HFS system correctly, and speeds up the
    systems to meet what is available for about 40% less in the PC world, I
    know that it will simply take off.

    Right now, I can buy a Dell 3.0Ghz tower for about $900, with the same
    monitor that is advised for the MAC, but, the MAC system at 2.0Ghz costs
    $1500! (Looking at the current products at Costco. for instance). Both
    come with the commercial OSes. Much more can be saved when systems are
    purchased with no licensd OS and a FREE Software OS is installed.

    And, my final note, If you don't want to try a LiveCDrom of Linux, and
    want something closer to the MAC OSX, try one of the live *BSDs!
    All 310 of both the above are at http://livecdlist.com

  15. Re: How does Linux compare to Mac OS X?

    On 2006-04-16, Whaxiac wrote:
    > I would like to mention that there are the Ext2, Ext3, and Reiserfs
    > journaling systems that do not seem to kludge the File System, like both
    > MS and MAC do!


    Don't forget the XFS filesystem on Linux which seems to be very good as
    well (the only trouble I had was that an old (10 years +) disk crashed,
    but that was certainly not XFS's fault, besides, one should have backups
    ready in any case). There's also JFS but in the tests I have done, it
    seems slower than XFS, reiserfs and ext3. It's good for relatively small
    devices like ZIP disks, though.

    If you don't like HFS on OS X, you can also try ufs, I think. Might not
    be the fastest option (don't know about speed), but ufs has been around
    in all the BSDs for long enough to be mature.

    Manuel
    --
    Homepage: http://www.hinterbergen.de/mala
    OpenPGP: 0xA330353E (DSA) or 0xD87D188C (RSA)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2