How does Linux compare to Mac OS X? - Powerpc

This is a discussion on How does Linux compare to Mac OS X? - Powerpc ; 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 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 35

Thread: How does Linux compare to Mac OS X?

  1. How does Linux compare to Mac OS X?

    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.

    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.

    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*

    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

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

    In article
    ,
    "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.
    >
    > 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.
    >
    > 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*
    >
    > Any and all feedback will be greatly appreciated! For e-mail response,
    > please send to "thustar at yahoo dot com."
    >


    I run both YDL 4.1 and Mac OS X 10.4.6. I have never had a problem with
    the stability of either system. I can't answer your questions about
    about speed without some indication of what you're going to be doing.
    You get the best performance from your machine when you can accomplish
    the task at hand. What's the task? What tools do you have available?
    How well do you know how to use them?

    --
    Tom Stiller

    PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3
    7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF

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

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

    On 2006-04-12, Eric P. wrote:
    >
    > 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.


    Please note, this is seat-of-pants only.

    I have an iBook G4, and I run both OS X Tiger and Slackintosh 10.2 (no
    YDL, sorry). Just from my eye, linux seems to run a lot more quickly
    than OS X. firefox starts in <5s on the linux box, often >10s on the OS X
    box. That could be at least in part an artifact of having home
    directories on NFS (and over openvpn and wireless!), but my guest
    account has similar speeds with Firefox startup, so perhaps no. X11 is
    quite a bit slower on OS X, but it is running on top of Quartz, whereas
    X11 on linux is by itself.

    > Since both systems were born of UNIX, does it make sense to run both on
    > a single machine?


    It can, if you want linux but need certain OS X apps.

    > 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*


    Gaming? Get an x86. ;-) I haven't had too many issues with OS X
    stability, so I'd suggest you choose based on ease-of-use and available
    applications. And if you have some linux experience, YDL will be pretty
    heavy on that processor; the extra RAM will help, but YDL will gobble
    whatever you give it, and it seems like the incremental speed gains
    might not be worth putting YDL on there (you could get a similar
    environment from fink, for example). If you still wanted a linux, I'd
    go for a more lightweight one--Slackintosh, CRUX, and Gentoo might be
    worth pursuing.

    --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


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

    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.

    --
    Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
    email: my first.last at org.domain| experience comes from bad judgment.
    org: nasa, domain: gov | -- Mark Twain

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

    On 2006-04-12, Tom Stiller wrote:
    > In article
    >,
    > "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.
    >>
    >> 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.
    >>
    >> 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*
    >>
    >> Any and all feedback will be greatly appreciated! For e-mail response,
    >> please send to "thustar at yahoo dot com."
    >>

    >
    > I run both YDL 4.1 and Mac OS X 10.4.6. I have never had a problem with
    > the stability of either system. I can't answer your questions about
    > about speed without some indication of what you're going to be doing.
    > You get the best performance from your machine when you can accomplish
    > the task at hand. What's the task? What tools do you have available?
    > How well do you know how to use them?


    [speaking as a Linux developer]

    First, I work for Red Hat. I work on the installer (anaconda) and we
    develop on all platforms concurrently. There are no "ppc teams" and
    "x86 teams".

    I have several PPC boxes and have spent a lot of time hacking on Linux
    PPC. Most of my work is on x86 these days, but hopefully I can share
    some information that you might find useful.

    First, MacOS X. The OS itself is quite interesting. Having used
    NEXTSTEP in the past, it was interesting to see MacOS X birth itself
    from this codebase. More than half of the code was updated by pulling
    in pieces from FreeBSD and NetBSD. My knowledge is based off early
    releases, so I'm sure things have changed drastically since then.

    My problems with MacOS X are:

    - Lack of ELF. I think this is one of the biggest problems still
    existing. This presents problems for development of software for
    ELF Unix systems and MacOS X systems.

    - Something other than X for the display subsystem. This argument
    can go both ways and since X display support is fairly well
    integrated in to MacOS X now, it's less of a problem. My issue is
    that all of the programs I use are X-based, so the MacOS X display
    environment is just another wall for me to jump over. But, I can
    see plenty of reasons not to use X. It certainly is archaic and
    prevents development of the various *bling* features that OS X
    users like (but look for AIGLX in X.org soon!).

    And that's really it. I could use OS X for my workstation, but I don't
    need to mostly because all of my usable Power Macs are broken now
    (laptops and displays....expensive). I do like OS X and it's nice to
    see a successful operating system on the desktop with Unix underneath.

    So what about Linux... well, usability certainly has come a long way.
    Current releases of GNOME and KDE make using Linux less of an
    adventure these days (or for that matter, any Unix-like operating
    system). What you will miss are commercial software components and
    drivers that have Linux variants. NVIDIA and ATI releases their drivers
    for Linux, but it's Linux for 32-bit Intel support. They don't have
    Linux PPC drivers. Other examples include the Flash plugin (again,
    Linux x86 only) and Adobe Reader (Linux x86 only). If you can live
    without those things, Linux PPC may be worth looking at. I find most
    desktop users get frustrated with Linux PPC for these small reasons.

    In general, when a company says it will release Linux versions of its
    proprietary software, they really mean Linux on 32-bit Intel.

    Just food for thought...

    --
    David Cantrell
    Red Hat / Westford, MA

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

    In article ,
    Keith Keller wrote:

    > ["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.powerpc.]
    >
    > On 2006-04-12, Eric P. wrote:
    > >
    > > 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.

    >
    > Please note, this is seat-of-pants only.
    >
    > I have an iBook G4, and I run both OS X Tiger and Slackintosh 10.2 (no
    > YDL, sorry). Just from my eye, linux seems to run a lot more quickly
    > than OS X. firefox starts in <5s on the linux box, often >10s on the OS X
    > box. That could be at least in part an artifact of having home
    > directories on NFS (and over openvpn and wireless!), but my guest
    > account has similar speeds with Firefox startup, so perhaps no. X11 is
    > quite a bit slower on OS X, but it is running on top of Quartz, whereas
    > X11 on linux is by itself.


    I'm not at all familiar with X11.

    > > Since both systems were born of UNIX, does it make sense to run both on
    > > a single machine?

    >
    > It can, if you want linux but need certain OS X apps.


    I probably won't need any apps that run only under OS X.

    > > 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*

    >
    > Gaming? Get an x86. ;-) I haven't had too many issues with OS X
    > stability, so I'd suggest you choose based on ease-of-use and available
    > applications. And if you have some linux experience, YDL will be pretty
    > heavy on that processor; the extra RAM will help, but YDL will gobble
    > whatever you give it, and it seems like the incremental speed gains
    > might not be worth putting YDL on there (you could get a similar
    > environment from fink, for example). If you still wanted a linux, I'd
    > go for a more lightweight one--Slackintosh, CRUX, and Gentoo might be
    > worth pursuing.
    >
    > --keith


    OK, then YDL isn't the way I want to go. Pity, too, because I still have
    the 2.0 install CDs somewhere. Could never get through the installation
    process, though, and no one was ever able to help me surmount the hurdle
    I encountered with that. Well, that's ~$85 US down the drain...

    I like an OS that doesn't take too much memory and behaves quickly and
    reliably, especially when running several apps at once. I'll need
    full-featured word processors, spreadsheet programs, database apps,
    graphics editors, and audio file editors, and a reliable Web browser
    (currently using Mozilla under Mac OS 9.2.2), as well as the best system
    and disk utilities I can find for the OS and hardware. I'd also like to
    find versions of the games I currently enjoy most, but that's far from
    crucial. I can always stick with the older OS for those, if need be. I
    realize that hardware is the more critical factor in game performance.

    Thanks for the info!

    Happy computing,
    Eric

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

    In article ,
    David Cantrell wrote:

    > On 2006-04-12, Tom Stiller wrote:
    > > In article
    > >,
    > > "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.
    > >>
    > >> 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.
    > >>
    > >> 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*
    > >>
    > >> Any and all feedback will be greatly appreciated! For e-mail response,
    > >> please send to "thustar at yahoo dot com."
    > >>

    > >
    > > I run both YDL 4.1 and Mac OS X 10.4.6. I have never had a problem with
    > > the stability of either system. I can't answer your questions about
    > > about speed without some indication of what you're going to be doing.
    > > You get the best performance from your machine when you can accomplish
    > > the task at hand. What's the task? What tools do you have available?
    > > How well do you know how to use them?

    >
    > [speaking as a Linux developer]
    >
    > First, I work for Red Hat. I work on the installer (anaconda) and we
    > develop on all platforms concurrently. There are no "ppc teams" and
    > "x86 teams".
    >
    > I have several PPC boxes and have spent a lot of time hacking on Linux
    > PPC. Most of my work is on x86 these days, but hopefully I can share
    > some information that you might find useful.
    >
    > First, MacOS X. The OS itself is quite interesting. Having used
    > NEXTSTEP in the past, it was interesting to see MacOS X birth itself
    > from this codebase. More than half of the code was updated by pulling
    > in pieces from FreeBSD and NetBSD. My knowledge is based off early
    > releases, so I'm sure things have changed drastically since then.
    >
    > My problems with MacOS X are:
    >
    > - Lack of ELF. I think this is one of the biggest problems still
    > existing. This presents problems for development of software for
    > ELF Unix systems and MacOS X systems.
    >
    > - Something other than X for the display subsystem. This argument
    > can go both ways and since X display support is fairly well
    > integrated in to MacOS X now, it's less of a problem. My issue is
    > that all of the programs I use are X-based, so the MacOS X display
    > environment is just another wall for me to jump over. But, I can
    > see plenty of reasons not to use X. It certainly is archaic and
    > prevents development of the various *bling* features that OS X
    > users like (but look for AIGLX in X.org soon!).
    >
    > And that's really it. I could use OS X for my workstation, but I don't
    > need to mostly because all of my usable Power Macs are broken now
    > (laptops and displays....expensive). I do like OS X and it's nice to
    > see a successful operating system on the desktop with Unix underneath.
    >
    > So what about Linux... well, usability certainly has come a long way.
    > Current releases of GNOME and KDE make using Linux less of an
    > adventure these days (or for that matter, any Unix-like operating
    > system). What you will miss are commercial software components and
    > drivers that have Linux variants. NVIDIA and ATI releases their drivers
    > for Linux, but it's Linux for 32-bit Intel support. They don't have
    > Linux PPC drivers. Other examples include the Flash plugin (again,
    > Linux x86 only) and Adobe Reader (Linux x86 only). If you can live
    > without those things, Linux PPC may be worth looking at. I find most
    > desktop users get frustrated with Linux PPC for these small reasons.
    >
    > In general, when a company says it will release Linux versions of its
    > proprietary software, they really mean Linux on 32-bit Intel.
    >
    > Just food for thought...


    Thanks, the information is valuable! No, I can't live without Adobe
    Reader, as I make heavy use of it, so that will be a serious
    consideration here.

    Happy computing,
    Eric

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

    On 2006-04-12, Eric P. wrote:
    >
    > I like an OS that doesn't take too much memory and behaves quickly and
    > reliably, especially when running several apps at once. I'll need
    > full-featured word processors, spreadsheet programs, database apps,
    > graphics editors, and audio file editors, and a reliable Web browser
    > (currently using Mozilla under Mac OS 9.2.2)


    I don't think any OS will behave quickly when running several of the
    above apps at once.

    I would suggest that you give OS X a try first, install fink if you need
    it, and only get into linux if you find you really need it and/or really
    want to try it for a learning experience. You can even partition your
    box now to save room for linux, but leave it empty while you try OS X.

    X11 is just another graphics display method, like quartz or console.
    Quartz is a lot slicker, but X11 has been around so long most graphics
    apps for un*x/linux/*BSD are X11. Some have been ported to Quartz, but
    not a huge number. Even OpenOffice, which is pretty new, still requires
    X11 even on OS X. NeoOffice is an OpenOffice port which does not
    require X11, if you want a free GPL office suite that's native OS X.

    --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


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

    "Eric P." writes:
    >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).


    http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2520

    It depends on the application. The application they tested apparently
    hit on speed bump in MacOS X.

    >Since both systems were born of UNIX, does it make sense to run both on
    >a single machine?


    Depends on what you want. I only want a GNU system, so I only run
    GNU/Linux on my iBook.

    If you want a Unix, my impression is that you will have an easier time
    with GNU/Linux. E.g., some years ago I had to install a new account
    on a MacOS X box. So I did the traditional Unix thing and edited
    /etc/passwd. However, this did not work. After exiting the editor,
    the file had it's old contents. Eventually I gave up, went to the
    console and created the account using a Mac-style point-and-click
    interface.

    >then changing the graphics card to a GeForce 4 Ti (hope Linux supports
    >this!)


    Free X drivers (no proprietary drivers for Linux/PPC) support only the
    2D accelerated hardware of these cards. If you want to make use of 3D
    acceleration hardware, buy a Radeon card based on the R200 or earlier
    (essentially all Radeons up to the Radeon 9250); at least that's the
    theory; in practice the Radeon Mobility 9200 on my iBook does not seem
    to get 3D acceleration (but I have not tried very hard). For more
    theory: I have read that 3D support for the R300 is getting usable.

    As for Acroread, maybe xpdf or gv (and their offspring) are
    appropriate replacements for your uses. There is also
    .

    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

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

    In article <2006Apr12.224657@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at>,
    anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at (Anton Ertl) wrote:

    > "Eric P." writes:
    > >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).

    >
    > http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2520
    >
    > It depends on the application. The application they tested apparently
    > hit on speed bump in MacOS X.
    >
    > >Since both systems were born of UNIX, does it make sense to run both on
    > >a single machine?

    >
    > Depends on what you want. I only want a GNU system, so I only run
    > GNU/Linux on my iBook.
    >
    > If you want a Unix, my impression is that you will have an easier time
    > with GNU/Linux. E.g., some years ago I had to install a new account
    > on a MacOS X box. So I did the traditional Unix thing and edited
    > /etc/passwd. However, this did not work. After exiting the editor,
    > the file had it's old contents. Eventually I gave up, went to the
    > console and created the account using a Mac-style point-and-click
    > interface.
    >
    > >then changing the graphics card to a GeForce 4 Ti (hope Linux supports
    > >this!)

    >
    > Free X drivers (no proprietary drivers for Linux/PPC) support only the
    > 2D accelerated hardware of these cards. If you want to make use of 3D
    > acceleration hardware, buy a Radeon card based on the R200 or earlier
    > (essentially all Radeons up to the Radeon 9250); at least that's the
    > theory; in practice the Radeon Mobility 9200 on my iBook does not seem
    > to get 3D acceleration (but I have not tried very hard). For more
    > theory: I have read that 3D support for the R300 is getting usable.
    >
    > As for Acroread, maybe xpdf or gv (and their offspring) are
    > appropriate replacements for your uses. There is also
    > .
    >
    > Followups set to colp.
    >
    > - anton


    Thanks for the info. I'm glad to see that there are other pdf readers to
    be had.

    I want to have a system with a GUI, such as Enlightenment, KDE, Gnome,
    etc. I'm maybe unfortunately an interface nut, and I seek the most
    visually beautiful and elegant interface that's easy to navigate, as
    well as the ability to work from a UNIX shell style environment (command
    line interface).

    I won't be networking any computers together, at least not anytime soon,
    but I understand that Linux is a fantastic system for networking. I do
    have a printer, and another older computer (Power Mac 9500/132 with 80MB
    RAM running OS 8.6) that I haven't decided what to do with yet. I've
    ethernetworked it to my G4 in the past successfully, but this doesn't
    make me a net admin

    Please keep the good info coming!
    Happy computing,
    Eric "grep this" P.

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

    On 2006-04-12 21:27:37 +0300, Tom Stiller said:

    > I run both YDL 4.1 and Mac OS X 10.4.6. I have never had a problem
    > with the stability of either system. I can't answer your questions
    > about about speed without some indication of what you're going to be
    > doing. You get the best performance from your machine when you can
    > accomplish the task at hand. What's the task? What tools do you have
    > available? How well do you know how to use them?


    I wonder if the x86 rule apply to macs? You know.. Linux/FreeBSD (in
    this arch,Darwin) for serving, OS X for client. Did you see Ars
    Technica benchmark of Apache/YDL and Apache/OS XServe?

    There is also a cow rule as you should not feed your own cow to drink a
    glass of milk everyday That is from the days while windows trolls
    were more "quality" types No, it was said against x86 Linux for home.

    Ilgaz


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

    In article <4a5if0Fra378U10@individual.net>,
    Ilgaz Ocal wrote:

    > On 2006-04-12 21:27:37 +0300, Tom Stiller said:
    >
    > > I run both YDL 4.1 and Mac OS X 10.4.6. I have never had a problem
    > > with the stability of either system. I can't answer your questions
    > > about about speed without some indication of what you're going to be
    > > doing. You get the best performance from your machine when you can
    > > accomplish the task at hand. What's the task? What tools do you have
    > > available? How well do you know how to use them?

    >
    > I wonder if the x86 rule apply to macs? You know.. Linux/FreeBSD (in
    > this arch,Darwin) for serving, OS X for client. Did you see Ars
    > Technica benchmark of Apache/YDL and Apache/OS XServe?
    >
    > There is also a cow rule as you should not feed your own cow to drink a
    > glass of milk everyday That is from the days while windows trolls
    > were more "quality" types No, it was said against x86 Linux for home.
    >

    I have absolutely no idea how to respond.

    --
    Tom Stiller

    PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3
    7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF

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

    On 2006-04-13, Tom Stiller wrote:
    > In article <4a5if0Fra378U10@individual.net>,
    > Ilgaz Ocal wrote:
    >>
    >> There is also a cow rule as you should not feed your own cow to drink a
    >> glass of milk everyday That is from the days while windows trolls
    >> were more "quality" types No, it was said against x86 Linux for home.
    >>

    > I have absolutely no idea how to respond.


    Moo?

    --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


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

    In article <8eo0h3xm33.ln2@goaway.wombat.san-francisco.ca.us>,
    Keith Keller wrote:

    > On 2006-04-13, Tom Stiller wrote:
    > > In article <4a5if0Fra378U10@individual.net>,
    > > Ilgaz Ocal wrote:
    > >>
    > >> There is also a cow rule as you should not feed your own cow to drink a
    > >> glass of milk everyday That is from the days while windows trolls
    > >> were more "quality" types No, it was said against x86 Linux for home.
    > >>

    > > I have absolutely no idea how to respond.

    >
    > Moo?


    Moof!!!

    Greg B.

    --
    Actual e-mail address is gbuchner and I'm located at mn.rr.com

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

    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.
    >
    > 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.
    >
    > 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*


    If you're talking about pure number-crunching type of performance
    (server configurations), Linux is going to win.

    If you're talking about usability considerations that will allow you to
    get work done (desktop setting), OS X is going to win.

    IMHO.

    Tim

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

    On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 20:07:40 +0000, Eric P. wrote:
    > Thanks, the information is valuable! No, I can't live without Adobe
    > Reader, as I make heavy use of it, so that will be a serious
    > consideration here.


    Not that I doubt you (maybe you really do need heavy DRM and active
    forms (ick!)), but I personally almost never use Adobe Acrobat Reader. On
    my Mac laptop Apple's Preview is faster than anything else, so that's a no
    brainer. On my FreeBSD boxes I find Xpdf faster and more reliable than
    Acrobat Reader has ever been (takes a bit of setting up to get the fonts
    nice, though.)

    Sure: PDF is useful and important, but far too many people seem to equate
    PDF with Acrobat and it just ain't the case, and it's an awful program
    (IMO).

    Unless your use is particular or peculiar, I doubt that that particular
    issue will be one that troubles you.

    --
    Andrew


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

    Andrew Reilly wrote:
    > Not that I doubt you (maybe you really do need heavy DRM and active
    > forms (ick!)), but I personally almost never use Adobe Acrobat Reader. On
    > my Mac laptop Apple's Preview is faster than anything else,


    until you open a 900-page pdf document... when i want to open the emacs
    lisp manual under OS X, i usually start up X11 and open it with gv. with gv
    it just takes a second or two to jump to the index (which is at the end of
    the book), while in preview it literally takes minutes before it's possible
    to comfortably navigate the index.

    > Sure: PDF is useful and important, but far too many people seem to equate
    > PDF with Acrobat and it just ain't the case, and it's an awful program
    > (IMO).


    that it certainly is...

    --
    Joost Kremers joostkremers@yahoo.com
    Selbst in die Unterwelt dringt durch Spalten Licht
    EN:SiS(9

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

    In article ,
    Andrew Reilly wrote:

    > On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 20:07:40 +0000, Eric P. wrote:
    > > Thanks, the information is valuable! No, I can't live without Adobe
    > > Reader, as I make heavy use of it, so that will be a serious
    > > consideration here.

    >
    > Not that I doubt you (maybe you really do need heavy DRM and active
    > forms (ick!)), but I personally almost never use Adobe Acrobat Reader. On
    > my Mac laptop Apple's Preview is faster than anything else, so that's a no
    > brainer. On my FreeBSD boxes I find Xpdf faster and more reliable than
    > Acrobat Reader has ever been (takes a bit of setting up to get the fonts
    > nice, though.)
    >
    > Sure: PDF is useful and important, but far too many people seem to equate
    > PDF with Acrobat and it just ain't the case, and it's an awful program
    > (IMO).
    >
    > Unless your use is particular or peculiar, I doubt that that particular
    > issue will be one that troubles you.


    Ah, this is a relief, as I've always found Reader to be awkward, and
    occasionally it crashes or freezes when I try to print. A pdf
    reader/printer that's more stable (and maybe eaven works faster, as I
    find Adobe Reader to be a slug) is highly welcome! Integration into a
    Web browser would be a plus, but not essential.

    Live and learn...
    Thanks!
    Eric

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

    On 2006-04-13 04:08:32 +0300, Tom Stiller said:

    > In article <4a5if0Fra378U10@individual.net>,
    > Ilgaz Ocal wrote:
    >
    >> On 2006-04-12 21:27:37 +0300, Tom Stiller said:
    >>
    >>> I run both YDL 4.1 and Mac OS X 10.4.6. I have never had a problem
    >>> with the stability of either system. I can't answer your questions
    >>> about about speed without some indication of what you're going to be
    >>> doing. You get the best performance from your machine when you can
    >>> accomplish the task at hand. What's the task? What tools do you have
    >>> available? How well do you know how to use them?

    >>
    >> I wonder if the x86 rule apply to macs? You know.. Linux/FreeBSD (in
    >> this arch,Darwin) for serving, OS X for client. Did you see Ars
    >> Technica benchmark of Apache/YDL and Apache/OS XServe?
    >>
    >> There is also a cow rule as you should not feed your own cow to drink a
    >> glass of milk everyday That is from the days while windows trolls
    >> were more "quality" types No, it was said against x86 Linux for home.
    >>

    > I have absolutely no idea how to respond.


    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?)

    Ilgaz



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

    In article <4a6rijFrvo05U1@individual.net>,
    Ilgaz Ocal wrote:

    > On 2006-04-13 04:08:32 +0300, Tom Stiller said:
    >
    > > In article <4a5if0Fra378U10@individual.net>,
    > > Ilgaz Ocal wrote:
    > >
    > >> On 2006-04-12 21:27:37 +0300, Tom Stiller said:
    > >>
    > >>> I run both YDL 4.1 and Mac OS X 10.4.6. I have never had a problem
    > >>> with the stability of either system. I can't answer your questions
    > >>> about about speed without some indication of what you're going to be
    > >>> doing. You get the best performance from your machine when you can
    > >>> accomplish the task at hand. What's the task? What tools do you have
    > >>> available? How well do you know how to use them?
    > >>
    > >> I wonder if the x86 rule apply to macs? You know.. Linux/FreeBSD (in
    > >> this arch,Darwin) for serving, OS X for client. Did you see Ars
    > >> Technica benchmark of Apache/YDL and Apache/OS XServe?
    > >>
    > >> There is also a cow rule as you should not feed your own cow to drink a
    > >> glass of milk everyday That is from the days while windows trolls
    > >> were more "quality" types No, it was said against x86 Linux for home.
    > >>

    > > I have absolutely no idea how to respond.

    >
    > 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?

    --
    Tom Stiller

    PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3
    7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast