Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 56

Thread: Ubuntu 64-bit More Competitive Against Mac OS X

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slyn View Post
    Just as Linux is slowly migrating to ext4 and Btrfs, OS X is slowly migrating to ZFS. As for "only knowing that the new linux kernel will be better than the last one", well the major SQLite regression made that not true for 2-3 kernels.
    Well I should be more specific, I was refering to the very next kernel 2.6.30 which solves that problem, not in general.

    Your also ignoring the fact that benchmarks provide an extremely specific example of what makes one OS better than another. Gentoo might be slightly faster than Ubuntu in respect to how quickly it runs, but thats a moot point if the extra time spent maintaining, emerging and compiling on a Gentoo system outweighs the speedup it provides. Things like ease of use, maintainability, software support, and security should be more important to choosing a system than how quickly it compiles a program (a feature only used by programmers).
    Well i installed Gentoo 4 years ago and I needed almost a week to setup it. Too much time. But I have it all these years up to date, without more problems than the other distros and without the need to install the new version every 6 months or so on and the compilation takes place when I'm asleep or away. And about security, well Gentoo isn't infamous for that. Also easy of use is something I really don't care, I don't use gui tools in general. That's the good with linux, you choose what is better for you rather than have someone other who chooses what is better for everyone.
    But that's a totally different thing
    If we want to compare systems and OSes we could begin a conversation and don't finish until the day kernel 9.5.8.6 is out. Here we have benchmarks a nd benchmarks show numbers which are bigger or lower than other numbers. And the benchmarks till now show that Linux is faster than anything else.
    Last edited by Apopas; 05-18-2009 at 06:57 PM.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by L4Linux View Post
    Maybe more powerful Intel graphic accelerators like GMA X3000 or GMA X4500 are up to the task for quite a few games, provided that a good driver is in use.
    You're right about using ATI or Nvidia for a game station, but shouldn't we be able to play a simple game in a laptop?
    You can play simple games even with these crappy intel drivers, both 2D and 3D. Urban Terror at 1280x1024 isn't that simple.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    There isn't any gap in SQLite. If you switch to Ext 4 you should see a huge improvement in this test.
    Or switch kernels as these kernel benchmarks would suggest. My brain suffered a regression and forgot about kernel used despite the fact even being mentioned in the article as the likely culprit for Linux's lower marks.

    As others have mentioned we can probably throw out the graphics performance (again because of regressions) and just say we haven't seen a "real" test yet. What would a "real" graphics test for Linux be anyway? An evil blob contest?

  4. #44
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy View Post
    As others have mentioned we can probably throw out the graphics performance (again because of regressions) and just say we haven't seen a "real" test yet. What would a "real" graphics test for Linux be anyway? An evil blob contest?

    Yes, I chuckle at that too. "If you would use the uncrippled closed source solution instead if the native solution....."

  5. #45
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apopas View Post
    You can play simple games even with these crappy intel drivers, both 2D and 3D. Urban Terror at 1280x1024 isn't that simple.
    If you compare it to Crysis or Fallout 3, it is simple...
    Its quake3 based engine is certainly not state of the art.

  6. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimmy View Post
    Or switch kernels as these kernel benchmarks would suggest. My brain suffered a regression and forgot about kernel used despite the fact even being mentioned in the article as the likely culprit for Linux's lower marks.
    I pointed this out few posts before. Don't take everything as it is. Look at those Linux kernel benchmarks and read one of the Kano posts, so you should know what I mean

    As others have mentioned we can probably throw out the graphics performance (again because of regressions) and just say we haven't seen a "real" test yet. What would a "real" graphics test for Linux be anyway? An evil blob contest?
    In this case I prefer to see Intel open source drivers, but if you use blobs Linux probably won't loose here. Don't be so smart if you're talking about regressions, because there's a lot of them on other OS'es. It seems you never used nvidia blobs master, so you wouldn't say "again, because of regression" with such spite. The same about many other binary blobs.
    Last edited by kraftman; 05-19-2009 at 04:24 AM.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by L4Linux View Post
    If you compare it to Crysis or Fallout 3, it is simple...
    Its quake3 based engine is certainly not state of the art.
    Yeah so simple that even MacOSX with the Intel's drivers runs it at 16fps. A shootemup is unplayable at this framerate, it needs at least to triple that performance.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apopas View Post
    Yeah so simple that even MacOSX with the Intel's drivers runs it at 16fps. A shootemup is unplayable at this framerate, it needs at least to triple that performance.
    Carmack would disagree. idTech5 is capped at 30 fps.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Hellas
    Posts
    1,113

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    Carmack would disagree. idTech5 is capped at 30 fps.

    Yes but it has 30 fps even if the GPU is capable to produce even more because 30 fps are enough, the matter is to not drop bellow that cap. In general is good to have over 50 FPS so in a "heavy" map or when there are a lot of guys around the fps to drop down to 30 and not less. It is similar with the movies, the human eye is satisfied when the frame rate is 23 and more and it sees the movement as continuous. For that mericans use 23 fps and Europeans 25. Try to watch a movie in less than 20 fps for example, it will be like a slideshow and to play a shootemup at 16-20 FPS maximum it is going to be like a turn based game. Shoot and wait the other to make his movement :P
    Last edited by Apopas; 05-19-2009 at 11:18 AM.

  10. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Apopas View Post
    For that mericans use 23 fps and Europeans 25. Try to watch a movie in less than 20 fps for example, it will be like a slideshow and to play a shootemup at 16-20 FPS maximum it is going to be like a turn based game. Shoot and wait the other to make his movement :P
    I thought Americans use 30fps and that's why there's an option in kernel to choose 300Hz? :>

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •