A Big Operating System Benchmark Comparison

[woodchucker53]

Phoronix: A Big Operating System Benchmark Comparison

Next month at Phoronix we intend to conduct a large benchmarking comparison of a few different operating systems. Right now we are looking at Ubuntu, Mac OS X (we will be waiting for 10.6 "Snow Leopard"), NetBSD, PC-BSD, OpenSolaris, and FreeBSD...

http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=NzQ1Nw

I don't understand why the 'buntus always seem to make the lists. There are better distros out there, imo, such as Pclinux, Mandrive, and Simplymepis. The 'buntus always seem to leave something to be desired, at least for me.

Can you include a larger variety on Linux dstros for comparison?

[Qaridarium]

That would be illegal and put Micheal in the range of Apple's Ninja lawyers.

he also can ignor this smellyapplecrappeaceofmacosshit...

i vote vor ignor macos!

[Qaridarium]

32 bit is faster when the code has been hand optimized with asm. But usually the speed difference is not that important. More import is that you can playback fullscreen flash videos with opengl accelleration with nvidia or fglrx binary driver and on 64 bit you can not. On 64 bit that does not look good at all, only when you dl h264 flash movies and play em with mplayer using xv/vdpau (or opengl for fglrx).

o yes adobe flash is your argument again 64bit...

well only becourse Adobe is bad .... but this fakt does not make 64bit linux bad!

[Qaridarium]

so don't use debian - or do a source install, either way, saying the processor is completely worthless for everyone because one distro doesn't take full advantage of it is even worse then your last arguement.

and no - it actually costs them more to make 64bit chips. more transistors required and such. the liscence fee is only part of that expense, not that that is really relevant. bottom line - it was cheaper, more energy efficient, and those were the important properties needed for the intended platform - why is that too hard to grasp?

well yes it will be cheaper and more energy efficient if the 32bit part and the 16 bit part will drop out of the chip!

this nativ support for 32bit make the chip worst!

[AdrenalineJunky]

no - it doesn't make the system bad, but it is an important enough application to where many people would care more about that then a small performance boost.

[deanjo]

he also can ignor this smellyapplecrappeaceofmacosshit...

i vote vor ignor macos!

I vote to ignore your incoherent uninformed ramblings that are out of touch with reality.

[unlotto]

I also think we need to see gentoo represented in this benchmark. You can argue that there is no such thing as a stock gentoo - but why not just make a basic install and some sane USE and CFLAGS and specify these in the benchmark alongside all the other distro specifications. It would be very interesting to see what difference gcc flags make.

gentoo mentioned in this forum:
http://www.phoronix.com/forums/searc...archid=1315146

[L33F3R]

I vote to ignore your incoherent uninformed ramblings that are out of touch with reality.

i second that notion

[deanjo]

i second that notion

Heh, I get too many flashbacks to this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBVmfIUR1DA reading his posts.

[AdrenalineJunky]

I don't understand why the 'buntus always seem to make the lists. There are better distros out there, imo, such as Pclinux, Mandrive, and Simplymepis. The 'buntus always seem to leave something to be desired, at least for me.

Can you include a larger variety on Linux dstros for comparison?

its a simple question of userbase - i agree, i think pclinuxos, simplymepis and others pound ubuntu into the dust as good begginning distro's.... but ubuntu has the press so ubuntu is what people use, so ubuntu is what gets tested.