Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 35

Thread: Ubuntu 11.10 vs. Mac OS X 10.7.2 Performance

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4

    Default

    What a stupid comparison. So, what you're basically saying is, not only does Ubuntu have a goofy UI and lots of UI problems, it's also slower than Mac OS? Honestly, if Mac OS would Open Source tomorrow under BSD or GPL license, we wouldn't even know who Ubuntu was. The only thing keeping many Linux users from being Mac users is the price of admission.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,480

    Default i really wish this myth would die...

    Quote Originally Posted by ruel24 View Post
    What a stupid comparison. So, what you're basically saying is, not only does Ubuntu have a goofy UI and lots of UI problems, it's also slower than Mac OS? Honestly, if Mac OS would Open Source tomorrow under BSD or GPL license, we wouldn't even know who Ubuntu was. The only thing keeping many Linux users from being Mac users is the price of admission.
    Apple doesn't produce super expensive computers. If someone wants to join the Apple club, they can get a pretty decent laptop for $1000. The club just isn't that exclusive. If the price of admission were so high as to be worth anything, as a status symbol, you wouldn't see an Apple store in damn near every mall (for whoever goes malls anymore... perhaps those impervious to being mocked for flouting a so cheaply had status symbol as an iDevice on which their identity as a cool person resides).
    Cheaply had status is not worth having, and neither is a Mac unless it runs software that you need and cannot run on any other platform.
    That aside, Apple has made a damn fine OS, but, if Tanenbaum is right, it runs its BSD core inside of Mach kernel space (although I confess I have no idea they managed to do that) thereby negating the point of using a microkernel.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    123

    Default It is not only the OS price

    It is not only the OS price, it is freedom
    In Linux you have a lot of desktops to choose, KDE, razor-qt, Gnome Shell, Cinammon, Unity, Xfce, Enlightment, LMDE, fluxbox, openbox, and Parthenon - in alpha - and there are some more.
    And when you need a program you can find it free, it is not Linux is the GNU, only Libreoffice instead of MS Office, or Gimp instead of photoshop is a lot of money or not piracy.
    I know people with Macs machines using Linux, and Mac users that install hackintosh at atom computers, every one has their own preferences.

    Linux desktops has grown from 1% to 1.4% a 40% in 1 year, and Android is the king of mobile and soon tablet OSs, but there are other projects as Aliyun from Alibaba - mobile linux with an Android compatibility layer - as good as Android or future Tizen or actual Meego, that would be impossible without Linux kernel being open source.

    FreeBSD is also a great kernel, but not better than Linux, that is why OSX is not better than Linux in many ways, and I do like far more other desktops than OSX one, being OSX desktop an excellent one. As I do like Mate more than Unity, is a personal choice.

    I recommend OSX to not at all techie people that will use 10% of computer capabilities, but Linux to everybody else except hard PC gamers, and I hope future Android games played with Android Compatibility Layers will change this.

  4. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ruel24 View Post
    What a stupid comparison. So, what you're basically saying is, not only does Ubuntu have a goofy UI and lots of UI problems, it's also slower than Mac OS? Honestly, if Mac OS would Open Source tomorrow under BSD or GPL license, we wouldn't even know who Ubuntu was. The only thing keeping many Linux users from being Mac users is the price of admission.
    Ubuntu is not only far better, faster (like benchmarks show), has much better graphic support (like OpenGL 3 with Intel while os x doesn't), it's much better as a gaming platform - Linux + wine kills os x. Os x users must be idiots, because os x is pure crap. In this comparison where os x has lead in some benchmarks it can be explained by different compiler versions being used: 4.2.1 vs 4.6.1 - it seems the later regressed in some tests. A simple question, why os x doesn't even exist in server or enterprise? It's damn slow and it's a real shame it's called an unix.
    Last edited by kraftman; 01-31-2012 at 07:25 AM.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,277

    Default

    A simple question, why os x doesn't even exist in server or enterprise?
    Not completely true, 4chan is (was?) hosted on a Mac Mini cluster

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by liam View Post
    Apple doesn't produce super expensive computers. If someone wants to join the Apple club, they can get a pretty decent laptop for $1000.
    You're speaking to the choir here, but a whole lot of Linux users run on old equipment and like their software free as in beer because they're cheap. I am a Linux user, so I do know this. People don't understand that Apple not only has high grade parts, such as beautiful IPS screens in iMacs, but they also build in subsidized costs such as OS upgrades for $29 and iWork for $79. I've owned Macs in the past, and my next computer will probably be a Mac. Right now, I run a home-brewed Core i7 that was stout when I built it, running Win 7 and PCLinuxOS as well as Mageia Linux distros.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    A simple question, why os x doesn't even exist in server or enterprise? It's damn slow and it's a real shame it's called an unix.
    No, because enterprise can run generic hardware and pretty much make a server out of anything. Not to mention, licensing is totally free. Mac OS X, on the otherhand, has a licensing cost and has to run on unique hardware because that's how Apple makes money. They're a hardware company first, and a software company on the side.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    840

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by liam View Post
    Apple doesn't produce super expensive computers. If someone wants to join the Apple club, they can get a pretty decent laptop for $1000. The club just isn't that exclusive. If the price of admission were so high as to be worth anything, as a status symbol, you wouldn't see an Apple store in damn near every mall (for whoever goes malls anymore... perhaps those impervious to being mocked for flouting a so cheaply had status symbol as an iDevice on which their identity as a cool person resides). Cheaply had status is not worth having, and neither is a Mac unless it runs software that you need and cannot run on any other platform. That aside, Apple has made a damn fine OS, but, if Tanenbaum is right, it runs its BSD core inside of Mach kernel space (although I confess I have no idea they managed to do that) thereby negating the point of using a microkernel.
    These people who think Apple products are are status symbol, need to give it up. Apple isn't that expensive and like you say Liam ~ Apple stores are very common and so are Macs and iOS devices. I also quite like MacOS...

    Mac's don't use a 'true' (mach) microkernel. While MacOSX/Darwin's (XNU aka: X not Unix) kernels are/were (partially) based on Mach, they actually call it a 'hybrid kernel'. It kind of it's own deal (in some people's mind's anyway). Some parts of the kernel follow the micro-kernel approach and are completely isolated from each other, but XNU also has parts that follow the monolithic model.. Here's some info on it. The 1st link it slightly dated (2007), but still very much applies;

    http://events.ccc.de/congress/2007/F...s/2303.en.html

    Mach's wikipedia also explains that Apple is not using a microkernel in OSX.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach_%28kernel%29

    A little on the XNU kernel;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XNU_kernel

    You should be able to find additional resources from there liam.

    As for the BSD core inside of Mach;



    BSD in XNU is a built-in kernel module. Note this;

    /System/Library/Extensions/System.kext/PlugIns/BSDKernel.kext

    .kext = kernel extension.

    As a sidenote, as far as i know XNU / Darwin are both still opensource projects, so you could probably poke around the source code if you wanted to The PureDarwin (and OpenDarwin before that) projects aimed to make Darwin usable with the GNU toolchain but never really got too far along, although like i said i am fairly sure apple still makes their kernel sources and darwin available to the public.

    cheerz
    Last edited by ninez; 01-31-2012 at 02:20 PM.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    840

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mitcoes View Post
    And when you need a program you can find it free, it is not Linux is the GNU, only Libreoffice instead of MS Office, or Gimp instead of photoshop is a lot of money or not piracy.
    Some of us don't mind paying for software, although I prefer FOSS...

    As a side note While i love Gimp (and use it daily), Gimp is not a replacement, nor is it even that comparable to Photoshop. Gimp does not support MANY of the requirements of professional photographers and graphic designers, or even semi-pro hobbyists require and that is a well-documented fact. I expect by maybe Gimp 3.2 the gap will close significantly, but gimp doesn't support 'higher-end' formats and is not at feature parity to Photoshop.

    Quote Originally Posted by mitcoes View Post
    Linux desktops has grown from 1% to 1.4% a 40% in 1 year, and Android is the king of mobile and soon tablet OSs, but there are other projects as Aliyun from Alibaba - mobile linux with an Android compatibility layer - as good as Android or future Tizen or actual Meego, that would be impossible without Linux kernel being open source.
    Could you please provide where you get this 40% statistic from? ...and do you mean 40% 'desktop' growth last year? (or what?)

    Quote Originally Posted by mitcoes View Post
    FreeBSD is also a great kernel, but not better than Linux, that is why OSX is not better than Linux in many ways, and I do like far more other desktops than OSX one, being OSX desktop an excellent one. As I do like Mate more than Unity, is a personal choice.
    you do realize that MacOSX's kernel is NOT the FreeBSD kernel, right?! (i guess not, because what you are saying above is incorrect) Instead, The XNU kernel (MacOSX kernel) is using heavily-modified BSD code to do certain things, such as provide POSIX, permissions, Unix IPC, netoworking stack, etc... From Mach they use things like the Mach-O binary specification, IPC layer (that functions like IPC in a microkernel), memory management (features such as protected memory, again like in a microkernel behaves), scheduling, etc. XNU also has a stable ABI for device drivers through i/o Kit.

    XNU consists of those three parts; i/o Kit - Mach - BSD

    to suggest XNU is just the FreeBSD kernel, is just silly. It wasn't even 'based' on the FreeBSD code at it's core. ie: the BSD bits actually run more likely on top, so to speak. Furthermore, the BSD code (heavily modified by Apple) probably makes up about 20-30% of the kernel. While, the rest is I/O kit and Mach.

    I think Both XNU and the linux kernel each have their Pro's and Con's.

    cheerz

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Ubuntu is not only far better, faster (like benchmarks show), has much better graphic support (like OpenGL 3 with Intel while os x doesn't), it's much better as a gaming platform - Linux + wine kills os x. Os x users must be idiots, because os x is pure crap. In this comparison where os x has lead in some benchmarks it can be explained by different compiler versions being used: 4.2.1 vs 4.6.1 - it seems the later regressed in some tests. A simple question, why os x doesn't even exist in server or enterprise? It's damn slow and it's a real shame it's called an unix.
    http://developer.apple.com/graphicsi...1072_Core.html

    As I mentioned in the previous OS X graphics comparison article, Lion now supports OpenGL 3.2 on Sandy Bridge. Apple went with Core profile only, so you have to specifically call for it, which I'm guessing the Phoronix test suite doesn't do. I believe Sandy Bridge on Windows is only at OpenGL 3.1 and with Linux at OpenGL 3.0, OS X looks to in fact have the best OpenGL support for Sandy Bridge, at least in terms of version/features. Seeing Oil Rush requires Lion on OS X, I presume it's using the OpenGL 3.2 path, so could be a good benchmark for OpenGL 3.x speed comparison between platforms.
    Last edited by ltcommander.data; 01-31-2012 at 04:59 PM.

Posting Permissions

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