Discussion:
How does Linux compare to Mac OS X?
(too old to reply)
Eric P.
2006-04-12 18:13:28 UTC
Permalink
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
Tom Stiller
2006-04-12 18:27:37 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Eric P.
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
David Cantrell
2006-04-12 19:33:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Stiller
In article
Post by Eric P.
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
Eric P.
2006-04-12 20:07:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Cantrell
Post by Tom Stiller
In article
Post by Eric P.
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.
- 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
Andrew Reilly
2006-04-13 07:29:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric P.
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
Joost Kremers
2006-04-13 08:21:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Reilly
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.
Post by Andrew Reilly
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 ***@yahoo.com
Selbst in die Unterwelt dringt durch Spalten Licht
EN:SiS(9
Eric P.
2006-04-13 14:07:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew Reilly
Post by Eric P.
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
Ilgaz Ocal
2006-04-12 23:57:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Stiller
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
Tom Stiller
2006-04-13 01:08:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ilgaz Ocal
Post by Tom Stiller
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
Keith Keller
2006-04-13 02:08:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Stiller
Post by Ilgaz Ocal
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-***@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
Greg Buchner
2006-04-13 03:02:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Stiller
Post by Ilgaz Ocal
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
Ilgaz Ocal
2006-04-13 11:38:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Stiller
Post by Ilgaz Ocal
Post by Tom Stiller
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
Tom Stiller
2006-04-13 15:37:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ilgaz Ocal
Post by Tom Stiller
Post by Ilgaz Ocal
Post by Tom Stiller
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
Ilgaz Ocal
2006-04-13 16:47:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tom Stiller
Post by Ilgaz Ocal
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
Eric P.
2006-04-13 18:43:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ilgaz Ocal
Post by Tom Stiller
Post by Ilgaz Ocal
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
Daniel Packman
2006-04-13 19:29:05 UTC
Permalink
In article <ericp06-***@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
Eric P. <***@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
...
Post by Eric P.
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.
Keith Keller
2006-04-13 21:21:36 UTC
Permalink
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.powerpc.]
Post by Daniel Packman
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-***@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
Eric P.
2006-04-14 06:58:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Keller
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.powerpc.]
Post by Daniel Packman
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
Paul Russell
2006-04-14 07:51:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric P.
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
Eric P.
2006-04-14 06:55:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Daniel Packman
...
Post by Eric P.
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.
Post by Daniel Packman
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.
Post by Daniel Packman
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.
Post by Daniel Packman
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.
Post by Daniel Packman
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
Ilgaz Ocal
2006-04-13 21:32:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric P.
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
Anton Ertl
2006-04-14 09:06:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ilgaz Ocal
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
***@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
G.T.
2006-04-14 02:50:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ilgaz Ocal
Post by Tom Stiller
Post by Ilgaz Ocal
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
Keith Keller
2006-04-12 18:28:28 UTC
Permalink
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.powerpc.]
Post by Eric P.
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.
Post by Eric P.
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.
Post by Eric P.
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-***@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
Eric P.
2006-04-12 19:52:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith Keller
["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.powerpc.]
Post by Eric P.
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.
Post by Keith Keller
Post by Eric P.
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.
Post by Keith Keller
Post by Eric P.
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
Keith Keller
2006-04-12 20:11:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric P.
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-***@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
Richard E Maine
2006-04-12 18:53:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric P.
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
Whaxiac
2006-04-13 23:38:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard E Maine
Post by Eric P.
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/savage/news_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!
Eric P.
2006-04-14 07:02:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whaxiac
Post by Richard E Maine
Post by Eric P.
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/savage/news_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
Anton Ertl
2006-04-12 20:46:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric P.
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.
Post by Eric P.
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.
Post by Eric P.
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
<http://maconlinux.org/>.

Followups set to colp.

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl Some things have to be seen to be believed
***@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen
http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
Eric P.
2006-04-12 22:25:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anton Ertl
Post by Eric P.
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.
Post by Eric P.
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.
Post by Eric P.
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
<http://maconlinux.org/>.
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.
Timothy Larson
2006-04-13 04:49:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric P.
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
Manuel Tobias Schiller
2006-04-13 21:26:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric P.
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.
Post by Eric P.
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.
Post by Eric P.
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.
Post by Eric P.
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)
Whaxiac
2006-04-16 04:42:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Manuel Tobias Schiller
Post by Eric P.
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.
Post by Eric P.
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.
Post by Eric P.
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.
Post by Eric P.
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
Manuel Tobias Schiller
2006-04-16 14:27:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Whaxiac
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)
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...