G5 vs. x86 and Mac OS X vs. Linux

demonbug writes "Anandtech has an article up comparing performance of dual G5s to AMD Opteron and Intel Xeon workstations. The article also takes a look at performance under Mac OS X versus Linux. It provides an interesting look at some of the strengths and weaknesses of the different CPUs." From the article: "This article is written solely from the frustration that I could not get a clear picture on what the G5 and Mac OS X are capable of. So, be warned; this is not an all-round review. It is definitely the worst buyer's guide that you can imagine. This article cares about speed, performance, and nothing else! No comments on how well designed the internals are, no elaborate discussions about user friendliness, out-of-the-box experience and other subjective subjects. But we think that you should have a decent insight to where the G5/Mac OS X combination positions itself when compared to the Intel & AMD world at the end of this article."

Comments

Re:Flawed comparison

[charlieOReilly]

I'd be pretty impressed if you could pull a purely conceptual idea from your rectum.

Re:There Is No Comparison

[toddestan]

Macs running OS X are more like souped up Hondas. Their owners think they are best looking and fastest cars out there. Everyone else thinks they are slow and ugly.

Re:ARG! gcc 3.3.3

[Locke2005]

GCC 4.0 is truly cross platform -- they intentionally removed all the CPU-specific optimizations to make it suck equally on every platform.

Benchmarks performed poorly?

[taharvey]

eWeek benchmarked the same Xserve and said this:

"Performance-wise, the dual-processor Xserve G5 compares well with Linux-based x86 servers. This is not surprising, considering that Mac OS 10.x is based on FreeBSD UNIX. Using the included Apache server, we ran the Xserve G5 through our standard WebBench tests. It did quite well on the static WebBench test, outperforming a competitor's dual processor x86-64 server running Apache server on SuSe Linux-64."

So who do you beleive? I'll take eWeek over some college guys.

Re:vi is not the only Un*x text editor

[Nimrangul]

In general vi has basic commands that are standard, I have yet to encounter anything using the OpenBSD vi that did not work on any Linux system I've worked on. Redhat uses vim, Slackware elvis and some systems use vile. These are all four extensions to the original vi, the functionality that is in vi is in all four extended clones, but each has since extended their functionality, but done it in it's own way.

So you're pretty much complaining that ksh88 doesn't support the stuff that bash does in the same way.

jed? That shit is disgusting.

You will never, ever, under any situation, find something that ugly and retarded in the base of OpenBSD. Maybe FreeBSD, but definately not OpenBSD, they've got more sense.

mg and nvi are the editors in base for OpenBSD, they're liberally licensed and not bloated hunks of garbage. nvi is of course the light vi and mg the light emacs, they are cleaner and smaller than the their kin.

Sounds like you need to learn how to map keys.