Ubuntu 8.10 vs. Mac OS X 10.5.5 Benchmarks

An anonymous reader writes "As a sequel to their Is Ubuntu Getting Slower? Phoronix now has out an article that compares the performance of Ubuntu 8.10 to Apple's Mac OS X 10.5.5. They tested both the x86 and x86_64 spins of Ubuntu and threw at both operating systems a number of graphics, disk, computational, and Java benchmarks, among others. With the Mac Mini used in some of the comparisons, 'Leopard' was faster, while in others it was a tight battle."

Comments

Is it just me....

[tsnorquist]

Or do you all feel that the Federation (Windows systems) and Klingons (Nix systems) should join forces and fight the Borg (Apple systems). Then we can all take on Species 8472 (Google).

Re:it's not simply the OS, it's the distro

[bonch]

I never said they were disproved.

Then why did you bring up Slashdot comments? You said "Oh, you mean the benchmarks that some random Slashdotters concluded were skewed because of so-and-so reason?" Why would mention the comments if you weren't implying that the comments disproved the benchmarks?

'course, if you can't understand this basic, logical thinking, then perhaps you should refrain from participating in this discussion, as it's clear you're not sufficiently educated in the topic.

You're mad that I called you out for relying on random Slashdot comments.

Re:Ubuntu if you want to

[agrounds]

So, you fixed all the crap linux audio layers yourself? You fix compiz crashes and feature instability too? How about Flash? How is that flash working for you on large videos?

Ubuntu zealots are far worse that Apple zealots. At least the Apple ones admit to the problems without backpedaling to "OMG TEH CODEZ" when there have been persistent problems in Ubuntu for years. You haven't really fixed shit. You just trot out the line like a good little group-think conformist.

You want to talk about a moving target... A six month release cycle that breaks as many things as it fixes? Every release comes rife with new issues that could have been avoided with some decent QA.

Be realistic. Ubuntu is a crap distribution, and I will never understand the fanboy elitism around here that surrounds it. At least with Gentoo it made sense back in the day, since there was actual coding, patching, and real optimization in place. Ubuntu is worse than OpenSolaris, FreeBSD, Fedora, Slackware, or even the Debian it sprang forth from. It is the distribution that a generation of mascara-wearing angst-monkeys lives and swears by in the false sense of "sticking it to the man".

HINT: You are not sticking it to the man. No one gives a shit what OS you run on your home computer. Neither Microsoft nor Apple are pining away for that 0.92% of the market share you and your ilk occupy.

Re:Ubuntu if you want to

[bonch]

No, I didn't.

Yes, you did. Look, you're about to do it again:

I claimed that OSX does not have any need to deal with the vast number of use cases that Linux or Windows does, and that they can tweak the way their software runs to be more efficient on the small selection of hardware they do support.

You believe OS X exploits the capabilities of a subset of hardware, and the implication is that such exploitation is the reason for OS X's speed over Ubuntu. You even used the word "exploits" in your previous post about it.

The fact that you can run it if you hack it is irrelevant.

You're purposely being obtuse, so I'll spell it out for you. Your argument was about performance on a reduced set of hardware, and I pointed out that OS X runs outside that set of hardware. It runs fast on it, too. Apple isn't taking advantage of some mysterious set of hardware features only they are privy to--an Intel Mac is made of standard PC parts.

You're obsessing over the "hacks" part and ignoring that the hacks are for the copy protection.

I could probably run the XBox OS on a mainframe with the right virtual machine, but that doesn't change the fact that the XBox OS was tailored to perform optimally on the XBox hardware, and it doesn't change the fact that OSX was tailored to perform optimally on Apple hardware.

How many times do people have to point out that OS X runs well on generic non-Apple hardware? Are you just going to keep ignoring it in every post you make?

Re:it's not simply the OS, it's the distro

[bonch]

Interestingly, I note that you haven't attempted to counter my points. I'll take that as an admission that you consider them valid, despite your continued bitching.

The fact that you have to declare yourself "right" means you had no rational argument to begin with. You're flailing at this point.

Next.