my personal box's been running linux (not a hardcore distro) for a good time and I like it, but there's an undeniable fact: current desktop unixs *are* slow. OS X is sluggish and KDE 3 isn't much better that 2.x. (On the other hand, strict compiling/crunching tends to run faster.)
Having said that, WIRED's "testing" IS a joke. Of course their guy didn't use a controlled LAN environment. When you read the story, it's obvious his procedure wasn't even simultaneous. If you type an URL then go to another PC and type it again... server and network conditions are constantly changing.
Results: of course OS X is somewhat slower even when rendering simple webpages (because it *is* slower overall), but it's NOT NEARLY AS SLOW as WIRED's flawed testing suggests. If someone did accurate tests, the HTML rendering hit would be around 15%-20%, not the 70% WIRED suggests.
Apple's hardware could be better, but so-called serious journalism could be much better too. WIRED should describe its testing procedure.
Slashdot Mirror
my personal box's been running linux (not a hardcore distro) for a good time and I like it, but there's an undeniable fact: current desktop unixs *are* slow. OS X is sluggish and KDE 3 isn't much better that 2.x. (On the other hand, strict compiling/crunching tends to run faster.)
Having said that, WIRED's "testing" IS a joke.
Of course their guy didn't use a controlled LAN environment. When you read the story, it's obvious his procedure wasn't even simultaneous. If you type an URL then go to another PC and type it again... server and network conditions are constantly changing.
Results: of course OS X is somewhat slower even when rendering simple webpages (because it *is* slower overall), but it's NOT NEARLY AS SLOW as WIRED's flawed testing suggests. If someone did accurate tests, the HTML rendering hit would be around 15%-20%, not the 70% WIRED suggests.
Apple's hardware could be better, but so-called serious journalism could be much better too. WIRED should describe its testing procedure.