it misses the point really to say "yes/no/bad/good java on OSX". Might as well say "cars are good" (not in water they aren't).
The real issue is apples/apples comparison. A badly architected java application ridden through with cyclic dependencies would take longer to compile on a machine with less RAM than it would on a machine with more RAM.
So, follow the advice of those who suggest taking an existing project and doing side-by-side for compilation benchmarks.
When it comes to actual productivity, ask yourself whether OSX is closer the the final environment it will run on; most often, if this is a *NIX server, OSX is your best bet. If your server is a windows server, well, then . ... ..
Regarding productivity, the best advice is try it yourself; there are religious wars over IDE's (I'm a netbeans guy), but what *you* want to use is the real tool to use in benchmarks.
Now that objectivity has had its day, here's what i experienced:
compiling: OSX 1GHz Powerbook, 1Gb RAM is about 20% slower than the exact same project, compiling a well-architected web-application (not a single cyclic dependency) exact same Ant buildscript on a Windows 1.7 GHz P4, 1Gb RAM. Project size : 240 classes, about 20 jars used.
IDE usage: (same machines as above) Netbeans 3.5 runs noticeably faster on Windows than on Mac. No benchmarks, but estimate about 30%.
Overall: If lots of time is burnt on IDE response, you're doing something wrong. More design and less hacking is called for. The productivity of OSX is easily 50% more for me; access to symlinking for eliminating multiple jar's, directories, etc., actual scripting for automation if repetitive tasks saves me a bundle.
Your experience may be different, though I can recommend taking the time to check out OSX for yourself. You also will have access to a machine that is fun to work on. After 15 years of Windows, I find OSX a refreshing and pleasureable experience. Much more stable too
Slashdot Mirror
JBuilder had formal todo-list feature in JBuilder 3 - if this isn't prio-art I don't know what is
it misses the point really to say "yes/no/bad/good java on OSX". Might as well say "cars are good" (not in water they aren't).
.. . .
The real issue is apples/apples comparison. A badly architected java application ridden through with cyclic dependencies would take longer to compile on a machine with less RAM than it would on a machine with more RAM.
So, follow the advice of those who suggest taking an existing project and doing side-by-side for compilation benchmarks.
When it comes to actual productivity, ask yourself whether OSX is closer the the final environment it will run on; most often, if this is a *NIX server, OSX is your best bet. If your server is a windows server, well, then . .
Regarding productivity, the best advice is try it yourself; there are religious wars over IDE's (I'm a netbeans guy), but what *you* want to use is the real tool to use in benchmarks.
Now that objectivity has had its day, here's what i experienced:
compiling: OSX 1GHz Powerbook, 1Gb RAM is about 20% slower than the exact same project, compiling a well-architected web-application (not a single cyclic dependency) exact same Ant buildscript on a Windows 1.7 GHz P4, 1Gb RAM. Project size : 240 classes, about 20 jars used.
IDE usage: (same machines as above) Netbeans 3.5 runs noticeably faster on Windows than on Mac. No benchmarks, but estimate about 30%.
Overall: If lots of time is burnt on IDE response, you're doing something wrong. More design and less hacking is called for. The productivity of OSX is easily 50% more for me; access to symlinking for eliminating multiple jar's, directories, etc., actual scripting for automation if repetitive tasks saves me a bundle.
Your experience may be different, though I can recommend taking the time to check out OSX for yourself. You also will have access to a machine that is fun to work on. After 15 years of Windows, I find OSX a refreshing and pleasureable experience. Much more stable too