This is posted to provoke discussion on the methods involved and its findings. It is NOT meant to provoke a flame war!
Posted on 05/09/2006 11:02:14 AM PDT by ShadowAce
This article's HTML is not pretty.
This is posted to provoke discussion on the methods involved and its findings. It is NOT meant to provoke a flame war!
All all fairness to each OS, some OSes do more than others under the covers and that can lead to performance differences.
I didnt read the entire article but doesn't the fact that a majority of Mac OS programs are at a disadvantage over Linux and Win XP because the programs aren't really built for intel nor are they adapted yet for its architecture make these findings somewhat bogus. I had read on CNET that Mac OS X is considerably faster than Win XP on a Macbook Pro....i really dont care though just figured it should be mentioned.
Benchmark tests are like opinions... everyone has one. The BIG2 graphics manufacturers (ATI & nVIDIA) have been wrestling for years on how to benchmark to make their product look better. My view on it is like weight loss: you may not see it on the scale, but how do you look in the mirror?
Take it for what it's worth: test them all, see which fits your needs best.
With dual core processing, you're going to have more power than you need for the typical home user. If you're running World of Warcraft, Oblivion, MS Outlook, MS Word and Firefox all at once, you may benefit from paying attention to the benchmarks. Otherwise, just shop within your means.
I have MEPIS 6 beta 2 running on my Athlon64 3500+, seems to work pretty good... I'm thinking about downloading Flight 7 of Kubuntu X64 edition and give it a spin.
How true. But, the main advocate for Mach was Avie Tevanian, and he has "left to spend more time with his family".
I have an HP Compaq nx7000, purchased in early 2004, using Ubuntu Linux Breezy Badger 5.10. My mother has a 15in Powerbook, purchased last year.
Based on the speeds I've noticed, I get considerably better performance out of the Linux laptop. I'd be interested to see the difference with MacBook Pro.
Regards, Ivan
Couple of thoughts..
First: OSX is not really in the statistical computing market (yes yes I know there are super computers out there running it but truth be known enough nodes of any os make for a good supercomputer) so while this *might* be 100% correct it is by no means too bad a hit for apple. Now lets put it through the paces as a desktop OS running the same apps one might run on Linux and I think any disparity will disappear.
Secondly: OSX is still pretty new on Intel chips, lets see what the next OSX release does..
Thirdly: There is something to be said for portability and OSX was moved from one processor to another with little trouble. Any lack of statistical performance may be less a problem with design and more a reality of business / engineering decision in what should be focused on.
Darn. I guess there's really now just one choice for all the millions and millions of people that just run statistics software.
It cost roughly 1 billion to develop OS X and XP each. XP is amortized over 130 million users, OS X over 3 million. The next OS will cost between 1.5 and 2 million to develop. The economics are unsustainable for Apple.
As a result Apple will see its niche market evaporate and is banking on the Mac mini to be the "hit" that causes mass swithing to its low cost Intel box (which runs XP using beta Bootcamp available with OS X 10.5 end of this year but downloadable now).
What Apple is banking on is the trend to home digital media and their Frontrow multimedia solution with Bonjour is quite impressive. It won't work though, not because of the poor benchmarks no real consumer with bucks and a cocain habit cares about, but because the Mac mini is a personal space device without personalization options and you have to spend another 5 - 10 grand on speakers and an HDTV to reap the real benefit.
Apple is facing a real crisis as its PC business accounts for the majority of its revenue even though they are selling tons more iPods.
I believe Apple will improve the kernel's thread performance in the 10.5 release. It is possible that Apple could switch to a monolithic kernel, like Linux.
That would make it easier to maintain.
MS has saturated the market has seen it browser and os start to lose share as OSX/Linux and Safari/Firefox begin to gain and Apple is in trouble?
Every release of OSX and every new apple product cycle increase not only the number of users but their relative market share to Microsoft.
You're also ignoring the fact Apple and MS are not even in the same market nobody buys a computer from Microsoft they do buy systems from Apple..
Globally?
You're also ignoring the fact Apple and MS are not even in the same market nobody buys a computer from Microsoft they do buy systems from Apple
No, quite the opposite. If you read what I wrote you will discover that the "niche" market Apple enjoys will not sustain OS X development costs in the future. They must appeal to the "mass" market which is where the "low cost" the Mac mini with Bootcamp and Rosetta (geeze I wonder why they needed those SW compatibility bridges??)idea came from.
Apple PC business will die unless they can convert en mass Win/Intel folks over to their Mac mini through iPod halo sales. Otherwise the next OS premium will drive the cost up so high the "niche" market will begin to erode.
I disagree for several reasons - including, Apple has $8.23 billion cash in the bank.
Yes
If you read what I wrote you will discover that the "niche" market Apple enjoys will not sustain OS X development costs in the future.
If this were true apple would be losing money your logic is flawed in three ways.
First: Apple's market is growing at a rate faster than MS's their market was under 2% when OSX was first released it is now (depending on who you talk to) at somewhere between 4 and 5. This means the audience they are developing for is twice as large as when OSX was developed.
Second: Apple sells computers, MS sells operating systems all MS gets is the money from the people who buy their OS and applications, apple get considerably more.
Finally: Your cost estimation for apple versus XP ignored the fact Apple made an all out architecture change where as 2000 to XP was a minor kernel and library change. Going forward the cost of future apple os development will be considerably less..
Yeah right whatever LOL
Published on ZDNet News: April 19, 2006, 4:34 PM PT
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-6062973.html Apple
...Computer so far hasn't been a boon to Intel. Apple, ranked fifth in the U.S. but not in the top five worldwide, saw its U.S. market share decline from 3.6 percent to 3.5 percent. Apple's worldwide share is around 2.3 percent.
Apple is more likely to switch to Solaris IMO. Did you see the announcement about ZFS?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.