# Is Linux faster than OSX?



## One Sick Puppy (Aug 28, 2004)

I'm interested in running Open Office on my iBook. I'm a "native" windows user, and I'm rather frustrated with MS Word 2004 so unbelievably slow, and after trying various other word processors for the Mac, I'm thoroughly unimpressed. I've also tried installing X11 and that crashed on me shortly after I got Open Office installed, so I ditched it.

Now then, I'm thinking that perhaps an installation of some flavor of Linux + Open Office for Linux would be practical.

Can someone advise on this idea? Is Linux faster than OSX? I'm thinking maybe Mandrake, or Gentoo or Yellow Dog, as I've seen these suggested around the net. None of which I have any experience with whatsoever. In fact, I have little or no Linux experience... but I learn quick.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Aug 28, 2004)

Yellow Dog Linux is by far the best PPC distro of Linux, IMO.  Very easy to install, and is based upon the tried-and-true RedHad distros.

Yes, it's faster than OS X.  Simply because, again IMO, Linux looks like crap and doesn't have the "polished" look and feel that OS X has.  Sure, you can spend a few hours customizing a Linux install to look decent, but it's not that way out-of-the-box, so to speak.

I would suggest a dual boot setup with OS X and Linux, and Yellow Dog's site has plenty of FAQs and tutorials that teach you how to do this easily.

Good luck!


----------



## nixgeek (Aug 28, 2004)

I would have to agree with ElDiablo.  Linux would be faster when using X Windows as opposed to OS X's Aqua interface since X Windows doesn't (yet..will change in X11R6.8 from what I hear) have all the cool GUI enhancements and accelerations as Aqua does.  However, I don't think it's because the interface looks like crap.  Of course, that's all subjective.

You would have to find some benchmarks online to see which is faster, or conduct them yourself.  As ElDiablo also mentioned, a dual-boot setup would probably be your best bet so you can try Linux but not lose the safety of OS X.

Stay away from Mandrake...they haven't kept their PPC version on par with their x86 version, so you will have older apps compared to "Lintel" users.  Gentoo is also good from what I hear, and their emerge software is supposed to be great for keeping Gentoo fresh.  Mind you, it's not for the faint of heart, but if you are determined, it wouldn't hurt to try.

If I were you, I would stick with Yellow Dog Linux for now, and move on from there (if you desire) once you are more familiar with Linux.

You could also try one of the BSDs out there, or OpenDarwin which is the open-source part of OS X.  Each of these has the same desktop environments as Linux does (KDE, Gnome, WindowMaker, etc.).  I'm considering dropping OpenDarwin on a "WallStreet II" PowerBook G3 that I got from work only because OS X Jaguar is dog slow on it, even with the ATI hack I found online.

Good luck!


----------



## Viro (Aug 28, 2004)

My experience with Linux on PPC has been that the speed increase is actually in perception. Because it doesn't have all the eye candy that OS X has it feels faster. However when you get down to numbers, it is actually slower. I've run some numerically intensive code on it just to see the difference in speed and I've found that Linux is about 10 - 20% slower than OS X on the equivalent machine. 

If you're interested in Office documents, just use MS Office for the mac or if you feel the performance to be sluggish, get a cheap PC to run Office. OpenOffice is pretty much a joke on OS X. On Linux, its much better, but it doesn't handle exporting MS Office documents well. If you're looking to handle complex layouts and stuff like forms, forget it. Use MS Office.


----------



## RacerX (Aug 28, 2004)

One Sick Puppy said:
			
		

> and I'm rather frustrated... but I learn quick.



I can imagine. I've been looking at your past posts and have to say that you are definitely _NOT_ going to be a Mac user. From the start you tried to make your system a, well, Windows PC. And you have displayed an extreme resistance (I call reinstalling the software on a system you had for a couple days extreme) to using your Mac and a preference for the Windows way of doing things.

Please don't take this as being negative, but reinstall your system from the restore disk so it is back to factory settings, put it back in it's box and sell it on eBay or something, and buy yourself a Windows laptop.

You are a Windows user. Remember this. Why people didn't tell you this when you started asking how to maximize applications to take over the screen is beyond me. That is a red flag. Windows users can't multitask, it isn't the _Windows way_. Mac users need to see that other things are happening, running two, three, four things at once. Seeing the other applications and even the desktop is a natural thing for Mac users. Windows users need blinders. If they see _around_ an application they get distracted. That is why most Windows apps are rooted in a main (full screen) window.

As for why X11 didn't work, well you have spent a lot of effort to distort your system you to this point, and X11 and the apps that run in it require everything to be in the correct places to work... you started _customizing_ your system within a couple days of having it, so it is not surprising that you are having these problems.

I'm sorry I didn't see your posts until now. You really need to get back to what works for you. You have proven that you had no intention of trying to learn how to use a Mac like a Mac, so my advice is to cut your losses and go back to Windows. Computers are things that people work with, you have been working _against_ your Mac from just about day one, so your best option is to go to a system you *are* willing to work with... Windows.

Unlike many Mac users, I completely understand that not everyone is (or should be) a Mac user. Some people really need the Windows way of doing things... and you are absolutely one of those people.

Best of luck.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Aug 28, 2004)

Cheers.  Macintosh is most definitely not Windows, and if you're having this much trouble adjusting to the "Mac way" of doing things, then you're going to want to slit your wrists trying to understand Linux.

RacerX is right -- it's extremely backwards and stupid for an OS called "Windows" to allow you to get rid of all those... well, windows by going into "full screen mode."  I suggest you give the Mac and Mac OS X another shot, and approach the situation as if you had never used Windows before.  Play with the red, yellow and green window buttons and figure out by experience what they do.  Some people claim that they don't work, but they just don't understand what each does -- the buttons are EXTREMELY consistent, and you should be able to tell exactly what will happen to the window before you even push the button -- there's no randomness to them.  They're pinpoint accurate if you know what they do.

Try using your applications as you would anything on a physical desk.  If you want to use a sharpie, you don't collect all the pens and pencils and notepads and hide them in drawers, then pull them back out when you're done with the sharpie (ie, fullscreen mode in Windows).  You still have access to and can see other writing instruments (applications) while you're using one of them.

Also, when someone hands you a folder full of papers, you don't go and start rearranging them before you go through them and know what's in there (ie, the temptation to move things around or remove things in the Applications folder). What's the difference if iChat is in the Applications folder, or you move it to your own "Internet" folder?  Typical power users don't access applications directly anyway -- they either place them in the dock or make an alias to them somewhere convenient.  Mac OS X has all the built-in tools you need and makes it extremely easy to customize your system greatly without diving into the guts and folders and files of the OS and start ripping stuff apart and moving stuff around.

Give Mac OS X another chance, and try not to expect it to work one way or another.  You will catch on to how it works with experience and usage over time, and it'll happen quickly.  Don't try and use your Mac like a Windows machine, and don't expect it to do the same things your Windows machine does.  I think you'll find the Mac OS X experience far superior to your Windows experience -- you just have to remember that you're not using Windows at all.

If it makes any difference to you, I don't want you to think I'm a Mac zealot.  I started off in the days of DOS 3 and worked my way through Windows 95 before I really got an interest in Macs.  I knew Windows machines far better than Macs, even though I grew up using both.  Today, and for the last 11 years, I much prefer the Mac way of doing things to the Windows way.

Good luck.


----------



## RacerX (Aug 28, 2004)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> Try using your applications as you would anything on a physical desk.  If you want to use a sharpie, you don't collect all the pens and pencils and notepads and hide them in drawers, then pull them back out when you're done with the sharpie (ie, fullscreen mode in Windows).  You still have access to and can see other writing instruments (applications) while you're using one of them..



Nicely put. I'll have to remember this illustration.


----------



## One Sick Puppy (Aug 28, 2004)

The major reason why I bought an iBook was because all I needed was something small to take notes during class. On a 12" LCD screen, in a bright classroom, it's very difficult to read text and I require a text editor with enough viewing flexibility that I need not use 16pt font just to see the text only to have to shrink the font back down when I hand in my paper.
OpenOffice seems accomodate, but doesn't seem to work particularly well under X11.
Appleworks does not seem to have the flexibility I need.
Mariner Writer looks promising and I'm still evaluating it.
I look forward to trying WordPerfect if there is a Mac version.
bla bla bla. I've tried several others, too.
I've decided to continue using MS Word 2004, for the time being, but obviously I'm looking for alternatives and still getting used to my Mac.

Finding a 12' LCD PC laptop in this price range and quality is surprisingly difficult. Even despite the fact that the first iBook I bought had a defective cooling system or graphics chip, I'm still quite impressed with the hardware. And, the truth is I like the OS too, and much of the software that the computer came with.

Anyhoo... I'm going to try Mandrake 9.1 since it's free, and maybe Yellow Dog.

Thanks for the replies.

PS. Why does it seem the Mac community has so many fanatics?


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Aug 28, 2004)

You've gotta be fanatic to survive.  Just kidding.  I don't know.  I do love one of the initial scenes of "Best in Show" when Parker Posie and her prep husband are talking about how they met:

"I was at StarBucks, working on my Mac, and you were there... working on your Mac..."

Hehe... that sums up most of the Mac users I know -- stuck up, preppy beyond comprehension, and the only reason that StarBucks is in business.  Of course, I don't fit into that group (and I'm sure none of us here at macosx.com do, either, right?   ).

I would give YellowDog a try before Mandrake -- that's my only suggestion.

If you really need high contrast, why not set up your Terminal windows the way you want them (maybe white text on black terminal window) and then use something like pico or vi to take rough notes, if all you need is simple text editing capabilities?  Some people get so good with vi through practice that they could run circles around a Word user, and never touch the mouse (or trackpad).


----------



## chevy (Aug 28, 2004)

Smultron is nearly as efficient as vi, but much easier to learn and OS-X integrated. Like an improved BBedit Lite.


----------



## RacerX (Aug 28, 2004)

One Sick Puppy said:
			
		

> PS. Why does it seem the Mac community has so many fanatics?



It really is all about standing up and being heard.

Look at OS/2 users, there was a nice quiet group who had close to 10% market share at one point (more than the Mac has ever had) and then their platform was gone without hardly a whimper.

The Mac platform is here because people who use it are unwilling to stand by quietly when it is ignored. And now we aren't alone. The Linux community has started taking it's cues from Mac users and are making a noise when they feel slighted. 

Funny how terms like _religious_ that were once applied to Mac users by the Windows community are now being aimed at Linux users these days. I guess Windows users think that anyone who wants to use something other than a Microsoft product must be part of some type of cult. I use Macs, SGIs and Suns, and no Microsoft software at all, so I must be part of a lot of _cults_ from a Windows users point of view.

I think it is fanatical to think that Macs are for everyone. They aren't. And I surely don't think Windows is for everyone either. It is myopic to think that what works for you is what everyone should use.

_One size fits all_ is just a bad idea... specially in computers.


----------



## One Sick Puppy (Aug 28, 2004)

Thanks again for the suggestions.

I'm now in the process of downloading Yellog Dog 3.01 and I look forward to giving it a run.

Do I have to ditch my current instal of OSX?


----------



## HateEternal (Aug 28, 2004)

I would assume so, it has been my experience that you have to format the drive to partition it and i don't see a way to put linux onto the same partition as OS X.

There might be some other disk software that might let you partition with out erasing your disk, i know there are some for windows. I haven't seen the option with disk utility.


----------



## wiz (Aug 28, 2004)

what the hell?? no guys linux is NOT faster than OSX? its the same speed. i'm using a lot different distros of linux and i have a mac too. i see no difference in speed. but yea ieeya.. i.. ehmm.. well there's one thing i need the mention here: osx needs a lot of ram.. increase ur ram capacity and watch the improvement. a faster graphics card helps too


----------



## pds (Aug 29, 2004)

I don't know if it's faster, but why futz around with that? There is a version of open office that runs in java, not x11. It looks a bit nicer, prints well and seems mostly stable. Google up neooffice/j

oh, what the hell, here is the link


----------



## btoth (Aug 29, 2004)

How much memory and what speed is your CPU?  My Word 2004 and Excel 2004 run perfectly fine.  Sometimes they may feel a bit slower, but it's really just the little animations and effects that make it seem that way.  Entourage does run slower than Mail though, but I'd imagine it has a lot to do with it just being a bigger app and using more RAM.

If you're going to just run Linux, you should probably do it on a PC, there are some nice, small, light-weight PC laptops out there.  If you're going install and learn a complete new OS like Linux (which will probably be very frustrating) just for Open Office... that's crazy. Heck, if your Linux distro doesn't included Open Office, I'm sure it's no picnic to install that either, it took me three tries to install Gaim in Redhat!.  If your X11 is crashing your Mac, something is wrong with your system, it's a painless one-click install and installing Open Office for OS X is just as easy as any other Mac program. (But doesn't look very good, IMO.) 

If you need a quick way to take notes in class, use a light-weight text editor and then reformat it in a more presentable way later.  I found that if I took my notes by _hand_ in class and then re-typed them later that I actually remembered it better anyway.


----------



## One Sick Puppy (Aug 31, 2004)

I just tried X11 and OpenOffice again. Seems to be working well. Hella faster than Office 2004.


----------



## WeeZer51402 (Aug 31, 2004)

Congrats, just my experience with YDL vs. OS X is that YDL can do more with less resources.  It doesn't seem to require as much ram or need to page into and out of swap space as often making it a little zippier.


----------



## kilowatt (Sep 1, 2004)

I have to poke my big head in here...


...and say that linux is easily 2 to 5 times faster than OS X, on the same hardware.

If you've experienced things the other way around, you probably don't have linux configured well.

Its easy to install the default distro of YDL, and have some device, maybe an unsupported video card or something completely throw off any speculation about the speed of the OS.

There have been tests which will back this up, if you search slashdot, you'll find a comparison of apache benchmarks.

But, screw the benchmarks. Linux is faster in every way. The linux kernel handels many things faster than mach can possibly. The GUI is typically far less cpu-intensive. 

Sure, OS X affords you a lot of neat stuff you wouldn't otherwise have in linux - that is, without great things like MOL. But if you just need a slick unix workstation, and osx is just too slow for you, give linux a shot, you'll love it.


----------



## Viro (Sep 1, 2004)

kilowatt said:
			
		

> I have to poke my big head in here...
> 
> 
> ...and say that linux is easily 2 to 5 times faster than OS X, on the same hardware.
> ...



Nonsense. You have no real numbers to back up the claim that Linux is 2 - 5 times faster than OS X. On the contrary, I can demonstrate that OS X is about 10 - 20% faster than Linux. Run Scimark and Almabench. You will see that OS X is faster. These are representative of real world applications that the scientific community runs.

Linux gives the illution of speed because the GUI is very cut down, and doesn't have the frills that OS X has. It isn't actually faster, once you get down to business. I made that mistake sometime ago and assumed that Linux was faster than OS X without testing it out for myself. Imagine the shock I had when I found out that OS X was faster.

If you've experienced things the other way around, you probably don't have OS X configured well.


----------



## One Sick Puppy (Sep 1, 2004)

OSX has a bit more configurability than a Nintendo.

Anyhoo, I was going to try Yellow Dog, but I realized how useful WorldBook 2004 has been in my history class. I suspect there are no offline free encyclopedias for Linux? I use Wikipedia at home, but I can't access the internet during class.


----------



## Viro (Sep 1, 2004)

You can run OS X under Linux by running a program called Mac-On-Linux that comes installed with Yellowdog Linux.


----------



## WeeZer51402 (Sep 2, 2004)

Hang on just a second here, I would like to see some good benchmarks here.  I know for a fact that YDL runs quicker on my 300Mhz biege G3(OS X.2.8).  Even in the console there is a noticable difference in the speed at which processes run.  Now I've also noticed that YDL Vs. Panther, or maybe its just another illusion who knows, I am wrong 99.9% of the time but....YDL Vs. Panther on a 1 Ghz eMac it appears to be a bit of a tie if panther is not faster.


----------



## michaelsanford (Sep 2, 2004)

ElDiabloConCaca said:
			
		

> Yes, it's faster than OS X.  Simply because, again IMO, Linux looks like crap  ... I would suggest a dual boot setup with OS X and Linux, and Yellow Dog's site has plenty of FAQs and tutorials that teach you how to do this easily.



I second that.


----------



## wiz (Sep 3, 2004)

Viro said:
			
		

> Linux gives the illution of speed because the GUI is very cut down, and doesn't have the frills that OS X has. It isn't actually faster, once you get down to business. I made that mistake sometime ago and assumed that Linux was faster than OS X without testing it out for myself. Imagine the shock I had when I found out that OS X was faster.




i second that


----------



## chemistry_geek (Sep 3, 2004)

If you're using Panther, just install X Windows from the Panther CD.  OpenOffice works fine for me, use it all the time.  If you're taking notes in class, just use TextEdit or BBEdit.  If you're creative, you could consider using Mozilla's Composer to write your notes in HTML.  Then when you install GoogleBar (http://googlebar.mozdev.org/), you can VERY easily find exactly what you're looking for, and perform searches in PARALLEL when reviewing for tests, quizzes, and exams.  Many people are correct, you have to think outside of the Windows box and use your Mac like a Mac.  Messing with the Macintosh System is REALLY bad, instead, just use Aliases (Shortcuts) for your folders, files, and programs.  You have to remember, what you see on the screen is not what is inside the computer.  The GUI is a representation for humans to easily associate with the inner workings of a computer.  Apple has put much thought and research into its interface; it has purpose so use it as such.

Incidentally, I am a chemist and have recently installed several high-end open source and FREE chemistry molecular modelling programs (Chimera, PyMol, VMD, Kinemage, Jmol), ALL OF WHICH REQUIRES X Windows.  All of the software works flawlessly; this is just like working on the SGIs back in college.  X Windows is our friendly link to all good things UNIX/Linux.


----------



## chevy (Sep 3, 2004)

Yellow Dog is announcing v4... maybe you should wait for it ? I use YDL 3.0.1, smooth, but some integration could be done better.


----------



## wiz (Sep 3, 2004)

v4 will look better too. ( it comes bundled with gnome 2.x and kde 3.x.x


----------



## hulkaros (Sep 4, 2004)

@RacerX and ElDiabloConCaca:
VERY well said!

As for you, One Sick Puppy, you can always use the mighty TextEdit! It is fast and simple enough ESPECIALLY for taking notes!


----------



## jollewhoever (Sep 10, 2004)

I'm barely using MacOSX anymore. I've tested most Linux distribitions for the PowerPC architecture. If you want a easy to use, pretty-interfaced system, YDL is good. Debian Linux is also pretty easy to install and it has got an enormous package system with precompiled programs. You'll never have to compile anything from source code with Debian 
If you want a more of a do-it-yourself system, go with Gentoo, CRUX or a BSD system like OpenBSD or NetBSD. I've experienced OpenBSD as the fastest OS, but I dunno, it is also easy to install. I guess the difference between them isn't too big. But, Linux and pure BSD systems are much faster than MacOSX.

If you have a spare partition you can run MacOSX and another system on the same disk. On Linux, just skip the step where you partition your disk, and when you come to the point where you format the partition, just enter "mkfs.ext3 /dev/hda(your partition number)"

On OpenBSD, use pdisk.. Do not modify your macosx partitions.


----------



## Lycander (Sep 10, 2004)

For those of you using Linux on your Macs, and if you're running KDE, have you tried out a nifty little package called KSmoothDock? You guessed it, it mimics (quite well) the OSX dock. I but my normal KDE kicker bar to autohide instantly, and sticky it to the left or top of the screen. Trouble is finding a decent Aqua widget theme for KDE.


----------



## kilowatt (Sep 11, 2004)

No, I think you're quite wrong if you really think osx is in any way faster than linux.

Sure, parts of the GUI on linux are faster. Parts of the osx gui are faster too. 

But, I wasn't comparing the GUI, as they're so completely different, there is no reason to compare them.

Not to scare you, but a simple gunzip in ppc linux is easily twice as fast as the same operation in osx. And I guarentee you, your scientific applications, as well as my scientific applications (BLAST, various tigr apps, etc) will easily run faster with linux. No contest. 

Once again, if you have experienced otherwise, you're either smoking crack (which I doubt), or you have things configured wrong. Its very easy to go with the default kernel, and have a few bits of unsupported hardware lead to a completely bad experience. 

If you want to get technical about it, examine how the kernels multitask. mach is great for running one or two tasks at once, but the substantial overhead of multitasking is just horrible compared with linux's 2.4 kernel, or even FreeBSD 4.

You could strip osx down, build your own mach kernel variant (I did, its not hard), and try and get close. But I'm certain it wouldn't be anywhere near. 

OS X may be great for 3d effects, useability, and vender-supported render farms (did I mention apple supports Shake on linux clusters?), not to mention vender-supported hardware. But if you want absolutely raw processing power, linux is the way to go.


----------



## Viro (Sep 11, 2004)

kilowatt said:
			
		

> Not to scare you, but a simple gunzip in ppc linux is easily twice as fast as the same operation in osx. And I guarentee you, your scientific applications, as well as my scientific applications (BLAST, various tigr apps, etc) will easily run faster with linux. No contest.
> 
> Once again, if you have experienced otherwise, you're either smoking crack (which I doubt), or you have things configured wrong. Its very easy to go with the default kernel, and have a few bits of unsupported hardware lead to a completely bad experience.



That has not been my experience. My simulations run faster under OS X than Linux. I never really bothered with benchmarking gunzip so I can't comment on those.

I assure you I'm not smoking crack, the CPU was set to run a maximum performance and DMA on harddisks was on. 



> If you want to get technical about it, examine how the kernels multitask. mach is great for running one or two tasks at once, but the substantial overhead of multitasking is just horrible compared with linux's 2.4 kernel, or even FreeBSD 4.



Most of my apps are single threaded. I'm not bothered with forking new processes or spawning new threads. That takes too much time and I don't think it is even possible to parallelize (sp?) a time series.

This is the whole microkernel vs monolithic kernel debate. You know, there aren't really any numbers on the web that demonstrate that Darwin is visibly slower than Linux. Perhaps you could show some as I am quite interested and google doesn't show any recent OS X vs Linux benchmarks.



> OS X may be great for 3d effects, useability, and vender-supported render farms (did I mention apple supports Shake on linux clusters?), not to mention *vender-supported hardware*. But if you want absolutely raw processing power, linux is the way to go.



And not to mention commercially supported software. Hardware support under Linux is still quite poor _*on PPC*_. The nVidia line of cards don't have 3D hardware acceleration, Airport Extreme cards don't work, and sleep doesn't work.


----------



## Viro (Sep 11, 2004)

http://www.desertsol.com/~kevin/ppc/#dvd

Counter example. I've never known the mac to drop frames during DVD playback, even on an iBook 500 MHz. This guy running Linux on what could possibly be the most supported Mac (iBook 700 MHz) still gets dropped frames. What's more, he is running Gentoo with a custom compiled kernel. Can't really get more customized than that.


----------



## Ricky (Sep 12, 2004)

I would like to chime in and say that Gentoo is a nightmare.  After three hours of configuring my installation, I got a *compile error*.

You can imagine my frustration.


----------



## Lycander (Sep 13, 2004)

Viro said:
			
		

> and sleep doesn't work.


Sleep does work, it worked over a year ago when I was running Gentoo on my iBook.



			
				Viro said:
			
		

> Counter example. I've never known the mac to drop frames during DVD playback, even on an iBook 500 MHz.


My iBook 800 MHz plays DVDs choppy. *shrugg*



			
				Ricky said:
			
		

> I would like to chime in and say that Gentoo is a nightmare. After three hours of configuring my installation, I got a compile error.
> 
> You can imagine my frustration.


There use to be a second CD containing prebuilt binary packages so that you can do a complete desktop (XFree + Gnome/KDE) install without a network connection, no compiling. I don't know if they still do that. There is however, an online repository of pre-built packages. You just edit your make.conf to search that repository and emerge with the -K option.

Finally:
http://www.ly-tech.com/linux/snapshot1.jpg

http://www.ly-tech.com/linux/snapshot2.jpg

http://www.ly-tech.com/linux/snapshot3.jpg

http://www.ly-tech.com/linux/snapshot4.jpg


----------



## hulkaros (Sep 13, 2004)

Is this some kind of a FUD comment once more from you, Lycander? I have customers with iMacs G3/400 SE playing DVDs just fine... It is either you or your iBook at fault here  I will bet that the problem isn't your iBook


----------



## Viro (Sep 13, 2004)

Sleep doesn't work with any of the G4 Powerbooks. You're probably using a G3 iBook if you got sleep to work. I'm not sure about the status of the G4 iBooks so if someone has those they could confirm if it sleeps.

Thanks hulkaros. It's good to know that I'm not the only one who thinks that it's ridiculous to have dropped frames on an 800 MHz machine. Furthermore, a machine that is quite possibly the best supported PPC Linux laptop (video accelerated, Airport supported, sleep supported). If it drops frames there, something is seriously wrong. What about other machines that aren't as well supported?

With all the hooha about Linux's supposed speed advantage over OS X, you'd expect such a basic multimedia function to work flawlessly.


----------



## Lycander (Sep 13, 2004)

I offer you my sincere apologies, I overlooked the fact that we were talking about a G4 PowerBook. So in regards to the sleeping issue, ok so I'm wrong.

DVD playback: DVDPlayer (is that what the built in player software is called?) running on my iMac G4 800 was less than enjoyable. This was with an older version of the DVD player software, and running OSX 10.1. It irritates me that the common answer to OSX woes is "just upgrade to jaguar/panther/tiger/whatever".

Alright so DVD playback is better in OSX than in Linux, I'll give you that. But why is it that moving and resizing certain windows can be slow and cumbersome in OSX, but smooth in Linux? And why is scrolling down web pages sluggish, whereas it just glides in Linux? This is without the desktop GUI acceleration from the video card.

Multimedia functions work better in OSX because the software is properly tuned for the hardware. Linux applications are written for portability, so the DVD playback software lacks PPC code to enhance performance. I'm not making excuses for Linux, this is an acknowledgement that Linux is inferior to OSX in this particular area.

It would be more interesting to see DVD playback in Linux now, with a 2.6 kernel.


----------



## Viro (Sep 13, 2004)

Uhm.. the guy was running kernel 2.6.7-r5. Probably compiled with gcc 3.3.3, and looking at his make.conf, I can't see anything wrong there.

DVD playback works fine on my iBook that uses a G3. It works fine on a friends iBook G3 500 who runs Puma (10.1, hey he's a cheap skate who doesn't want ot upgrade no matter how hard I press him ). It most certainly isn't altivec or other fancy platform dependent optimizations that are being used since the G3 doesn't support those. On my iBook, I can compile stuff in the background, download stuff in Safari and watch DVDs with no dropped frames at all. Expose doesn't display any visible lag either when doing those tasks. I won't even go into my Powerbook.

I don't buy the 'software is better tuned to OS X' argument. MPlayer OS X and VLC work fine too when playing DVDs on OS X. Just not on Linux and these apps are far more tuned to Linux than they are to OS X. 

Scrolling and windows resizing speeds are an effect of QuartzExtreme. I don't see any problems with scrolling on my iBook or Powerbook. It's no different compared to Linux. Resizing windows isn't a big issue, but I think you're referring to the fact that the corner of the window doesn't "track" the mouse pointer. Why is that an issue?

I like Linux and have been running it since late 2000 on my desktops. I've only used OS X for about a year. There are somethings Linux is better at and I don't doubt that Linux is fast on x86. Linux on PPC is another thing entirely and from the tests that I have run, I just can't agree that it is faster than OS X. It may appear faster (like windows resizing) but that's all it is. 

Considering that the majority of Linux apps are available on OS X through fink/darwinports/portage, and OS X is faster in most things that users do, coupled with a lot of missing features which I won't repeat again, I don't see why anyone would dump OS X for Linux.


----------



## Lycander (Sep 13, 2004)

To be honest the last time I was really using Linux PPC was a year ago. Support at that time was (of course) better than the year before, and I wasn't even running a 2.6 kernel. PPC Linux development tends to lag behind it's x86 counterpart (it's a niche within a niche).

Inspite of not having Altivec, I think the only other explanation as to why Linux plays DVDs worst than OSX even on a G3 is the video drivers. Not sure how it works on the Mac platform, but Nvidia & ATI have touted DVD playback acceleration in their graphics products. MPG decoding is offloaded onto the GPU and frees the CPU. OSX has the proper drivers to take advantage of such video acceleration if it exists. Linux PPC however does not have the closed source drivers, so DVD playback relies more on the CPU, hence the lag and dropped frames. What do you think of my new assesment?


----------



## blue&whiteman (Sep 13, 2004)

just for fun this past weekend I installed yellow dog linux 3.0.1 on the small HD in my power mac.  I wasn't impressed at all when I started using it.  very ugly, not all that fast and sloppy file managment.  I thought linux was supposed to scream?  it recognized all my critical hardware so its not like it was using generic drivers that would have slowed anything down.  I must say though that ydl gui install is pretty sleek as linux goes.

I had 8.6 on this drive and installed yellow dog over it.  after playing with linux for a few hours I reformatted the drive and reinstalled 8.6.  compared to osx or even 8.6 ydl sucks in my opinion.  linux ran even slower than x in some ways and was about the same speed in most ways for me on this mac. nuff said.


----------



## hulkaros (Sep 13, 2004)

Well, OS X GUI isn't slow but most people believe so! OS X GUI offers advanced GUI features (and with Tiger this will go to higher level) that M$ is trying to "copy/improve/whatever" with their Shorthorn, errrr, Longhorn and Linux community with amazing stuff like cairo ( http://www.cairographics.org/ ) and glitz ( http://www.freedesktop.org/Software/glitz ) ... What seems slow to most people is actually an amazing feat on the Apple part no matter what people think or try to make us think 

As for OS X GUI not offering the ability to scale resolutions and having its GUI scale too that's THE worst FUD to spread around... It is simply untrue! A closer reading here ( http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/quartzextreme/ ) will let people know the truth! A piece from there:
"Quartz delivers device-independent and resolution-independent rendering of anti-aliased text, bitmap images and vector graphics."

Mac OS X is kicking behinds right here right now even on a mere G3/350 based system with as little as 8 MB of VRAM


----------



## Viro (Sep 13, 2004)

I'm not sure why PPC Linux doesn't perform. I don't think it has anything to do with the video drivers either. The ATI drivers for Radeon 9200 and less is very very good. You get full 2D and 3D hardware acceleration with the stock XFree86/XOrg drivers.

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=6921 and go right to the bottom. I've known people with PIII 500 MHz computers playing DVDs in Linux. This guy seems to say that his Celeron 450 plays DVDs fine. A G3/G4 processor is about equivalent clock for clock when compared to the P3 when neither has software optimized for it. I don't see any reason why Linux should be that much slower on PPC.


----------



## wiz (Sep 14, 2004)

you know i love linux soo much (SuSE).. and I like osx equally as much.. but i just can't agree on the fact that linux is faster than osx no matter how much I dislike/hate the fact that opensource software is not "there" yet.


----------



## kingtj (Sep 14, 2004)

After reading this thread, I have several different comments I'd like to add.

1.  The analogy made about Windows "full screens" being equivalent to someone putting away all of their writing tools and paper except for the one they're currently drawing with is an interesting one, but not quite fair either.  At least since the days of Windows '95/'98, the "taskbar" along the bottom makes it easy to bring a "minimized" app to the foreground with a single click.  You can see what's running just by glancing at the taskbar and seeing which apps are listed in there.  As a long-time user of BOTH Macs and Windows machines (writing this letter on a G5 right now, and looking across my room at my Athlon 64 based PC), I think both OS X and Windows have their "strong points" and "weak points" to their respective interfaces.  I don't, however, think the tendency of Mac apps to not take over the full screen makes the Mac somehow "inherently better" for people who multitask.  Any properly written Windows app should allow resizing its window so it only takes up a portion of the desktop.  Making it zoom up to full screen size is just one option.  (And why not use all the screen space available, when you happen to only be using a single app??)

2.  I was once an avid OS/2 user also, but when that community died off "silently" - it was largely because the userbase realized it was a pointless battle.  IBM themselves were preloading Windows on their computers, and often not even offering or certifying given machines for use with OS/2.  When the OS's own producer doesn't even believe in the product enough to load it on the hardware they make - what are you supposed to think as an 
"end user"?  For a while, there was a "buzz" about petitioning IBM to just open-source OS/2's code, so it could become an ongoing project like Linux - but IBM refused.  OS/2 just became too much of a "dead horse" to go on beating it, trying to keep it "viable" somehow.





			
				RacerX said:
			
		

> It really is all about standing up and being heard.
> 
> Look at OS/2 users, there was a nice quiet group who had close to 10% market share at one point (more than the Mac has ever had) and then their platform was gone without hardly a whimper.
> 
> ...


----------



## hulkaros (Sep 15, 2004)

kingtj said:
			
		

> After reading this thread, I have several different comments I'd like to add.
> 
> 1.  The analogy made about Windows "full screens" being equivalent to someone putting away all of their writing tools and paper except for the one they're currently drawing with is an interesting one, but not quite fair either.  At least since the days of Windows '95/'98, the "taskbar" along the bottom makes it easy to bring a "minimized" app to the foreground with a single click.  You can see what's running just by glancing at the taskbar and seeing which apps are listed in there.  As a long-time user of BOTH Macs and Windows machines (writing this letter on a G5 right now, and looking across my room at my Athlon 64 based PC), I think both OS X and Windows have their "strong points" and "weak points" to their respective interfaces.  I don't, however, think the tendency of Mac apps to not take over the full screen makes the Mac somehow "inherently better" for people who multitask.  Any properly written Windows app should allow resizing its window so it only takes up a portion of the desktop.  Making it zoom up to full screen size is just one option.  (And why not use all the screen space available, when you happen to only be using a single app??)



Come on! About the maximize function of Windows that is! Especially, on XP the default config is so damn dummy! Let's say you have 2-3 apps maximized and you move from one to another via Taskbar and/or Alt-Tab... So far, so good... If you want to access something from the Desktop you must:
- Pay a visit to the Start menu to open My Documents, My Computer and from there go Desktop
- Pay a visit to the properties of Taskbar and then activate the Show Desktop function of the OS (via the Quick Access of Taskbar) then click on that icon
- Minimize one by one the maximized apps!!!

That's THE joke of the new millennium! With OS X you just hold Command (apple) + Option (alt) and click anywhere on the Desktop or even better just hit the F11 (Panther only).

The maximize concept for open apps is SOOO last century which hurts! I always laugh at Windows users (and some Linux users too) who maximize their apps, say Word, in their "beautiful" >=19" flat/crt displays with their beautiful "wallpapers"...

You are right about the analogies though... Who in their right mind would put window(s) on their desktop? TV, computer monitor perhaps... But window(s)


----------



## Lycander (Sep 15, 2004)

@ Hulkaros:
Just for fun, not to make a big deal or anything, try this if you want:

Next time you are dragged kicking and screaming against your will onto a PC running any version of Windows, open a couple windows and maximize them all, basically set it up like you describe it on your post. Now how to easily get to your desktop? Well first of all most of those possibilities you listed are very trivial unless you're extremely lazy. But alternatively, try pressing the WINDOWS key and the D key at the same time. Again that's: WIN + D

The windows key is the one you press to quickly bring up the start menu, but it doesn't pop up until after you release the key. So before you release the windows key, press the letter D. It will minimize all windows and show you your desktop.

I think I know how you're going to react: "how could anyone know of these cryptic keyboard short cuts?" You're absolutely right. They don't advertise these shortcuts as much. Apple really goes out of their way to tout every feature of OSX though. But even then, users still discover little tricks on their own. So to be fair, each OS has its own fair share of little hidden tricks.


----------



## RacerX (Sep 15, 2004)

kingtj said:
			
		

> The analogy made about Windows "full screens" being equivalent to someone putting away all of their writing tools and paper except for the one they're currently drawing with is an interesting one, but not quite fair either.  At least since the days of Windows '95/'98, the "taskbar" along the bottom makes it easy to bring a "minimized" app to the foreground with a single click.



The taskbar is hardly a replacement for being able to see multiple applications and there documents at once. A button on a taskbar can not replace seeing the open document.

Also, though many Windows users can go their entire lives without using a Mac, the same can not be said about Mac users with Windows. I was not speaking of Windows 3.x or before, I was talking about 95 and later. I was force to work on a Windows system for quite a few years and am very aware of it's short comings compared with Macs.



> You can see what's running just by glancing at the taskbar and seeing which apps are listed in there.



There is the failing... I don't care what is running if it is not providing me with any information.



> I don't, however, think the tendency of Mac apps to not take over the full screen makes the Mac somehow "inherently better" for people who multitask.  Any properly written Windows app should allow resizing its window so it only takes up a portion of the desktop.  Making it zoom up to full screen size is just one option.  (And why not use all the screen space available, when you happen to only be using a single app??)



Well, I never said that Photoshop was a _properly written_ Windows app, but why should it require a root window at all? What functionality does that root window give to Photoshop? The only thing it does (for me) is block my view of other applications running behind it. Some of which are running and displaying the document in which the image is intended. If I resize that root window in Photoshop, all my image windows start disappearing in it. Why? Why aren't those Windows able to stand alone?

Of course the answer is very straight forward (which I'm sure that you already know), it is that in Windows every app is given one Window for every instance of the application. Hence the need for a root window and sub-windows for applications like Photoshop. Resizing the root window (instance) only reduces the viewable area in which the sub-windows can be used.

On a Mac (and on my SGI) a window is a window. Apps can have multiple windows, all of them independent. I can have multiple windows from multiple apps all inner mixed on my desktop as if they were all being used for one goal... which they are or why would I have them open to begin with.

In Windows, the idea is that you are working in one app at a time. You work in one, finish and move to the next, finish and move to the next. If you want to see the place in GoLive or InDesign where an image you are using in Photoshop is going to go, you have to perform... flipping. Flipping between apps in the taskbar. On a Mac, you can see the other applications through Photoshop because it only displays the window needed for the image. It doesn't require a root/instance window.

And zooming to full screen in Windows rarely gives the users any more space, it usually just covers the background with a gray root window so you can't see the rest of the computer.

I spent many years working with, working on and servicing Windows systems. I know that many Windows users think Windows is Word. Some only use Word and could not navigate their computers with Windows.

I was in a meeting yesterday with an advisor for the Mathematics department at my school, and he was using Windows. He was using the online information at the schools sight to help me and clicked on a link which brought up a new window (full screen of course). When we were done with what we needed in that window, he was completely lost as the back button wasn't working. The place he wanted to be was hidden behind a full screen window.

What full screen windows is really like is getting a paper memo that normally wouldn't fill up half a page of an 8.5x11 sheet of paper but getting it on a 36x48 sheet of paper that rolls out to cover everything on a desk.

Things that need space can have space, things that don't shouldn't be taking over the display. Windows does not get this _by design_.

And if you don't get this, then maybe you've spent way too much time on Windows... or you can't multitask. This is not a bad thing, some people can't.

I, while servicing Windows systems, had to replace a monitor for someone. There was room in the budget to get her a very nice 19" monitor, so I did. I set it up for her and it was working great. Later that day I get a call from her saying that it isn't working. When I stop by I find that the main app she used wouldn't go full screen anymore (it was design to go full screen at 800x600) and now it was a window. It bugged her that she could see the desktop and other apps running. We ended up resetting the display to 800x600 so she could have that app run at full screen.

Some people just can't handle that type of freedom. You are most likely one of them. If so, Windows is the system for you.



> IBM themselves were preloading Windows on their computers, and often not even offering or certifying given machines for use with OS/2.



I'm sure you didn't miss the antitrust trial against Microsoft (it was in all the papers for a while). During that case it was found that Microsoft was forcing hardware makers (including IBM) to pre-install Windows on *all* there systems in order to not be charged a higher rate. As I work with IBM systems (have a ThinkPad sitting right here beside me) and have OS/2 (2.0, Warp 3.0 and 4.0), I was wondering which IBM systems were unable to run OS/2? Are we talking about systems that came out after the release of a version where they don't have the drivers for the hardware? Exactly what were you trying to say here?


----------



## kingtj (Sep 15, 2004)

Actually, Windows places the "Show Desktop" icon just to the right of the START button, on the taskbar, ever since they added "Active Desktop" functionality (which was a downloadable update to Win '95, and incorporated natively in every version since).  So you don't really have to go to all the trouble of visiting the taskbar properties page, etc.

Personally, I was never a big fan of Apple's love of key combos...  It's gotten a lot better with Panther, but all too often, the user is required to memorize key combinations that aren't obvious at all - even for functions you couldn't perform any other way.  (In MacOS 9.x and earlier, for example, you had to know to hold down a key to rebuild the desktop every so often, and know other key combos for things like flashing the PRAM, or forcing a boot from CD-ROM.  Unlike Windows PCs, the Mac never flashed any type of informative text on the monitor at boot-up, telling you which of these keys/key combos were available.)




			
				hulkaros said:
			
		

> Come on! About the maximize function of Windows that is! Especially, on XP the default config is so damn dummy! Let's say you have 2-3 apps maximized and you move from one to another via Taskbar and/or Alt-Tab... So far, so good... If you want to access something from the Desktop you must:
> - Pay a visit to the Start menu to open My Documents, My Computer and from there go Desktop
> - Pay a visit to the properties of Taskbar and then activate the Show Desktop function of the OS (via the Quick Access of Taskbar) then click on that icon
> - Minimize one by one the maximized apps!!!
> ...


----------



## hulkaros (Sep 15, 2004)

That's GREAT tip for those who work with Windows :thumbsup: Care to share some more?


----------



## hulkaros (Sep 15, 2004)

kingtj said:
			
		

> Actually, Windows places the "Show Desktop" icon just to the right of the START button, on the taskbar, ever since they added "Active Desktop" functionality (which was a downloadable update to Win '95, and incorporated natively in every version since).  So you don't really have to go to all the trouble of visiting the taskbar properties page, etc.



ACTUALLY, with Windows XP it doesn't!!! The user has to enable that and that's what I was talking about  But Lycander gave the Windows users a GREAT tip: Just hold down the Windows keyboard key + D. It will have the same effect as that icon...


----------



## Lycander (Sep 15, 2004)

OSX has something similar, the "Hide Others" function. It takes I think 3 keys to execute and we have to have Finder selected first. If no Finder windows are opened, doing the Hide Others effectively minimizes every other opened window to show the desktop. This is pre-Expose of course.


----------



## Viro (Sep 15, 2004)

I've used Windows for 6+ years. That Win + D thing is new to me.


----------



## Lycander (Sep 15, 2004)

Yeah I didn't learn that until about 6 months ago and I still don't use it day to day. But I fried my mouse once (static shock when I touched it) so I had to go a couple days without a mouse, learned a lot of shortcuts. I could do everything, surf, e-mail, heck even Freecell has keyboard shortcuts hehe.


----------



## ohmelas (Dec 27, 2004)

Wow Gang, Happy Holidays. Thought I would suft in here and see how things are fairing. I noticed this post and could not help but jump in. One Sick Puppy, I'm one of those guys that has to be a hard core geek with my systems having PC's, Macs and Sun boxes doing what they all do best. I have a hare time getting this computing cousins to play nice and mostly in my 15 years of trying have only been playing tolerable in the last 3-4 years. We're living at a lucky time right now as a matter of perspective.

That being said, what I'm wondering from your experience is if you've ever migrated on your Windows platform from say Office 95 to Office 97, 2k, XP, 2004, etc? Each revision of office had new features, integrations, menu layouts and the like and as a result of that--which was a long way from the free version that was shipping with Windows 3.1 (I was there because my first Mac cost me some $8000 back in the days of IIcx and Quadra A/V) and my 486DX at 100Mhz was a really awesome machine becuase it had the co-processor built into the chip.

That being said, I know that change is a constant in this environment and what it sounds like to me is that you broke down and bought a computer (this case a really powerful Mac) and excepted it to do something that your older technology wasn't. No one is asking you what that was and what version of the software you were coming from...

Using Pre-Press Technologies like page-maker and quark Express layout and design is wonderful and easy to get to anyone in the world of printing. They both export in .pdf and everyone in that world is happy most of the time beucase those products even today are still a generation ahead in design of their PC counterparts in most instances and are a bit more refined in terms of the Mac experience. 

Using word processing technologies leaves others like in the days of Ami Word Pro, Word Perfect, Open Office, Star Office, KDE Office, Lotus Office Suite, Appleworks, and a slew of other programs that have littered the wayside as a result of Microsoft's monopolization of the market. Companies like Correl who've been making a better, faster coded Office Suite for years just can't compete with Microsoft so again we need to raise the question...

What is it that you expected to get out of your experience with a word processor as it relates to your computer?

For me its pluggin in a USB printer and having my Macintosh instantly recognize it, not really having to download, uploade, install and spend 25-30 minutes looking for a suitable driver for my particular generation of Windows. For me its the fluid design that is consistant on ever single application and the fact that the UI in the Mac interfact works, looks and functions better for the way that I work.

That being said, these nice folks on Mac OS X dot Com are saying the right things to you. If you just want to type something in a word processor document and you're having trouble doing that in the Mac world and feeling comfortable with that then there are other comfort issues associated with that and really aren't addressing the way that you experience a computer.

If you're so accoustomed to working a certain way on a previous system, then what I would suggest is reinstalling what ever version of Windows you were running 9x/XP/NT etc and the reinstalling what ever version of Word you were comfortable with and making it work--but there you were frustrated enough to jump platforms and go to another computer system and that's where I'm going.

It's probably not the PC or the Mac. 

It's probably not the programs that Sun, Microsoft, Adobe or Coreal make.

It's most defindately in how you're experiencing the computer and how you interface with it and for that it will require no matter what you do a bit of comformity on your part even with customization. If you would like to write, then find what works for you and run wiht it.  

That being said, I'm partial to Office 2001 and still cling to my Classic OS Applications. They're fast for me. I'm still using Office 2k on my PC and use that for the majority of my stuff on the PC side. It currently is the most widely distributed Office Application and version. I have searched and haven't foudn a reason or a need to upgrade to Y2k4 or its siblings on either platform. The question isn't about Mac or PC or Linux---its about your ability to interface with the computer.

Take a breath and consider approaching it with a new set of eyes. Good luck.


----------



## texanpenguin (Dec 27, 2004)

The Win+D is the shortcut key for Show Desktop. Minimise All is Win+M (Show all is Win+Shift+M, from memory).

Some other useful Windows shortcuts:
Win+E - starts Windows Explorer
Win+Pause - Opens System Properties
Alt+Enter while a file/folder is selected - Go to its properties
Ctrl+Esc - Open the Start Menu if you don't have a Windows keyboard
Ctrl+Shift+Esc - Open the Task Manager (even if Ctrl+Alt+Del is set to the options window)
Win+R - Run dialog.


I've been using those functions for years, and in the area of keyboard shortcuts, Windows is far more productive. Need I mention menu navigation with the keyboard (with the Alt key)?

As for the maximise thing, it's a bit hit-and-miss. There's a good reason for a window expanding to full screen; it eliminates distractions from things like your wallpaper and other open applications, allowing you to focus your attention more clearly. I think in many applications, particularly Office, that's more productive.

Photoshop I can't make my mind up over. I've been using Photoshop on a PC since version 4, all the way through to CS, and on my Mac version 6 to CS. I was always used to having the grey splashboard (actually a result of the way Windows deals with Child windows); it allows you to make selections that go outside the boundaries of the picture you're working on, and to start lines from outside the image's bounds. It's more useful to me than I think I ever realised. So now, in Photoshop, I expand the window that I'm working in to have about a centimetre of grey around the image on all sides; the best of both worlds.

I'll always like my Mac more than I ever did my PC, but there are reasons for the full-screen being good. Just not for web-pages and iTunes (WHY did they make the maximise function do that on the PC?).

As for Linux, I think from a Human Interface side of things, I hate the entire thing. I use it often for Uni on the Uni's own Dells, and while I'm capable of doing things in it, it's needlessly unergonomic. Gnome is better than KDE in that regard, but when there are options in the Contextual Menu that you JUST CAN'T GET TO any other way (Trash, for one), it's not clever. I don't know; I just don't like that Operating System, and everything it stands for. It's all there, and it's fast, but it's just horrible.

It doesn't help that I've crashed four of the Uni's machines by browsing the Uni's own site in Konqueror. By crash I mean, have to be reloaded off the image. It also doesn't help that this happens so regularly, the boot manager has two options; boot Linux, or reinstall Linux. It's just not ready for use. Not by anyone. Windows has it's upsides, Mac has many more, Linux barely has a couple.


----------



## blue&whiteman (Dec 28, 2004)

I tried ydl 3 for a while and found it slower than panther on the system in my sig.  I have all the ydl 4 iso files but still need to burn and install them.  in the end though linux isn't going to be near as productive as osx.  in fact I would say osx is by far the most productive os out there.


----------



## WinWord10 (Dec 30, 2004)

"Linux" could mean a lot of things. If you're talking about just a command line with a few basic text apps then yes, Linux is faster. If you're talking about a comparable workstation to OS X with X11 and KDE or Gnome, then it's pretty close, but I'd give the prize to OS X, attributing that to refinement and uniformity within the OS. There are hundreds of different ways you could configure a Linux system though which would affect performance, too numerous to list here, whereas OS X comes in few flavors. I don't think it's really fair to compare. Aqua is also far more tested prior to each release, resulting in better stability and reliability than either KDE or Gnome, in my experience.


----------



## ex2bot (Jan 1, 2005)

Back to Puppy's problems for a sec. here. What about renice'ing Word 2004 ? Give it as much attention as you can. It's a diva.

(I'm running Office .X myself. Why upgrade to a slower Office?)

Or, as Chem Geek said, use TextEdit or BBEdit. TextEdit is fast. I'm sure BBEdit is too.

Or turn off grammar check and word count with MS Word. 

And / or switch to Normal view instead of Page Layout. Ugly, but faster.

Lots of good choices. It's a shame Microsloth can't speed up office a bit.

Doug


----------



## neutron_1974 (Jan 10, 2005)

One Sick Puppy said:
			
		

> I'm interested in running Open Office on my iBook. I'm a "native" windows user, and I'm rather frustrated with MS Word 2004 so unbelievably slow, and after trying various other word processors for the Mac, I'm thoroughly unimpressed. I've also tried installing X11 and that crashed on me shortly after I got Open Office installed, so I ditched it.
> 
> Now then, I'm thinking that perhaps an installation of some flavor of Linux + Open Office for Linux would be practical.
> 
> Can someone advise on this idea? Is Linux faster than OSX? I'm thinking maybe Mandrake, or Gentoo or Yellow Dog, as I've seen these suggested around the net. None of which I have any experience with whatsoever. In fact, I have little or no Linux experience... but I learn quick.




I would satay on Mac OS X, up to day Mac OS X is the best operating system in the market. I worked with Open Office and Linux. Oppen Office is heavy, the first time you start, after that its performance is normal. You'll get the same performance or something else in OS X, trust me. Don't switch off.

See you, Peter.


----------

