Is Linux faster than OSX?

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?
 
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.
 
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 :rolleyes:

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 :eek:
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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. :D
 
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) :rolleyes: :p

:D
 
@ 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.
 
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?
 
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!!!

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) :rolleyes: :p

:D
 
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 :p 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...
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
"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.
 
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
 
Back
Top