From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Hello,

I'm interested in hearing from anyone who's compared the performance of
Linux (specifically YDL) and Mac OS X (the more current version, the
better). I want to install each of these systems and check 'em out, and
I'd like any useful information and interesting observations folks may
have from their experiences.

Since both systems were born of UNIX, does it make sense to run both on
a single machine? I'm wondering which of the two systems would be best
for use on a G4/450 single-processor system. That's the machine I have, currently with 640MB of RAM, but I plan on maxing it out sometime soon,
then changing the graphics card to a GeForce 4 Ti (hope Linux supports
this!), and later a processor upgrade.

I'm looking for the best performance I can get from my machine in speed
and stability. Wherever there's a choice, I favor more stability, of
course. I want to make my system the best it can possibly be for
Internet use, graphics and sound editing (later including audio
recording), word processing/spreadsheeting/database work, and gaming. I
don't ask for much, do I? *L*

Any and all feedback will be greatly appreciated! For e-mail response,
please send to "thustar at yahoo dot com."

Thanks and happy computing,
Eric
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article
<ericp06-DFCFE0.11135912042006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
"Eric P." <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Hello,

I'm interested in hearing from anyone who's compared the performance of Linux (specifically YDL) and Mac OS X (the more current version, the better). I want to install each of these systems and check 'em out, and
I'd like any useful information and interesting observations folks may
have from their experiences.

Since both systems were born of UNIX, does it make sense to run both on
a single machine? I'm wondering which of the two systems would be best
for use on a G4/450 single-processor system. That's the machine I have, currently with 640MB of RAM, but I plan on maxing it out sometime soon,
then changing the graphics card to a GeForce 4 Ti (hope Linux supports this!), and later a processor upgrade.

I'm looking for the best performance I can get from my machine in speed
and stability. Wherever there's a choice, I favor more stability, of
course. I want to make my system the best it can possibly be for
Internet use, graphics and sound editing (later including audio
recording), word processing/spreadsheeting/database work, and gaming. I don't ask for much, do I? *L*

Any and all feedback will be greatly appreciated! For e-mail response, please send to "thustar at yahoo dot com."

I run both YDL 4.1 and Mac OS X 10.4.6. I have never had a problem with
the stability of either system. I can't answer your questions about
about speed without some indication of what you're going to be doing.
You get the best performance from your machine when you can accomplish
the task at hand. What's the task? What tools do you have available?
How well do you know how to use them?

--
Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3
7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.powerpc.]

On 2006-04-12, Eric P. <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

I'm interested in hearing from anyone who's compared the performance of Linux (specifically YDL) and Mac OS X (the more current version, the better). I want to install each of these systems and check 'em out, and
I'd like any useful information and interesting observations folks may
have from their experiences.

Please note, this is seat-of-pants only.

I have an iBook G4, and I run both OS X Tiger and Slackintosh 10.2 (no
YDL, sorry). Just from my eye, linux seems to run a lot more quickly
than OS X. firefox starts in <5s on the linux box, often >10s on the OS X
box. That could be at least in part an artifact of having home
directories on NFS (and over openvpn and wireless!), but my guest
account has similar speeds with Firefox startup, so perhaps no. X11 is
quite a bit slower on OS X, but it is running on top of Quartz, whereas
X11 on linux is by itself.

Since both systems were born of UNIX, does it make sense to run both on
a single machine?

It can, if you want linux but need certain OS X apps.

I'm looking for the best performance I can get from my machine in speed
and stability. Wherever there's a choice, I favor more stability, of
course. I want to make my system the best it can possibly be for
Internet use, graphics and sound editing (later including audio
recording), word processing/spreadsheeting/database work, and gaming. I don't ask for much, do I? *L*

Gaming? Get an x86. ;-) I haven't had too many issues with OS X
stability, so I'd suggest you choose based on ease-of-use and available applications. And if you have some linux experience, YDL will be pretty
heavy on that processor; the extra RAM will help, but YDL will gobble
whatever you give it, and it seems like the incremental speed gains
might not be worth putting YDL on there (you could get a similar
environment from fink, for example). If you still wanted a linux, I'd
go for a more lightweight one--Slackintosh, CRUX, and Gentoo might be
worth pursuing.

--keith

--
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me) AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom
see X- headers for PGP signature information

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Eric P. <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

I'm looking for the best performance I can get from my machine in speed
and stability. Wherever there's a choice, I favor more stability, of
course. I want to make my system the best it can possibly be for
Internet use, graphics and sound editing (later including audio
recording), word processing/spreadsheeting/database work, and gaming. I
don't ask for much, do I? *L*

The question mostly doesn't make sense to me. "Performance" normally
refers to speed. I see that you are asking about both speed and
stability, but still....

1. Stability. Both operating systems are good in terms of stability.
What issues you might have in that area are going to have a lot more to
do with the specific applications than with the operating system.
Stability of the OS just isn't a basis for selecting between those two
options.

2. Speed. Most of the things you listed just aren't speed critical. Word processing? Internet stuff has speed issues, of course, but they seldom
have much to do with your system. And then...

Games. You are kidding, right? It is a really rare game where there even
exist versions on the multiple operating systems so that you can make a
speed comparison. Some exist. But not many at all. You probably wouldn't
have to use a second hand to count them, much less take off your socks.
Neither Linux nor Mac OS are particularly strong in the game market at
all. Both have some games, but the selection is limited. And the big
question is almost always not whether a particular game will perform
well, but whether it exists at all for those systems.

In short, I don't see that it makes sense for you to be asking about performance (either speed or stability). Sounds to me like a *FAR* more significant issue is the question of what applications are available and whether they suit your needs.

If you really want a gaming machine, then Windows is pretty much where
it is at. (That or a console). Even with all the flaws of Windows, the
big decider turns out to be that, given some random game you might want,
it will usually be available on Windows and not on Linux or OS-X. That's
not true 100% of the time, but it is sure so a lot of the time.

I might suggest an Intel Mac with dual booting. Use OS-X for most
everything except the games - Windows for the games.

--
Richard Maine | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: my first.last at org.domain| experience comes from bad judgment.
org: nasa, domain: gov | -- Mark Twain
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2006-04-12, Tom Stiller <tomstiller@comcast.net> wrote:

In article
<ericp06-DFCFE0.11135912042006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
"Eric P." <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Hello,

I'm interested in hearing from anyone who's compared the performance of
Linux (specifically YDL) and Mac OS X (the more current version, the
better). I want to install each of these systems and check 'em out, and
I'd like any useful information and interesting observations folks may
have from their experiences.

Since both systems were born of UNIX, does it make sense to run both on
a single machine? I'm wondering which of the two systems would be best
for use on a G4/450 single-processor system. That's the machine I have,
currently with 640MB of RAM, but I plan on maxing it out sometime soon,
then changing the graphics card to a GeForce 4 Ti (hope Linux supports
this!), and later a processor upgrade.

I'm looking for the best performance I can get from my machine in speed
and stability. Wherever there's a choice, I favor more stability, of
course. I want to make my system the best it can possibly be for
Internet use, graphics and sound editing (later including audio
recording), word processing/spreadsheeting/database work, and gaming. I
don't ask for much, do I? *L*

Any and all feedback will be greatly appreciated! For e-mail response,
please send to "thustar at yahoo dot com."

I run both YDL 4.1 and Mac OS X 10.4.6. I have never had a problem with
the stability of either system. I can't answer your questions about
about speed without some indication of what you're going to be doing.
You get the best performance from your machine when you can accomplish
the task at hand. What's the task? What tools do you have available?
How well do you know how to use them?

[speaking as a Linux developer]

First, I work for Red Hat. I work on the installer (anaconda) and we
develop on all platforms concurrently. There are no "ppc teams" and
"x86 teams".

I have several PPC boxes and have spent a lot of time hacking on Linux
PPC. Most of my work is on x86 these days, but hopefully I can share
some information that you might find useful.

First, MacOS X. The OS itself is quite interesting. Having used
NEXTSTEP in the past, it was interesting to see MacOS X birth itself
from this codebase. More than half of the code was updated by pulling
in pieces from FreeBSD and NetBSD. My knowledge is based off early
releases, so I'm sure things have changed drastically since then.

My problems with MacOS X are:

- Lack of ELF. I think this is one of the biggest problems still
existing. This presents problems for development of software for
ELF Unix systems and MacOS X systems.

- Something other than X for the display subsystem. This argument
can go both ways and since X display support is fairly well
integrated in to MacOS X now, it's less of a problem. My issue is
that all of the programs I use are X-based, so the MacOS X display
environment is just another wall for me to jump over. But, I can
see plenty of reasons not to use X. It certainly is archaic and
prevents development of the various *bling* features that OS X
users like (but look for AIGLX in X.org soon!).

And that's really it. I could use OS X for my workstation, but I don't
need to mostly because all of my usable Power Macs are broken now
(laptops and displays....expensive). I do like OS X and it's nice to
see a successful operating system on the desktop with Unix underneath.

So what about Linux... well, usability certainly has come a long way.
Current releases of GNOME and KDE make using Linux less of an
adventure these days (or for that matter, any Unix-like operating
system). What you will miss are commercial software components and
drivers that have Linux variants. NVIDIA and ATI releases their drivers
for Linux, but it's Linux for 32-bit Intel support. They don't have
Linux PPC drivers. Other examples include the Flash plugin (again,
Linux x86 only) and Adobe Reader (Linux x86 only). If you can live
without those things, Linux PPC may be worth looking at. I find most
desktop users get frustrated with Linux PPC for these small reasons.

In general, when a company says it will release Linux versions of its proprietary software, they really mean Linux on 32-bit Intel.

Just food for thought...

--
David Cantrell
Red Hat / Westford, MA
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

"Eric P." <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> writes:

I'm interested in hearing from anyone who's compared the performance of >Linux (specifically YDL) and Mac OS X (the more current version, the >better).

http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2520

It depends on the application. The application they tested apparently
hit on speed bump in MacOS X.

Since both systems were born of UNIX, does it make sense to run both on
a single machine?

Depends on what you want. I only want a GNU system, so I only run
GNU/Linux on my iBook.

If you want a Unix, my impression is that you will have an easier time
with GNU/Linux. E.g., some years ago I had to install a new account
on a MacOS X box. So I did the traditional Unix thing and edited
/etc/passwd. However, this did not work. After exiting the editor,
the file had it's old contents. Eventually I gave up, went to the
console and created the account using a Mac-style point-and-click
interface.

then changing the graphics card to a GeForce 4 Ti (hope Linux supports >this!)

Free X drivers (no proprietary drivers for Linux/PPC) support only the
2D accelerated hardware of these cards. If you want to make use of 3D acceleration hardware, buy a Radeon card based on the R200 or earlier (essentially all Radeons up to the Radeon 9250); at least that's the
theory; in practice the Radeon Mobility 9200 on my iBook does not seem
to get 3D acceleration (but I have not tried very hard). For more
theory: I have read that 3D support for the R300 is getting usable.

As for Acroread, maybe xpdf or gv (and their offspring) are
appropriate replacements for your uses. There is also <http://maconlinux.org/>.

Followups set to colp.

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl Some things have to be seen to be believed anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2006-04-12 21:27:37 +0300, Tom Stiller <tomstiller@comcast.net> said:

I run both YDL 4.1 and Mac OS X 10.4.6. I have never had a problem
with the stability of either system. I can't answer your questions
about about speed without some indication of what you're going to be
doing. You get the best performance from your machine when you can accomplish the task at hand. What's the task? What tools do you have available? How well do you know how to use them?

I wonder if the x86 rule apply to macs? You know.. Linux/FreeBSD (in
this arch,Darwin) for serving, OS X for client. Did you see Ars
Technica benchmark of Apache/YDL and Apache/OS XServe?

There is also a cow rule as you should not feed your own cow to drink a
glass of milk everyday :) That is from the days while windows trolls
were more "quality" types :) No, it was said against x86 Linux for home.

Ilgaz

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <4a5if0Fra378U10@individual.net>,
Ilgaz Ocal <ilgaz_ocal@yahoo.com > wrote:

On 2006-04-12 21:27:37 +0300, Tom Stiller <tomstiller@comcast.net> said:

I run both YDL 4.1 and Mac OS X 10.4.6. I have never had a problem
with the stability of either system. I can't answer your questions
about about speed without some indication of what you're going to be doing. You get the best performance from your machine when you can accomplish the task at hand. What's the task? What tools do you have available? How well do you know how to use them?

I wonder if the x86 rule apply to macs? You know.. Linux/FreeBSD (in
this arch,Darwin) for serving, OS X for client. Did you see Ars
Technica benchmark of Apache/YDL and Apache/OS XServe?

There is also a cow rule as you should not feed your own cow to drink a glass of milk everyday :) That is from the days while windows trolls
were more "quality" types :) No, it was said against x86 Linux for home.

I have absolutely no idea how to respond.

--
Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3
7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2006-04-13, Tom Stiller <tomstiller@comcast.net> wrote:

In article <4a5if0Fra378U10@individual.net>,
Ilgaz Ocal <ilgaz_ocal@yahoo.com > wrote:

There is also a cow rule as you should not feed your own cow to drink a
glass of milk everyday :) That is from the days while windows trolls
were more "quality" types :) No, it was said against x86 Linux for home.

I have absolutely no idea how to respond.

Moo?

--keith

--
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me) AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom
see X- headers for PGP signature information

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <8eo0h3xm33.ln2@goaway.wombat.san-francisco.ca.us>,
Keith Keller <kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:

On 2006-04-13, Tom Stiller <tomstiller@comcast.net> wrote:

In article <4a5if0Fra378U10@individual.net>,
Ilgaz Ocal <ilgaz_ocal@yahoo.com > wrote:

There is also a cow rule as you should not feed your own cow to drink a >> glass of milk everyday :) That is from the days while windows trolls
were more "quality" types :) No, it was said against x86 Linux for home. >>

I have absolutely no idea how to respond.

Moo?

Moof!!!

Greg B.

--
Actual e-mail address is gbuchner and I'm located at mn.rr.com
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Eric P. wrote:

Hello,

I'm interested in hearing from anyone who's compared the performance of Linux (specifically YDL) and Mac OS X (the more current version, the better). I want to install each of these systems and check 'em out, and
I'd like any useful information and interesting observations folks may
have from their experiences.

Since both systems were born of UNIX, does it make sense to run both on
a single machine? I'm wondering which of the two systems would be best
for use on a G4/450 single-processor system. That's the machine I have, currently with 640MB of RAM, but I plan on maxing it out sometime soon,
then changing the graphics card to a GeForce 4 Ti (hope Linux supports this!), and later a processor upgrade.

I'm looking for the best performance I can get from my machine in speed
and stability. Wherever there's a choice, I favor more stability, of
course. I want to make my system the best it can possibly be for
Internet use, graphics and sound editing (later including audio
recording), word processing/spreadsheeting/database work, and gaming. I don't ask for much, do I? *L*

If you're talking about pure number-crunching type of performance
(server configurations), Linux is going to win.

If you're talking about usability considerations that will allow you to
get work done (desktop setting), OS X is going to win.

IMHO.

Tim
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2006-04-13 04:08:32 +0300, Tom Stiller <tomstiller@comcast.net> said:

In article <4a5if0Fra378U10@individual.net>,
Ilgaz Ocal <ilgaz_ocal@yahoo.com > wrote:

On 2006-04-12 21:27:37 +0300, Tom Stiller <tomstiller@comcast.net> said:

I run both YDL 4.1 and Mac OS X 10.4.6. I have never had a problem
with the stability of either system. I can't answer your questions
about about speed without some indication of what you're going to be
doing. You get the best performance from your machine when you can
accomplish the task at hand. What's the task? What tools do you have
available? How well do you know how to use them?

I wonder if the x86 rule apply to macs? You know.. Linux/FreeBSD (in
this arch,Darwin) for serving, OS X for client. Did you see Ars
Technica benchmark of Apache/YDL and Apache/OS XServe?

There is also a cow rule as you should not feed your own cow to drink a
glass of milk everyday :) That is from the days while windows trolls
were more "quality" types :) No, it was said against x86 Linux for home.

I have absolutely no idea how to respond.

It is about very simple thing that Yahoo serves using FreeBSD yet
everyone in Yahoo (clients) in windows/OS X.

Windows and OS X are better on Desktop (client), more capable but it
has some "costs" as overhead. Linux and FreeBSD/Darwin/OS X Server is
more optimized for serving, serves better on that purpose.

Sorry for saying it in a very complex way (I guess?)

Ilgaz


--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <4a6rijFrvo05U1@individual.net>,
Ilgaz Ocal <ilgaz_ocal@yahoo.com > wrote:

On 2006-04-13 04:08:32 +0300, Tom Stiller <tomstiller@comcast.net> said:

In article <4a5if0Fra378U10@individual.net>,
Ilgaz Ocal <ilgaz_ocal@yahoo.com > wrote:

On 2006-04-12 21:27:37 +0300, Tom Stiller <tomstiller@comcast.net> said: >>

I run both YDL 4.1 and Mac OS X 10.4.6. I have never had a problem
with the stability of either system. I can't answer your questions
about about speed without some indication of what you're going to be
doing. You get the best performance from your machine when you can
accomplish the task at hand. What's the task? What tools do you have >>> available? How well do you know how to use them?

I wonder if the x86 rule apply to macs? You know.. Linux/FreeBSD (in
this arch,Darwin) for serving, OS X for client. Did you see Ars
Technica benchmark of Apache/YDL and Apache/OS XServe?

There is also a cow rule as you should not feed your own cow to drink a >> glass of milk everyday :) That is from the days while windows trolls
were more "quality" types :) No, it was said against x86 Linux for home. >>

I have absolutely no idea how to respond.

It is about very simple thing that Yahoo serves using FreeBSD yet
everyone in Yahoo (clients) in windows/OS X.

Windows and OS X are better on Desktop (client), more capable but it
has some "costs" as overhead. Linux and FreeBSD/Darwin/OS X Server is
more optimized for serving, serves better on that purpose.

Sorry for saying it in a very complex way (I guess?)

Yahoo?! Who said anything about Yahoo?

--
Tom Stiller

PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3
7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2006-04-13 18:37:13 +0300, Tom Stiller <tomstiller@comcast.net> said:

It is about very simple thing that Yahoo serves using FreeBSD yet
everyone in Yahoo (clients) in windows/OS X.

Windows and OS X are better on Desktop (client), more capable but it
has some "costs" as overhead. Linux and FreeBSD/Darwin/OS X Server is
more optimized for serving, serves better on that purpose.

Sorry for saying it in a very complex way (I guess?)

Yahoo?! Who said anything about Yahoo?

OK- I get it, you either can't understand a simple, non native english
speaker english or you have a problem with me.

Or you like those "1000 article per thread" usenet fights.

I am writing the exact thing as Timothy Larson giving a real life example.

OS X is a very good Unix CLIENT, X Serve is a good server OS, FreeBSD/Linux/Darwin are great for RAW SERVERS. Those machines not even
having a graphics card.

I am very tired investigate my (or google) usenet archive about why
this "I can't understand" game happens.

Not falling into it of course.

Ilgaz

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <4a7dl6Frpen2U1@individual.net>,
Ilgaz Ocal <ilgaz_ocal@yahoo.com > wrote:

On 2006-04-13 18:37:13 +0300, Tom Stiller <tomstiller@comcast.net> said:

It is about very simple thing that Yahoo serves using FreeBSD yet
everyone in Yahoo (clients) in windows/OS X.

Windows and OS X are better on Desktop (client), more capable but it
has some "costs" as overhead. Linux and FreeBSD/Darwin/OS X Server is
more optimized for serving, serves better on that purpose.

Sorry for saying it in a very complex way (I guess?)

Yahoo?! Who said anything about Yahoo?

OK- I get it, you either can't understand a simple, non native english speaker english or you have a problem with me.

Or you like those "1000 article per thread" usenet fights.

I am writing the exact thing as Timothy Larson giving a real life example.

OS X is a very good Unix CLIENT, X Serve is a good server OS, FreeBSD/Linux/Darwin are great for RAW SERVERS. Those machines not even having a graphics card.

I am very tired investigate my (or google) usenet archive about why
this "I can't understand" game happens.

Not falling into it of course.

Ilgaz

Getting back to, and clarifying, my original question, what would y'all recommend as a better single-user OS for home use for "MS Office" style
apps, e-mail/Web/Usenet, graphics/sound workstation? ...and I guess
never mind about gaming, as I'll accept whatever limitations either OS
places on game performance, if any.

Please keep sharing your thoughts and experiences.

Happy computing,
Eric
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <ericp06-D58960.11440413042006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
Eric P. <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
...

Getting back to, and clarifying, my original question, what would y'all >recommend as a better single-user OS for home use for "MS Office" style >apps, e-mail/Web/Usenet, graphics/sound workstation? ...and I guess
never mind about gaming, as I'll accept whatever limitations either OS >places on game performance, if any. ....

Better is quite subjective and there is no substitute for *you* getting
some experience on each platform to see what you like. That said...

MS-Office apps: If you really need MS-access, then winXP is hard to avoid.
If you can do with another database (or none) and you don't need to
frequently share a document for editing, then you should be fine on
either MS-office on windows, MS-office on Macintosh, or open office
on any platform.

e-mail: If you have a corporate requirement for a particular client, then
you might be locked into a particular piece of software. Otherwise,
proprietary and free clients abound for all platforms. Tastes vary.

Web: Likewise, browsers abound on all platforms. If you have a real need
for Internet Explorer, you have my condolences. Firefox is a great
browser for all platforms and Safari is often fine as well. Many options.

Usenet: Tastes vary here and there are many options. I like trn compiled on
this macintosh. Other solutions are too numerous to name.

Graphics/Sound - This covers many applications and it might help if you
could mention a specific application. I find the iLife suite from
Apple to be very useful for consumer-level photo/movie/sound work.
You might have something else in mind entirely.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

["Followup-To:" header set to comp.os.linux.powerpc.]

On 2006-04-13, Daniel Packman <pack@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu> wrote:

Web: Likewise, browsers abound on all platforms. If you have a real need
for Internet Explorer, you have my condolences. Firefox is a great
browser for all platforms and Safari is often fine as well. Many options.

As someone else pointed out (perhaps only to colp), browser support on linux-ppc is fine, but browser plugin support is spotty at best. No
flash, difficult or older java, no shockwave, no streaming media. If
that's very important to the OP, OS X is probably a better choice
(though dual-boot is always an option).

--keith

--
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me) AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom
see X- headers for PGP signature information

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2006-04-13 21:43:32 +0300, "Eric P." <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> said:

Getting back to, and clarifying, my original question, what would y'all recommend as a better single-user OS for home use for "MS Office" style apps, e-mail/Web/Usenet, graphics/sound workstation? ...and I guess
never mind about gaming, as I'll accept whatever limitations either OS places on game performance, if any.

Please keep sharing your thoughts and experiences.

Happy computing,
Eric

I clearly suggest OS X for client. Only thing would be "it is not
totally opensource/gpl" against it but in case you don't know, the
nvidia and ati drivers on Linux are already closed source binaries.

OS X is called "the most successful unix on desktop". It offers best of
closed source and open source. One can use an entirely open source/GPL
program suite on it if he wishes. That is the thing making it powerful.

Ilgaz

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Richard E Maine wrote:

Eric P. <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

I'm looking for the best performance I can get from my machine in speed
and stability. Wherever there's a choice, I favor more stability, of >>course. I want to make my system the best it can possibly be for
Internet use, graphics and sound editing (later including audio >>recording), word processing/spreadsheeting/database work, and gaming. I >>don't ask for much, do I? *L*

The question mostly doesn't make sense to me. "Performance" normally
refers to speed. I see that you are asking about both speed and
stability, but still....

1. Stability. Both operating systems are good in terms of stability.
What issues you might have in that area are going to have a lot more to
do with the specific applications than with the operating system.
Stability of the OS just isn't a basis for selecting between those two options.

2. Speed. Most of the things you listed just aren't speed critical. Word processing? Internet stuff has speed issues, of course, but they seldom
have much to do with your system. And then...

Games. You are kidding, right? It is a really rare game where there even exist versions on the multiple operating systems so that you can make a
speed comparison. Some exist. But not many at all. You probably wouldn't
have to use a second hand to count them, much less take off your socks. Neither Linux nor Mac OS are particularly strong in the game market at
all. Both have some games, but the selection is limited. And the big
question is almost always not whether a particular game will perform
well, but whether it exists at all for those systems.

In short, I don't see that it makes sense for you to be asking about performance (either speed or stability). Sounds to me like a *FAR* more significant issue is the question of what applications are available and whether they suit your needs.

If you really want a gaming machine, then Windows is pretty much where
it is at. (That or a console). Even with all the flaws of Windows, the
big decider turns out to be that, given some random game you might want,
it will usually be available on Windows and not on Linux or OS-X. That's
not true 100% of the time, but it is sure so a lot of the time.

I might suggest an Intel Mac with dual booting. Use OS-X for most
everything except the games - Windows for the games.

Games? 1400 of them run on Linux! And, according to tests at PC Gaming
mag, expect a MINIMUM 8X faster response/processing on GNU/Linux!
http://www.icculus.org/lgfaq/gamelist.php?license=free
http://transgaming.org/gamesdb/
http://www.happypenguin.org/
http://lhl.linuxgames.com/
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/savage/news_6072312.html

Lots MORE! But this should hold you for a while! Don't forget, your
Quake Servers run really great, when they are GNU/Linux!!! http://www.linuxgames.com/ is where you cn check out the QUETOO
project! Among others!
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system


"Ilgaz Ocal" <ilgaz_ocal@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:4a7dl6Frpen2U1@individual.net...

On 2006-04-13 18:37:13 +0300, Tom Stiller <tomstiller@comcast.net> said:

It is about very simple thing that Yahoo serves using FreeBSD yet
everyone in Yahoo (clients) in windows/OS X.

Windows and OS X are better on Desktop (client), more capable but it
has some "costs" as overhead. Linux and FreeBSD/Darwin/OS X Server is
more optimized for serving, serves better on that purpose.

Sorry for saying it in a very complex way (I guess?)

Yahoo?! Who said anything about Yahoo?

OK- I get it, you either can't understand a simple, non native english speaker english or you have a problem with me.

Or you like those "1000 article per thread" usenet fights.

I am writing the exact thing as Timothy Larson giving a real life example.

OS X is a very good Unix CLIENT, X Serve is a good server OS, FreeBSD/Linux/Darwin are great for RAW SERVERS. Those machines not even having a graphics card.

I am very tired investigate my (or google) usenet archive about why
this "I can't understand" game happens.

Not falling into it of course.

Ok, but I don't understand you either.

Greg


--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <e1m8q1$dv6$1@news.ucar.edu>,
pack@pack.acd.ucar.edu.ucar.edu (Daniel Packman) wrote:

In article <ericp06-D58960.11440413042006@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
Eric P. <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
...

Getting back to, and clarifying, my original question, what would y'all >recommend as a better single-user OS for home use for "MS Office" style >apps, e-mail/Web/Usenet, graphics/sound workstation? ...and I guess
never mind about gaming, as I'll accept whatever limitations either OS >places on game performance, if any. ....

Better is quite subjective and there is no substitute for *you* getting
some experience on each platform to see what you like. That said...

MS-Office apps: If you really need MS-access, then winXP is hard to avoid.
If you can do with another database (or none) and you don't need to
frequently share a document for editing, then you should be fine on
either MS-office on windows, MS-office on Macintosh, or open office
on any platform.

I have no need for Access. My database app of choice has always been
FileMaker Pro. I will do all I can to avoid ever owning any version of
MS Windows, but still the possibility exists...at some point...if I find
a sufficiently valid reason to own and use both an Apple and a PC.

e-mail: If you have a corporate requirement for a particular client, then
you might be locked into a particular piece of software. Otherwise,
proprietary and free clients abound for all platforms. Tastes vary.

E-mail is purely a personal choice. I favor Eudora (and not just because
it's free). Any similar and ideally non-MS mail app would do just fine.

Web: Likewise, browsers abound on all platforms. If you have a real need
for Internet Explorer, you have my condolences. Firefox is a great
browser for all platforms and Safari is often fine as well. Many options.

No real need for IE. That's another program I avoid whenever possible. Currently, I favor Mozilla, and I've used (and liked) Camino under OS X.
My old standby is always Netscape. I've used Safari, but like it less
than Netscape. I have no experience with FireFox as of yet.

Usenet: Tastes vary here and there are many options. I like trn compiled on
this macintosh. Other solutions are too numerous to name.

MT-Newswatcher does it for me. Any similar newsgroup reader would do.

Graphics/Sound - This covers many applications and it might help if you
could mention a specific application. I find the iLife suite from
Apple to be very useful for consumer-level photo/movie/sound work.
You might have something else in mind entirely.

For image editing, I use Photoshop and GraphicConverter.
For sound editing, I use SoundApp, Sound Studio (Felt Tip), and rarely SoundEdit. As I'm studying audio engineering, I'm interested in sound
editing software with more features (namely effects processing), but
that may be a whole nother realm. I have to ultimately decide if my
current computer shall be an audio or a visual workstation, and then
plan to buy another machine to handle the other.

I don't work with video at all, and have no plans to start.

Hope this helps direct more feedback.
Thanks,
Eric
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <ciB%f.139458$Fw6.28596@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
Whaxiac <whaxiac@yahoo.com> wrote:

Richard E Maine wrote:

Eric P. <ericp06@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

I'm looking for the best performance I can get from my machine in speed >>and stability. Wherever there's a choice, I favor more stability, of >>course. I want to make my system the best it can possibly be for >>Internet use, graphics and sound editing (later including audio >>recording), word processing/spreadsheeting/database work, and gaming. I >>don't ask for much, do I? *L*

The question mostly doesn't make sense to me. "Performance" normally
refers to speed. I see that you are asking about both speed and
stability, but still....

1. Stability. Both operating systems are good in terms of stability.
What issues you might have in that area are going to have a lot more to
do with the specific applications than with the operating system.
Stability of the OS just isn't a basis for selecting between those two options.

2. Speed. Most of the things you listed just aren't speed critical. Word processing? Internet stuff has speed issues, of course, but they seldom have much to do with your system. And then...

Games. You are kidding, right? It is a really rare game where there even exist versions on the multiple operating systems so that you can make a speed comparison. Some exist. But not many at all. You probably wouldn't have to use a second hand to count them, much less take off your socks. Neither Linux nor Mac OS are particularly strong in the game market at
all. Both have some games, but the selection is limited. And the big question is almost always not whether a particular game will perform
well, but whether it exists at all for those systems.

In short, I don't see that it makes sense for you to be asking about performance (either speed or stability). Sounds to me like a *FAR* more significant issue is the question of what applications are available and whether they suit your needs.

If you really want a gaming machine, then Windows is pretty much where
it is at. (That or a console). Even with all the flaws of Windows, the
big decider turns out to be that, given some random game you might want,
it will usually be available on Windows and not on Linux or OS-X. That's not true 100% of the time, but it is sure so a lot of the time.

I might suggest an Intel Mac with dual booting. Use OS-X for most everything except the games - Windows for the games.

Games? 1400 of them run on Linux! And, according to tests at PC Gaming mag, expect a MINIMUM 8X faster response/processing on GNU/Linux!
http://www.icculus.org/lgfaq/gamelist.php?license=free
http://transgaming.org/gamesdb/
http://www.happypenguin.org/
http://lhl.linuxgames.com/
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/savage/news_6072312.html

Lots MORE! But this should hold you for a while! Don't forget, your
Quake Servers run really great, when they are GNU/Linux!!! http://www.linuxgames.com/ is where you cn check out the QUETOO
project! Among others!

This looks like good news to me! The games I like aren't many, but most
make demands of hw and sw...Quake III Arena, Unreal Tournament, Baldur's
Gate, Diablo II, Warcraft III, Civilization...those kinds of games.

Thanks,
Eric
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Ilgaz Ocal <ilgaz_ocal@yahoo.com > writes:

Only thing would be "it is not
totally opensource/gpl" against it but in case you don't know, the
nvidia and ati drivers on Linux are already closed source binaries.

I don't know that, and my computers which happily run Linux on ATI
graphics cards (and earlier an Nvidia card), don't know that either.
The drivers I use and used for these cards are free software, and
available in source.

There are proprietary binary-only drivers from ATI and Nvidia for some platforms, but there free drivers for all of them. And Linux/PPC is a
platform where only the free drivers are available.

Followups set to colp.

- anton
--
M. Anton Ertl Some things have to be seen to be believed anton@mips.complang.tuwien.ac.at Most things have to be believed to be seen http://www.complang.tuwien.ac.at/anton/home.html
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113