Could you please point me to this "Anandtech page on Mac OS X vs Linux"? I seem to be having trouble searching for it on Anandtech's website.
Oh and thank you for your joke about the Windows kernel, man I spit out the milk I was drinking I laughed so hard.
Don't be such a fanboy. If there's a problem with your OS of choice you're the first person who's supposed to be complaining about it. The Windows kernel IS very very good.
Here are the links which was so hard to find.
Let's see. you goto anandtech.com. Click on 'Mac'. You'll find two articles. 'No more mysteries, Apple's G5 versus x86, Mac OS X versus Linux' and then 'No more mysteries, part II'.
The first one was an article that pitted the G5 against X86. They found that Mac OS X SUCKED against Linux on the x86. People cried foul. Then they tried the same tests with Linux and OS X on the same hardware. OS X STILL sucked. Need i say more about the kernel?
Don't be such a fanboy. If there's a problem with your OS of choice you're the first person who's supposed to be complaining about it. The Windows kernel IS very very good.
Here are the links which was so hard to find.
Let's see. you goto anandtech.com. Click on 'Mac'. You'll find two articles. 'No more mysteries, Apple's G5 versus x86, Mac OS X versus Linux' and then 'No more mysteries, part II'.
The first one was an article that pitted the G5 against X86. They found that Mac OS X SUCKED against Linux on the x86. People cried foul. Then they tried the same tests with Linux and OS X on the same hardware. OS X STILL sucked. Need i say more about the kernel?
When you say that OSX's kernel sucks, what about it is poor? I've seen several people express similar thoughts about this without really being specific. What is the weakness of OSX's kernel?
PS This isn't a fanboy post either for macs or pcs.
When you say that OSX's kernel sucks, what about it is poor? I've seen several people express similar thoughts about this without really being specific. What is the weakness of OSX's kernel?
PS This isn't a fanboy post either for macs or pcs.
That's a very good question backtomac. I think I was being a little too harsh on OS X. Let me elaborate.
If you take a look at that site, its solely a measure of performance. They wanted to test Apple's claims that the powermac G5 was the world's fastest computer. They found the claim to be untrue against other X86 processors, more specifically the Opteron by AMD.
They then tried the same tests on the same Powermac one running yellow dog linux and the other with Mac OS X 10.4 Server. The results were very interesting. Linux performed exponentially better which meant that the G5 WAS still an excellent processor, the achilles heel was Mac OS X.
They did quite a few tests but the basic way to check performance on a server is to see how well it can handle load. Take for example the mySQL test (one of many tests btw). They test how many queries the computer can handle versus how many concurrent connections are made to the server.
At one concurrent connection, Tiger could do 200 queries. Linux 2.6 on the same hardware was about 230. But as they kept increasing the number of connections, Tiger just flopped. At 35 concurrent connections, Tiger could only service 50 queries. Compare that to Linux handling over 420 queries at 35 connections! this all on the same hardware!
The above might seem like some serious mambo jambo. Some may cry foul with some reasons for why MySQL performance is so pitiful on OS X but there were many more tests done and they all had similar results.
The thing is that for the usual computer user (email, web browsing) the above doesn't really make a difference. However, the performance difference is glaring. It really comes into play when you start to tax your computer more. It's why people start switching to Linux instead of OS X on older mac's like G3's. It's just that much faster on the same hardware. There is a problem with OS X, I just hope apple can find it and fix it.
As I see it with Bootcamp, OS X is going head to head with Windows. Performance is a significant factor. Performance is also a very important factor in the server and enterprise markets, so this is a huge concern.
That's a very good question backtomac. I think I was being a little too harsh on OS X. Let me elaborate.
If you take a look at that site, its solely a measure of performance. They wanted to test Apple's claims that the powermac G5 was the world's fastest computer. They found the claim to be untrue against other X86 processors, more specifically the Opteron by AMD.
They then tried the same tests on the same Powermac one running yellow dog linux and the other with Mac OS X 10.4 Server. The results were very interesting. Linux performed exponentially better which meant that the G5 WAS still an excellent processor, the achilles heel was Mac OS X.
They did quite a few tests but the basic way to check performance on a server is to see how well it can handle load. Take for example the mySQL test (one of many tests btw). They test how many queries the computer can handle versus how many concurrent connections are made to the server.
At one concurrent connection, Tiger could do 200 queries. Linux 2.6 on the same hardware was about 230. But as they kept increasing the number of connections, Tiger just flopped. At 35 concurrent connections, Tiger could only service 50 queries. Compare that to Linux handling over 420 queries at 35 connections! this all on the same hardware!
The above might seem like some serious mambo jambo. Some may cry foul with some reasons for why MySQL performance is so pitiful on OS X but there were many more tests done and they all had similar results.
The thing is that for the usual computer user (email, web browsing) the above doesn't really make a difference. However, the performance difference is glaring. It really comes into play when you start to tax your computer more. It's why people start switching to Linux instead of OS X on older mac's like G3's. It's just that much faster on the same hardware. There is a problem with OS X, I just hope apple can find it and fix it.
As I see it with Bootcamp, OS X is going head to head with Windows. Performance is a significant factor. Performance is also a very important factor in the server and enterprise markets, so this is a huge concern.
As a (soon to be) IT guy, I welcome all the delays that MS can come up with, just more time for Linux/F-OSS to get it together for the corprate desktop (FC5 and Novel/Suse desktop 10 come really close to the mark)
Visa and it's grandchildern will be released before you see widespread use of Linux on corporate desktops.
As far as kernels go what are the strenghts and weaknesses of all of them? Is OSX stable, slow, ect? How about Windows? I'm curious to know.
I'm pretty sure that the Windows NT based kernels are stable. In the last eight years, the three BSODs I've had with NT, 2000 or XP were with failing hardware or bad drivers. In comparison, I've experienced more hard crashes than that last year with Tiger's USB system. Thankfully, that has matured, I haven't had one since maybe the 10.4.4 update.
Although the road is littered with the carcases of dominant companies that have underestimated MS, it is not looking good for them. Can MS pull Vista off?
Yes. 90% marketshare. New computer users will use Vista not because they choose to, but because the OS will come preinstalled on pretty much every new PC that is shipped after its introduction. Will people find Vista so unusable that they will upgrade to XP. Not likely. (Back in my Windows using days, ie, the dark ages, I upgraded my desktop to Windows98 from 95. After about two weeks running that P.O.S, I reinstalled Windows95 and kept it until I got my first Powerbook). Well, okay, so I had an XP laptop in between, but the laptop came with XP, I didn't have to buy it.
I'm pretty sure that the Windows NT based kernels are stable. In the last eight years, the three BSODs I've had with NT, 2000 or XP were with failing hardware or bad drivers. In comparison, I've experienced more hard crashes than that last year with Tiger's USB system. Thankfully, that has matured, I haven't had one since maybe the 10.4.4 update.
It always surprises me when I read people saying how OS X crashes on them for various reasons. Why would the USB system cause OS X to crash?
My Powerbook has never crashed in the 1 1/2 years that I have had it. Never. Applications crash, but those can be taken care off with the killall command or by force quitting. My uptime would be 1 1/2 years if it were not for the reboots after upgrades. Stories of OS X crashing are like stories about big foot. I've never seen one, but some people insist they have :-)
You do, otherwise you wouldn't have posted these pics.
Okay, you got me; OS X does crash, but like I said, I have never seen it (again not that it doesn't happen). I suppose you can find pictures of anything on the web, but thanks for the pics. (So that's what a kernel panick looks like.
It always surprises me when I read people saying how OS X crashes on them for various reasons. Why would the USB system cause OS X to crash?
My Powerbook has never crashed in the 1 1/2 years that I have had it. Never. Applications crash, but those can be taken care off with the killall command or by force quitting. My uptime would be 1 1/2 years if it were not for the reboots after upgrades. Stories of OS X crashing are like stories about big foot. I've never seen one, but some people insist they have :-)
To be fair, I have had my iMac since 10.4.2, and the only time I have ever had a Kernel Panic is after I installed Logitech Mouse Drivers (BTW, never use those, they suck ass). After I uninstalled those, my machine has yet to have a hiccup.
As to the prior discussion of the Windows Kernel vs. the Mac Kernel. I agree that the Windows kernel is vastly superior to that of the Mac's (which is sad). However, I think that with Darwin (the Mac OS X Kernel) being open source, it has been able to make leaps with each 10.x release of the the OS. One can only hope that significant changes and enhancements to the OS have been made, especially since we are now playing on the same turf that Windows is.
Which is very possible. But they're not unknown either as he was implying.
Quote:
Its not like it is happening to the point where people are buychung about it. :-)
No modern software crashes to the point where people are buychung. Contrary to popular belief, WinXP doesn't crash that often either. But the point remains, every piece of software ever created has the possibility to crash. And they do crash, some more others less.
As to the prior discussion of the Windows Kernel vs. the Mac Kernel. I agree that the Windows kernel is vastly superior to that of the Mac's (which is sad).
I don't think anyone went that far. A few people (myself included) pointed out that the NT kernel wasn't shit.
The Darwin Kernel, in my experience, is much better at SMP, thread scheduling and virtual memory management, and is just as stable.
the kernal in os X is ok at the moment for most if not all things that professional mac users want to do - which is the workstation class apps like cs2, Logic, FCP etc etc.. Yes server performance is crippled by bottlenecking but it is also being improved by apple with their updating and tweaking of the architecture. I think they have it they have it the way it is because, back when osX was being designed, performance hadn't really become the issue yet - they just needed something that would work.. Expect to see performance continue to improve.
Having said that I have to say that in my experience os X handles memory better than XP, as I've noticed XP has a tendency to run out of RAM fast if you ask a lot of it, and when it does, the demanding program that you are using will usually run out of resources and crash.. When you ask a lot of the mac os X in terms of RAM, it will slow down a great deal when it runs out, but your process is less likely to crash.
Comments
Originally posted by ericblr
Could you please point me to this "Anandtech page on Mac OS X vs Linux"? I seem to be having trouble searching for it on Anandtech's website.
Oh and thank you for your joke about the Windows kernel, man I spit out the milk I was drinking I laughed so hard.
Don't be such a fanboy. If there's a problem with your OS of choice you're the first person who's supposed to be complaining about it. The Windows kernel IS very very good.
Here are the links which was so hard to find.
Let's see. you goto anandtech.com. Click on 'Mac'. You'll find two articles. 'No more mysteries, Apple's G5 versus x86, Mac OS X versus Linux' and then 'No more mysteries, part II'.
The first one was an article that pitted the G5 against X86. They found that Mac OS X SUCKED against Linux on the x86. People cried foul. Then they tried the same tests with Linux and OS X on the same hardware. OS X STILL sucked. Need i say more about the kernel?
Originally posted by de_necromancer
Don't be such a fanboy. If there's a problem with your OS of choice you're the first person who's supposed to be complaining about it. The Windows kernel IS very very good.
Here are the links which was so hard to find.
Let's see. you goto anandtech.com. Click on 'Mac'. You'll find two articles. 'No more mysteries, Apple's G5 versus x86, Mac OS X versus Linux' and then 'No more mysteries, part II'.
The first one was an article that pitted the G5 against X86. They found that Mac OS X SUCKED against Linux on the x86. People cried foul. Then they tried the same tests with Linux and OS X on the same hardware. OS X STILL sucked. Need i say more about the kernel?
When you say that OSX's kernel sucks, what about it is poor? I've seen several people express similar thoughts about this without really being specific. What is the weakness of OSX's kernel?
PS This isn't a fanboy post either for macs or pcs.
Originally posted by backtomac
When you say that OSX's kernel sucks, what about it is poor? I've seen several people express similar thoughts about this without really being specific. What is the weakness of OSX's kernel?
PS This isn't a fanboy post either for macs or pcs.
That's a very good question backtomac. I think I was being a little too harsh on OS X. Let me elaborate.
If you take a look at that site, its solely a measure of performance. They wanted to test Apple's claims that the powermac G5 was the world's fastest computer. They found the claim to be untrue against other X86 processors, more specifically the Opteron by AMD.
They then tried the same tests on the same Powermac one running yellow dog linux and the other with Mac OS X 10.4 Server. The results were very interesting. Linux performed exponentially better which meant that the G5 WAS still an excellent processor, the achilles heel was Mac OS X.
They did quite a few tests but the basic way to check performance on a server is to see how well it can handle load. Take for example the mySQL test (one of many tests btw). They test how many queries the computer can handle versus how many concurrent connections are made to the server.
At one concurrent connection, Tiger could do 200 queries. Linux 2.6 on the same hardware was about 230. But as they kept increasing the number of connections, Tiger just flopped. At 35 concurrent connections, Tiger could only service 50 queries. Compare that to Linux handling over 420 queries at 35 connections! this all on the same hardware!
The above might seem like some serious mambo jambo. Some may cry foul with some reasons for why MySQL performance is so pitiful on OS X but there were many more tests done and they all had similar results.
The thing is that for the usual computer user (email, web browsing) the above doesn't really make a difference. However, the performance difference is glaring. It really comes into play when you start to tax your computer more. It's why people start switching to Linux instead of OS X on older mac's like G3's. It's just that much faster on the same hardware. There is a problem with OS X, I just hope apple can find it and fix it.
As I see it with Bootcamp, OS X is going head to head with Windows. Performance is a significant factor. Performance is also a very important factor in the server and enterprise markets, so this is a huge concern.
Originally posted by de_necromancer
That's a very good question backtomac. I think I was being a little too harsh on OS X. Let me elaborate.
If you take a look at that site, its solely a measure of performance. They wanted to test Apple's claims that the powermac G5 was the world's fastest computer. They found the claim to be untrue against other X86 processors, more specifically the Opteron by AMD.
They then tried the same tests on the same Powermac one running yellow dog linux and the other with Mac OS X 10.4 Server. The results were very interesting. Linux performed exponentially better which meant that the G5 WAS still an excellent processor, the achilles heel was Mac OS X.
They did quite a few tests but the basic way to check performance on a server is to see how well it can handle load. Take for example the mySQL test (one of many tests btw). They test how many queries the computer can handle versus how many concurrent connections are made to the server.
At one concurrent connection, Tiger could do 200 queries. Linux 2.6 on the same hardware was about 230. But as they kept increasing the number of connections, Tiger just flopped. At 35 concurrent connections, Tiger could only service 50 queries. Compare that to Linux handling over 420 queries at 35 connections! this all on the same hardware!
The above might seem like some serious mambo jambo. Some may cry foul with some reasons for why MySQL performance is so pitiful on OS X but there were many more tests done and they all had similar results.
The thing is that for the usual computer user (email, web browsing) the above doesn't really make a difference. However, the performance difference is glaring. It really comes into play when you start to tax your computer more. It's why people start switching to Linux instead of OS X on older mac's like G3's. It's just that much faster on the same hardware. There is a problem with OS X, I just hope apple can find it and fix it.
As I see it with Bootcamp, OS X is going head to head with Windows. Performance is a significant factor. Performance is also a very important factor in the server and enterprise markets, so this is a huge concern.
Thanks, that makes sense.
Originally posted by a_greer
As a (soon to be) IT guy, I welcome all the delays that MS can come up with, just more time for Linux/F-OSS to get it together for the corprate desktop (FC5 and Novel/Suse desktop 10 come really close to the mark)
Visa and it's grandchildern will be released before you see widespread use of Linux on corporate desktops.
I'd be interested in seeing more Mach vs. Linux vs. Windows kernel discussion. SO I guess that's why Avie is out.
Originally posted by Aquatic
I'd be interested in seeing more Mach vs. Linux vs. Windows kernel discussion.
I am not sure if this is even worth discussing. There have been reports that Apple is considering moving away from Mach..
Originally posted by Aquatic
For perspective, we have to remember Vista has only one competitor: OS X. People don't use Linux for desktops. And probably never will. The end.
I'd be interested in seeing more Mach vs. Linux vs. Windows kernel discussion. SO I guess that's why Avie is out.
As far as kernels go what are the strenghts and weaknesses of all of them? Is OSX stable, slow, ect? How about Windows? I'm curious to know.
Originally posted by ericblr
Microsoft has become arrogant and over-confident.
You say it as though it's a recent development...
Originally posted by backtomac
As far as kernels go what are the strenghts and weaknesses of all of them? Is OSX stable, slow, ect? How about Windows? I'm curious to know.
I'm pretty sure that the Windows NT based kernels are stable. In the last eight years, the three BSODs I've had with NT, 2000 or XP were with failing hardware or bad drivers. In comparison, I've experienced more hard crashes than that last year with Tiger's USB system. Thankfully, that has matured, I haven't had one since maybe the 10.4.4 update.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/zd/20060521/tc_zd/178830
Although the road is littered with the carcases of dominant companies that have underestimated MS, it is not looking good for them. Can MS pull Vista off?
Yes. 90% marketshare. New computer users will use Vista not because they choose to, but because the OS will come preinstalled on pretty much every new PC that is shipped after its introduction. Will people find Vista so unusable that they will upgrade to XP. Not likely. (Back in my Windows using days, ie, the dark ages, I upgraded my desktop to Windows98 from 95. After about two weeks running that P.O.S, I reinstalled Windows95 and kept it until I got my first Powerbook). Well, okay, so I had an XP laptop in between, but the laptop came with XP, I didn't have to buy it.
Originally posted by JeffDM
I'm pretty sure that the Windows NT based kernels are stable. In the last eight years, the three BSODs I've had with NT, 2000 or XP were with failing hardware or bad drivers. In comparison, I've experienced more hard crashes than that last year with Tiger's USB system. Thankfully, that has matured, I haven't had one since maybe the 10.4.4 update.
It always surprises me when I read people saying how OS X crashes on them for various reasons. Why would the USB system cause OS X to crash?
My Powerbook has never crashed in the 1 1/2 years that I have had it. Never. Applications crash, but those can be taken care off with the killall command or by force quitting. My uptime would be 1 1/2 years if it were not for the reboots after upgrades. Stories of OS X crashing are like stories about big foot. I've never seen one, but some people insist they have :-)
Originally posted by Neruda
Stories of OS X crashing are like stories about big foot. I've never seen one, but some people insist they have :-)
Here's a visual representation of an OS X crash:
Here's one caused by a USB bug:
Here's one more:
Convinced? Who cares.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Convinced? Who cares.
You do, otherwise you wouldn't have posted these pics.
Okay, you got me; OS X does crash, but like I said, I have never seen it (again not that it doesn't happen). I suppose you can find pictures of anything on the web, but thanks for the pics. (So that's what a kernel panick looks like.
www.coverups.com/bigfoot.htm
Back on topic: Did you read the linked article about Vista? 2GB of ram, LOL
http://news.yahoo.com/s/zd/20060521/tc_zd/178830
Its not like it is happening to the point where people are buychung about it. :-)
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Here's a visual representation of an OS X crash:
Here's one caused by a USB bug:
Here's one more:
Convinced? Who cares.
Originally posted by Neruda
It always surprises me when I read people saying how OS X crashes on them for various reasons. Why would the USB system cause OS X to crash?
My Powerbook has never crashed in the 1 1/2 years that I have had it. Never. Applications crash, but those can be taken care off with the killall command or by force quitting. My uptime would be 1 1/2 years if it were not for the reboots after upgrades. Stories of OS X crashing are like stories about big foot. I've never seen one, but some people insist they have :-)
To be fair, I have had my iMac since 10.4.2, and the only time I have ever had a Kernel Panic is after I installed Logitech Mouse Drivers (BTW, never use those, they suck ass). After I uninstalled those, my machine has yet to have a hiccup.
As to the prior discussion of the Windows Kernel vs. the Mac Kernel. I agree that the Windows kernel is vastly superior to that of the Mac's (which is sad). However, I think that with Darwin (the Mac OS X Kernel) being open source, it has been able to make leaps with each 10.x release of the the OS. One can only hope that significant changes and enhancements to the OS have been made, especially since we are now playing on the same turf that Windows is.
Originally posted by aplnub
[B]I have never seen one.
Which is very possible. But they're not unknown either as he was implying.
Its not like it is happening to the point where people are buychung about it. :-)
No modern software crashes to the point where people are buychung. Contrary to popular belief, WinXP doesn't crash that often either. But the point remains, every piece of software ever created has the possibility to crash. And they do crash, some more others less.
Originally posted by Mike Eggleston
As to the prior discussion of the Windows Kernel vs. the Mac Kernel. I agree that the Windows kernel is vastly superior to that of the Mac's (which is sad).
I don't think anyone went that far. A few people (myself included) pointed out that the NT kernel wasn't shit.
The Darwin Kernel, in my experience, is much better at SMP, thread scheduling and virtual memory management, and is just as stable.
Its not like it is happening to the point where people are buychung about it. :-)
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Here's a visual representation of an OS X crash:
Here's one caused by a USB bug:
Here's one more:
Convinced? Who cares.
Having said that I have to say that in my experience os X handles memory better than XP, as I've noticed XP has a tendency to run out of RAM fast if you ask a lot of it, and when it does, the demanding program that you are using will usually run out of resources and crash.. When you ask a lot of the mac os X in terms of RAM, it will slow down a great deal when it runs out, but your process is less likely to crash.