Whilst the foundation of Ubuntu is shaky, Canonical is off spreading their resources further and starting other projects like the netbook remix, which has a shaking foundation too because barely any drivers on either are complete. Canonical seems to only concentrate on their own projects. If Open source is that great, then such drivers will succeed regardless.Ģ) Ubuntu doesn’t develop linux, it just grabs a bunch of packages which other distro’s have worked on. Otherwise its like handing over money to the competition. And companies aren’t going to pour all their optimisations into open drivers which any other company can just steal the optimisations. Whilst linus tolerates closed source drivers, its a risk creating them. That might be true, but I have yet to have seen any graphics card which runs faster on Ubuntu (even the Nvidia ones in the past at least seemed to be quite consistently slower on linux).ġ) Having a kernel that forces people to provide open source drivers. In other news, the website that conducted these tests could definitely use less obtrusive ads. In essence, Mac OS X 10.5.6 seems to be the better operating system according to these benchmarks, at least in the area of Mac Mini-esque hardware. Though Ubuntu was faster than OS X in just over half of the tests, many of them were only marginal differences and not landslides as a good many more of OS X’s were. Ubuntu’s dominating areas were in the OpenSSL test, with 21 signs per second whereas OS X only got seven signs per second and two of the Java SciMark tests, having about three times as many Mflops each as OS X’s 91.05 and 20.14. Mac OS X also dominated the Java 2D Microbenchmark, achieving 275% faster than Ubuntu in text rendering the Byte UNIX Benchmark (conducting floating point arithmetic) the SQLite v3.6.13 test, performing 12,500 SQL insertions in just over 25 seconds while Ubuntu took over 111 Crafty (a chess program), being six times faster in operations than Ubuntu and PostgreSQL, with 1028 TPC-B transactions per second while Ubuntu only had 389. The game used to test was “Urban Terror” 4.1. Ubuntu only achieved FPS rates of 10.5, 7.15, and 4.4, respectively– a far cry from OS X’s performance. Mac OS X dominated this field with FPS measurements of 17, 18.2, and 16.2 on the respective resolutions of 800×600, 1024×768, and 1280×1024. Since it’s no secret that Mac OS X and Linux alike aren’t the best systems for gaming and one doesn’t often read about them being compared in such circumstances, I was anxious to see the results on these particular tests. The first tests that were reported were more 3D game-centric. Some were landslides while others were only ahead with marginal differences for both systems. Ubuntu 9.04 used the Linux 2.6.28 kernel, X Server 1.6.0, xf86-video-intel 2.6.3, OpenGL 1.4 Mesa 7.4, GCC 4.3.3, and the EXT3 file system.īefore giving some detailed results of some of the specific tests, the overall testing showed that Ubuntu was faster than Mac OS X in 18 of the 29 tests. On the other hand, both operating systems in question were described in much detail: on the Mac, kernel 9.6.0 i386, X Server 1.3.0-apple22, OpenGL 1.2 APPLE-1.5.36, GCC 4.2.1, and Journaled HFS+ were used. It was pointed out to me that Ubuntu 9.04 was actually tested on the same machine using BootCamp– my mistake. The reviewers failed to mention the Ubuntu system’s hardware specifications, sadly, so we’re a bit out of luck on those details. The machines in question were, for OS X, the Apple Mac Mini with an Intel Core 2 Duo at 1.83GHz, integrated graphics, 1GB of DDR2 memory, and an 80GB hard drive. Some of the results were rather interesting. Phoronix, known for their various speed tests and reviews, compared the latest in Ubuntu and what, until recently, used to be the lastest in Mac OS X with 29 different benchmarking tests.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |