Is OS X > Linux?

broch · 2010-03-17 13:20:07

fsckd wrote:

Actually you would want to use up all your RAM. Otherwise it is just a waste. Why have 32 GiB if you are only ever going to use 1 or 2 GiB? A better metric on usability is page faults or how frequently the system has to pull up memory from swap.

if you have 32GB of RAM then I doubt that you will see any problem on any of desktop OS. The point is that desktop taking 1.2GB of RAM is waste. Personally I want memory to be used by other applications that really require RAM

Page faults are normal: top will show that X, (first time, then it will go away) firefox and particularly (also first time as in the case of ff) amarok have high page fault, unless these are dirty (swap). Then again trying to keep everything in RAM is bad idea if RAM is needed for more important tasks. Users claiming that for performance reasons best it to keep all in RAM, never had problems with swapping.

in most cases users have more RAM than needed (in general good idea), but then they never used RAM in full (which is not earlier than when system hits swap).

Last edited by broch (2010-03-17 14:47:30)

justaleaf · 2010-03-17 21:13:27

Just a quick update.

I finished installing Arch last night and getting it set up the way I liked it. I'm taking LXDE for a whirl right now. And apart from a bug where the gtk theme switched in that DE isn't working due to a dated package, everything is working fine on my laptop now.

I haven't collected any numbers yet... but I've noticed the following so far:

Boot time: is around 40 seconds or so
Initial Active ram: is around 100mb (lxde, pcman, kupfer, xcompmgr, wicd, openbox)
After a few hours of use: is around 500mb (midori 6 tabs, 2 terminals, 2 gedit windows, swiftweasel 2 tabs)

Also, when I close everything and return to a normal state... even with whatever is cached up to that point, my desktop is resting at a nice 160-200mb of active ram. MUCH lighter than my ubuntu experiments and a solid 100-150 mb lighter than my OS X desktop

I get this may seem trivial to some people... but the way I see it, there are 2 forms of efficiency on a desktop. There's FUNCTIONAL efficiency... in which productivity is determined by how intuitive and quickly *I* can perform tasks in an environment. But there's also computing efficiency which is determined by how quickly my computer can perform the tasks I give it.

OS X is like... the pinnacle of the former for me, right now, as I am very accustomed to quicksilver/expose/gestures. However, when things get to busy on my macbook, my system can hang hard... and I can find myself waiting around for my computer to do simple things.... like open a file manager.

If I can set up an equally productive environment in linux with a lighter resource cost, theoretically I can improve my over all performance... and subsequently, my satisfaction with my computer and OS.

So yeah... things feel promising now. I just face the task of producing a highly efficient workflow in linux and seeing how it bears the weight of a full work day. Should be fun .

Thanks for all the feedback guys. Greatly appreciated.

Last edited by justaleaf (2010-03-17 21:13:41)

Staerseus · 2010-03-17 21:16:03

So that's great... In my case, the only moment when I fell the system is slow, when the disc is used by Pacman, or somethign hardly reading..:-)

Vamp898 · 2010-03-18 01:44:29

justaleaf wrote:

Please please please please don't think this is a flame thread. I'm looking for some honest feedback here, as I've been a little disheartened recently by linux. Here's what happened:
I recently installed the latest and greatest iteration of Ubuntu and dual-booted it on my Macbook (aluminum 5.1) after some fiddling with drivers and settings, I got everything working. After a while though, I noticed that when multi-tasking in Ubuntu, I was commonly experiences system slow-downs much more frequently than in OS X (10.5 leopard).
So I decided to compare the two. In brief this is what I found:
System:
Macbook 5,1 OS X 10.5.8
2ghz Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB DDR3 Ram
Ubuntu (Gnome, Gnome-do, Compiz):
Boot: 24sec
Initial *Active* Ram use: ~410mb (!)
Average Workload (Chrome 5 tabs, gedit, filezilla, Firefox 1 tab): ~1200mb ram
Ubuntu (Open-box, Gnome-panel, kupfer):
Boot: 22sec
Initial *Active* Ram use: ~320mb
Average Workload (Chrome 5 tabs, gedit, filezilla, Firefox 1 tab): ~1150mb ram (!)
OS X (10.5, smcFanControl, Quicksilver):
Boot: 72sec
Initial *Active* Ram use: ~245mb
Average Workload (Chrome 5 tabs, Coda, Firefox 1 tab): ~890mb ram

At any rate, you can see, above, that it would seem that OS X is much more thrifty in it's handling of resources. And it wasn't strictly a "numbers" thing either. I noticed that system sluggishness settled in much quicker in Ubuntu than in OS X... which sort of defeats the purpose of Linux for me.
To be clear... I'm a huge proponent of OSS and Linux. Or I wouldn't be bothering. But I don't have any (serious) opposition to Apple. I was hoping that my linux partition would make a good "work-zone" for me where I could have a lean, resource-efficient environment, for punching out websites and reserve OS X for video-editing or play. But, unfortunately, it would seem that linux, even in a light environment with no compositing, is actually less efficient than a full OS X DE with 3d.
Does anyone have any feedback for me on this? Would I be prudent to put Arch on this machine or would I be wasting my time. I really just want an optimized work environment.

oh damm how do you get so much memory usage?

On a fresh start my GNOME uses about 120-150mb memory and when i start the same apps like you i get up to 500mb maybe 600mb in hard cases thats all xD

But i use Archlinux and not Ubuntu

justaleaf · 2010-03-18 02:30:37

I dunno, I have to load synaptics for my touchpad and a special wireless driver. But yeah... ubuntu uses some serious resources =/.

b9anders · 2010-03-18 09:54:08

Vamp898 wrote:

justaleaf wrote:
Please please please please don't think this is a flame thread. I'm looking for some honest feedback here, as I've been a little disheartened recently by linux. Here's what happened:
I recently installed the latest and greatest iteration of Ubuntu and dual-booted it on my Macbook (aluminum 5.1) after some fiddling with drivers and settings, I got everything working. After a while though, I noticed that when multi-tasking in Ubuntu, I was commonly experiences system slow-downs much more frequently than in OS X (10.5 leopard).
So I decided to compare the two. In brief this is what I found:
System:
Macbook 5,1 OS X 10.5.8
2ghz Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB DDR3 Ram
Ubuntu (Gnome, Gnome-do, Compiz):
Boot: 24sec
Initial *Active* Ram use: ~410mb (!)
Average Workload (Chrome 5 tabs, gedit, filezilla, Firefox 1 tab): ~1200mb ram
Ubuntu (Open-box, Gnome-panel, kupfer):
Boot: 22sec
Initial *Active* Ram use: ~320mb
Average Workload (Chrome 5 tabs, gedit, filezilla, Firefox 1 tab): ~1150mb ram (!)
OS X (10.5, smcFanControl, Quicksilver):
Boot: 72sec
Initial *Active* Ram use: ~245mb
Average Workload (Chrome 5 tabs, Coda, Firefox 1 tab): ~890mb ram

At any rate, you can see, above, that it would seem that OS X is much more thrifty in it's handling of resources. And it wasn't strictly a "numbers" thing either. I noticed that system sluggishness settled in much quicker in Ubuntu than in OS X... which sort of defeats the purpose of Linux for me.
To be clear... I'm a huge proponent of OSS and Linux. Or I wouldn't be bothering. But I don't have any (serious) opposition to Apple. I was hoping that my linux partition would make a good "work-zone" for me where I could have a lean, resource-efficient environment, for punching out websites and reserve OS X for video-editing or play. But, unfortunately, it would seem that linux, even in a light environment with no compositing, is actually less efficient than a full OS X DE with 3d.
Does anyone have any feedback for me on this? Would I be prudent to put Arch on this machine or would I be wasting my time. I really just want an optimized work environment.
oh damm how do you get so much memory usage?
On a fresh start my GNOME uses about 120-150mb memory and when i start the same apps like you i get up to 500mb maybe 600mb in hard cases thats all xD
But i use Archlinux and not Ubuntu

I just checked Htop in Ubuntu. I have chromium and a fair few pdf files open - almost 1200 MB of ram usage! another 400 have been swapped already.

In Arch, where I regularly do the same I don't think I ever cross the 800 MB treshold.

rwd · 2010-03-18 16:58:09

Linux runs on routers with 64 MB ram and can be booted from a usbstick, so it can be pretty resource efficient. It all depends on how you configure the system. Arch is a bit faster than Ubuntu because of compile options used. For tips to improve performace see http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Max … erformance

Last edited by rwd (2010-03-18 17:08:00)

justaleaf · 2010-03-18 18:24:52

I've noticed that Chrome seems to eat more active ram than all my other browsers (including Firefox). However... it also seems to let go of it faster. So, I'm still on the fence as to whether I want to stick with it long term. I've been really pleased with midori and opera lately too.

Staerseus · 2010-03-18 18:27:31

The Opera is the fastest browser, 10.50. Chrome is heavily adapted to be fast in some tests but isn't so fast... Or you should try anything using WebKIt

Vamp898 · 2010-03-18 18:29:04

Oh and btw. the thread is wrong

Mac OS X is a Darwin Distribution like Ubuntu is a GNU/Linux Distribution

In the thread you say "Is OS X > Linux" which is technical wrong. Linux is only a Kernel.

When you want a comparisan than you should rename it to "Is OS X > Distribution XY"

linas · 2010-03-18 22:16:00

Actually, you don't need to remove grub to install arch. The same copy of grub (is it grub-legacy or grub2?) can load arch instead of Ubuntu, supposing it still works. Since you claim to have an "empty GRUB screen", seems to have arrived to stage2, but it could still be hanging trying to read menu.lst from the no longer existing paritition.
Can you boot from Ubuntu LiveCD? (I assume that's from where you installed Ubuntu the first time) I would recreate the partitions (why did you even remove /home?) and install arch from the Ubuntu system.

justaleaf · 2010-03-18 22:36:25

linas wrote:

Actually, you don't need to remove grub to install arch. The same copy of grub (is it grub-legacy or grub2?) can load arch instead of Ubuntu, supposing it still works. Since you claim to have an "empty GRUB screen", seems to have arrived to stage2, but it could still be hanging trying to read menu.lst from the no longer existing paritition.
Can you boot from Ubuntu LiveCD? (I assume that's from where you installed Ubuntu the first time) I would recreate the partitions (why did you even remove /home?) and install arch from the Ubuntu system.

Thanks for the help! Everything works fine now, actually. I just needed to reset the mbr and then use rEFIt to resync the tables.

And I couldn't keep home as / and /home were on the same partition (as per ubuntu default).

1LordAnubis · 2010-03-18 22:52:44

Phoronix did a benchmark comparison: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=a … inal&num=1

linas · 2010-03-19 11:34:05

justaleaf wrote:

And I couldn't keep home as / and /home were on the same partition (as per ubuntu default).

Sorry, since you said "My root/home/swap partitions were removed without issue." I thought it was on a separate one.

MP2E · 2010-03-19 13:41:19

Staerseus wrote:

The Opera is the fastest browser, 10.50. Chrome is heavily adapted to be fast in some tests but isn't so fast... Or you should try anything using WebKIt

Chrome *IS* using WebKit. And actually I find Chrome 5 is very very fast.

Vamp898 · 2010-03-19 16:35:35

Chromium runs very fast for me. Faster than every other stuff i tested and for example the SpiderMonkey test proofs that

Netsu · 2010-03-19 17:33:52

justaleaf wrote:

Just a quick update.I get this may seem trivial to some people... but the way I see it, there are 2 forms of efficiency on a desktop. There's FUNCTIONAL efficiency... in which productivity is determined by how intuitive and quickly *I* can perform tasks in an environment. But there's also computing efficiency which is determined by how quickly my computer can perform the tasks I give it.
OS X is like... the pinnacle of the former for me, right now, as I am very accustomed to quicksilver/expose/gestures. However, when things get to busy on my macbook, my system can hang hard... and I can find myself waiting around for my computer to do simple things.... like open a file manager.

Try installing compiz over your LXDE, by itself it isn't as slow and bloated as one might expect and it offers all those plugins and effects you might like from OS X, expose, active corners, zoom desktop...

Staerseus · 2010-03-19 19:03:08

MP2E wrote:

Staerseus wrote:
The Opera is the fastest browser, 10.50. Chrome is heavily adapted to be fast in some tests but isn't so fast... Or you should try anything using WebKIt
Chrome *IS* using WebKit. And actually I find Chrome 5 is very very fast.

Tss... Tss... Tss... :-) I like Opera for a well designed look and for her speed :-)

justaleaf · 2010-03-19 19:22:16

Staerseus wrote:

Tss... Tss... Tss... :-) I like Opera for a well designed look and for her speed :-)

I've been enjoying both Midori and Epiphany lately. But I really like the extensions that Chrome has and it doesn't seem to affect performance (it just may be an illusion, but I feel like Firefox grows heavy with add-ons).

Waiting patiently for Opera 10.50 to go stable though . It looks nifteh.

I was about to say that all this browser talk was kinda off-topic... but eh... I do 90% of my computing in a browser these days! So I guess it's quite relevant!

Staerseus · 2010-03-19 21:03:13

justaleaf wrote:

Staerseus wrote:
Tss... Tss... Tss... :-) I like Opera for a well designed look and for her speed :-)
I've been enjoying both Midori and Epiphany lately. But I really like the extensions that Chrome has and it doesn't seem to affect performance (it just may be an illusion, but I feel like Firefox grows heavy with add-ons).
Waiting patiently for Opera 10.50 to go stable though . It looks nifteh.
I was about to say that all this browser talk was kinda off-topic... but eh... I do 90% of my computing in a browser these days! So I guess it's quite relevant!

Chrome is browser, what the firefox wanted to be... Simple and fast... But the developers of Firefox are doing good work, they really improve the speed. But Firefox is still not so fast as Opera :-) And also I like the built-in Opera Mail and RSS reader.

I am really looking forward to 10.50, it is in AUR already, but I will wait for the stable

synthead · 2011-07-21 13:11:08

Pro-tip: Use the OS you like.
Pro-tip #2: Like two OSes? Dual boot.

ArchArael · 2011-07-21 14:02:34

synthead wrote:

Pro-tip: Use the OS you like.

Indeed. There is no point in comparing OSX and GNU/Linux because the former is optimized to run on a apple hardware while the latter is supposed to run everywhere. Use the OS you like, if it is OSX then be it.

I tried running GNU/Linux on apple hardware twice and it has never been sucha a pleasant experience, starting from the fact that you need OSX if you want firmware updates.

Since then I have understood that apple computers are not a good choice for me. Don't get me wrong. Before understanding that OSX was not suited for me I used it as my main OS for 8-10 months.

IMHO OSX is largely overrated. This doesn't mean that for somebody else it wouldn't be the perfect machine. It just doesn't cut it for me.

My current machines are PC's all GNU/Linux compatible. Even my future choices are going to be influenced by GNU/Linux compatibility and that cuts apple machines out.

Last edited by ArchArael (2011-07-21 14:09:01)

b9anders · 2011-07-21 14:53:10

fsckd wrote:

Actually you would want to use up all your RAM. Otherwise it is just a waste. Why have 32 GiB if you are only ever going to use 1 or 2 GiB? A better metric on usability is page faults or how frequently the system has to pull up memory from swap.

I disagree. Using up all your ram = the kernel beginning to swap out some of it, which is a drain.

NoxSec · 2011-07-21 15:45:00

Another major thing you need to consider is the hardware. That alone turns me away from apple. Just a straight rip off.

Inxsible · 2011-07-21 15:50:05

Any particular reason why this thread was revived after more than a year?

Arch Linux

#26 2010-03-17 13:20:07

Re: Is OS X > Linux?

#27 2010-03-17 21:13:27

Re: Is OS X > Linux?

#28 2010-03-17 21:16:03

Re: Is OS X > Linux?

#29 2010-03-18 01:44:29

Re: Is OS X > Linux?

#30 2010-03-18 02:30:37

Re: Is OS X > Linux?

#31 2010-03-18 09:54:08

Re: Is OS X > Linux?

#32 2010-03-18 16:58:09

Re: Is OS X > Linux?

#33 2010-03-18 18:24:52

Re: Is OS X > Linux?

#34 2010-03-18 18:27:31

Re: Is OS X > Linux?

#35 2010-03-18 18:29:04

Re: Is OS X > Linux?

#36 2010-03-18 22:16:00

Re: Is OS X > Linux?

#37 2010-03-18 22:36:25

Re: Is OS X > Linux?

#38 2010-03-18 22:52:44

Re: Is OS X > Linux?

#39 2010-03-19 11:34:05

Re: Is OS X > Linux?

#40 2010-03-19 13:41:19

Re: Is OS X > Linux?

#41 2010-03-19 16:35:35

Re: Is OS X > Linux?

#42 2010-03-19 17:33:52

Re: Is OS X > Linux?

#43 2010-03-19 19:03:08

Re: Is OS X > Linux?

#44 2010-03-19 19:22:16

Re: Is OS X > Linux?

#45 2010-03-19 21:03:13

Re: Is OS X > Linux?

#46 2011-07-21 13:11:08

Re: Is OS X > Linux?

#47 2011-07-21 14:02:34

Re: Is OS X > Linux?

#48 2011-07-21 14:53:10

Re: Is OS X > Linux?

#49 2011-07-21 15:45:00

Re: Is OS X > Linux?

#50 2011-07-21 15:50:05

Re: Is OS X > Linux?

Board footer