> ..on Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 05:27:36PM -0500, Scott wrote:
>> Actually the Intel version are faster IF your application is not running
>> in emulation mode. That being said, there are not a lot of applications
>> that are nativly supporting the Intel chip. Which is the primary reason
>> want to compile GIMP.
>> I will say this IMac is faster then my P4 3ghz Suse Linux box at work
>> I am using applications that are native.
>> 4x faster is unrealistic, I would say maybe 1.5 - 2x's faster then the
> i guess i'm getting off topic here, but out of interest which
> (native) applications do you have on both SuSE and the IntelMac to compare
> their respective performance? very few of us have played with the IntelMac
> i'm sure there'd be a few interested to know which applications are
> faster on which platform.
At present GIMP 2.3.5, as anything newer will not compile due to rpath.
OpenOffice, Firefox, and Thunderbird. Sadly the GIMP 2.2.10 package, which
I think is PPC (gimp.org) performs better then my GIMP on my Suse box. And
that is using Rosetta, or whatever the hell they call it.
There are various other small OSS installed, but mostly in support of the
above applications. On most things my compile times are shorter, however
on the Mac I do make -j3 and my Linux box a -j2.
But, to me it is not so much the speed as the interface, it is very
friendly for my Wife and Kids. And most importantly editing my kids
video's is a cake verses anything I have ever used in Windows or Linux,
although video editing under Linux is limited in available applications.
I am not by any means dumping Linux, Solaris, or Irix over OS X. This will
be the only Mac I own. Out of all the above stated the Mac has the nicest
GUI, and is also widely supported by commercial applications.
Gimp-user mailing list