On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 06:05:14PM -0500, Scott wrote:
> > ..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
> >> I
> >> want to compile GIMP.
> >> I will say this IMac is faster then my P4 3ghz Suse Linux box at work
> >> when
> >> I am using applications that are native.
> >> 4x faster is unrealistic, I would say maybe 1.5 - 2x's faster then the
> >> G5.
> > 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
> > so
> > 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.
Considering that you're not comparing it on the same hardware, this
isn't at all valid.
Linux is quite a bit faster given the same hardware than OS X. That's
the original point: if you're running OS X, you're not really caring
about raw speed.
Gimp-user mailing list