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. -Yosh _______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
