Star Solaris and Windows Performance Compared
Linked by Eugenia Loli-Queru on Tue 24th Oct 2006 04:33 UTC, submitted by mcsimpson
Benchmarks A benchmarking comparison of Solaris 10 and Windows XP (64bit) running on a Sun Ultra 20 M2 Dual Core Opteron 1210 workstation. "Overall, I'm pleased with the performance of the Sun Ultra 20 M2. While this model (with an Opteron 1210) isn't quite as fast as a low-end Mac Pro, it's less than half the price of a low-end Mac Pro. Models equipped with faster Opterons (like the Opteron 1218) will certainly be more competitive when it comes to performance."
E-mail Print r 4   25 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/cjw
Thread beginning with comment 174526
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Should be Solaris vs Win 2003....
by sanjaya5 on Tue 24th Oct 2006 05:37 UTC
sanjaya5
Member since:
2006-01-04

Solaris vs XP (server-centric OS vs desktop-centric server)?? It's unfair, isn't it?
Solaris vs Win 2003 R2 would be more interesting and relevant...

Reply Bookmark Score: 2

japh Member since:
2005-11-11

If they wanted to test just operating systems, they could have used gcc as well. Hopefully that would be showing the differences in OS better.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2

KevinM Member since:
2005-07-08

>> If they wanted to test just operating systems, they could have used gcc as well.

Would they? I think they would be benchmarkiong the gcc implementation as much as the underlying OS.

Edited 2006-10-24 09:02

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2

Read more of this thread... >
drdoug Member since:
2006-04-30

If they wanted to test just operating systems, they could have used gcc as well. Hopefully that would be showing the differences in OS better.

Why, does gcc do something magical because it is GPL? I don't how gcc will help. It will just compile slower code.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2

Read more of this thread... >
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Solaris vs XP (server-centric OS vs desktop-centric server)?? It's unfair, isn't it?
Solaris vs Win 2003 R2 would be more interesting and relevant...

How so? They're comparing the two operating systems in a workstation setting - I hardly see it as Sun's fault that Microsoft see's the need to split their product line in half, and screw the end user over with inferior performance.

Solaris is the same, whether used for server or workstation; I'm sure they would be tested a "Solaris Workstation Edition" but none exist.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 5

pxa270 Member since:
2006-01-08

> Solaris vs Win 2003 R2 would be more interesting and relevant...

That won't make any difference. They tested against the x64 version of XP, which is internally pretty much the same thing as 2003.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 5

Dubhthach Member since:
2006-01-12

Indeed, the x64 version of XP is actually derived from Windows 2003 sourcebase as oppose to the 32bit version of XP, basically took out the server related stuff and added in XP themes etc.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 3

Read more of this thread... >