or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Is OSX fast enough for you?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is OSX fast enough for you?

post #1 of 60
Thread Starter 
Let's take a poll!

If you are running X as your main operating system, is it's performance (speedwise) excellent, fair or poor?

Please list your system specs, most used apps and of course, comments.

I run an iMac DV 400 with 512 megs and an iBook SE 333mhz w/128.

Both work fast (in my opinion) for IE, Appleworks, iTunes, iMovie and Age of Empires II and others (an admittedly low-end bunch of apps)

None of the apps I use run slowly.

My vote:excellent

Jeff

[ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: jeffyboy ]

[ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: jeffyboy ]</p>
What are you up to, Norm?

My ideal weight if I were 11 feet tall.
Reply
What are you up to, Norm?

My ideal weight if I were 11 feet tall.
Reply
post #2 of 60
For the most part I feel that OS X is excellent on my iBook 500 with 384MB RAM. It slows down at times with a lot of apps running, but I find that acceptable.
post #3 of 60
I find it to be more than fine on my DVSE (400/256 MB), but that doesn't mean I dont't want it to get better. Classic isn't that great though. For me it is much better, overall, than OS 9.

[ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: imacSE ]</p>
post #4 of 60
Performance is acceptable. I'd say fair to good, but not excellent.

Dual 800MHz G4, 768MB RAM, Dual Radeon, Hardware RAID (ATA/133 40GB 60GXP x 2).

None of the apps run slowly, but the interface is slow.
post #5 of 60
post #6 of 60
on a scale of 1-10 its a 5 or 6 with 10.1.2

10.0 was a 0.

you want to see a fast OS look at BeOS. Until OS X is at least that fast it will never be a 10 or even a 9. and that's beOS running on my 160Mhz 603 Performa.

OS X isn't even as fast as beOS on a dual 800.

OS X is good enough to use but dissapointing performance wise
post #7 of 60
I have

iMac DV+ Sage
450 Mhz
20 HD
1 Gig Ram
Running 10.1.2

Runs quick but always room for improvement.
Went to the Apple store and played with a
800 Mhz G4. Wow was that a difference that was!!
Signatures? I don't need no stinking signatures!
Reply
Signatures? I don't need no stinking signatures!
Reply
post #8 of 60
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>on a scale of 1-10 its a 5 or 6 with 10.1.2

10.0 was a 0.

you want to see a fast OS look at BeOS. Until OS X is at least that fast it will never be a 10 or even a 9. and that's beOS running on my 160Mhz 603 Performa.

OS X isn't even as fast as beOS on a dual 800.

OS X is good enough to use but dissapointing performance wise</strong><hr></blockquote>

That's because BeOS sucked.

Network Stack never fully completed(BONE)
Poor OpenGL implementation
Could friggin Print for what seemed like forever.
Never fully supported Multi User
Never had a Media Infrastructure like Quicktime


The list goes on. BeOS was a nice Technological Demo but it lacked in enough areas. Window and OSX would both be fast if they had no legacy to support. I'm sad that BeOS died but upon retrospect we require alot from our current OS even if they are slower than what we want. BeOS gave us all the speed in the world but we couldn't run the apps we have all grown accustomed to.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #9 of 60
[quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:
<strong>

That's because BeOS sucked.

Network Stack never fully completed(BONE)
Poor OpenGL implementation
Could friggin Print for what seemed like forever.
Never fully supported Multi User
Never had a Media Infrastructure like Quicktime


The list goes on. BeOS was a nice Technological Demo but it lacked in enough areas. Window and OSX would both be fast if they had no legacy to support. I'm sad that BeOS died but upon retrospect we require alot from our current OS even if they are slower than what we want. BeOS gave us all the speed in the world but we couldn't run the apps we have all grown accustomed to.</strong><hr></blockquote>


is it ossible for you to put ANYTHING in perspective?

BeOS 5 Pro on Performa 6360= 10
OS X 10.1.2 on dual 800= 5 or 6.

just look at the damn hardware difference there and how many times faster the powermac is. exponentially faster. and its less responsive than the performa. so much for an advanced modern OS with PPC native code that can be fast at the same time as being useful
post #10 of 60
I don't agree with Hmurch that BeOS "sucked" but I also don't agree with Applenut that BeOS is the absolute technical summit of all operating systems, ever.

You guys both have some points.

Hmurch is right that BeOS was never truly complete. If it was truly such a great operating system, why was it missing such basic components right up to the end?

Applenut is right that BeOS was more responsive on "old" hardware (I'm using my Umax J700 for comparison here, which is where I used BeOS for a while) than OSX on new hardware. Still, if you're just talking about stuff like window resizing, snappy re-draws, etc., then you'd have to admit that Windows 3.1 was more "responsive" on a 386 PC than OSX is on my dual G4. Does that mean Windows 3.1 was "better" than OSX?

Modern operating systems can take at least SOME lessons from BeOS, even if it wasn't finished. In my opinion, BeOS is neither a complete joke, nor the pinnacle to which every future OS should aspire.
post #11 of 60
BeOS shouldn't be considered a complete OS, so it is not fair to compare performance against X (or other OS's).

If one could get 7.6.1 on a DP-800, I am sure it would kill any other OS out there on speed alone.

But X is only at release 1.2 as we speak, lots and lots of optimization and tweaks are ahead. The foundation is there, and I must say it is the best OS bar none at that level. Give it some time, and it will mature and become the envy of wintel and others. No doubt about that whatsoever.

Besides, let's not forget that even if it seems slow to some right now (i.e. compared to 9), it gives the user a much more desirable computing experience in both stability and performance. Let's not forget its looks.

My TiBook running 10.1.2 at work is converting lots die hard wintel users. I might be biased towards MacOS; my (formerly PC users) co-workers are certainly not.
post #12 of 60
Bill, my iBook has the same effect at my office. My old blueberry iBook was dismissed as "goofy" by most of them, but I've received a lot of really positive comments about the iBook.

I really think that the less people know about computers, the more they judge them just by looks. The people who are most gaga over my iBook at first glance are the ones who need to ask me for help whenever they do something challenging like saving an MS word document, or printing out an email.

The people who know a little more about computers are impressed with the fact that I can run Windows-only software in Virtual PC, that I can watch DVDs and also burn CDRs, that I can hook up my DV camcorder, and that I can telnet to our Unix server from the OSX terminal.
post #13 of 60
is it ossible for you to put ANYTHING in perspective?

&gt; BeOS 5 Pro on Performa 6360= 10
&gt; OS X 10.1.2 on dual 800= 5 or 6.

By that measure it would make OS X on my iBook 500 = 2.5 tops, which is about right.
post #14 of 60
[quote]Originally posted by applenut:
<strong>


is it ossible for you to put ANYTHING in perspective?

BeOS 5 Pro on Performa 6360= 10
OS X 10.1.2 on dual 800= 5 or 6.

just look at the damn hardware difference there and how many times faster the powermac is. exponentially faster. and its less responsive than the performa. so much for an advanced modern OS with PPC native code that can be fast at the same time as being useful </strong><hr></blockquote>

Applenut...it is YOU who is not putting this in perspective. BeOS had NO middleware! Stop raving and ranting. It was on OS that basically ran the equivalent of Shareware apps. I saw the system run back when Be promoted its BeBox Dual 603 133mhz machines and it was impressive...on fractals and warping text. But I never saw a demo of an App that truly required some serious number crunching. I know your a big boy but the misty eyed affection that you show for BeOS is in my opinion undeserved. Linux is barely older than BeOS and shares many of the benefits yet even it isn't as fast as BeOS but it DOES have more of a complete structure. I think it is all give an take. OSX should become faster and that coupled with faster HW should ease most peoples concerns.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #15 of 60
On my 350 G4 w/ 512MB of RAM, OS X is acceptable, speed-wise. I prefer it to 9 for the interface and for the stability and multitasking.

I'm pretty much resigned that that's as good as it's going to get until I upgrade to better hardware. Just found out yesterday that my G4 won't take a Sonnet Dual G4 upgrade card ...
post #16 of 60
In answer to the question posted in the title of this thread: Yes
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #17 of 60
Yes. Fast enough for everyday use without slowing me down in any way. Since upgrading to Office X, I've been able to make more direct comparisons on exactly this issue, and I have no complaints at all so far. Office X actually seems snappier than Office 2001 in some respects.

Also, just installed the Painter 7 updater and that application is now noticably faster than the original release. Also better support for Wacom tablets (thank God). Encouraging to say the least , given that application's complexity.

For now, I'm more concerned with Photoshop 7 and InDesign 2 as far as speed goes. Guess I'll be waiting another month or two. Or thee. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />


BTW, G4/500, 1GB RAM, 7200 RPM ATA/100 drive.
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #18 of 60
[quote]Originally posted by Bill M:
<strong>BeOS shouldn't be considered a complete OS, so it is not fair to compare performance against X (or other OS's).

If one could get 7.6.1 on a DP-800, I am sure it would kill any other OS out there on speed alone.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

huh?

you are not making ANY sense. did you read my post? why do your bring up 7.6.1 on a Dp-800? I didn't say BeOS 5 on a PowerMac G4 was faster than OS X on it. I said BeOS 5 Pro on my performa is faster. big difference.

and how is it not fair to compare it? oh, BeOS isn't as complete. who cares. I'm not talking about completeness.

[quote]Applenut...it is YOU who is not putting this in perspective. BeOS had NO middleware! Stop raving and ranting. It was on OS that basically ran the equivalent of Shareware apps. I saw the system run back when Be promoted its BeBox Dual 603 133mhz machines and it was impressive...on fractals and warping text. But I never saw a demo of an App that truly required some serious number crunching.<hr></blockquote>

there are tons of demos that are serious "number crunchers" out there. Cinema4D is a perfect example. betas were out for a while.

[quote]I know your a big boy but the misty eyed affection that you show for BeOS is in my opinion undeserved. Linux is barely older than BeOS and shares many of the benefits yet even it isn't as fast as BeOS but it DOES have more of a complete structure. I think it is all give an take. OSX should become faster and that coupled with faster HW should ease most peoples concerns. <hr></blockquote>

open source OS that sees updates daily compared to an OS that was last updated March 2000. perspective here please.

and you are indeed the one not getting my point.

BeOS may not be complete. it may not have as modern and advanced features of OS X but its responsiveness is second to none on extremely old and "slow" hardware, OS X is the exact opposite. It has a ton of features but its responsiveness sucks. even on the fastest machine apple has OS X is still slow in many areas. that's what I am saying. this new hardware should MORE than make up for the addition of the new and advanced features OS X has over BeOS but it doesn't. This hardware is likely 12times faster and the responsiveness is worse.
post #19 of 60
X is fast enough for me. :cool:
post #20 of 60
Nope, not for me.
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #21 of 60
Nope. The Apps I use that are slow: Finder =P, 3D games, Adobe apps.

P.S and mouse tracking is too slow..

__________________
All your PCs belong to me, apparently...

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: Whyatt Thrash ]</p>
"I've learned there's more to life than being really, really, really, really, really, really, ridiculously good-looking. :-x" - Zoolander
~:My scraps:~
Reply
"I've learned there's more to life than being really, really, really, really, really, really, ridiculously good-looking. :-x" - Zoolander
~:My scraps:~
Reply
post #22 of 60
Plenty fast for me on my TiBook 400.

Except when I have to go into classic.

Give me Photoshop X or give me uh... Photoshop X!
post #23 of 60
[quote]Originally posted by Whyatt Thrash:
<strong>
P.S and mouse tracking is too slow..
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Download <a href="http://www.versiontracker.com/moreinfo.fcgi?id=12205&db=macosx" target="_blank">MouseZoom</a> today.
post #24 of 60
Yeah, OS X 10.1.2 is quite pleasant for me (faster than some other machines I've used, enough for me to get done what I want to get done, sometimes a little poky, but not enough for me to go into a no-holds-barred rampage bashing Apple for ruining the Mac or anything), on my 233MHz G3 iMac monster (160MB RAM, 8MB VRAM, 40GB/7200RPM HD)
art may imitate life, but life imitates tv.
Reply
art may imitate life, but life imitates tv.
Reply
post #25 of 60
I'm doing find on a TiBook 667 (yes, I feel cheated after seeing the new iMac! ). I run the command line version of seti@home constantly and every once in a while I notice jittery dock behavior or something similiar, but then I remember that seti is running. Once I shut that down, it moves consistently well.

I also work on a 733 Pentium Dell with Windows 2000 and it's a constant reminder of how much better OS X is than Windows. I can't believe how slow this system moves sometimes. My 667 PowerBook is definitely better than a 733 desktop.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #26 of 60
The reason I have hope that OSX has room to speed up in future versions, is that my problems with slowing in 10.1.2 are only intermittent and don't represent 100% CPU or memory usage when they DO occur. This tells me it's just something funky with one or more of the programs running when it happens (my guess is IE and/or Classic).

Almost all the time, except these mysterious "waiting periods," I find OSX very usable on my iBook 600, and quite fast & smooth on my G4 450DP.
post #27 of 60
iMac G3 SE with 768 MB RAM.

Runs fine. But in running what? Mail? IE?

I'll get back to you when there are some real native applications installed and run them through my usual work load.

Right now I wait... <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
I AM THE Royal Pain in the Ass.
Reply
post #28 of 60
[quote]Originally posted by Fluffy:
<strong>Performance is acceptable. I'd say fair to good, but not excellent.

Dual 800MHz G4, 768MB RAM, Dual Radeon, Hardware RAID (ATA/133 40GB 60GXP x 2).

None of the apps run slowly, but the interface is slow.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Maybe it's because I moved up from a 120MHz 8500 last year, but I think OS X does have excellent performance on my dual 800. I can not think of a single area where I have felt it was slow in any way.
The first commandment of ALL religions is to provide a comfortable living for the priesthood.
Reply
The first commandment of ALL religions is to provide a comfortable living for the priesthood.
Reply
post #29 of 60
I got a g4 466 w/128mb ram
an osx is slow

Entourage uses 20 sec to open, is this normal?
post #30 of 60
[quote]Originally posted by eXistenZ:
<strong>I got a g4 466 w/128mb ram
an osx is slow

Entourage uses 20 sec to open, is this normal?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Probably normal for people who run OSX with 128mb RAM. You could make OSX run a LOT faster by buying a few bucks worth of RAM.
post #31 of 60
[quote]Originally posted by Nonsuch:
<strong>

Download <a href="http://www.versiontracker.com/moreinfo.fcgi?id=12205&db=macosx" target="_blank">MouseZoom</a> today.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Nonsuch, I will worship thee as a demigod. Your noble visage will forever be imprinted on my coveting iris, fort it is thee that has solved the ailment of my non-scurrying mouse.

I thank thee from the bottom of my wastebasket. Thou areth truly my idol.

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: Whyatt Thrash ]</p>
"I've learned there's more to life than being really, really, really, really, really, really, ridiculously good-looking. :-x" - Zoolander
~:My scraps:~
Reply
"I've learned there's more to life than being really, really, really, really, really, really, ridiculously good-looking. :-x" - Zoolander
~:My scraps:~
Reply
post #32 of 60
[quote]Originally posted by eXistenZ:
<strong>I got a g4 466 w/128mb ram
an osx is slow

Entourage uses 20 sec to open, is this normal?</strong><hr></blockquote>

RAM is so cheap. Get some more.
post #33 of 60
Yeah. Get some, go again.
"I've learned there's more to life than being really, really, really, really, really, really, ridiculously good-looking. :-x" - Zoolander
~:My scraps:~
Reply
"I've learned there's more to life than being really, really, really, really, really, really, ridiculously good-looking. :-x" - Zoolander
~:My scraps:~
Reply
post #34 of 60
[quote]Originally posted by Nonsuch:
<strong>

Download <a href="http://www.versiontracker.com/moreinfo.fcgi?id=12205&db=macosx" target="_blank">MouseZoom</a> today.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Just downloaded it. Thanks for the link. it's great.
post #35 of 60
[quote]Originally posted by EmAn:
<strong>

Just downloaded it. Thanks for the link. it's great.</strong><hr></blockquote>

He EmAn, aint Nonsuch a great guy? Wanna join my new Nonsuch-worshipping club? What we do is, we stalk him and leave cryptic passages of T.S Eliot in his inbox every now and then...

And, um... Got any ideas?
"I've learned there's more to life than being really, really, really, really, really, really, ridiculously good-looking. :-x" - Zoolander
~:My scraps:~
Reply
"I've learned there's more to life than being really, really, really, really, really, really, ridiculously good-looking. :-x" - Zoolander
~:My scraps:~
Reply
post #36 of 60
450Mhz Cube, 1GB RAM.

Runs fine.

I won't complain if Apple makes things a little snappier still, especially the Finder, but it's good enough that I can't go back to OS 9.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
Reply
post #37 of 60
[quote]Originally posted by EmAn:
<strong>

RAM is so cheap. Get some more.</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, not any more, ram prices are 3 times higher than november last year, anyway i found a store where there are still some cheap ram left, so tomorrow i will go shopping

i also changed the resolution from 1280x1024 to 1024x786, this made the interface react more quickly.
post #38 of 60
[quote]Originally posted by eXistenZ:
<strong>

i also changed the resolution from 1280x1024 to 1024x786, this made the interface react more quickly.</strong><hr></blockquote>

yea, that pisses me off. there is a speed increase at lower resolutions. I like to run at 1280 x 960 but things just seem a bit more snappy at 1024 x 768
post #39 of 60
[quote]Originally posted by Amorph:
<strong>450Mhz Cube, 1GB RAM.

Runs fine.

I won't complain if Apple makes things a little snappier still, especially the Finder, but it's good enough that I can't go back to OS 9.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think that the speed is good enough for most people to go to X forever. Having all of your apps on X is a different story though.
post #40 of 60
[quote]Originally posted by Whyatt Thrash:
<strong>

He EmAn, aint Nonsuch a great guy? Wanna join my new Nonsuch-worshipping club? What we do is, we stalk him and leave cryptic passages of T.S Eliot in his inbox every now and then...
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Sure I'll join
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Is OSX fast enough for you?