I just finished installing panther on my iMac G3 600Mhz w/512MB. I can't believe the speed! It feels like a Dual 1Ghz G4 PowerMac. I don't see how Apple can improve OS X after this panther. It's incredible.
I just finished installing panther on my iMac G3 600Mhz w/512MB. I can't believe the speed! It feels like a Dual 1Ghz G4 PowerMac. I don't see how Apple can improve OS X after this panther. It's incredible.
Please, put down the crack pipe. Panther is fast, but still not OS 9 speed and still slow on many machines. On a G4 iMac (800) it is faster than Jaguar but still no speed demon. I would still call it slow.
Dual 2Ghz G5 must be just crazy. I remember trying 10.1 on a dual 500Mhz G4 and it was really really snappy. Has anyone seen any difference with panther on their G5, having the whole 64bit deal.
Please, put down the crack pipe. Panther is fast, but still not OS 9 speed and still slow on many machines. On a G4 iMac (800) it is faster than Jaguar but still no speed demon. I would still call it slow.
Maybe you should stop using any type of pipe. I had the same impression on a both a iBook 600 (8MB VRAM) and a iBook 800 (G3 32MB VRAM). On the latter I may claim that Panther actually runs faster than OS 9. Both machines have 640MB Ram which helps a lot. The GUI exhibits about the same snappyness than in OS9 with the QE-able machine maybe even showing a few advantages. But when it comes down to real use. the G3/800 under Panther is definitively faster than using OS9. Maybe because 9 does not know what to do with all this RAM ... but Panther will happily gobble it all up for anything that makes sense. ... Appleworks (with the fully font-enabled menu) starts about twice as fast under Panther although it has to read MORE fonts ...
Please, put down the crack pipe. Panther is fast, but still not OS 9 speed and still slow on many machines. On a G4 iMac (800) it is faster than Jaguar but still no speed demon. I would still call it slow.
I'm no programmer, but surely it must be impossible to get OS X to be as fast as OS 9 on any machine? OS X is just so much more complex. Aqua alone must require far more processing power than OS 9's GUI.
You can't have it both ways. Okay, OS 9 may be fractionally faster than OS X, but it doesn't have OS X's intelligent use of memory. In my experience, OS X is a lot more reliable than OS 9. You can't expect all these benefits without a slight speed penalty. I can't believe thay Apple has managed to tune Panther to the degree it has. And I for one would like to take this opportunity to thank them for it.
So if you want raw speed and a system that falls over twice a day go for OS 9. If you want a stable platform, that offers many usability benefits, and for all intents and purposes is as fast as OS 9, use Panther.
If you're using Panther on an 800MHz G4 iMac, and it's still too slow for you, you're either being unrealistic, there's something wrong with the way the machine's configured, or you've been smoking crack.
I'm no programmer, but surely it must be impossible to get OS X to be as fast as OS 9 on any machine? OS X is just so much more complex. Aqua alone must require far more processing power than OS 9's GUI.
You can't have it both ways. Okay, OS 9 may be fractionally faster than OS X, but it doesn't have OS X's intelligent use of memory. In my experience, OS X is a lot more reliable than OS 9. You can't expect all these benefits without a slight speed penalty. I can't believe thay Apple has managed to tune Panther to the degree it has. And I for one would like to take this opportunity to thank them for it.
So if you want raw speed and a system that falls over twice a day go for OS 9. If you want a stable platform, that offers many usability benefits, and for all intents and purposes is as fast as OS 9, use Panther.
If you're using Panther on an 800MHz G4 iMac, and it's still too slow for you, you're either being unrealistic, there's something wrong with the way the machine's configured, or you've been smoking crack.
How so?
is it unreasonable to expect that as hardware gets faster (as it has done since the launch of X) that X would become faster than 9? or is there something inherent in the design of X that as the hardware gets faster the speed of the OS doesn't increase proprotionately?
does this mean that with a Dual 8GHz G5 X still won't be as snappy as 9?
I'm no programmer, but surely it must be impossible to get OS X to be as fast as OS 9 on any machine? OS X is just so much more complex. Aqua alone must require far more processing power than OS 9's GUI.
... but I am ...
As I pointed out, speed changes depend on where your bottleneck is. OSX uses all memory fo caching whereas OS9 maxes out at 32MB. So certain disk access ist just way faster. Multiprocessing is just amazingly more efficient on X. And when it comes down to network OS9 bites the dust ...
The plain GUI speed (i. e. the snappiness with which menus appear and UI controls react) does not tell you anything on the real speed. There are several things (mostly network and disk IO bound (that run measurably faster on Panther than on OS9). And even the UI is very snappy if you run on a box with a decent GPU and lots of RAM!
anand, I hope he's not on crack. He was born in 1988!
That makes him 15. Being 15 never stopped anyone from smoking crack. I knew quite a few people as freshman in HS that got arrested for underage drinking/drug possession/prostitution. All the bad stuff in the world.
Back on topic. I honestly think that OS X is faster (especially 10.3) than 9 or any other Mac OS. All of my computers running it are snappy and overall much quicker than in previous years. I recently installed it on an old iBook G3 300mhz and it completely revived it. The thing was slow and just an overall pain to use, now it's quick and easy to use. It needs more ram, but Panther gave the thing new life.
is it unreasonable to expect that as hardware gets faster (as it has done since the launch of X) that X would become faster than 9? or is there something inherent in the design of X that as the hardware gets faster the speed of the OS doesn't increase proprotionately?
does this mean that with a Dual 8GHz G5 X still won't be as snappy as 9?
I can't believe that
well, you have to think of it like a controlled science experiment. if you test the speed of a g3/800 with os9, and compare it to a dual g5/2G with osX, the dual is going to be faster everytime. infact, the dual g5 will probably be considerably faster in every discernable way. But, if you instead lock down all the variables, except one, you can see more interesting results: compare the speed of a g3/800 with os9 and then the same computer with osX, and all else constant. now you can see the difference in os9 and osX speed.
that hardware gets faster does help software's speed. But, if you are comparing an ancient computer, which isn't taking advantage of the day's blazing hdwr speed, it isn't going to be benefitting from all the latest hdwr.
That makes him 15. Being 15 never stopped anyone from smoking crack. I knew quite a few people as freshman in HS that got arrested for underage drinking/drug possession/prostitution. All the bad stuff in the world.
I was making a jab at his age in general since he tends to make these kinds of speed claims every other month. Last time he said his iBook was 3x as fast after a security update or something.
is it unreasonable to expect that as hardware gets faster (as it has done since the launch of X) that X would become faster than 9?
OS X's UI will never be as reactive as OS 9's UI on the same hardware, for two simple reasons: (1) OS X will never leave a single process to hog the CPU, like in OS 9; (2) many 2D graphics operations, traditionally accelerated by the graphics card in OS 9 and other OS's, are still executed by the CPU under OS X. Now, if the next years the graphics cards become smart enough to offload even more CPU tasks (hopefully all of the screen content drawing), then you can expect some non-trivial UI performance, even under heavy load on the CPU.
OS X's UI will never be as reactive as OS 9's UI on the same hardware, for two simple reasons: (1) OS X will never leave a single process to hog the CPU, like in OS 9;
Quite the opposite is true, though, for the same reason. OS X is *far* more responsive than OS 9 when under heavy load or even moderate load for that matter. The only times OS 9 shines over OS X in responsiveness, in my opinion, is when you are strictly single-tasking in a single app. Since I am rarely doing just one thing at a time these days, the point is moot. OS X is faster.
OS X's double buffering alone often makes for a faster, more responsive environment for me. That split second (or longer) that it takes for an app's windows to redraw while clicking back and forth between layers is plenty to make that app feel slower.
Of course, there's that classic "window resizing" argument which is really unfair because OS 9 doesn't do it live. If you ever use an OS X app that has been programmatically set to use the line outline, you'd see it works exactly as it does in OS 9, same speed and all. Claims of slow resizing on OS X are typically exaggerated anyway. Unless under abnormal circumstances, window resizing is perfectly usable and sometimes downright fast on my "old" dual 500. It's so usable, in fact, that it's plenty fast enough for me to capture with Snapz Pro X, a process itself which is very taxing on the CPU and bus. This movie is playing at normal speed. Simpler apps resize smooth as butter, couldn't be any faster. Even if window resizing was slow, I don't spend enough time in my day resizing windows for it to impact my productivity any more than having to single-task would.
This is all something we've seen pointed out a dozen times before. It's the same OS X versus OS 9 debate that's rehashed from time to time. Same points from both sides. Same OS 9 people who can't see how OS X improves workflow with multitasking and other new technologies. Same OS X people who don't care about window resizing or single-tasking.
anand, I hope he's not on crack. He was born in 1988!
The statment that panther makes his 600 Mhz G3 iMac feel like a dual 1Ghz G4 is stupid. And for the rest of you, I don't believe it. Simple as that. I have my own 4 macs that I use on a daily basis. My 1.6 G5 (with 1.25 GB Ram), my 1 Ghz TiBook (1 GB Ram), my 800 Mhz G4 iMac (768 MB RAM) and a 450 G4 Cube (with 1.5 GB Ram). In addition, I oversee all the macs in the building (~30). Is panther faster than Jaguar? Yes. Would I like it to be faster? Yes. Panther is slow on the iMac and the Cube - no doubt about it. The reason is as simple as the slow 100 MHZ bus and the slow 5400 RPM drive. Not to mention the 2X AGP which has more of an impact on QE than VRAM.
Panther is nice, but Apple can do better -much better.
Comments
Originally posted by Altivec_2.0
I just finished installing panther on my iMac G3 600Mhz w/512MB. I can't believe the speed! It feels like a Dual 1Ghz G4 PowerMac. I don't see how Apple can improve OS X after this panther. It's incredible.
Please, put down the crack pipe. Panther is fast, but still not OS 9 speed and still slow on many machines. On a G4 iMac (800) it is faster than Jaguar but still no speed demon. I would still call it slow.
'A whole new Mac' indeed!
Originally posted by anand
Please, put down the crack pipe. Panther is fast, but still not OS 9 speed and still slow on many machines. On a G4 iMac (800) it is faster than Jaguar but still no speed demon. I would still call it slow.
Maybe you should stop using any type of pipe. I had the same impression on a both a iBook 600 (8MB VRAM) and a iBook 800 (G3 32MB VRAM). On the latter I may claim that Panther actually runs faster than OS 9. Both machines have 640MB Ram which helps a lot. The GUI exhibits about the same snappyness than in OS9 with the QE-able machine maybe even showing a few advantages. But when it comes down to real use. the G3/800 under Panther is definitively faster than using OS9. Maybe because 9 does not know what to do with all this RAM ... but Panther will happily gobble it all up for anything that makes sense. ... Appleworks (with the fully font-enabled menu) starts about twice as fast under Panther although it has to read MORE fonts ...
Originally posted by anand
Please, put down the crack pipe. Panther is fast, but still not OS 9 speed and still slow on many machines. On a G4 iMac (800) it is faster than Jaguar but still no speed demon. I would still call it slow.
I'm no programmer, but surely it must be impossible to get OS X to be as fast as OS 9 on any machine? OS X is just so much more complex. Aqua alone must require far more processing power than OS 9's GUI.
You can't have it both ways. Okay, OS 9 may be fractionally faster than OS X, but it doesn't have OS X's intelligent use of memory. In my experience, OS X is a lot more reliable than OS 9. You can't expect all these benefits without a slight speed penalty. I can't believe thay Apple has managed to tune Panther to the degree it has. And I for one would like to take this opportunity to thank them for it.
So if you want raw speed and a system that falls over twice a day go for OS 9. If you want a stable platform, that offers many usability benefits, and for all intents and purposes is as fast as OS 9, use Panther.
If you're using Panther on an 800MHz G4 iMac, and it's still too slow for you, you're either being unrealistic, there's something wrong with the way the machine's configured, or you've been smoking crack.
I'm no programmer, but surely it must be impossible to get OS X to be as fast as OS 9 on any machine? OS X is just so much more complex. Aqua alone must require far more processing power than OS 9's GUI.
You can't have it both ways. Okay, OS 9 may be fractionally faster than OS X, but it doesn't have OS X's intelligent use of memory. In my experience, OS X is a lot more reliable than OS 9. You can't expect all these benefits without a slight speed penalty. I can't believe thay Apple has managed to tune Panther to the degree it has. And I for one would like to take this opportunity to thank them for it.
So if you want raw speed and a system that falls over twice a day go for OS 9. If you want a stable platform, that offers many usability benefits, and for all intents and purposes is as fast as OS 9, use Panther.
If you're using Panther on an 800MHz G4 iMac, and it's still too slow for you, you're either being unrealistic, there's something wrong with the way the machine's configured, or you've been smoking crack.
How so?
is it unreasonable to expect that as hardware gets faster (as it has done since the launch of X) that X would become faster than 9? or is there something inherent in the design of X that as the hardware gets faster the speed of the OS doesn't increase proprotionately?
does this mean that with a Dual 8GHz G5 X still won't be as snappy as 9?
I can't believe that
Originally posted by Messiah
I'm no programmer, but surely it must be impossible to get OS X to be as fast as OS 9 on any machine? OS X is just so much more complex. Aqua alone must require far more processing power than OS 9's GUI.
... but I am ...
As I pointed out, speed changes depend on where your bottleneck is. OSX uses all memory fo caching whereas OS9 maxes out at 32MB. So certain disk access ist just way faster. Multiprocessing is just amazingly more efficient on X. And when it comes down to network OS9 bites the dust ...
The plain GUI speed (i. e. the snappiness with which menus appear and UI controls react) does not tell you anything on the real speed. There are several things (mostly network and disk IO bound (that run measurably faster on Panther than on OS9). And even the UI is very snappy if you run on a box with a decent GPU and lots of RAM!
Originally posted by Eugene
anand, I hope he's not on crack. He was born in 1988!
That makes him 15. Being 15 never stopped anyone from smoking crack. I knew quite a few people as freshman in HS that got arrested for underage drinking/drug possession/prostitution. All the bad stuff in the world.
Back on topic. I honestly think that OS X is faster (especially 10.3) than 9 or any other Mac OS. All of my computers running it are snappy and overall much quicker than in previous years. I recently installed it on an old iBook G3 300mhz and it completely revived it. The thing was slow and just an overall pain to use, now it's quick and easy to use. It needs more ram, but Panther gave the thing new life.
Originally posted by spooky
How so?
is it unreasonable to expect that as hardware gets faster (as it has done since the launch of X) that X would become faster than 9? or is there something inherent in the design of X that as the hardware gets faster the speed of the OS doesn't increase proprotionately?
does this mean that with a Dual 8GHz G5 X still won't be as snappy as 9?
I can't believe that
well, you have to think of it like a controlled science experiment. if you test the speed of a g3/800 with os9, and compare it to a dual g5/2G with osX, the dual is going to be faster everytime. infact, the dual g5 will probably be considerably faster in every discernable way. But, if you instead lock down all the variables, except one, you can see more interesting results: compare the speed of a g3/800 with os9 and then the same computer with osX, and all else constant. now you can see the difference in os9 and osX speed.
that hardware gets faster does help software's speed. But, if you are comparing an ancient computer, which isn't taking advantage of the day's blazing hdwr speed, it isn't going to be benefitting from all the latest hdwr.
Originally posted by DMBand0026
That makes him 15. Being 15 never stopped anyone from smoking crack. I knew quite a few people as freshman in HS that got arrested for underage drinking/drug possession/prostitution. All the bad stuff in the world.
I was making a jab at his age in general since he tends to make these kinds of speed claims every other month. Last time he said his iBook was 3x as fast after a security update or something.
Originally posted by spooky
How so?
is it unreasonable to expect that as hardware gets faster (as it has done since the launch of X) that X would become faster than 9?
OS X's UI will never be as reactive as OS 9's UI on the same hardware, for two simple reasons: (1) OS X will never leave a single process to hog the CPU, like in OS 9; (2) many 2D graphics operations, traditionally accelerated by the graphics card in OS 9 and other OS's, are still executed by the CPU under OS X. Now, if the next years the graphics cards become smart enough to offload even more CPU tasks (hopefully all of the screen content drawing), then you can expect some non-trivial UI performance, even under heavy load on the CPU.
Originally posted by PB
OS X's UI will never be as reactive as OS 9's UI on the same hardware, for two simple reasons: (1) OS X will never leave a single process to hog the CPU, like in OS 9;
Quite the opposite is true, though, for the same reason. OS X is *far* more responsive than OS 9 when under heavy load or even moderate load for that matter. The only times OS 9 shines over OS X in responsiveness, in my opinion, is when you are strictly single-tasking in a single app. Since I am rarely doing just one thing at a time these days, the point is moot. OS X is faster.
OS X's double buffering alone often makes for a faster, more responsive environment for me. That split second (or longer) that it takes for an app's windows to redraw while clicking back and forth between layers is plenty to make that app feel slower.
Of course, there's that classic "window resizing" argument which is really unfair because OS 9 doesn't do it live. If you ever use an OS X app that has been programmatically set to use the line outline, you'd see it works exactly as it does in OS 9, same speed and all. Claims of slow resizing on OS X are typically exaggerated anyway. Unless under abnormal circumstances, window resizing is perfectly usable and sometimes downright fast on my "old" dual 500. It's so usable, in fact, that it's plenty fast enough for me to capture with Snapz Pro X, a process itself which is very taxing on the CPU and bus. This movie is playing at normal speed. Simpler apps resize smooth as butter, couldn't be any faster. Even if window resizing was slow, I don't spend enough time in my day resizing windows for it to impact my productivity any more than having to single-task would.
This is all something we've seen pointed out a dozen times before. It's the same OS X versus OS 9 debate that's rehashed from time to time. Same points from both sides. Same OS 9 people who can't see how OS X improves workflow with multitasking and other new technologies. Same OS X people who don't care about window resizing or single-tasking.
Originally posted by Brad
The only times OS 9 shines over OS X in responsiveness, in my opinion, is when you are strictly single-tasking in a single app.
Yep, that's what I am talking about
Originally posted by Brad
Unless under abnormal circumstances, window resizing is perfectly usable and sometimes downright fast on my "old" dual 500. It's so usable, in fact, that it's plenty fast enough for me to capture with Snapz Pro X, a process itself which is very taxing on the CPU and bus. This movie is playing at normal speed. Simpler apps resize smooth as butter, couldn't be any faster.
Wow Brad, is this under Panther?
Originally posted by Eugene
anand, I hope he's not on crack. He was born in 1988!
The statment that panther makes his 600 Mhz G3 iMac feel like a dual 1Ghz G4 is stupid. And for the rest of you, I don't believe it. Simple as that. I have my own 4 macs that I use on a daily basis. My 1.6 G5 (with 1.25 GB Ram), my 1 Ghz TiBook (1 GB Ram), my 800 Mhz G4 iMac (768 MB RAM) and a 450 G4 Cube (with 1.5 GB Ram). In addition, I oversee all the macs in the building (~30). Is panther faster than Jaguar? Yes. Would I like it to be faster? Yes. Panther is slow on the iMac and the Cube - no doubt about it. The reason is as simple as the slow 100 MHZ bus and the slow 5400 RPM drive. Not to mention the 2X AGP which has more of an impact on QE than VRAM.
Panther is nice, but Apple can do better -much better.
Originally posted by PB
Originally posted by Brad
Unless under abnormal circumstances, window resizing is perfectly usable and sometimes downright fast on my "old" dual 500. It's so usable, in fact, that it's plenty fast enough for me to capture with Snapz Pro X, a process itself which is very taxing on the CPU and bus. This movie is playing at normal speed. Simpler apps resize smooth as butter, couldn't be any faster.
Wow Brad, is this under Panther?
Yup.
Mac OS X 10.3.1. Dual 500 MHz G4. 832 MB RAM. Original AGP ATI Radeon. Nothing special, really.
g