More Mac OS 9-like multitasking
http://home.comcast.net/~jeff.ulicny/software/
Speed Freak might have it. I tried it for a while and, uh, I don't notice any kind of difference. What it does is give the frontmost app a renice of -15 after a delay of 5 seconds, and all other apps a renice of +5. These three values can, of course, be changed.
The behaviour is probably supposed to be closer to what Mac OS 9 did. Like I said, though, I just fail to see much of a difference... bummer.
Also, the GUI is definitely *not* any good. It shouldn't be a window (at least not a permanent one), it shouldn't be brushed metal, the button shouldn't be like that (WHY ), etc.
Speed Freak might have it. I tried it for a while and, uh, I don't notice any kind of difference. What it does is give the frontmost app a renice of -15 after a delay of 5 seconds, and all other apps a renice of +5. These three values can, of course, be changed.
The behaviour is probably supposed to be closer to what Mac OS 9 did. Like I said, though, I just fail to see much of a difference... bummer.
Also, the GUI is definitely *not* any good. It shouldn't be a window (at least not a permanent one), it shouldn't be brushed metal, the button shouldn't be like that (WHY ), etc.
Comments
Now I guess they should have banned me rather than just shut off posting priviledges, because kickaha and Amorph definitely aren't going to like being called to task when they thought they had it all ignored *cough* *cough* I mean under control. Just a couple o' tools.
Don't worry, as soon as my work resetting my posts is done I'll disappear forever.
This is more about who do you trust, the OS developer, or all of the app developers. Oh... and about how many processor cycles do you have to burn.
Originally posted by Karl Kuehn
AirSluf: While your points are valid, I think that you do have to count MacOS 9's cooperative multitasking as multitasking... just multitasking that was easily broken by poor programming. One badly written application could hog all of the resources. Pre-emptive multitasking takes the burden/options away from the developer (MacOS X does have some real-time options that not many people use), and assigns the work to the OS. Generally a better idea in my mind.
This is more about who do you trust, the OS developer, or all of the app developers. Oh... and about how many processor cycles do you have to burn.
Considering you couldn't copy (over a network) and browse the internet without slowing down the copy speed I would say OS 9 is as multitasking capable as Windows is secure.
Dobby.
Also, MacOS X still seems like OS 9 sometimes as far as a multitasking GUI is concerned. Hold down a menu in Safari and pages stop loading. Hold down the mouse in Finder and it stops updating.
Originally posted by Aquatic
Also, MacOS X still seems like OS 9 sometimes as far as a multitasking GUI is concerned. Hold down a menu in Safari and pages stop loading. Hold down the mouse in Finder and it stops updating.
Threads (an application is a thread) are multi-tasked. Every thread gets time by the CPU. Safari is not threaded very well, so, in a basic sense, if the Safari thread is working, it won't allow you to do anything else in that thread. Meanwhile, click over to another application, notice everything is responding and working while Safari is in the background? An application is a single thread by default. The application can create its own threads that get executed by the OS. If an application doesn't create separate threads, the app can stop responding while doing work.
What I am saying is that this is the fault of Safari not the OS. Safari is (in my opinion) rather poorly threaded. If they spawned a thread for rendering the page, and had a separate UI thread, you wouldn't notice a difference and things wouldn't "hang" while it loaded a page.
Originally posted by Aquatic
I'm already playing it on speed of 60 and it's about the speed of 30 on my roommates' pc! ack!
What type of machine do you have? I found that I set the settings on low or medium and then do an OpenGL overide (via ATI Utilities) The game looks fine and runs fine. Which is pretty impressive for a Dual 533, Or a single 533 in this case as the game does not take advantage of dual processors.
Then again I could be just trying to convince myself I don't need a new machine yet.