In general, there are kernel tweaks and patches that serve both to increase efficiency/speed and to improve stability at the same time.
Comparing 10.0 or 10.1 to 10.2 would be examples of major bug fixes improving stability, but at the same time, some of the code changes and rewrites to things like networking offered speed boosts. 10.3 and 10.4 offered similar improvements in speed/stability.
Running Safari 1.0 under Jaguar, 1.2, under Panther and 2.0 under Tiger also show similar speed up... in part due to fixed memory holes (more an app issue) and in part due to updated webkit and core frameworks (more an OS issue).
The arrival of Quartz compositing, then Quartz Extreme, then Core A/V/Data in subsequent OS versions have in many cases offloaded tasks from the CPU to the GPU. If your hardware is Quartz/Core compliant, you might well notice a speed-up as jobs that used to tie up your main processor are now redirected to your graphics subsystem alone. Whether this is also a 'stability' gain might be open to interpretation.
It might be possible to identify a specific area or function which benefits more from efficiency than stability, but often the two are so intertwined as to be indistinguishable for practical purposes. Fixing a bug can improve performance... blindly aiming for pure performance may cost bugs.
Most users who have done a proper upgrade (some with clean install) report the same hardware performs teh snappier? under later OS than the exact same box did under the previous OS. Usually this is in reference to speed rather than stability, but in some cases an instability causes a temporary bottleneck which reflects on speed... (such as the old Safari beachballing on multiple tab opening... a minor instability causing wider performance hit... users say "its slow" rather than "there's a memory leak")
Did you have a particular area of interest that you were trying to nail down?
Comments
2) No.
Originally posted by Chucker
1) Yes.
2) No.
anyway you can explain further?
Comparing 10.0 or 10.1 to 10.2 would be examples of major bug fixes improving stability, but at the same time, some of the code changes and rewrites to things like networking offered speed boosts. 10.3 and 10.4 offered similar improvements in speed/stability.
Running Safari 1.0 under Jaguar, 1.2, under Panther and 2.0 under Tiger also show similar speed up... in part due to fixed memory holes (more an app issue) and in part due to updated webkit and core frameworks (more an OS issue).
The arrival of Quartz compositing, then Quartz Extreme, then Core A/V/Data in subsequent OS versions have in many cases offloaded tasks from the CPU to the GPU. If your hardware is Quartz/Core compliant, you might well notice a speed-up as jobs that used to tie up your main processor are now redirected to your graphics subsystem alone. Whether this is also a 'stability' gain might be open to interpretation.
It might be possible to identify a specific area or function which benefits more from efficiency than stability, but often the two are so intertwined as to be indistinguishable for practical purposes. Fixing a bug can improve performance... blindly aiming for pure performance may cost bugs.
Most users who have done a proper upgrade (some with clean install) report the same hardware performs teh snappier? under later OS than the exact same box did under the previous OS. Usually this is in reference to speed rather than stability, but in some cases an instability causes a temporary bottleneck which reflects on speed... (such as the old Safari beachballing on multiple tab opening... a minor instability causing wider performance hit... users say "its slow" rather than "there's a memory leak")
Did you have a particular area of interest that you were trying to nail down?
Yeah the topic of conversation came up when a friend asked since apple switched to Intel that we could finally compare Windows Vs OSX
in terms of speed.
but before we could do that we had to know if the speed correlated with the operating system you were using