What your not considering is that the Rage II/Pro/LT doesn't have 2D/3D acceleration in OS X. So upgrading to a Radeon will make a big difference since it does have accel. Going from the Rage 128 to a Radeon probably won't yield any performace increase in the finder since their both supported in X & their not the limiting factor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1.) is that our fault? hell no. it's apple's fault. we should not have to buy a 250 dollar graphic card to see "acceptable performance"
2.) the radeon really doesn't do much difference except in QT and gaming.
<strong> Course not, shouldn't be close, but fact is I think that generally people's perception of usable with OS X are skewed, fact is we didn't complain like this over the fact that 9.1 sucks on a 7200/120 ... and that is just as supported, and performs as bad or worse than OS X 10.1 on a Beige G3 233.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
1.) I think your perception of "fast" and "usable" is skewed. But I can understand why it would be, after all, you're a mac user
2.) 9.1 may "suck" on a 120 Mhz processor. but its nearly 7 years old. we are talking about OS X sucking on year old hardware and not running smooth as silk on cutting edge current hardware. it's a big difference
<strong>I would classify OSX on my G4-450 (dual) as "Fully Usable and fast" actually, but maybe extra extra extra RAM (in my case 1gb) bumps you up one category.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would hope that a dual 450 would be able to be clasified as "fully usable" in OS X.
yet you have to admit that there are still areas where OS X just sucks performance wise.
I knew this list would spur some debate. It is, after all, a subjective list based on my personal observations.
And it's interesting to see how opinions differ, some people think I'm being too hard, others not hard enough and others again that it's right on.
I'll stick to my view. But I respect your personal opinions.
But I'll try to explain a little more what I mean by "Usable" and "Fully Usable". The difference between the two is in the detail - as always.
"Usable" is, of course, fully usable, but the heavyness of the system, detracts a little from the releasing the full potential. Mind you, this is not all the fault of Apple, many of the "general" applications are poorly optimized and should see a speed-up in the future. Office X and Explorer 5.1 springs to mind...but even Appleworks some times feels a little clumsy when working with large documents. Finder and Preview can be annoyingly unresponsive (especially Finder) and Acrobat Reader is REALLY bad! DVD Player, on the other hand is way better than the OS 9 version. I think the overall keyword is responsiveness (or lack of)
Details, yes. But isn't details an important part of Mac OS X?
I could also explain in a different way:
For any machine falling in the "Fully Usable" category, I would not hesitate to recommend going full time Mac OS X as soon as your main apps are native.
For a Usable machine, I think Mac OS 9 runs better in some cases and Mac OS X in others - it is definitely "Usable", and if stability is a problem when running OS 9, then by all means go Mac OS X (again assuming your apps are native). This is the "grey" zone, and depends on your use and taste.
For a "Partly Usable" machine I would only recommend Mac OS X if you really need it.
A 233 iMac should stick to Mac OS 8.6...
On a side note; I would love to see one more speed improvement in Mac OS X that would make all the machines climb one step up the ladder. Then everything would be perfect (speed-wise)
[ 12-29-2001: Message edited by: Power Apple ]</p>
Hmm... I thought all the Apple apologists were on MacNN. Try booting to OS9 on your machine and see the dramatic difference.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I know OS 9 is faster than X. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that my iBook is fully usable in OS X. I don't have any problems or complaints about the speed, but in a lot of things OS 9 is still faster.
Yeah, I know OS 9 is faster than X. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that my iBook is fully usable in OS X. I don't have any problems or complaints about the speed, but in a lot of things OS 9 is still faster.</strong><hr></blockquote>
EmAn, thanks for being civil - my previous words to you came out sounding a little harsh and you could have turned it into a flame war but didn't. Thanks.
As far as the speed goes, I'd be curious to know what apps you use. Have you tried Office X on your iBook? Because imo Word is slow as molasses.
Man you guys and girls need to just learn to deal with stuff. You complain about the limits of 9.x an other older Mac OS's but when Apple releases OSX you complain becuase it's not 100% perfect. How can you expect them to make a totally new OS with out killing off older slow machines?
There has to be a cut off point, your luckie you can run OS X on any thing older than a year old. Point is you can't make everyone happy if you try you will go under. You have to turn your back on people with machines that are old than Xxxx date to make the OS better for future hardware.
You complain when they do new stuff you complain when they don't. So no matter what Apple does your not going to be happy. If someone tells you to use a windows machine you get pissed. Give them time OS X has been out less than 1 year and they have updated the thing more than most Microsoft OS'es.
Do you relize how hard it is to code an OS? let alone try to make everyone happy with out making older hardware go away? You can do new things without changing things, that's why they are called new things.
I know you are all going to get pissed over this and flame me but who cares. Hold your breath and whine like little babies because Apple didn't optimize they're new OS for your older hardware. Did you ever think maybe there is a reason it run faster on the latest hardware? Maybe they have some really fast machines coming out that will make OS X scream? It's not like Windows Xp or 2000 runs great with 128MEGS you know?
I don't usally get this upset but god get a grip on realitly. Things take time the old Mac OS has been around along time you know, OS X is very new.
Would you be happier if Apple pulled the plug on OS X because they can't make it run ultra fast on a 233 or 333?
I'm not making excuses for Apple, I'm just stating what is clear as day. Many things are to come soon give them time, its all about timing and marketing...
Also OS X will be a greater OS than it is today. Atleast it does not have the security bugs that XP does .
Yeah, I've used Office X on my iBook. It's not the fastest but I think the speed is acceptable.
[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: EmAn ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
My benchmark for it's acceptability is this: I can type faster than Word can display what I type. The fact that I can type faster than a 500 mhz G3 is pretty embarassing on the machine/OS, and I know it's not the machine because in Word 2001 in OS 9, it's can more than keep up with me.
Comments
Strider
<strong>
What your not considering is that the Rage II/Pro/LT doesn't have 2D/3D acceleration in OS X. So upgrading to a Radeon will make a big difference since it does have accel. Going from the Rage 128 to a Radeon probably won't yield any performace increase in the finder since their both supported in X & their not the limiting factor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
1.) is that our fault? hell no. it's apple's fault. we should not have to buy a 250 dollar graphic card to see "acceptable performance"
2.) the radeon really doesn't do much difference except in QT and gaming.
<strong> Course not, shouldn't be close, but fact is I think that generally people's perception of usable with OS X are skewed, fact is we didn't complain like this over the fact that 9.1 sucks on a 7200/120 ... and that is just as supported, and performs as bad or worse than OS X 10.1 on a Beige G3 233.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
1.) I think your perception of "fast" and "usable" is skewed. But I can understand why it would be, after all, you're a mac user
2.) 9.1 may "suck" on a 120 Mhz processor. but its nearly 7 years old. we are talking about OS X sucking on year old hardware and not running smooth as silk on cutting edge current hardware. it's a big difference
<strong>I have a quicksilver G4 733 with 640 mb of RAM. Everything is perfect! Window resizing, genie effect and whatever else runs just dandy.
Strider</strong><hr></blockquote>
yawn... play a DV stream QT file in QT Player. minimize while playing and watch your machine come to a crawl.
<strong>I would classify OSX on my G4-450 (dual) as "Fully Usable and fast" actually, but maybe extra extra extra RAM (in my case 1gb) bumps you up one category.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would hope that a dual 450 would be able to be clasified as "fully usable" in OS X.
yet you have to admit that there are still areas where OS X just sucks performance wise.
And it's interesting to see how opinions differ, some people think I'm being too hard, others not hard enough and others again that it's right on.
I'll stick to my view. But I respect your personal opinions.
But I'll try to explain a little more what I mean by "Usable" and "Fully Usable". The difference between the two is in the detail - as always.
"Usable" is, of course, fully usable, but the heavyness of the system, detracts a little from the releasing the full potential. Mind you, this is not all the fault of Apple, many of the "general" applications are poorly optimized and should see a speed-up in the future. Office X and Explorer 5.1 springs to mind...but even Appleworks some times feels a little clumsy when working with large documents. Finder and Preview can be annoyingly unresponsive (especially Finder) and Acrobat Reader is REALLY bad! DVD Player, on the other hand is way better than the OS 9 version. I think the overall keyword is responsiveness (or lack of)
Details, yes. But isn't details an important part of Mac OS X?
I could also explain in a different way:
For any machine falling in the "Fully Usable" category, I would not hesitate to recommend going full time Mac OS X as soon as your main apps are native.
For a Usable machine, I think Mac OS 9 runs better in some cases and Mac OS X in others - it is definitely "Usable", and if stability is a problem when running OS 9, then by all means go Mac OS X (again assuming your apps are native). This is the "grey" zone, and depends on your use and taste.
For a "Partly Usable" machine I would only recommend Mac OS X if you really need it.
A 233 iMac should stick to Mac OS 8.6...
On a side note; I would love to see one more speed improvement in Mac OS X that would make all the machines climb one step up the ladder. Then everything would be perfect (speed-wise)
[ 12-29-2001: Message edited by: Power Apple ]</p>
I don't know. I really wanna start using it but I have a feeling my ancient beige G3 just can't handle it.
<strong>My iBook (500MHz with 384MB RAM) is fully usable with 10.1.2. Even the Genie Effect is very smooth.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmm... I thought all the Apple apologists were on MacNN. Try booting to OS9 on your machine and see the dramatic difference.
<strong>
Hmm... I thought all the Apple apologists were on MacNN. Try booting to OS9 on your machine and see the dramatic difference.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I know OS 9 is faster than X. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that my iBook is fully usable in OS X. I don't have any problems or complaints about the speed, but in a lot of things OS 9 is still faster.
<strong>
Yeah, I know OS 9 is faster than X. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that my iBook is fully usable in OS X. I don't have any problems or complaints about the speed, but in a lot of things OS 9 is still faster.</strong><hr></blockquote>
EmAn, thanks for being civil - my previous words to you came out sounding a little harsh and you could have turned it into a flame war but didn't. Thanks.
As far as the speed goes, I'd be curious to know what apps you use. Have you tried Office X on your iBook? Because imo Word is slow as molasses.
<strong> Because imo Word is slow as molasses.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Really? I found the speed is okay
There has to be a cut off point, your luckie you can run OS X on any thing older than a year old. Point is you can't make everyone happy if you try you will go under. You have to turn your back on people with machines that are old than Xxxx date to make the OS better for future hardware.
You complain when they do new stuff you complain when they don't. So no matter what Apple does your not going to be happy. If someone tells you to use a windows machine you get pissed. Give them time OS X has been out less than 1 year and they have updated the thing more than most Microsoft OS'es.
Do you relize how hard it is to code an OS? let alone try to make everyone happy with out making older hardware go away? You can do new things without changing things, that's why they are called new things.
I know you are all going to get pissed over this and flame me but who cares. Hold your breath and whine like little babies because Apple didn't optimize they're new OS for your older hardware. Did you ever think maybe there is a reason it run faster on the latest hardware? Maybe they have some really fast machines coming out that will make OS X scream? It's not like Windows Xp or 2000 runs great with 128MEGS you know?
I don't usally get this upset but god get a grip on realitly. Things take time the old Mac OS has been around along time you know, OS X is very new.
Would you be happier if Apple pulled the plug on OS X because they can't make it run ultra fast on a 233 or 333?
Also OS X will be a greater OS than it is today. Atleast it does not have the security bugs that XP does .
:cool:
<strong>
Have you tried Office X on your iBook? Because imo Word is slow as molasses.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I've used Office X on my iBook. It's not the fastest but I think the speed is acceptable.
[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: EmAn ]</p>
<strong>
Yeah, I've used Office X on my iBook. It's not the fastest but I think the speed is acceptable.
[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: EmAn ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
My benchmark for it's acceptability is this: I can type faster than Word can display what I type. The fact that I can type faster than a 500 mhz G3 is pretty embarassing on the machine/OS, and I know it's not the machine because in Word 2001 in OS 9, it's can more than keep up with me.
I won't respond beyond that.
Oh and on my Pismo 400 with 320MB Office v.X is faster than 2001.