Some things are still a little rough. It can't open my iDisk and my whole machine is frozen for as long as it is trying. I thought OSX was supposed to get away from stuff like that. I am so sick of that spining colour wheel. Any way, my 500 iBook, it runs well enough. Have to reboot in 9.2 to play Diablo though.
X has a ways to go to get on par with 9 is every aspect of the OS. Some are close to 9, so are a little faster and some are no where near. I'm sorry, but in 9, no app takes longer then 1 second or 1 bounce, yet in X we are happy with 5 bounces just to launch an app? Shit, if an app took 5 seconds to open in 9, I'd stop using that app, but in X, that's quite a few apps.
I really hope 10.2 gets a lot faster, after that who cares as I''ll have a new tower, hopefully a G5. But I still hope Apple gets X fast enough for the people with the older G3's not to mention my iBook USB which X is barely usable.
I do graphic design work on my mac, and I use OSX because of its durability. If OS9 crashes, it doesn't take down the enrtire system, and I am extremely patient, so the speed of programs opening is not a real issue for me.
With a 350 mhz BW G3 , one has to be patient... 8^) Even with 640M...
I recently downloaded iPhoto and pixelenhance, and now I am finding the system to be really slow. Around 25 seconds for an adjusted picture to close... Switvching from book to organize, or edit takes way too much time for my tastes. And choosing the library usually prompts a coffee-run because i just know it is going to take too much time.
It's funny... OSX has made my OS9 programs seem faster, but all the new stuff is slow... 8^/
After using OS X full-time these last 6 weeks (no classic at all), I switched back to 9.2.2 to do some audio work. I had totally forgotten just how fast it was, and really hope 10.2 will bring a serious speed increase.
So, if 9.2.2 is a 10, than 10.1.2 is a 6, speedwise that is.
Clearly OS X is not fast enough otherwise this thread would not exist. The GUI is so slow it ruining it's brilliant design.
OS 9 is so much faster, but OS X is so much more stable. I use a G4-500. My 300mhz celeron lap-top with W2k on it make all my Apples look so slow. I suspect that some non-GUI activitity is faster than windows and it is certainly more fun using Apple.
Overall anyone moving from Windows or OS 9 is going to fiund OS X the most sluggish experiance. Try scrolling any Window.
Apple really need to devote some effort to opptomisation, for goodness sake Linux is much faster.
It's not only the speed... Aqua sometimes seems to miss user input, like mouseclicks. It happens often enough to make the OS feel a bit "slippery" (if you know what I mean). I've experiensed on three differnt machines - an iMac, Cube and now my new PowerBook G4 512 Mb.
This in combination with the slowness makes room for a lot of improvement.
On my 500MHz iMac, IE5-Appleworks 6 and just overall "feel", OS X is definitely slower. When I move up to the new iMac I will make a go of staying in OS X full time. Oh, as for Classic, forget it on my machine! Using Classic makes my toes curl in my shoes...
I have a digital audio g4 466mhz with 640mb of ram. Osx IS fast when i'm playing DV files or any other movie files. But what i dont like is switching applications speed. The mouse tracking speed should be faster, even if i use mousezoom, this should be a option anyone can use! So i love the way i can multitask. Do you guys really feel that your lower clocked macs are faster than higher clocked pcs?
apps are slower than under OS 9 but sufficiently snappy to be accustomed to it.
I think that without Classic running, a better carbonization of apps (Adobe for example) and a slightly speed increase of the os (like from 10 to 10.0.4, or better : from 10 to 10.1 for example), apps tasks speed can be on par with Mac OS 9.
The problem is the GUI responsiveness...
There is room left for improvement but for technical reasons (choices) not too much, I fear.
I think OS X were thought as the future Apple OS and stability features were preferred to early responsiveness since computers usual month by month speed increase will be sufficient to make the system more than enough snappy in a couple of moths (think G5)
Maybe its sad but all in all, I think I prefer a stable, feature complete system build for ten years if GUI responsiveness is just sufficient but not great during its first year of existence.
I have been hit by the infamous VPC hit in speed in OSX and have noticed a few other slowdowns but to put it in perspective, the Windows machine I am forced to work on at work exibits similar speed on PC versions of the same apps as my G4 desktop at home and to some extent my Powerbook. I think that as has been stated by Connectix and others some of the performance hit is due to the fact that no app can hog the CPU and not give it back. Windows users have had to deal with this for a long time unless they are willing to monkey with priority settings. Carrara Studio for instance is zippier on OS 9.1.2 than Windows 2000 so though I hope there isn't a slow down when and if it goes native OSX it's likely to be so. IF you can believe that a G4/400 is on par with an Athlon 800 then this should be a good comparison. I'm fine with it. Whenever a dual PM comes out that works above 1Ghz per processor, I'll upgrade and be a happy camper.
speed? no real problems except iDisk sometimes. can't believe it stops all finder-related tasks. stable, pretty but a bit rough (read: priviligies) and still waiting for software. marks?:
speed 7/10 os 9 = 9/10 (win98 10/10)
software 6/10 os 9 = 8/10 (win98 10/10)
elegance 9/10 os 9 = 7/10 (win98 4/10)
looks: 9/10 os 9 = 7/10 (win98 2/10, xp 5/10)
ease of use for novice 7/10 os 9 = 9/10 (win98 6/10, xp 8/10?)
Comments
im so happy!
<a href="http://www.microsoft.com/mac/"; target="_blank">http://www.microsoft.com/mac/</a>;
I really hope 10.2 gets a lot faster, after that who cares as I''ll have a new tower, hopefully a G5. But I still hope Apple gets X fast enough for the people with the older G3's not to mention my iBook USB which X is barely usable.
With a 350 mhz BW G3 , one has to be patient... 8^) Even with 640M...
I recently downloaded iPhoto and pixelenhance, and now I am finding the system to be really slow. Around 25 seconds for an adjusted picture to close... Switvching from book to organize, or edit takes way too much time for my tastes. And choosing the library usually prompts a coffee-run because i just know it is going to take too much time.
It's funny... OSX has made my OS9 programs seem faster, but all the new stuff is slow... 8^/
So, if 9.2.2 is a 10, than 10.1.2 is a 6, speedwise that is.
OS 9 is so much faster, but OS X is so much more stable. I use a G4-500. My 300mhz celeron lap-top with W2k on it make all my Apples look so slow. I suspect that some non-GUI activitity is faster than windows and it is certainly more fun using Apple.
Overall anyone moving from Windows or OS 9 is going to fiund OS X the most sluggish experiance. Try scrolling any Window.
Apple really need to devote some effort to opptomisation, for goodness sake Linux is much faster.
This in combination with the slowness makes room for a lot of improvement.
I have a digital audio g4 466mhz with 640mb of ram. Osx IS fast when i'm playing DV files or any other movie files. But what i dont like is switching applications speed. The mouse tracking speed should be faster, even if i use mousezoom, this should be a option anyone can use! So i love the way i can multitask. Do you guys really feel that your lower clocked macs are faster than higher clocked pcs?
apps are slower than under OS 9 but sufficiently snappy to be accustomed to it.
I think that without Classic running, a better carbonization of apps (Adobe for example) and a slightly speed increase of the os (like from 10 to 10.0.4, or better : from 10 to 10.1 for example), apps tasks speed can be on par with Mac OS 9.
The problem is the GUI responsiveness...
There is room left for improvement but for technical reasons (choices) not too much, I fear.
I think OS X were thought as the future Apple OS and stability features were preferred to early responsiveness since computers usual month by month speed increase will be sufficient to make the system more than enough snappy in a couple of moths (think G5)
Maybe its sad but all in all, I think I prefer a stable, feature complete system build for ten years if GUI responsiveness is just sufficient but not great during its first year of existence.
Home
PM G4/400 Sawtooth, 256MB RAM, OSX 10.1.2, OS 9.2
TI Powerbook/400 384MB RAM OSX 10.1.2, OS 9.1
Work
TI Powerbook/400 384MB RAM OSX 10.1.2, OS 9.1
AMD Athlon 800Mhz, 256MB RAM Windows 2000
I have been hit by the infamous VPC hit in speed in OSX and have noticed a few other slowdowns but to put it in perspective, the Windows machine I am forced to work on at work exibits similar speed on PC versions of the same apps as my G4 desktop at home and to some extent my Powerbook. I think that as has been stated by Connectix and others some of the performance hit is due to the fact that no app can hog the CPU and not give it back. Windows users have had to deal with this for a long time unless they are willing to monkey with priority settings. Carrara Studio for instance is zippier on OS 9.1.2 than Windows 2000 so though I hope there isn't a slow down when and if it goes native OSX it's likely to be so. IF you can believe that a G4/400 is on par with an Athlon 800 then this should be a good comparison. I'm fine with it. Whenever a dual PM comes out that works above 1Ghz per processor, I'll upgrade and be a happy camper.
iMac G3 400 512MB. Suprisingly fast enough.
Overall my X experience has been very good.
Office X v.10
IE
OW
HL
Mail
Fire
DNETC
etc...
All good for me...
8 out of 10 overall
7 out of 10 for speed...
speed 7/10 os 9 = 9/10 (win98 10/10)
software 6/10 os 9 = 8/10 (win98 10/10)
elegance 9/10 os 9 = 7/10 (win98 4/10)
looks: 9/10 os 9 = 7/10 (win98 2/10, xp 5/10)
ease of use for novice 7/10 os 9 = 9/10 (win98 6/10, xp 8/10?)
forgot: ti550, 256 ram
word, excel, framemaker, (indesign?) filemaker,
ease of use for me 8/10 os 9 = 9/10 (win 6/10)
stability 10/10 os 9 = 5/10 (win 7/10? xp 8/10?))
all in all: X = 8/10, os 9 = 7.7/10 win = 6.4/10?
[ 01-21-2002: Message edited by: dividend ]</p>
DP G4 533
640MB RAM
NVidia GeForce 2MX
But when I return to OS 9 I am just floored by the speed difference and overall snappy feel. X definitely needs work, and mostly in the Finder.
everything included, toast, omniweb 4.1, virtual pc, games, msn messenger
works fine for me!