I agree that Apple needs to implement video acceleration in Quartz, but after reading some articles on this I am not sure if its possible to the degree that OS 9's GUI is accelerated by the GPU.
<a href="http://www.railheaddesign.com"; target="_blank">RAILHead Design</a> is reporting that Mac OS X 10.2 will bring back USB Printer Sharing. Finally.</strong><hr></blockquote>
anything is possible. it's whether apple wants to put the money and resources into it that is the deciding factor.
my guess is not considering OS X performs very well on a 667Mhz G4 and they only ship a couple products slower than that now
I only use Apache/PHP/MySQL as a dev server. The Radeion Mac:Edition needs to see dramtic Quartz/OpenGL off-loaded from the CPU to the Radeon.
There are people who bought 466mhz G3 last year directly from Apple. Apple needs to make X run well on 233mhz G3's and up.
I don't think we will see OS X's True preformance until mid to late next year. and all the apps are in the second version as carbon apps. By then I think OS X will run at very acceptable levels on a G3 233 and very good levels on a G3 500mhz.
Since when does a computer perform better 2 years later? It never happens. I don't think OS X is going to get any faster for our current machines. It will be screamingly fast on new (e.g.,released sometime in the future), but it probably won't get significantly faster on the current machines. In 2 years, our current machines will not be in wide use. My pessimistic perspective. It just doesn't make financial sense.
<strong>[Note: I am not defending planned obselesence]
Since when does a computer perform better 2 years later? It never happens. I don't think OS X is going to get any faster for our current machines. It will be screamingly fast on new (e.g.,released sometime in the future), but it probably won't get significantly faster on the current machines. In 2 years, our current machines will not be in wide use. My pessimistic perspective. It just doesn't make financial sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
considering OS X was suppose to be a major speed increase on CURRENT Hardware I don't why peoplewho complain that its slower get yelled at and told not to expect better performance on an old machine.
whatever happened to the advantages of ppc native code\\, no legacy, improved core, better written, modern os,
rhapsody was a hell of a lot faster on 120Mhz machines than mac OS 9. Why is OS X not fast (and to some not usable) on an imac rev a or b?
it makes no sense. Quartz is one hell of a resource hog
considering OS X was suppose to be a major speed increase on CURRENT Hardware I don't why peoplewho complain that its slower get yelled at and told not to expect better performance on an old machine.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not questioning you, but where does it say that? Do you have a link?
[quote]<strong>
whatever happened to the advantages of ppc native code\\, no legacy, improved core, better written, modern os,
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Have you ever tried to do anything while IE was loading a page in OS 9? Most of the time, you can't. The whole computer just sits there while it does its thing. In OS X, I can actually do stuff while it's doing its thing. The OS is faster. I can work much better in it. My workflow has improved a hundred times just thanks to the column view in the finder and the dock. It may be slower from a GUI perspective, but that's not all there is to an OS. I can't remember the last time I had to reboot because an app crashed. Oh wait, I do remember, it was the last time I was in OS 9. OS X is good stuff. I just don't think that the GUI will increase in speed all that much.
<strong> [quote]
it makes no sense. Quartz is one hell of a resource hog</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is room for improvement, though. There's a bug in the menuing system that causes the CPU to spike to 100% everytime it needs to display a menu that requires scrolling. moki pointed it out on MacNN and apparently it does this for every computer, regardless of speed. That's just one bug and I'm sure there are tons of others to be worked out. Just don't expect a miracle on a machine that's already 2 years old.
Any one else find it annoying that Sherlock can not be scheduled to index your drive like it could in OS 9. This should definitely be a feature in 10.2.
I think they should be able to get OS X speed up to, or very close to, OS 9 performance on today's machines and older G3 systems. It probably will never be on par; there is a price to pay for that gorgeous Aqua UI.
<strong>[Note: I am not defending planned obselesence]
Since when does a computer perform better 2 years later? It never happens. I don't think OS X is going to get any faster for our current machines. It will be screamingly fast on new (e.g.,released sometime in the future), but it probably won't get significantly faster on the current machines. In 2 years, our current machines will not be in wide use. My pessimistic perspective. It just doesn't make financial sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
When the OS is shipped to meet a management deadline (March 24) and isn't internally nearly polished, honed or -- let's be frank -- finished yet?
Does it make finanical sense for Apple to have an operating system that users complain is sluggish?
Look, the guts of OS X aren't going to get dramatically faster on a current machine. (Nor probably do they need to.) But what it will get -- as Finder's problems are solved, as hundreds of optimizations continue, as Carbon apps mature -- is dramatically more responsive.
They just stopped seeding their builds to all paying developers. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I find this disturbing being that I was just about to become a paying ADC member. It's @$shole$ that don't respect their NDA's, and Apple's well known passion for secrecy that ruin good things for all of us.
BTW, I went all the way back to the begining of this tread to bring this up. Don't let me interupt your current discussion. I was just stating my opinion on the ADC situation.
The Finder is a joke too. Full of bugs and slow in 'list view' and 'icon view' even in 10.1.3 on a Dual 800 with a GeForce3 and 1.5 GB RAM...
In the World of Options:
Hopefully, we have the freeware...
So the little i expect for the 10.2 (Jaguar) is a perfect 'full options' finder, more speed, better printing support... and some extra magic from apple.
10.2 will rock. Think of it this way...they've had more time to work on the 10.1 to 10.2 update than the 10.0 to 10.1 update.
For 10.0, Apple released it because of a deadline. 10.1 was released under pressure to make OS X usable. Finally, 10.2 development isn't under the same sort of pressure, and I think it will be more impressive because of this. I'm expecting a much improved finder, better printing, and SPEED. If rumors are correct then 10.2 is going to fly...it's getting about a 20% speed increase from compiler issues alone, not including code optimizations by the OS X team.
There is every reason to expect OS X speed to increase on any given hardware. The OS is new and thus there are many area's that can be optimized. I have no doubt that 10.2 is going to speed up on my G4 400, just like 10.1 speeded up.
I find this disturbing being that I was just about to become a paying ADC member. It's @$shole$ that don't respect their NDA's, and Apple's well known passion for secrecy that ruin good things for all of us.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can fully understand you, but I also do understand Apple: Every time they released a 10.1 build to their paying ADC members it was on most Carracho/Hotline/whatever servers the day after. That's just nuts. Remember wincent.org? The only news that site had were reviews of the latest 10.1 builds and now that he doesn't get 10.2 builds we don't see any news at all.
I can fully understand you, but I also do understand Apple: Every time they released a 10.1 build to their paying ADC members it was on most Carracho/Hotline/whatever servers the day after. That's just nuts. Remember wincent.org? The only news that site had were reviews of the latest 10.1 builds and now that he doesn't get 10.2 builds we don't see any news at all.
and why the hell does that matter at all? who cares if pics and builds leak out? It's an OS. Who cares if a neat new feature is publicized before release? it doesn't hurt apple at all. eople don't put off OS purchases like they do hardware. hardware apple should be secretive, but not with an OS in which developer availability for support is FAR more important than keeping secret that spring loaded folders are in 10.2
and why the hell does that matter at all? who cares if pics and builds leak out? It's an OS. Who cares if a neat new feature is publicized before release? it doesn't hurt apple at all. eople don't put off OS purchases like they do hardware. hardware apple should be secretive, but not with an OS in which developer availability for support is FAR more important than keeping secret that spring loaded folders are in 10.2
It was already mentioned that 10.2 may contain 64-bit code that would give away the impending release of a G5. Therefore Apple's secrecy of 10.2 may be directly related to their hardware secrecy. If this is true I can see why they would do this, otherwise I totally agree with you.
and why the hell does that matter at all? who cares if pics and builds leak out? It's an OS. Who cares if a neat new feature is publicized before release? it doesn't hurt apple at all. eople don't put off OS purchases like they do hardware. hardware apple should be secretive, but not with an OS in which developer availability for support is FAR more important than keeping secret that spring loaded folders are in 10.2
You kinda misunderstood me... There's nothing wrong if pics leak out and we get to know some details about upcoming features. But the builds are for developers and not for every single idiot who is able to use Carracho. The builds are no public betas.
I've getting a little tired of hearing people complain OS X is slow. NO one is forcing you to use X, and new programs are still coming out for 9. If you think that OS X sucks, then stay with 9. I think X runs perfectly fast on my Prismo 500 with 512 MB ram. Yes, I'm sure there are some things they could speed up, but it works, and it's a whole hell of a lot better then the Classic mac os's.
<strong>I'm not questioning you, but where does it say that? Do you have a link?</strong><hr></blockquote>I don't have a link, but I do know that this was common knowledge back in the Rhapsody days in the 90's. It was supposed to make even 604 systems fly. When Apple tacked Aqua onto it, they probably slowed the system down ten-fold or more. They introduced some serious bottlenecks over the past two and a half years.
all I can say is that if 10.2 doesnt show SUBSTANTIAL speed gains (and less buggyness in general) on my BRAND NEW iBook 600, I will wait for the next revision of TiBooks and sell this portable. If I have the money.
I honestly think Apple miscalculated Moto processor development and was expecting to be in the 1.4Ghz (slowest speed) by now, which would make a buggy and slow OS X pretty much ok.
Wake up... we are stuck at 600Mhz NOW and dont give me the 'G3/G4 is n times faster than a P3/P4/Athlon bs'. The fact is that processor speeds on Macs suck right now which means that OS X sucks now (and I dont want to hear any bs from you people that have dual G4s and whatnot). Im talking as a person who made a pretty substantial investment and have a computer that is a smidgen above 'usable' and yet I just bought it 4 weeks ago. Pathetic.
soooooo... after this pleasant rant I just hope Apple gets its MUCH better with 10.2 (where are the frikken labels fer chrissake!)
It really depends on what you think is usable. My G4 450 that I bought about a year and a half ago is many smidgins above usable. As a matter of fact I've gotten more milage out of this computer than any other before. I did add RAM and a Radeon card ( which helped a lot ) but for every day use : games, the internet , word processing it's still on top of things.
I don't know what you do for a living or how you use your Mac but, unless you're crunching numbers in a lab or working with heavy duty graphics it should be more than usable and even if that's true that certainly isn't the average user.
What I've found lately is for everyday tasks the hardware ( in computers ) is starting to pull ahead of the software. Nobody uses all of that 2Ghz found in PCs for everyday tasks.
The fact that the hardware is starting to pull ahead of the software is a good thing. It means you can get a little more out of your hard earned money.
The only reason I advocate Apple releasing faster hardware ( like the G5 ) is for marketing or for the new purchaser. If someone walks into a store and sees one number vs. another the average person will probably pick the one with the higher number. Even if it doesn't mean exactly what they think it does.
If Apple released a G5 I'd get it because I know that day is coming when this computer will being showing it's age. But, that day isn't here quite yet.
<strong>all I can say is that if 10.2 doesnt show SUBSTANTIAL speed gains (and less buggyness in general) on my BRAND NEW iBook 600, I will wait for the next revision of TiBooks and sell this portable. If I have the money.</strong><hr></blockquote> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Don't you get it? That's exactly what Apple WANTS you to do! They're in this business to make money... by making people buy new computers. Duh.
[quote] I honestly think Apple miscalculated Moto processor development and was expecting to be in the 1.4Ghz (slowest speed) by now, which would make a buggy and slow OS X pretty much ok.
Wake up... we are stuck at 600Mhz NOW and dont give me the 'G3/G4 is n times faster than a P3/P4/Athlon bs'. The fact is that processor speeds on Macs suck right now which means that OS X sucks now (and I dont want to hear any bs from you people that have dual G4s and whatnot). Im talking as a person who made a pretty substantial investment and have a computer that is a smidgen above 'usable' and yet I just bought it 4 weeks ago. Pathetic.
<hr></blockquote>
I agree, Apple's OS X team planned on faster CPUs than what we currently have....but this was way back when they were laying down the groundwork for Quartz.
However, OS X is quite usable on my G4 400. It is dog-slow in some areas, like file management in the finder, but in every case the slowness is due to poor OS design, NOT hardware. It is so slow that the hardware would have to be 20 fold faster to make it responsive, and that is not realistic, even with a 2 GHz G5....the only way to get better performance out of the finder is through software optimization, or by tapping into the video cards for Quartz acceleration.
I think you should wait until 10.2 before deciding that your iBook isn't fast enough. You might be pleasantly surprised.
Comments
<strong>
Are you hosting your web site off of your 266?
I agree that Apple needs to implement video acceleration in Quartz, but after reading some articles on this I am not sure if its possible to the degree that OS 9's GUI is accelerated by the GPU.
<a href="http://www.railheaddesign.com"; target="_blank">RAILHead Design</a> is reporting that Mac OS X 10.2 will bring back USB Printer Sharing. Finally.</strong><hr></blockquote>
anything is possible. it's whether apple wants to put the money and resources into it that is the deciding factor.
my guess is not considering OS X performs very well on a 667Mhz G4 and they only ship a couple products slower than that now
There are people who bought 466mhz G3 last year directly from Apple. Apple needs to make X run well on 233mhz G3's and up.
I don't think we will see OS X's True preformance until mid to late next year. and all the apps are in the second version as carbon apps. By then I think OS X will run at very acceptable levels on a G3 233 and very good levels on a G3 500mhz.
Since when does a computer perform better 2 years later? It never happens. I don't think OS X is going to get any faster for our current machines. It will be screamingly fast on new (e.g.,released sometime in the future), but it probably won't get significantly faster on the current machines. In 2 years, our current machines will not be in wide use. My pessimistic perspective. It just doesn't make financial sense.
<strong>[Note: I am not defending planned obselesence]
Since when does a computer perform better 2 years later? It never happens. I don't think OS X is going to get any faster for our current machines. It will be screamingly fast on new (e.g.,released sometime in the future), but it probably won't get significantly faster on the current machines. In 2 years, our current machines will not be in wide use. My pessimistic perspective. It just doesn't make financial sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
considering OS X was suppose to be a major speed increase on CURRENT Hardware I don't why peoplewho complain that its slower get yelled at and told not to expect better performance on an old machine.
whatever happened to the advantages of ppc native code\\, no legacy, improved core, better written, modern os,
rhapsody was a hell of a lot faster on 120Mhz machines than mac OS 9. Why is OS X not fast (and to some not usable) on an imac rev a or b?
it makes no sense. Quartz is one hell of a resource hog
<strong>
considering OS X was suppose to be a major speed increase on CURRENT Hardware I don't why peoplewho complain that its slower get yelled at and told not to expect better performance on an old machine.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not questioning you, but where does it say that? Do you have a link?
[quote]<strong>
whatever happened to the advantages of ppc native code\\, no legacy, improved core, better written, modern os,
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Have you ever tried to do anything while IE was loading a page in OS 9? Most of the time, you can't. The whole computer just sits there while it does its thing. In OS X, I can actually do stuff while it's doing its thing. The OS is faster. I can work much better in it. My workflow has improved a hundred times just thanks to the column view in the finder and the dock. It may be slower from a GUI perspective, but that's not all there is to an OS. I can't remember the last time I had to reboot because an app crashed. Oh wait, I do remember, it was the last time I was in OS 9. OS X is good stuff. I just don't think that the GUI will increase in speed all that much.
<strong> [quote]
it makes no sense. Quartz is one hell of a resource hog</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is room for improvement, though. There's a bug in the menuing system that causes the CPU to spike to 100% everytime it needs to display a menu that requires scrolling. moki pointed it out on MacNN and apparently it does this for every computer, regardless of speed. That's just one bug and I'm sure there are tons of others to be worked out. Just don't expect a miracle on a machine that's already 2 years old.
I think they should be able to get OS X speed up to, or very close to, OS 9 performance on today's machines and older G3 systems. It probably will never be on par; there is a price to pay for that gorgeous Aqua UI.
<strong>[Note: I am not defending planned obselesence]
Since when does a computer perform better 2 years later? It never happens. I don't think OS X is going to get any faster for our current machines. It will be screamingly fast on new (e.g.,released sometime in the future), but it probably won't get significantly faster on the current machines. In 2 years, our current machines will not be in wide use. My pessimistic perspective. It just doesn't make financial sense.</strong><hr></blockquote>
When the OS is shipped to meet a management deadline (March 24) and isn't internally nearly polished, honed or -- let's be frank -- finished yet?
Does it make finanical sense for Apple to have an operating system that users complain is sluggish?
Look, the guts of OS X aren't going to get dramatically faster on a current machine. (Nor probably do they need to.) But what it will get -- as Finder's problems are solved, as hundreds of optimizations continue, as Carbon apps mature -- is dramatically more responsive.
At least it better.
[ 03-08-2002: Message edited by: Hobbes ]</p>
<strong>
They just stopped seeding their builds to all paying developers.
I find this disturbing being that I was just about to become a paying ADC member. It's @$shole$ that don't respect their NDA's, and Apple's well known passion for secrecy that ruin good things for all of us.
BTW, I went all the way back to the begining of this tread to bring this up. Don't let me interupt your current discussion. I was just stating my opinion on the ADC situation.
[ 03-08-2002: Message edited by: onlooker ]</p>
Print Center is a joke and a toy
but they licence CUPS... so hoping a little.
In the World of Files:
The Finder is a joke too. Full of bugs and slow in 'list view' and 'icon view' even in 10.1.3 on a Dual 800 with a GeForce3 and 1.5 GB RAM...
In the World of Options:
Hopefully, we have the freeware...
So the little i expect for the 10.2 (Jaguar) is a perfect 'full options' finder, more speed, better printing support... and some extra magic from apple.
For 10.0, Apple released it because of a deadline. 10.1 was released under pressure to make OS X usable. Finally, 10.2 development isn't under the same sort of pressure, and I think it will be more impressive because of this. I'm expecting a much improved finder, better printing, and SPEED. If rumors are correct then 10.2 is going to fly...it's getting about a 20% speed increase from compiler issues alone, not including code optimizations by the OS X team.
There is every reason to expect OS X speed to increase on any given hardware. The OS is new and thus there are many area's that can be optimized. I have no doubt that 10.2 is going to speed up on my G4 400, just like 10.1 speeded up.
<strong>
I find this disturbing being that I was just about to become a paying ADC member. It's @$shole$ that don't respect their NDA's, and Apple's well known passion for secrecy that ruin good things for all of us.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can fully understand you, but I also do understand Apple: Every time they released a 10.1 build to their paying ADC members it was on most Carracho/Hotline/whatever servers the day after. That's just nuts. Remember wincent.org? The only news that site had were reviews of the latest 10.1 builds and now that he doesn't get 10.2 builds we don't see any news at all.
lol?
[ 03-09-2002: Message edited by: Infinite Void ]</p>
<strong>
I can fully understand you, but I also do understand Apple: Every time they released a 10.1 build to their paying ADC members it was on most Carracho/Hotline/whatever servers the day after. That's just nuts. Remember wincent.org? The only news that site had were reviews of the latest 10.1 builds and now that he doesn't get 10.2 builds we don't see any news at all.
lol?
[ 03-09-2002: Message edited by: Infinite Void ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
and why the hell does that matter at all? who cares if pics and builds leak out? It's an OS. Who cares if a neat new feature is publicized before release? it doesn't hurt apple at all. eople don't put off OS purchases like they do hardware. hardware apple should be secretive, but not with an OS in which developer availability for support is FAR more important than keeping secret that spring loaded folders are in 10.2
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong>
and why the hell does that matter at all? who cares if pics and builds leak out? It's an OS. Who cares if a neat new feature is publicized before release? it doesn't hurt apple at all. eople don't put off OS purchases like they do hardware. hardware apple should be secretive, but not with an OS in which developer availability for support is FAR more important than keeping secret that spring loaded folders are in 10.2
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
It was already mentioned that 10.2 may contain 64-bit code that would give away the impending release of a G5. Therefore Apple's secrecy of 10.2 may be directly related to their hardware secrecy. If this is true I can see why they would do this, otherwise I totally agree with you.
<strong>
and why the hell does that matter at all? who cares if pics and builds leak out? It's an OS. Who cares if a neat new feature is publicized before release? it doesn't hurt apple at all. eople don't put off OS purchases like they do hardware. hardware apple should be secretive, but not with an OS in which developer availability for support is FAR more important than keeping secret that spring loaded folders are in 10.2
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
You kinda misunderstood me... There's nothing wrong if pics leak out and we get to know some details about upcoming features. But the builds are for developers and not for every single idiot who is able to use Carracho. The builds are no public betas.
<strong>I'm not questioning you, but where does it say that? Do you have a link?</strong><hr></blockquote>I don't have a link, but I do know that this was common knowledge back in the Rhapsody days in the 90's. It was supposed to make even 604 systems fly. When Apple tacked Aqua onto it, they probably slowed the system down ten-fold or more. They introduced some serious bottlenecks over the past two and a half years.
I honestly think Apple miscalculated Moto processor development and was expecting to be in the 1.4Ghz (slowest speed) by now, which would make a buggy and slow OS X pretty much ok.
Wake up... we are stuck at 600Mhz NOW and dont give me the 'G3/G4 is n times faster than a P3/P4/Athlon bs'. The fact is that processor speeds on Macs suck right now which means that OS X sucks now (and I dont want to hear any bs from you people that have dual G4s and whatnot). Im talking as a person who made a pretty substantial investment and have a computer that is a smidgen above 'usable' and yet I just bought it 4 weeks ago. Pathetic.
soooooo... after this pleasant rant I just hope Apple gets its MUCH better with 10.2 (where are the frikken labels fer chrissake!)
I don't know what you do for a living or how you use your Mac but, unless you're crunching numbers in a lab or working with heavy duty graphics it should be more than usable and even if that's true that certainly isn't the average user.
What I've found lately is for everyday tasks the hardware ( in computers ) is starting to pull ahead of the software. Nobody uses all of that 2Ghz found in PCs for everyday tasks.
The fact that the hardware is starting to pull ahead of the software is a good thing. It means you can get a little more out of your hard earned money.
The only reason I advocate Apple releasing faster hardware ( like the G5 ) is for marketing or for the new purchaser. If someone walks into a store and sees one number vs. another the average person will probably pick the one with the higher number. Even if it doesn't mean exactly what they think it does.
If Apple released a G5 I'd get it because I know that day is coming when this computer will being showing it's age. But, that day isn't here quite yet.
Now back to 10.2.
<strong>all I can say is that if 10.2 doesnt show SUBSTANTIAL speed gains (and less buggyness in general) on my BRAND NEW iBook 600, I will wait for the next revision of TiBooks and sell this portable. If I have the money.</strong><hr></blockquote> <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Don't you get it? That's exactly what Apple WANTS you to do! They're in this business to make money... by making people buy new computers. Duh.
Wake up... we are stuck at 600Mhz NOW and dont give me the 'G3/G4 is n times faster than a P3/P4/Athlon bs'. The fact is that processor speeds on Macs suck right now which means that OS X sucks now (and I dont want to hear any bs from you people that have dual G4s and whatnot). Im talking as a person who made a pretty substantial investment and have a computer that is a smidgen above 'usable' and yet I just bought it 4 weeks ago. Pathetic.
<hr></blockquote>
I agree, Apple's OS X team planned on faster CPUs than what we currently have....but this was way back when they were laying down the groundwork for Quartz.
However, OS X is quite usable on my G4 400. It is dog-slow in some areas, like file management in the finder, but in every case the slowness is due to poor OS design, NOT hardware. It is so slow that the hardware would have to be 20 fold faster to make it responsive, and that is not realistic, even with a 2 GHz G5....the only way to get better performance out of the finder is through software optimization, or by tapping into the video cards for Quartz acceleration.
I think you should wait until 10.2 before deciding that your iBook isn't fast enough. You might be pleasantly surprised.