<strong>OS X is not getting any faster. It's a myth. Just like it was 12 months ago and 24 months ago. There is no great speed up out there for OS X. No super PPC gcc that's going to magically make all recompiled apps 20% faster. Apple uis dragging it's feet at every turn.
The only way OS X will get faster is to run it on faster hardware. Apple can't do that either.</strong><hr></blockquote>
there is a great deal of hard evidence that shows a definite and dramatic improvement between X10.0 and 10.1.4. It's not subjective. it's not hardware dependent. it's genuine progress being made on a very new codebase that is showing rapid improvement. i'm sorry, but you're utterly wrong.
Wow, some people are just blind to reality. 10.0 to 10.1.x has shown a marked speed improvement on my machine. And 10.1.x to 10.2 is showing the same improvement again. People, lets not talk out of our ignorance. OS X is getting faster. It just does not do so overnight. Anyone expecting to "notice" the difference in .0.1 builds as far as speed goes is just begging to be let down. However, those who waited until now to upgrade from 10.0 to 10.1.4 would tell you, there is a big difference. If they wait till 10.2 to upgrade they will certainly notice an even bigger difference as well.
Tell you what. After using 10.1.x all these many months, take it off an load 10.0 to your machine, then come back here and tell us how it is no slower. Use it for a couple of months then load 10.1.x to your machine, or maybe even wait for 10.2 then load that. Then tell us how there was no speed difference. If you still notice no change, you are either unobservant, lying, or hae faulty hardware.
Some features were updated, some aspects of the OS got a little faster. Most of the changes are completely negligible in actual use, though!
I'd be willing to bet that I spend just as much time waiting for OS X to complete most tasks now as I did a year ago.
OS X is still too slow. If that were not true, we wouldn't be so excited about the possibility of speed increases. OS X can't have got much faster with the last few updates, else the desire for speed increases in Jaguar would have lessened. They clearly haven't.
People are amazed at the "performance improvements" in 10.1.* because they'd been using 10.0.* for months before! It'll be the same with the launch of Jaguar.
I'm just being grouchy. Ignore me.
I just feel that if Jaguar isn't this mythical "snappy", and we require hardware acceleration to make it so, then OS X isn't all it should be.
Hardware acceleration is great if it gives back processing cycles to the CPU. It's not great if it's required for respectable performance in any other field but games.
<strong>Some features were updated, some aspects of the OS got a little faster. Most of the changes are completely negligible in actual use, though!
I'd be willing to bet that I spend just as much time waiting for OS X to complete most tasks now as I did a year ago.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Belle:
"completely negligible" - I disagree with this remark in light of 10.0.x to 10.1.x HOWEVER, I do agree with the latest updates we have gotten.
I have to admit, however, that I have been using OSX 100% of the time since PS7 came out in beta form and while there are times I wish I had more speed my macs are COMPLETELY useable...including the Dual 1Ghz
"People are amazed at the "performance improvements" in 10.1.* because they'd been using 10.0.* for months before! " suggest that there ARE good speed improvements in 10.1?
I had used 10.0 for several weeks, then gave up and ran in OS 9. When 10.1 came out, I ended up making the switch to X full time.
Is it fast? No - you are absolutely right that it needs speeding up. But it is my personal experience that 10.1.* is much iomproved in speed relative to 10.0.
I hope they put sounds back in with Jaguar. This will make it seem snappier. Try using Xounds for a little while. (It used to be buggy and I dumped it. Not sure if it is better now.) Xounds brings in Platinum sounds from 9.
Made it instantly seem more responsive to me. Just a psychological "trick" but works none the less.
I have to admit that I enjoy topics like the going on here. I enjoy it like a spoiled child, I suppose. OS X for is very nice, and very fast. From app.load times, to web browsing, to typing, checking my e-mail, chatting with friends using Adium, listening to music...it's just fast. Things just work. The kicker is I have a dual 1 ghz with 1 gig of ram and 140 gigs of hard drive space. This is really what OS X craves; It really is a pain using OS 9 these days. In (hopefully) a few months, I'll be getting the GeForce 4 Ti as well...coupled with the Jaguar release of X....well, I'll be a happy camper, to say the very least. To each his own.
[quote]Wow, some people are just blind to reality. [..] And 10.1.x to 10.2 is showing the same improvement again. People, lets not talk out of our ignorance. OS X is getting faster. <hr></blockquote>
Until someone puts some facts and figures on the table to back up this claim, I am just not buying it. 10% increase measured by eye? Gimme a break.
Either provide benchmarks or shut up.
This is not directed personally at you, noah, there are posts worse than yours. However, you as others are running into the same trap as most did with 4K48.
Jaguar is faster cuz the finder is perfectly multithreated and without some annoying bugs.It makes a difference. But i don't really know if QE is there or not, i can't see a BIG difference here on a dual 800 and a GForce 3 with 1.5 GB RAM between jag or 10.1.
Aren't you the same Belle that a couple of years ago, when Dev 4 preview was bouncing around the net, said that you'd seen newer builds of OSX and how fast they were etc...was that all just BS?
If it was, I would have to take your current view of OSX with a giant grain of salt.
Just one more time...for a person with a doctorate you sure don't know jack f***ing sh!t! <hr></blockquote>
I just caught myself posting the same thing a second ago!
I hate personal flames, but scott, I haven't seem ONE IOTA of representative content besides trolling and naysaying. Apparently you think you are not only the expert but the final word. So PLEASE enlighten us oh-clearly-badly-educated-one, with something other than groundless whining with no point but to read your own posts.
Oh BTW, Belle:
"I don't see that Jaguar will be much different."
You are running 10.2? Have you been reading the posts here at ALL? Geez... Some people need to wake up and stop naysaying w/o evidence.
Until someone puts some facts and figures on the table to back up this claim, I am just not buying it. 10% increase measured by eye? Gimme a break.
Either provide benchmarks or shut up.
This is not directed personally at you, noah, there are posts worse than yours. However, you as others are running into the same trap as most did with 4K48.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I never provided a increase % that you can throw back that I recall. However, if it looks faster, does things faster and gives me the feeling that I am not waiting all the time, then by golly, this system is faster. Ever since Jaguar I have seen less of the spinning disc (which is now the spinning blue gumdrop BTW) so I am waiting less for that type of thing. The networking is much more responsive, thus speeding up mail and iDisk and file transfers and internet at the same time. The finder does not pause like it used to, however window resizing is still slow. Bootup is faster though as is most program launch times.
Like I said, go back to 10.0 and use it. Then Go to 10.1 and tell me there is no diffrence on the same hardware. It is a huge diffrence. Everyone sees it but you and a few other naysayers. I don't sit around with a stopwatch, I have too much to do to other than timing things to the ms. If perception is reality then my perception is, this OS is gaining ground on speed, on the same hardware.
Not that I believe this of everyone who does the very hard work to get one. However, I do find this often true of those who like to advertise it in inappropriate places.
<strong>You are running 10.2? Have you been reading the posts here at ALL? Geez... Some people need to wake up and stop naysaying w/o evidence.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've read that people have witnessed what appears to be a speed increase. In most cases I put that down to a multi-threaded Finder, which will be a blessing for us all.
I just wonder if Jaguar will make FCP3 as usable in OS X as it is in OS 9.
And there are an awful lot of people saying that Jaguar is faster without evidence - "bouncemarks" and "it feels so snappy!" don't count.
Incidentally, you're not entirely on safe ground accusing people of making assumptions without full evidence...
From another thread:
[quote]<strong>BTW, just because Jaguar IS fast on all machines (not just QE enabled machines) doesn't mean I am sucking Steve's ass.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>Aren't you the same Belle that a couple of years ago, when Dev 4 preview was bouncing around the net, said that you'd seen newer builds of OSX and how fast they were etc...was that all just BS?</strong><hr></blockquote>
We had newer builds at A|W. Many were faster than the DPs, and the PB. None faster than OS X's current incarnation.
[quote]<strong>If it was, I would have to take your current view of OSX with a giant grain of salt.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's an opinion, not a statement of fact. Take it any way you like. I'd advise laying off the salt though, it's bad for your heart.
<strong>I'm just being a grouch. Poor scott_h_phd has a history and his comments are often disregarded offhandedly as "trolling". But I feel he's right. People expect huge things from every single OS X update, and not one has lived up to anything near these expectations.
I don't see that Jaguar will be much different.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Jaguar is a release that comes after 10 has largely been stabilized and can offer Apple's OS developers time to profile the code. It is pretty clear that the goal with 10.0 was just shipping the code, and that with subseuent releases, the code has gotten better (better optimized).
Throw in a new compiler, nice hardware optimization, etc. and you have the potential for a good speed bump. Of course, the speed bump is gauged by the subjective opinion of the user, so some people will see it as adequate and oters as inadequate.
As [b]Aslan[b] posted above, optimization comes towards the end of a long development cycle, once the code is working. To optimize code while you are writing it requires quite a bit of domain specific knowledge, and simply may not be an option if the project's timeline is tight. OS 10's timeline was extremely tight. The code is out and the users want speed, so the first priority of new development turns to speed.
Comments
<strong>OS X is not getting any faster. It's a myth. Just like it was 12 months ago and 24 months ago. There is no great speed up out there for OS X. No super PPC gcc that's going to magically make all recompiled apps 20% faster. Apple uis dragging it's feet at every turn.
The only way OS X will get faster is to run it on faster hardware. Apple can't do that either.</strong><hr></blockquote>
there is a great deal of hard evidence that shows a definite and dramatic improvement between X10.0 and 10.1.4. It's not subjective. it's not hardware dependent. it's genuine progress being made on a very new codebase that is showing rapid improvement. i'm sorry, but you're utterly wrong.
Tell you what. After using 10.1.x all these many months, take it off an load 10.0 to your machine, then come back here and tell us how it is no slower. Use it for a couple of months then load 10.1.x to your machine, or maybe even wait for 10.2 then load that. Then tell us how there was no speed difference. If you still notice no change, you are either unobservant, lying, or hae faulty hardware.
Shocking.. the graphics in that thing isn't even barely up to par with Quartz Extreme's recommended graphics.
I'd be willing to bet that I spend just as much time waiting for OS X to complete most tasks now as I did a year ago.
OS X is still too slow. If that were not true, we wouldn't be so excited about the possibility of speed increases. OS X can't have got much faster with the last few updates, else the desire for speed increases in Jaguar would have lessened. They clearly haven't.
People are amazed at the "performance improvements" in 10.1.* because they'd been using 10.0.* for months before! It'll be the same with the launch of Jaguar.
I'm just being grouchy. Ignore me.
I just feel that if Jaguar isn't this mythical "snappy", and we require hardware acceleration to make it so, then OS X isn't all it should be.
Hardware acceleration is great if it gives back processing cycles to the CPU. It's not great if it's required for respectable performance in any other field but games.
<strong>Some features were updated, some aspects of the OS got a little faster. Most of the changes are completely negligible in actual use, though!
I'd be willing to bet that I spend just as much time waiting for OS X to complete most tasks now as I did a year ago.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Belle:
"completely negligible" - I disagree with this remark in light of 10.0.x to 10.1.x HOWEVER, I do agree with the latest updates we have gotten.
I have to admit, however, that I have been using OSX 100% of the time since PS7 came out in beta form and while there are times I wish I had more speed my macs are COMPLETELY useable...including the Dual 1Ghz
"People are amazed at the "performance improvements" in 10.1.* because they'd been using 10.0.* for months before! " suggest that there ARE good speed improvements in 10.1?
I had used 10.0 for several weeks, then gave up and ran in OS 9. When 10.1 came out, I ended up making the switch to X full time.
Is it fast? No - you are absolutely right that it needs speeding up. But it is my personal experience that 10.1.* is much iomproved in speed relative to 10.0.
Fish
Made it instantly seem more responsive to me. Just a psychological "trick" but works none the less.
The silence of X only magnifies the wait..
<strong>Edit: *grumbles about agent302* Damn you and your quick submitting
It didn't appear to stop others from posting
[quote]Wow, some people are just blind to reality. [..] And 10.1.x to 10.2 is showing the same improvement again. People, lets not talk out of our ignorance. OS X is getting faster. <hr></blockquote>
Until someone puts some facts and figures on the table to back up this claim, I am just not buying it. 10% increase measured by eye? Gimme a break.
Either provide benchmarks or shut up.
This is not directed personally at you, noah, there are posts worse than yours. However, you as others are running into the same trap as most did with 4K48.
Jaguar is faster cuz the finder is perfectly multithreated and without some annoying bugs.It makes a difference. But i don't really know if QE is there or not, i can't see a BIG difference here on a dual 800 and a GForce 3 with 1.5 GB RAM between jag or 10.1.
BUT the genie effect is better...
And the dock is sad in my opinion.
Well, this 6C35 is not so bad but it's not the Gaal like Steve wants us to believe.. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
If it was, I would have to take your current view of OSX with a giant grain of salt.
Just one more time...for a person with a doctorate you sure don't know jack f***ing sh!t! <hr></blockquote>
I just caught myself posting the same thing a second ago!
I hate personal flames, but scott, I haven't seem ONE IOTA of representative content besides trolling and naysaying. Apparently you think you are not only the expert but the final word. So PLEASE enlighten us oh-clearly-badly-educated-one, with something other than groundless whining with no point but to read your own posts.
Oh BTW, Belle:
"I don't see that Jaguar will be much different."
You are running 10.2? Have you been reading the posts here at ALL? Geez... Some people need to wake up and stop naysaying w/o evidence.
<strong>Originally posted by NoahJ:
Until someone puts some facts and figures on the table to back up this claim, I am just not buying it. 10% increase measured by eye? Gimme a break.
Either provide benchmarks or shut up.
This is not directed personally at you, noah, there are posts worse than yours. However, you as others are running into the same trap as most did with 4K48.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I never provided a increase % that you can throw back that I recall. However, if it looks faster, does things faster and gives me the feeling that I am not waiting all the time, then by golly, this system is faster. Ever since Jaguar I have seen less of the spinning disc (which is now the spinning blue gumdrop BTW) so I am waiting less for that type of thing. The networking is much more responsive, thus speeding up mail and iDisk and file transfers and internet at the same time. The finder does not pause like it used to, however window resizing is still slow. Bootup is faster though as is most program launch times.
Like I said, go back to 10.0 and use it. Then Go to 10.1 and tell me there is no diffrence on the same hardware. It is a huge diffrence. Everyone sees it but you and a few other naysayers. I don't sit around with a stopwatch, I have too much to do to other than timing things to the ms. If perception is reality then my perception is, this OS is gaining ground on speed, on the same hardware.
Not that I believe this of everyone who does the very hard work to get one. However, I do find this often true of those who like to advertise it in inappropriate places.
<strong>You are running 10.2? Have you been reading the posts here at ALL? Geez... Some people need to wake up and stop naysaying w/o evidence.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I've read that people have witnessed what appears to be a speed increase. In most cases I put that down to a multi-threaded Finder, which will be a blessing for us all.
I just wonder if Jaguar will make FCP3 as usable in OS X as it is in OS 9.
And there are an awful lot of people saying that Jaguar is faster without evidence - "bouncemarks" and "it feels so snappy!" don't count.
Incidentally, you're not entirely on safe ground accusing people of making assumptions without full evidence...
From another thread:
[quote]<strong>BTW, just because Jaguar IS fast on all machines (not just QE enabled machines) doesn't mean I am sucking Steve's ass.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>Aren't you the same Belle that a couple of years ago, when Dev 4 preview was bouncing around the net, said that you'd seen newer builds of OSX and how fast they were etc...was that all just BS?</strong><hr></blockquote>
We had newer builds at A|W. Many were faster than the DPs, and the PB. None faster than OS X's current incarnation.
[quote]<strong>If it was, I would have to take your current view of OSX with a giant grain of salt.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's an opinion, not a statement of fact. Take it any way you like. I'd advise laying off the salt though, it's bad for your heart.
<strong>I'm just being a grouch. Poor scott_h_phd has a history and his comments are often disregarded offhandedly as "trolling". But I feel he's right. People expect huge things from every single OS X update, and not one has lived up to anything near these expectations.
I don't see that Jaguar will be much different.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Jaguar is a release that comes after 10 has largely been stabilized and can offer Apple's OS developers time to profile the code. It is pretty clear that the goal with 10.0 was just shipping the code, and that with subseuent releases, the code has gotten better (better optimized).
Throw in a new compiler, nice hardware optimization, etc. and you have the potential for a good speed bump. Of course, the speed bump is gauged by the subjective opinion of the user, so some people will see it as adequate and oters as inadequate.
As [b]Aslan[b] posted above, optimization comes towards the end of a long development cycle, once the code is working. To optimize code while you are writing it requires quite a bit of domain specific knowledge, and simply may not be an option if the project's timeline is tight. OS 10's timeline was extremely tight. The code is out and the users want speed, so the first priority of new development turns to speed.