Windows always is faster that OSX (in this)
That's application launch and relaunch
Same app, same version.
Running on a Win 2k box and a OS X box.
First launch times from both machines are pretty close (only half of seconds in difference)
But in second, third launch the Win box always is faster
On the windows box the second launch is only 1/3 the time of the first launch
OS X. On the other hand, has huge improvement on caching than over OS 9....but still lags...it is roughly 1/2 to 3/4 the time of the first launch.
Can anyone explain why? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Same app, same version.
Running on a Win 2k box and a OS X box.
First launch times from both machines are pretty close (only half of seconds in difference)
But in second, third launch the Win box always is faster
On the windows box the second launch is only 1/3 the time of the first launch
OS X. On the other hand, has huge improvement on caching than over OS 9....but still lags...it is roughly 1/2 to 3/4 the time of the first launch.
Can anyone explain why? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Comments
<strong>That's application launch and relaunch
On the windows box the second launch is only 1/3 the </strong><hr></blockquote>
Is launch speed really that important?
<strong>
Is launch speed really that important?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Considering the stability of Windows and its applications, yes.
Not really a problem with OS X, though. Some people just need something minor to bicker about.
1) Open the 50 same apps in both computers.
2) Close them all.
3) Launch any OTHER same app in both computers.
The OSX box should do it faster.
For instance, on my PC (800MHz Mobile P3, 512MB RAM, WinXP Pro) Internet Explorer launches in under 1 second. Excel, Word and PowerPoint launch in exactly 1 second. Windows pop open and resize very quickly and so on. My PC also starts up and is ready to go in about 25 seconds.
On my Mac (700MHz G3 iMac, 1GB RAM, 10.1.5) Internet Explorer takes much longer to load as do all the Office X apps. It's not snappy or speedy. On the PC, you don't even have a chance to view the splash screens. The Internet is also noticeably slower on the Mac versus similarly specs PCs using the same cable internet connection. Even though I prefer iTunes, I achieve a much faster rip rate (CDs to MP3s) on my PC than I do on my Mac (4.5x versus 6.8x). OS X also takes much longer to load than XP.
I am certainly not bashing the Mac - I love my iMac (and my PC). I am just agreeing with what everyone already knows. OS X is an awesome OS that is being held back by slow hardware. It would be like running Windows XP on a 400MHz P3. Doable, but noticeably slow and not recommended.
<strong>
Considering the stability of Windows and its applications, yes.
Not really a problem with OS X, though. Some people just need something minor to bicker about.</strong><hr></blockquote>Windows XP and 'its apps' are very stable and happen to be quicker. Slow launch times is not something 'minor'. We want OS X to be both fast AND stable - I think that's a fair rant. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
MS products' quicker launch times are probably in part attributable to the fact that the DLLs they use are already loaded by the system. But Windows is just faster in general anyway. Now if it could just keep track of which mouse button is which and maybe allow two programs to use the sound card simultaneously, or stop messing up all my icons...
And I wish I had your startup times. this thing (Duron 750/5400 RPM, 20GB Seagate U Series/128 MB RAM/Windows 98SE) takes a long time to start up.
<strong>
MS products' quicker launch times are probably in part attributable to the fact that the DLLs they use are already loaded by the system. But Windows is just faster in general anyway. Now if it could just keep track of which mouse button is which and maybe allow two programs to use the sound card simultaneously, or stop messing up all my icons...
And I wish I had your startup times. this thing (Duron 750/5400 RPM, 20GB Seagate U Series/128 MB RAM/Windows 98SE) takes a long time to start up.</strong><hr></blockquote>Windows 98SE and 128MB of RAM? You're just asking for trouble! Do a clean install of WinXP and pop some more RAM in (it's dirt cheap these days). Not only will you'll see a huge speed increase and load time, but those quirky problems you mentioned will disappear with XP as well. I've had XP Pro loaded since it was released and I haven't had a single OS crash since.
I agree that MS programs will run faster within its own OS - but even Apple's iApps run with the same launch lag under its own OS.
I guess it's not much help to you if this issue is causing you trouble (obviously, since you noticed it), but OS X's way might actually be smarter in some situations: Most people don't launch and quit an application repeatedly in quick succession, especially with OS X's nice memory management. So caching app related data after an app is quit is a waste of RAM in most cases.
Then again, it might be caused by something else i'm not aware of. But I think, 95% of the time, the first launch of an app is the important (and only) one.
-robo
Anyway. I essentially don't 'wish' that much.
To answer Dead Member's question. Yes I use SoundEdit 16 under Classic. The app is launching incredibly FAST! One second to launch and I can't even see the dialogue box. Second launch...instantly like Windows box
Since I am not a hardcore audio person I don't really mind keep using SE16 under Classic. Don't want to spend money for new app right now.
OS X is an awesome OS that is being held back by slow hardware. It would be like running Windows XP on a 400MHz P3. Doable, but noticeably slow and not recommended.
--------------------
First off OSX is so new you can't really blam the hardware. It can only get better and faster, as they come out with updates for the OS. I would also like to see XP running on a 400mhz P3 because it wouldn't be any where as close to usuable as the slowest Mac running OSX. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>I have to disagree. My PC is a PII 300 Mhz 256MB of RAM running Windows XP Home. My mac is a 400 Mhz iMac with 320 MB of RAM. My PC is faster at everything. IE launches faster and renders web pages faster on my PC than my MAC. OE is quicker on my PC than Mail on my Mac. I like OS X and I like my Mac. But often OS X is not faster than XP. Even when XP is running on older hardware.</strong><hr></blockquote>
In these particular cases, IE and OE, part of the reason why they launch so fast is that large portions of these applications have been bundled into Windows itself. When running Windows, Microsoft's own apps often gain a distinct homefield advantage over third party apps. (Just one of the many ways Microsoft undermines a level playing field.)
Compare launch times for Netscape or Mozilla on both platforms, and you probably won't see as great a difference between Windows and OS X.
I went from a 1ghz p3 to a 700mhz g3 and have nothing to complain about I do every thing I did on my PC on my mac and seems just as quick. I also had more ram in my PC (512). I only have 384 megs in my iBook. I think if OSX is as slow to every one as you are saying than you would hear a lot more people complaining. I do more than the average user does on my mac and find no problem with any thing. I also run VPC at 32 bit color and at 1024x768... and it works well enough for what ever I have to do in Windows.
And people say oh IE loads faster in XP, well if it was implamented in OSX it would load just as fast to, but who the hell wants a web browser implamented with the OS... I started to laugh when IE6 went corrupt and screwed up my whole XP machine what a joke that was!!
Though I do agree that first launch time is an important thing.
But its prioritization depend though on what you're doing.
If you're only starting up a small application to do trivial stuff (like writing a simple text message), you probably will want it to launch quite fast. But if you want to a heavy duty stuff, you probably will be willing to wait a little longer (though if it's also quite fast, that would be nice).
But nevertheless, like robo said it, it's usually the first launch that's important. The second, and third, and fourth usually aren't that really important.
<strong>
First off OSX is so new you can't really blam the hardware. It can only get better and faster, as they come out with updates for the OS. I would also like to see XP running on a 400mhz P3 because it wouldn't be any where as close to usuable as the slowest Mac running OSX. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
The part of OSX you can see, Aqua, may be new but the underlying Unix kernel probably isn't. This may be a good thing as its been tried and tested and gives OSX its stability. Unix used to be associated with large mainframes, so the fact you can even run it on a personal computer, especially a laptop, does show how far the hardware has progressed.
MS apps show up just as quick on my G4 867 with 640mg RAM as on any PC I have seen....
IE 2 secs for first launch 1 sec for second launch
MS Word X 1 sec first launch 1/2 sec second launch
this is all on 10.1.5
On my PC at work with 800 mhz p3 with RAMBUS and win2k things are much slower ....
Plus you don't have the wonderful unixy multi-tasking and rock solid stability of OS X.... sure win2k is very stable but quite often an app or the system can really hang because and app or a tread has locked up and then I just have to sit there and wait for the Peecee to unlock, where as on my OS X box i can just ignore the locked process and carry on doing other things while the problem app decides whether to sort it self out or crash .....
And just remember you can't really compare coz MS apps will naturally be rip-optimized for PC/Windowz and less for PPC. plus remember that OS X has a far heavier UI with Aqua taking far more power then XP..
Lets see what Jaguar brings us ... it should be much faster.
Adobe Photoshop 1st run: 53.70 seconds (going until all windows show up.)
Adobe Photoshop 2nd run: 35.09 seconds.
In OS 9, 1st run ~25 flat, 2nd run ~17 flat.
If I defragged my HD, I could probably shave a lot of seconds off.
My friend's 700MHz PII running Windows Me takes about 27 the first run, 25 the second.
BTW: iTunes first run (waiting until window pops up) 8.36 secs. Second run, 5.66. Mail first run 8.50, second run 6.06. So on average (at least with these apps) I'm getting about 30.4% faster the second time around.
But on the other hand, while some big app like Photoshop is starting, I go off and browse the web or chat while it does it's thing. So it doesnt really matter much..I usually keep Proteus, OmniWeb, Frogblast, Classic, and Photoshop always open. Open iTunes sometimes, and reg AIM as little as possible, as both lag my old iMac considerably. Jag may change this...I hope.
Try keeping all of your apps open on XP. Try never turning off your PC.
Speed is of course cool, but I haven't been taking two steps back (reboot) for each step forward. That means more to me.