Just how fast is Jaguar?

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
Hey,

I must admit that I was underwhelmed at MWNY by the speed of the Jaguar build running on the new 17" flat panel iMacs. In almost every respect (window resizing, web rendering, application opening), 10.2 appeared to be just as clunky as the current builds of 10.1.



Is this update to X really going to give us "dramatic" speed improvements, as Apple has promised? Is Quartz Extreme really going to make a difference? I guess it's nice to continue to be able to watch a movie as it gets sucked into the dock, or to have your desktop wallpaper dynamically change every minute or so....but that's no substitute for raw performance. I really hope that Apple is going to surprise us all by August 24th!
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 67
    fluffyfluffy Posts: 361member
    Don't count on it, you'll just be disappointed.
  • Reply 2 of 67
    xaqtlyxaqtly Posts: 450member
    There is a difference but it won't rip your head off. It's snappier in general. But also, you have to remember that there's debug code in the build you were using. Should be a bit quicker after that's removed, too. Programs launch faster, the Finder is more responsive.
  • Reply 3 of 67
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,271member
    Speed optimizations are the last thing to be done is what I hear. I'm sure Jag U ar will be speedy and snnnnnnnnnnnnappy.
  • Reply 4 of 67
    noahjnoahj Posts: 4,502member
    [quote]Originally posted by Xaqtly:

    <strong>There is a difference but it won't rip your head off. It's snappier in general. But also, you have to remember that there's debug code in the build you were using. Should be a bit quicker after that's removed, too. Programs launch faster, the Finder is more responsive.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Ahhh, the ever famous debug code. Jaguar will be faster, how much is yet to be seen.
  • Reply 5 of 67
    Yes the speed is coming. Very soon now. At least that's what we've been saying for the last year or so. Any day now. Super fast. Just wait. Last thing to happen. gcc is getting better for PPC. QE is the solution. Blah blah blah. I'm blind to Apple's failure.
  • Reply 6 of 67
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    [quote]Originally posted by scott_h_phd:

    <strong>Yes the speed is coming. Very soon now. At least that's what we've been saying for the last year or so. Any day now. Super fast. Just wait. Last thing to happen. gcc is getting better for PPC. QE is the solution. Blah blah blah. I'm blind to Apple's failure.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    You never pass on an opportunity to be an ass, do you?



    Anyway, on topic: Jaguar is much faster in a lot of ways. The GUI is much faster in general. Menus drop down right away, app switching has yet to bog down, etc. And it's not because I've got a fresh install that it's fast. I copied my whole home directory, preferences and all, over from 10.1. The experience is much nicer.



    [ 07-26-2002: Message edited by: torifile ]</p>
  • Reply 7 of 67
    keyboardf12keyboardf12 Posts: 1,379member
    [quote] You never pass on an opportunity to be an ass, do you? <hr></blockquote>



    ROTFL <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
  • Reply 8 of 67
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    I have it on reasonable authority that Apple's suggested requirements are a tad optimistic in that while they work (and speed things up a bit) you really need a little more GPU to make Quartz Extreme fly. To start, if AGP is required (over PCI) so that the GPU can read and write directly to system memory, then we really need 4X AGP, and not the 2X of the consumer macs. Also GF2MX/Radeon are the bare minimum. If Apple gives it's minimum requirements the way most vendors do, then that's really the MINIMUM, ie, it works but don't expect too much. GF4MX (particularly on 2xAGP like on the iMac17") and Radeon7500 are just a half step above. They should be better, but they won't set the QE engine on fire.



    Basically these cards all 'work' and probably make a good show of unloading the CPU for more consistent performance, but none of them really (dramatically) 'speed-up' OSX. You will need ATI8500 and GF4Ti and up level cards for that (on a 4X bus, min.) As it stands, QE on current hardware should keep the system from bogging down as easily during iTunes visualizations, or a big scroll through iPhoto, etc etc, but we'll need some better hardware for a true speed boost.
  • Reply 9 of 67
    sebseb Posts: 676member
    And I have it on even better authority that the originally posted requirements for QE were understated - meaning the 16MB VRAM ibooks should take advantage of it.
  • Reply 10 of 67
    reynardreynard Posts: 160member
    I don't understand the interaction between the current hardware and software that affect speed, or "snappiness". But what worries me is that in the promos I've seen from Apple, they don't mention a speed improvement. Could be I've missed a reference to better speed but at the least, it's not prominently displayed.



    Not being a power user, I'll settle for improved snappiness. Even a little. Can I expect that? I have a 733 Power Mac.
  • Reply 11 of 67
    I don't know if ya'll have Jag 6c106, nut you certanly sound like you don't. well, i have it and i'll tell you, It's STABLE, it's FAST and it's not even the final version! Scrolling, resizing and app launch is faster than you can imagine! Irun G4/733/384, and I'll tell you this:

    JAGUAR 6C106 IS FASTER THAN MY OS 9.2.2!!!!!!!!!



    Thank you very much!
  • Reply 12 of 67
    pyr3pyr3 Posts: 946member
    [quote]Originally posted by milanjazz:

    <strong>I don't know if ya'll have Jag 6c106, nut you certanly sound like you don't. well, i have it and i'll tell you, It's STABLE, it's FAST and it's not even the final version! Scrolling, resizing and app launch is faster than you can imagine! Irun G4/733/384, and I'll tell you this:

    JAGUAR 6C106 IS FASTER THAN MY OS 9.2.2!!!!!!!!!



    Thank you very much!</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I hate everyone saying "It's not even the final version" or "they still have to remove the debug code". Don't hold your breath that the last 24 days of development or the removal of debug code will give you a lot of noticeable performance boost.
  • Reply 13 of 67
    smirclesmircle Posts: 1,035member
    I just installed 6C106 on my TitBook 400. It is noticeably faster, scrolling is smoother etc. However, it is far from screaming (of course, this machine does not support QE).



    It is not a speed demon, it is not as fast as OS 9.x, it is not the end of the spinning beach ball (which is back in a 3D-is way instead of the aqua blob). System startup seems a bit slower than 10.1.5.



    On the other hand, on my 233Mhz G3, it is more noticeably faster than 10.1.5



    [EDIT] Oh yes, please forget about "this is not even the final version" or "there is still debug code" or "speed optimisations are the last thing they are doing". Bull. Sorry, there are no switches you can just flip to make it faster. 6C106 is about what we'll see as the final version. All the changes from now on will be just cosmetics.



    [ 07-27-2002: Message edited by: Smircle ]</p>
  • Reply 14 of 67
    nonsuchnonsuch Posts: 293member
    [quote]Originally posted by reynard:

    <strong>But what worries me is that in the promos I've seen from Apple, they don't mention a speed improvement. Could be I've missed a reference to better speed but at the least, it's not prominently displayed.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Read Apple's <a href="http://www.apple.com/macosx/jaguar/quartzextreme.html"; target="_blank">Quartz Extreme</a> page again. It has a chart comparing certain operations in 10.1.5, "straight" 10.2, and QE-accelerated 10.2. As for why it's not more prominent, two reasons:



    1) It's not a good idea to publicize the fact that your current OS gives substandard performance;

    2) There will always be some who expect the world and will be disappointed that their machine isn't four times faster after installing 10.2. In fact, given the level of rationality around here, some lunatic would probably propose a class action lawsuit.
  • Reply 15 of 67
    rogue27rogue27 Posts: 607member
    I think they don't want to make a big deal about speed improvments because they don't want to draw attention to the fact that it's slow. They want to focus on features, which is what the average consumer wants to know.



    Besides, advertising jaguar as a speed update would give the impression that people were paying for a patch instead for a new OS with many new features.
  • Reply 16 of 67
    Face facts people. Apple has never had an ace up their sleeve when it comes to OS X speed. The only real speed up was the update prebinding one. Since then just about nothing.



    You should expect nothing because that?s what you?re going to get.
  • Reply 17 of 67
    [quote] I just installed 6C106 on my TitBook 400. <hr></blockquote>

    Lol... <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
  • Reply 18 of 67
    xaqtlyxaqtly Posts: 450member
    [quote] You should expect nothing because that?s what you?re going to get. <hr></blockquote>



    I beg to differ. Jaguar provides a noticable and measurable increase in speed compared to 10.1.5. As I said before it won't blow your head off, but it is noticable and it is an improvement. Whether this is due simply to recompiling or QE or a combination of both... I can't say, but the difference is there. Jaguar is absolutely what I have been waiting for in OS X. It's more responsive, and its components are integrated better... and that's to say nothing of those 150 new features, and the bug fixes.



    You can tell me I'm lying if you want, but I have it installed on my iMac and I'm using it. Are you?
  • Reply 19 of 67
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Checked the minimum requirements again. 16MB and AGP 2X. But I bet those results came from nothing less than 4X AGP and GF4Ti. What that means is the vast majority of currently shipping macs will NOT see as dramatic a performance improvement as that shown on Apple's page. Just won't happen without faster hardware. Better than 10.1.5, and **mild** QE boosts for those that support the minimum, but ONLY machines with 4X AGP and high-end graphics will see a truly dramatic speed boost.



    Though I suppose speeding OSX to an acceptable lag free level could be considered **dramatic** at this point. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
  • Reply 20 of 67
    keyboardf12keyboardf12 Posts: 1,379member
    [quote] You should expect nothing because that?s what you?re going to get. <hr></blockquote>





    Hear that apple? Send all the programmers home. mr. phd has spoken and since he obviously is smarter than all you, you should just pack it up and give the money back to the share holders.
Sign In or Register to comment.