I have QS 867 gigram, 10.1.5, and I rarely see the beachball, and then for only a second. I usually run column view in the finder as it is the cleanest/easiest way to to navigate.
Now on our 450 DV iMac 384ram, 10.1.5, you see the beachball a little more but it is not a big deal.
Just switch to column view and I think you'll be happier with the finders response.
Point: SurfRat. Scott_h_PhD obviously doesn't have a PhD in anything having to do with computers. KittyLitter, shut up. STFU. I have an iBook. So deal with it. If you can afford a PBG4 you can afford to WAIT. Ok it's just the beginning of the week, must come down... It's been a long day. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Besides, from what people here are saying Jaguar is NOT slow.
Either discuss the topic at hand (MacOS X speed), or go elsewhere because this will be locked.
M'kay?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Please do lock it. First of all, this thread is absolutely pointless. It is quite clear the question asked was not a serious one, rather a pointless Mac OS X bashing post. Second of all, um...yeah...just lock the dang thread.
heres an article that i found quite useful. i know that some of the suggestions arent quite good (Iike get a second monitor which is quite pricey) and some take away the beauty of X, but ive done only a couple of these (disabled font smoothing and sped up mouse) and it was a nice little speed boost.
Begin transferring 100 MBs of files to a zip drive in both OS X and OS 9.
Immediately after begging the transfer, open up a new finder window.
OS 9 doesn't seem so fast anymore, does it? In fact, you're lucky if OS9 doesn't crap out if you do something like try to browse the finder while copying to a zip disc and playing iTunes. But do the same in OS X, and all processes SEEM to not take any speed hit! Amazing, isn't it?
This thread has informed me that my iMac 233MHz is actually faster than a Powerbook 667MHz DVI.
Seriously. Opening my fonts folder (~500 items) takes LESS than a second.
I strongly suspect kittylitterdesign happens to be one of those people who absolutely insists on throwing every file they can think of into the root level of the hard drive.
Any reasons for slowness would probably be as follows:
In Mac OS 9, there is a zooming rectangle that expands from wherever you open a file. So you get something visual while opening a file, hence making it appear to load faster.
As pointed out earlier, folders in Mac OS X do not (10.1.5 and earlier) open a window then begin displaying files.
The Mac OS X UI will make it somewhat slower, with Mac OS 9 there is no transparencies/fancy patterns the processor must draw in order to display a window.
You may have the icons set to a higher resolution in OS X. The icons have masks and are physically bigger (not that 9 does not have masks, but it's still more data to load.) Also keep in mind that some icons may have only one size in the .icns file (for example, 128x128) so the Finder may have to resize them and display them, which also takes time.
<strong>This thread has informed me that my iMac 233MHz is actually faster than a Powerbook 667MHz DVI.
Seriously. Opening my fonts folder (~500 items) takes LESS than a second.
I strongly suspect kittylitterdesign happens to be one of those people who absolutely insists on throwing every file they can think of into the root level of the hard drive.
Any reasons for slowness would probably be as follows:
In Mac OS 9, there is a zooming rectangle that expands from wherever you open a file. So you get something visual while opening a file, hence making it appear to load faster.
As pointed out earlier, folders in Mac OS X do not (10.1.5 and earlier) open a window then begin displaying files.
The Mac OS X UI will make it somewhat slower, with Mac OS 9 there is no transparencies/fancy patterns the processor must draw in order to display a window.
You may have the icons set to a higher resolution in OS X. The icons have masks and are physically bigger (not that 9 does not have masks, but it's still more data to load.) Also keep in mind that some icons may have only one size in the .icns file (for example, 128x128) so the Finder may have to resize them and display them, which also takes time.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No I am not putting all my files in the root - I simply state that OSX is slower then OS9 - that gotta be agreed - and I wanted to use this thread to ask if anyone had used OSX10.2 yet and if the finder is more OS9 alive and instant - Can you please get real and forget trying to say "Oh I bet he's doing this or that etc" I simly know that OSX makes my Powerbook 667 DVI with 512mb run slower than in OS9
We had discussed above and agreed how the finder in OSX is slower than in OS9 and I can;t believe this thread got all bent out of shape becuase I said I did list my specs! -
I guess this thread is now closed - reply all you want but OSX is slower than OS9.2 period
Try compiling Mozilla, exporting a high-quality movie in QuickTime, be hosting an internet connection for several other computers on an LAN, watch a DVD without skipping a frame, and have the interface still completely responsive -- all at the same time under OS 9.
Seriously, try it.
Then do it in OSX and tell us which OS is slow.
Do you think that's a little extreme? Hardly. I was doing just that last night. I can do a lot more. Mac OS X runs like a champ for me. What OSX lacks in a little bit of UI feedback, it makes up for 100-fold with superior threading, memory-management, and multi-tasking.
Besides, it sounds like most of your gripes have to do with the Finder, not OS X in general. The Finder is indeed much improved with 10.2.
Try compiling Mozilla, exporting a high-quality movie in QuickTime, be hosting an internet connection for several other computers on an LAN, watch a DVD without skipping a frame, and have the interface still completely responsive -- all at the same time under OS 9.
Seriously, try it.
Then do it in OSX and tell us which OS is slow.
Do you think that's a little extreme? Hardly. I was doing just that last night. I can do a lot more. Mac OS X runs like a champ for me. What OSX lacks in a little bit of UI feedback, it makes up for 100-fold with superior threading, memory-management, and multi-tasking.
Besides, it sounds like most of your gripes have to do with the Finder, not OS X in general. The Finder is indeed much improved with 10.2.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I know how you feel over the speed of OS X. It seems much slower than OS 9. People seem to be defending their "baby" rather than objective addressing your issue. The finder responsiveness is not up to par yet. It is being addressed significantly by Jaguar, and if not completely satisfied by OS 10.2, you will be much happier with it.
As others have stated, it is a bit of an apparency. The two systems work differently. Many speed tests show things under recent builds of OS X (like 10.1.5) are faster than OS 9. These things tend to be task that respond well to multi-threading and/or advanced memory management. However, the finder is what you deal with a lot as you move around the system.
OS X is a new system that has not had all the quirks worked out of it or optimized completely. It is very nice and quite useable, but it is not up to OS 9 yet at this level. Jaguar will address this issue significantly, and most people are saying WOW a lot. I look forward to saying WOW myself, but I try not to build-up my expectancies. I will judge it for myself when it arrives at the end of the month.
Kittylitterdesign, get more RAM, stick with 9.2 and wait for 10.2. Ignore the buttheads. I tend to be more open and helpful in these Forums (but in Appleoutsider and Fireside Chat...watch out ).
By the way, love the start of your site. Good luck with your situation. Don't worry, you love OS X...you'll have to soon!
Try compiling Mozilla, exporting a high-quality movie in QuickTime, be hosting an internet connection for several other computers on an LAN, watch a DVD without skipping a frame, and have the interface still completely responsive -- all at the same time under OS 9.
Seriously, try it.
Then do it in OSX and tell us which OS is slow.[CODE]
I am running
photoshop
flash
fireworks
quicktime
cleaner
yahoo messenger
entourage
explorer
In OS9 it runs super smooth and fast - In OSX it is slow period - I hear what your saying but this thread is dead now - lets all face it OS10.2 hopefully will be faster - but at present OSx10.1.5 makes G4s run like G3s
What do you mean with "I am running"? The applications are simply open or they perform processor-intensive operations at the same time in the background? I think it makes some difference.
In OS9 it runs super smooth and fast - In OSX it is slow period - I hear what your saying but this thread is dead now - lets all face it OS10.2 hopefully will be faster - but at present OSx10.1.5 makes G4s run like G3s</strong><hr></blockquote>I honestly think you missed the point. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Are all of those apps *processing* something at the same time? I don't just mean are the open with documents open. I mean are they actually *working* on something. That would mean all of this is actually taking place at the same time:
* photoshop is opening a file or processing filters on one.
* flash is animating something.
* fireworks is animating something.
* quicktime is playing a movie or exporting a movie.
* cleaner is exporting a movie.
* yahoo messenger is transmitting or receiving data.
* entourage is downloading and filtering mail, maybe even rendering an HTML e-mail file.
* explorer is downloading and rendering a page.
Is all that *really* happening at the exact same time? And you system is still responsive?
If the program is just sitting there, not actively doing something, then so what? What's the point in having all those apps open if they aren't *doing* anything?
<strong>I honestly think you missed the point. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Are all of those apps *processing* something at the same time? I don't just mean are the open with documents open. I mean are they actually *working* on something. That would mean all of this is actually taking place at the same time:
* photoshop is opening a file or processing filters on one.
* flash is animating something.
* fireworks is animating something.
* quicktime is playing a movie or exporting a movie.
* cleaner is exporting a movie.
* yahoo messenger is transmitting or receiving data.
* entourage is downloading and filtering mail, maybe even rendering an HTML e-mail file.
* explorer is downloading and rendering a page.
Is all that *really* happening at the exact same time? And you system is still responsive?
If the program is just sitting there, not actively doing something, then so what? What's the point in having all those apps open if they aren't *doing* anything?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
He's just retarded. If he doesn't get that idle programs are not a test of how good an OS is, then he's just plain dumb. "I opened 2001 instances of notepad in Windows XP last night, so it must be better than OS X running those 5 programs that you talked about" What a retard.
I use OS X all the time and I am excited about it and its future. However I just had to boot into os 9 because of a font issue with flash.
OS X is slower than 9 when switching between windows and really, that's what you are doing most of the time. Also, window shade is a better solution for window switching than the dock. With windowshade the window stays where you left it and you do not have to spend time hunting through the dock (people have gone into this with more depth than I can). I was disappointed to hear that the "minimise in place" feature is missing from the latest builds of Jaguar. It can be seen in the OS 9 version of iTunes and is quite nice.
If you save a quarter of a second doing something 100 times it is faster for the user than saving 2 seconds you do 10 times a session. In that way OS 9 can be faster for the user.
I still think OS 9 with finderpop makes for the speediest navigation and window switching. OS X, though, in its totality, is a far better operating system.
Comments
Now on our 450 DV iMac 384ram, 10.1.5, you see the beachball a little more but it is not a big deal.
Just switch to column view and I think you'll be happier with the finders response.
<strong> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> WHY is it so slow</strong><hr></blockquote>
Because your mom is fat.
Besides, from what people here are saying Jaguar is NOT slow.
Either discuss the topic at hand (MacOS X speed), or go elsewhere because this will be locked.
M'kay?
<strong>Play nice.
Either discuss the topic at hand (MacOS X speed), or go elsewhere because this will be locked.
M'kay?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Please do lock it. First of all, this thread is absolutely pointless. It is quite clear the question asked was not a serious one, rather a pointless Mac OS X bashing post. Second of all, um...yeah...just lock the dang thread.
<strong>
Because your mom is fat.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I have to admit that is the funniest thing I have seen on here!! <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
so check it out.
<a href="http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/OSX/os_x_performance_tips.html#tips"; target="_blank">http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/OSX/os_x_performance_tips.html#tips</a>;
Begin transferring 100 MBs of files to a zip drive in both OS X and OS 9.
Immediately after begging the transfer, open up a new finder window.
OS 9 doesn't seem so fast anymore, does it? In fact, you're lucky if OS9 doesn't crap out if you do something like try to browse the finder while copying to a zip disc and playing iTunes. But do the same in OS X, and all processes SEEM to not take any speed hit! Amazing, isn't it?
Seriously. Opening my fonts folder (~500 items) takes LESS than a second.
I strongly suspect kittylitterdesign happens to be one of those people who absolutely insists on throwing every file they can think of into the root level of the hard drive.
Any reasons for slowness would probably be as follows:
<strong>This thread has informed me that my iMac 233MHz is actually faster than a Powerbook 667MHz DVI.
Seriously. Opening my fonts folder (~500 items) takes LESS than a second.
I strongly suspect kittylitterdesign happens to be one of those people who absolutely insists on throwing every file they can think of into the root level of the hard drive.
Any reasons for slowness would probably be as follows:
- In Mac OS 9, there is a zooming rectangle that expands from wherever you open a file. So you get something visual while opening a file, hence making it appear to load faster.
- As pointed out earlier, folders in Mac OS X do not (10.1.5 and earlier) open a window then begin displaying files.
- The Mac OS X UI will make it somewhat slower, with Mac OS 9 there is no transparencies/fancy patterns the processor must draw in order to display a window.
- You may have the icons set to a higher resolution in OS X. The icons have masks and are physically bigger (not that 9 does not have masks, but it's still more data to load.) Also keep in mind that some icons may have only one size in the .icns file (for example, 128x128) so the Finder may have to resize them and display them, which also takes time.
</strong><hr></blockquote>No I am not putting all my files in the root - I simply state that OSX is slower then OS9 - that gotta be agreed - and I wanted to use this thread to ask if anyone had used OSX10.2 yet and if the finder is more OS9 alive and instant - Can you please get real and forget trying to say "Oh I bet he's doing this or that etc" I simly know that OSX makes my Powerbook 667 DVI with 512mb run slower than in OS9
We had discussed above and agreed how the finder in OSX is slower than in OS9 and I can;t believe this thread got all bent out of shape becuase I said I did list my specs! -
I guess this thread is now closed - reply all you want but OSX is slower than OS9.2 period
And that took you almost two years to notice?
Just stfu and die please.
Try compiling Mozilla, exporting a high-quality movie in QuickTime, be hosting an internet connection for several other computers on an LAN, watch a DVD without skipping a frame, and have the interface still completely responsive -- all at the same time under OS 9.
Seriously, try it.
Then do it in OSX and tell us which OS is slow.
Do you think that's a little extreme? Hardly. I was doing just that last night. I can do a lot more. Mac OS X runs like a champ for me. What OSX lacks in a little bit of UI feedback, it makes up for 100-fold with superior threading, memory-management, and multi-tasking.
Besides, it sounds like most of your gripes have to do with the Finder, not OS X in general. The Finder is indeed much improved with 10.2.
<strong>You think Mac OS X is slow?
Try compiling Mozilla, exporting a high-quality movie in QuickTime, be hosting an internet connection for several other computers on an LAN, watch a DVD without skipping a frame, and have the interface still completely responsive -- all at the same time under OS 9.
Seriously, try it.
Then do it in OSX and tell us which OS is slow.
Do you think that's a little extreme? Hardly. I was doing just that last night. I can do a lot more. Mac OS X runs like a champ for me. What OSX lacks in a little bit of UI feedback, it makes up for 100-fold with superior threading, memory-management, and multi-tasking.
Besides, it sounds like most of your gripes have to do with the Finder, not OS X in general. The Finder is indeed much improved with 10.2.</strong><hr></blockquote>
[code]
####### # # # # ####### ######
# # # # # ## # # # #
# # # # # # # # # # #
# # # # # # # # ##### # #
# # # # # # # # # # #
# # # # # # ## # # #
####### ## ## # # ####### ######
</pre><hr></blockquote>
[ 08-06-2002: Message edited by: Defiant ]</p>
As others have stated, it is a bit of an apparency. The two systems work differently. Many speed tests show things under recent builds of OS X (like 10.1.5) are faster than OS 9. These things tend to be task that respond well to multi-threading and/or advanced memory management. However, the finder is what you deal with a lot as you move around the system.
OS X is a new system that has not had all the quirks worked out of it or optimized completely. It is very nice and quite useable, but it is not up to OS 9 yet at this level. Jaguar will address this issue significantly, and most people are saying WOW a lot. I look forward to saying WOW myself, but I try not to build-up my expectancies. I will judge it for myself when it arrives at the end of the month.
By the way, love the start of your site. Good luck with your situation. Don't worry, you love OS X...you'll have to soon!
Originally posted by Brad:
You think Mac OS X is slow?
Try compiling Mozilla, exporting a high-quality movie in QuickTime, be hosting an internet connection for several other computers on an LAN, watch a DVD without skipping a frame, and have the interface still completely responsive -- all at the same time under OS 9.
Seriously, try it.
Then do it in OSX and tell us which OS is slow.[CODE]
I am running
photoshop
flash
fireworks
quicktime
cleaner
yahoo messenger
entourage
explorer
In OS9 it runs super smooth and fast - In OSX it is slow period - I hear what your saying but this thread is dead now - lets all face it OS10.2 hopefully will be faster - but at present OSx10.1.5 makes G4s run like G3s
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
<strong>
I am running
photoshop
flash
fireworks
quicktime
cleaner
yahoo messenger
entourage
explorer
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What do you mean with "I am running"? The applications are simply open or they perform processor-intensive operations at the same time in the background? I think it makes some difference.
<strong>I am running
photoshop
flash
fireworks
quicktime
cleaner
yahoo messenger
entourage
explorer
In OS9 it runs super smooth and fast - In OSX it is slow period - I hear what your saying but this thread is dead now - lets all face it OS10.2 hopefully will be faster - but at present OSx10.1.5 makes G4s run like G3s</strong><hr></blockquote>I honestly think you missed the point. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Are all of those apps *processing* something at the same time? I don't just mean are the open with documents open. I mean are they actually *working* on something. That would mean all of this is actually taking place at the same time:
* photoshop is opening a file or processing filters on one.
* flash is animating something.
* fireworks is animating something.
* quicktime is playing a movie or exporting a movie.
* cleaner is exporting a movie.
* yahoo messenger is transmitting or receiving data.
* entourage is downloading and filtering mail, maybe even rendering an HTML e-mail file.
* explorer is downloading and rendering a page.
Is all that *really* happening at the exact same time? And you system is still responsive?
If the program is just sitting there, not actively doing something, then so what? What's the point in having all those apps open if they aren't *doing* anything?
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">
<strong>I honestly think you missed the point. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Are all of those apps *processing* something at the same time? I don't just mean are the open with documents open. I mean are they actually *working* on something. That would mean all of this is actually taking place at the same time:
* photoshop is opening a file or processing filters on one.
* flash is animating something.
* fireworks is animating something.
* quicktime is playing a movie or exporting a movie.
* cleaner is exporting a movie.
* yahoo messenger is transmitting or receiving data.
* entourage is downloading and filtering mail, maybe even rendering an HTML e-mail file.
* explorer is downloading and rendering a page.
Is all that *really* happening at the exact same time? And you system is still responsive?
If the program is just sitting there, not actively doing something, then so what? What's the point in having all those apps open if they aren't *doing* anything?
He's just retarded. If he doesn't get that idle programs are not a test of how good an OS is, then he's just plain dumb. "I opened 2001 instances of notepad in Windows XP last night, so it must be better than OS X running those 5 programs that you talked about" What a retard.
OS X is slower than 9 when switching between windows and really, that's what you are doing most of the time. Also, window shade is a better solution for window switching than the dock. With windowshade the window stays where you left it and you do not have to spend time hunting through the dock (people have gone into this with more depth than I can). I was disappointed to hear that the "minimise in place" feature is missing from the latest builds of Jaguar. It can be seen in the OS 9 version of iTunes and is quite nice.
If you save a quarter of a second doing something 100 times it is faster for the user than saving 2 seconds you do 10 times a session. In that way OS 9 can be faster for the user.
I still think OS 9 with finderpop makes for the speediest navigation and window switching. OS X, though, in its totality, is a far better operating system.