is there any hope of X speeding up?
The finder in X is slow compared to 9. We all know this. With previous MacOSes, the responsiveness was there from the start, if anything later releases made it slower. X isn't responsive enough on any machine. Jaguar "fixed" this, but we all know it really didn't. If a year yields the modest improvement we saw in Jaguar, can we ever con't on X not being a turtle?
Comments
Run Mac OS X 10.0 (or Public Beta even) next to a Mac with 10.2. If you con't see that 10.2 is significantly faster, then there's either something wrong with your computer or with your eyes.
Ay ay ay... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Oh, iDisk is still relatively slow compared to the local drive, but it's as fast if not faster than my WAN at work, so I consider it acceptable.
It does seem that mileage varies quite a bit though. I hope Apple can somehow address this and make the experience more consistent across the board. I imagine it would be easier for them than say Microsoft given the relatively limited range of hardware and install scenarios they have to consider.
<strong>Run Mac OS X 10.0 (or Public Beta even) next to a Mac with 10.2. If you con't see that 10.2 is significantly faster... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Brad. I got to have an argument with you. I find Public Beta faster than any 10.0x
<strong>Brad. I got to have an argument with you. </strong><hr></blockquote>3 o'clock behind the school cafeteria, the kiddy glove come off! Be there or be square!
<strong>3 o'clock behind the school cafeteria
If I could know how to do instant transport I would be there
Honestly, this system is the fastest version of OS X to date, and I find it as fast as OS 9 in many respects and close to the same speed on most other task. To further demonstrate my conviction, I have taken OS 9 off my system, since I do not need it now and speed is very nice in Jaguar.
I should make the disclaimer that I haven't touched Classic or rebooted into 9 since, um, some time just after Christmas to scan stuff (when my scanner drivers didn't even work in Classic). It sure seemed zippy back then, but 10.2, to my perception, is pretty much as fast in all areas, except that I abuse my machine a lot more with X than I ever did in 8 or 9. Dynamic memory allocation has made me such a slob.
[ 09-12-2002: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
<strong>I have to flip back into OS9 (Damn you, Quark!!) and the OS seems so snappy it makes your eyes water.</strong><hr></blockquote>I had to reboot into OS9 recently to mount some old ShrinkWrap images that choke in Classic and OSX and I too found OS9 to be pretty quick.
HOWEVER, it only seemed quick when I was only doing one thing at a time. As soon as I started trying to multitask, my system quickly began to stall and I once again yearned for OSX.
I'd say OSX GREATLY has the upper hand here just because I can work so more efficiently and faster with the superior multitasking.
I have no doubt that OSX will eventually be as fast when windowing(that reall IS what we're talking about here isn't it?) as OS9.
Clean installs seem to provide a noticeable improvement in speed as well.
The UI in OS X feels different than OS 9 did, it feels bloated. it feels like I am using a UI to access an underlying command line. I am not foolish enough to not know that this is the case, but my point is that it shouldn't feel like that.
I don't think it will ever feel the same as OS 9 did, because it's working in a new way. It's not necessarily that it feels slow... it just feels different.. distant.
Mac OS X is more responsive than OS 9. We know this because a user can download something from the net, burn a CD in iTunes, and still surf the web without feeling a performance hit (unless he or she is using Internet Explorer). As much as the buzz word has been played out, multitasking is very important.. more important than a snappy menu. With all the programs people are running these days, we need to not concern ourselves with quitting a program everytime we are finished or allocating the proper amount of memory to it.
I have made a long post, sorry about that. The conclusion is that many will never feel that speed they did with OS 9, but I think the trade off of stablity and multitasking is well worth it.
[ 09-12-2002: Message edited by: JDraden ]</p>
But clicking around in OS 9 makes me drool. Menus pop up right when I click, not a half second to one second afterwards. Multitasking is obviously better in OS uniX, but I don't quite understand why this has to be a trade off? Am I wrong for wanting the snappiness of nine and the multitasking of X? now THAT would be the perfect OS.
You were saying about OSX?
It is dog slow. I found it difficult to understand why Mac-people accepted the lag in the Mac-interface - then, after a while, I got used to it. Now I have decided to stay away from OSX until I can afford HW that has the oomphh to run it - I think that will be dual 1.6G G4 with a SERIOUS GPU and 128 MB VRAM.
We have accepted for far too long that we have to wait for even single commands to be executed. Try BeOS. Try the former Acorn's RISCOS - <a href="http://www.riscos.com/"; target="_blank">http://www.riscos.com/</a>; . Or try MagicMac.
Or run Darwin or Linux.
Man! It makes me sad that UI speed has lost out to bloatware.
engpjp
The thing is, in OS 9 (like Win95, 98 & ME), the OS could make the UI interact with the user as soon as it wanted to. This was at the expense of everything else running on the machine though. So when a menu in OS 9 pops right up, the download in the background stutters.
This is the tradeoff for OS X. If they were to rewire the kernel so that the finder was given a higher priority than other tasks running, it could probably be made to feel as responsive as OS 9. In the long run it shouldn't be necessary though. Faster machines will improve this over time.
I'm running Win2K on a 733 MHZ PIII at work and it's as bad as OS 9 sometimes.