<strong>It's called "volunteer response". Get a statistics textbook and read about it.
<soap box time>
It's because of sh!t stats like Register.com's that the saying "there's lies, damn lies, and statistics!" came from. Shoddy half-@ss "stats" done by people that don't know what the hell is going on.
Everyone do yourself a favor: buy a stats book, like "stats for dummies" or something. I know you slept through it in school (or simply avoided taking the class). Educate yourself on the extremely common abuse of statistics so you don't fall prey to BS...
</end soap box>
Thank you for your patience </strong><hr></blockquote>
Statistics are just like mini skirts. They give you some idea of what's inside but allwais hide the real thing
anyway, I had a whole long rant here originally, but then I accidentally closed the window and lost the whole thing (probably better for you) Suffice it to say, though, I like aqua, and I understnad that most of the issues with X are a "maturity" thing, but I can't live with the bugs, so I'm with 9 for now. Specifically, has anyone else had issues with AIM for X?
I will not say anymore right now, but maybe later, TTFN
Thats not bad compared to windows.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well? Bloatware being software that adds almost useless features I guess OS X is not that. But the way it buffers each window as a pixel map hogs memory and the solution is compression which would slow things down...
I find that multi-tasking more than makes up for *slight* lags on windows and menus. Not to mention my lack of crashing and the like. I have a G4 450 (the first G4s) with 256 megs of ram and I find no net speed lost from OS9 .
// other thought //
For all those who think OSX is slow, where are the spots that bug you the most?
<strong>I find that multi-tasking more than makes up for *slight* lags on windows and menus.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is no reason why one should compensate the other. You can get good responsiveness and multi-tasking, in fact the combination of both should be actually superior.
If it's not there's a bug or design flaw of a magnitude.
There are real-time OSes that can switch tasks in milliseconds and below, and have a very low latency. Mac OS X needs not to do this, but on todays hardware it must be able to impose a zero delay menu access to the user.
There is no excuse for a lag of menu access. A Mac cpu (G3 or G4) can do everything that's necessary from the click of the mouse until the display of the menu between two video cycles, which pretty much means the menu is presented to you faster than your eye will react. And that is nothing that can make your cpu sweat, in fact it has a lot of idle time while doing so.
There is no reason why we should pay on the GUI side for advancements on the OS side. The opposite is true, the entire GUI should on average feel more responsive because the OS now has better features.
[quote]Your conclusions were a little soft on Apple. I would think that Apple should do the following:
- Give us a MacOS 9 finder, written in cocoa, that takes full advantage of X. There should never, ever, be a spinning beachball again.
- Fix the 2d graphics acceleration issue. Scrolling etc needs to be fast, as fast as MacOS 9 on the same hardware
- rehire some of Apple's UI experts back. They were the people that made the MacOS so great. They can again make X great, and give us new features of usability that have been thought up over the yerars.
- drivers. Apple promised a development environment that would make writing device drivers easy and fast. Yet after 9 months people STILL can't synch up a palm pilot with release quality software.
Michael Porter <hr></blockquote>
When moving (notice: MOVING) ten new MP3's from my downloads folder to my MP3 folder takes half a minute, the deduction that the Finder is too ****ing slow is not hard to make. I run 10.1.2 on a 450 MHz G4 Cube w. 256 Mb of RAM.
I don't mind that it's not snappy as 9, but come on. Moving files and folders around shouldn't take longer than up to three seconds, MAX. with OS X multitasking, I'd be able to wait three secs and do something else while the files were being moved. But waiting a (full half minute? That's bullshit, and you know it.
Btw, reading on more complaints from the page let's you know that most of these 90% have never even come close to OS X. Take this guy for instance:
[quote]For the UI, I dislike the placement of the resize and close buttons. The classical Mac interface put these on opposite side and gave you one that would resize to fit.
Finally, the requirement for file extensions and the loss of file creator information is a pain. You'd think that M$ had some influence in designing the UI. <hr></blockquote>
[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: Whyatt Thrash ]</p>
There is no reason why we should pay on the GUI side for advancements on the OS side.
<hr></blockquote>
I would tend to think (from my own experiences with many falvors of UNIX) that the opposite is true: that the OS is blazing fast, but it has this 800-pound slug of a GUI on its back.
from a UNIX standpoint, there hasn't been significant changes made to the BSD-UNIX underpinnings of OSX.
The character set has changed to Unicode... which means it takes more than one byte to store one character ... which can affect program size and speed, but not by a whole-lot.
I believe the speed issues in OSX are all on the GUI side.
The entire GUI is rendered in "DisplayPDF" (except that which is 3D is rendered with OpenGL) ... that's -definitely- going to affect speed. (300% for 2D rendering did someone say?)
[it may be worth noting that the GUI is custom, and not based on top of X11. I believe that the DisplayPostScript GUI engine on the NeXT ran under X11.]
Plus the GUI is written in Objective-C (as was the NeXT GUI). I know that (in general) OO code is slower, but I have no quantifyable statistics for the speed of Objective-C compared to straight C or C++. But the Cocoa libraries might yet be in their infancy with room for optimization.
Those more familiar with the NeXT machines and NeXTStep OS may be able to evaluate and compare the maturity of the OSX GUI (and API) to that of the NeXT, since OSX seems (on the surface) to be a direct decendant of what was developed at NeXT. (...with a bit of ground-breaking internationalization thrown-in on the side. )
I think that OSX performs well enough for Apple to have released it, and that the time was/is right.
the GUI performance of OSX will continue to improve. But the question that current hardware owners are left with is that will it improve -enough- to not require a hardware upgrade in order to have the user-interactivity and responsiveness of .. oh, say ... the Amiga
Hey! I must admit that was a pretty refreshing read!
Most people seem to agree that X has flaws, but no one's screaming at each other. This seems a complete turnaround from what was getting posted on the MacNN forums a couple of months ago where you dare not say "X is crap".
I'm with most of you I think, the underpinnings of X are neat, but the UI really has some way to go yet. I really wonder why Apple decided to install X as the default OS, seems all they are going to get is a lot of dissatisfied customers ("mummy, why does that CD thing keep spinning, I just clicked to open a folder and nothing happened...").
<strong>I wonder how many of those who don't like aqua are really just frustrated with the Finder and legacy unix code? I really like aqua/quartz, but the Finder, kernel and Cocoa frameworks have so much crusty unix crap in them that sometimes it's difficult to use. I still like aqua though.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I am not a big fan of it either. Icons are TOO big and if Apple doesn't add an option to remove the stoopid butt ugly drop shadow crap I just might jump ship too (not).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. You can adjust the icons in MacOS X - make them smaller.
2. There is a hack available to remove the drop shadows.
Have a look in the Finder preferences, there may be other things that will improve your experience.
<strong>If you don't think OS X is slow then you are diluting yourself. OS X is slow. Saying it isn't doesn't make it faster.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you don't think OS X is fast then you are diluting yourself. OS X is fast. Saying it isn't doesn't make it slower.
[quote] I'm with most of you I think, the underpinnings of X are neat, but the UI really has some way to go yet. I really wonder why Apple decided to install X as the default OS, seems all they are going to get is a lot of dissatisfied customers ("mummy, why does that CD thing keep spinning, I just clicked to open a folder and nothing happened..."). <hr></blockquote>
I think an 800mhz G4 is plenty powerful enough to make X more then usable. An iMac with a G3 would've been a different story,
<strong>I used windows 2000 for a long time, and when I switched mac, I actually found adapting to OS X far easier than OS 9.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmmm. Apple needing to convert lots of Windows users into Mac users to sell lots more Macs. Complaints from long-time Mac users about "Windows-isms" in OS X, and former Windows users saying OS X is easier to adjust to that OS 9. Coincidence?
I was wondering why a domain name registrar would have anything to say about this...
Register.com is where I registered my domains...
TheRegister.co.uk is a pile of steaming turd. The people there must have the same sources Ryan Meader has, because the rumors generated are just as horrible. Sometimes you'll find stuff at that is just plain inaccurate.
Comments
<strong>It's called "volunteer response". Get a statistics textbook and read about it.
<soap box time>
It's because of sh!t stats like Register.com's that the saying "there's lies, damn lies, and statistics!" came from. Shoddy half-@ss "stats" done by people that don't know what the hell is going on.
Everyone do yourself a favor: buy a stats book, like "stats for dummies" or something. I know you slept through it in school (or simply avoided taking the class). Educate yourself on the extremely common abuse of statistics so you don't fall prey to BS...
</end soap box>
Thank you for your patience
Statistics are just like mini skirts. They give you some idea of what's inside but allwais hide the real thing
<strong>
It's slow on my wifes 500 MHz iBook woth 384 MB of RAM. Face it, OS X is slow. Bloatware too.</strong><hr></blockquote>
where do you get bloat ware from?
My system folder is only 770.2 MB.
And the library folder is only 391.4MB
Thats not bad compared to windows.
anyway, I had a whole long rant here originally, but then I accidentally closed the window and lost the whole thing (probably better for you) Suffice it to say, though, I like aqua, and I understnad that most of the issues with X are a "maturity" thing, but I can't live with the bugs, so I'm with 9 for now. Specifically, has anyone else had issues with AIM for X?
I will not say anymore right now, but maybe later, TTFN
<strong>
Specifically, has anyone else had issues with AIM for X?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, but have you tried the final release? It's only been out a short while.
<strong>
where do you get bloat ware from?
My system folder is only 770.2 MB.
And the library folder is only 391.4MB
Thats not bad compared to windows.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well? Bloatware being software that adds almost useless features I guess OS X is not that. But the way it buffers each window as a pixel map hogs memory and the solution is compression which would slow things down...
// other thought //
For all those who think OSX is slow, where are the spots that bug you the most?
<strong>For all those who think OSX is slow, where are the spots that bug you the most?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The GUI - the entire GUI.
<strong>I find that multi-tasking more than makes up for *slight* lags on windows and menus.</strong><hr></blockquote>
There is no reason why one should compensate the other. You can get good responsiveness and multi-tasking, in fact the combination of both should be actually superior.
If it's not there's a bug or design flaw of a magnitude.
There are real-time OSes that can switch tasks in milliseconds and below, and have a very low latency. Mac OS X needs not to do this, but on todays hardware it must be able to impose a zero delay menu access to the user.
There is no excuse for a lag of menu access. A Mac cpu (G3 or G4) can do everything that's necessary from the click of the mouse until the display of the menu between two video cycles, which pretty much means the menu is presented to you faster than your eye will react. And that is nothing that can make your cpu sweat, in fact it has a lot of idle time while doing so.
There is no reason why we should pay on the GUI side for advancements on the OS side. The opposite is true, the entire GUI should on average feel more responsive because the OS now has better features.
[quote]Your conclusions were a little soft on Apple. I would think that Apple should do the following:
- Give us a MacOS 9 finder, written in cocoa, that takes full advantage of X. There should never, ever, be a spinning beachball again.
- Fix the 2d graphics acceleration issue. Scrolling etc needs to be fast, as fast as MacOS 9 on the same hardware
- rehire some of Apple's UI experts back. They were the people that made the MacOS so great. They can again make X great, and give us new features of usability that have been thought up over the yerars.
- drivers. Apple promised a development environment that would make writing device drivers easy and fast. Yet after 9 months people STILL can't synch up a palm pilot with release quality software.
Michael Porter <hr></blockquote>
When moving (notice: MOVING) ten new MP3's from my downloads folder to my MP3 folder takes half a minute, the deduction that the Finder is too ****ing slow is not hard to make. I run 10.1.2 on a 450 MHz G4 Cube w. 256 Mb of RAM.
I don't mind that it's not snappy as 9, but come on. Moving files and folders around shouldn't take longer than up to three seconds, MAX. with OS X multitasking, I'd be able to wait three secs and do something else while the files were being moved. But waiting a (full
Btw, reading on more complaints from the page let's you know that most of these 90% have never even come close to OS X. Take this guy for instance:
[quote]For the UI, I dislike the placement of the resize and close buttons. The classical Mac interface put these on opposite side and gave you one that would resize to fit.
Finally, the requirement for file extensions and the loss of file creator information is a pain. You'd think that M$ had some influence in designing the UI. <hr></blockquote>
[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: Whyatt Thrash ]</p>
[quote]
There is no reason why we should pay on the GUI side for advancements on the OS side.
<hr></blockquote>
I would tend to think (from my own experiences with many falvors of UNIX) that the opposite is true: that the OS is blazing fast, but it has this 800-pound slug of a GUI on its back.
from a UNIX standpoint, there hasn't been significant changes made to the BSD-UNIX underpinnings of OSX.
The character set has changed to Unicode... which means it takes more than one byte to store one character ... which can affect program size and speed, but not by a whole-lot.
I believe the speed issues in OSX are all on the GUI side.
The entire GUI is rendered in "DisplayPDF" (except that which is 3D is rendered with OpenGL) ... that's -definitely- going to affect speed. (300% for 2D rendering did someone say?)
[it may be worth noting that the GUI is custom, and not based on top of X11. I believe that the DisplayPostScript GUI engine on the NeXT ran under X11.]
Plus the GUI is written in Objective-C (as was the NeXT GUI). I know that (in general) OO code is slower, but I have no quantifyable statistics for the speed of Objective-C compared to straight C or C++. But the Cocoa libraries might yet be in their infancy with room for optimization.
Those more familiar with the NeXT machines and NeXTStep OS may be able to evaluate and compare the maturity of the OSX GUI (and API) to that of the NeXT, since OSX seems (on the surface) to be a direct decendant of what was developed at NeXT. (...with a bit of ground-breaking internationalization thrown-in on the side.
I think that OSX performs well enough for Apple to have released it, and that the time was/is right.
the GUI performance of OSX will continue to improve. But the question that current hardware owners are left with is that will it improve -enough- to not require a hardware upgrade in order to have the user-interactivity and responsiveness of .. oh, say ... the Amiga
[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: cud ]</p>
How about of everyone that hates X, 90% wrote into the register?
Or Scott H. wrote in 10 times but on one email he forgot to say he didn't like X?
Most people seem to agree that X has flaws, but no one's screaming at each other. This seems a complete turnaround from what was getting posted on the MacNN forums a couple of months ago where you dare not say "X is crap".
I'm with most of you I think, the underpinnings of X are neat, but the UI really has some way to go yet. I really wonder why Apple decided to install X as the default OS, seems all they are going to get is a lot of dissatisfied customers ("mummy, why does that CD thing keep spinning, I just clicked to open a folder and nothing happened...").
<strong>I wonder how many of those who don't like aqua are really just frustrated with the Finder and legacy unix code? I really like aqua/quartz, but the Finder, kernel and Cocoa frameworks have so much crusty unix crap in them that sometimes it's difficult to use. I still like aqua though.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The Finder is written in Carbon.
<strong>
I am not a big fan of it either. Icons are TOO big and if Apple doesn't add an option to remove the stoopid butt ugly drop shadow crap I just might jump ship too (not).
</strong><hr></blockquote>
1. You can adjust the icons in MacOS X - make them smaller.
2. There is a hack available to remove the drop shadows.
Have a look in the Finder preferences, there may be other things that will improve your experience.
<strong>If you don't think OS X is slow then you are diluting yourself. OS X is slow. Saying it isn't doesn't make it faster.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you don't think OS X is fast then you are diluting yourself. OS X is fast. Saying it isn't doesn't make it slower.
I think an 800mhz G4 is plenty powerful enough to make X more then usable. An iMac with a G3 would've been a different story,
<strong>I used windows 2000 for a long time, and when I switched mac, I actually found adapting to OS X far easier than OS 9.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hmmm. Apple needing to convert lots of Windows users into Mac users to sell lots more Macs. Complaints from long-time Mac users about "Windows-isms" in OS X, and former Windows users saying OS X is easier to adjust to that OS 9. Coincidence?
Register.com is where I registered my domains...
TheRegister.co.uk is a pile of steaming turd. The people there must have the same sources Ryan Meader has, because the rumors generated are just as horrible. Sometimes you'll find stuff at that is just plain inaccurate.
[ 01-12-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>