Is OSX fast enough for you?

jeffyboy · January 9, 2002 9:42PM

Let's take a poll!

If you are running X as your main operating system, is it's performance (speedwise) excellent, fair or poor?

Please list your system specs, most used apps and of course, comments.

I run an iMac DV 400 with 512 megs and an iBook SE 333mhz w/128.

Both work fast (in my opinion) for IE, Appleworks, iTunes, iMovie and Age of Empires II and others (an admittedly low-end bunch of apps)

None of the apps I use run slowly.

My vote:excellent

Jeff

[ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: jeffyboy ]

[ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: jeffyboy ]

eman · January 9, 2002 10:00PM

For the most part I feel that OS X is excellent on my iBook 500 with 384MB RAM. It slows down at times with a lot of apps running, but I find that acceptable.

imacfp · January 9, 2002 10:02PM

I find it to be more than fine on my DVSE (400/256 MB), but that doesn't mean I dont't want it to get better. Classic isn't that great though. For me it is much better, overall, than OS 9.

[ 01-09-2002: Message edited by: imacSE ]

fluffy · January 9, 2002 10:21PM

Performance is acceptable. I'd say fair to good, but not excellent.

Dual 800MHz G4, 768MB RAM, Dual Radeon, Hardware RAID (ATA/133 40GB 60GXP x 2).

None of the apps run slowly, but the interface is slow.

airsluf · January 9, 2002 10:23PM

applenut · January 9, 2002 10:44PM

on a scale of 1-10 its a 5 or 6 with 10.1.2

10.0 was a 0.

you want to see a fast OS look at BeOS. Until OS X is at least that fast it will never be a 10 or even a 9. and that's beOS running on my 160Mhz 603 Performa.

OS X isn't even as fast as beOS on a dual 800.

OS X is good enough to use but dissapointing performance wise

odinn5 · January 9, 2002 11:15PM

I have

iMac DV+ Sage

450 Mhz

20 HD

1 Gig Ram

Running 10.1.2

Runs quick but always room for improvement.

Went to the Apple store and played with a

800 Mhz G4. Wow was that a difference that was!!

hmurchison · January 9, 2002 11:22PM

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:

on a scale of 1-10 its a 5 or 6 with 10.1.2

10.0 was a 0.

you want to see a fast OS look at BeOS. Until OS X is at least that fast it will never be a 10 or even a 9. and that's beOS running on my 160Mhz 603 Performa.

OS X isn't even as fast as beOS on a dual 800.

OS X is good enough to use but dissapointing performance wise<hr></blockquote>

That's because BeOS sucked.

Network Stack never fully completed(BONE)

Poor OpenGL implementation

Could friggin Print for what seemed like forever.

Never fully supported Multi User

Never had a Media Infrastructure like Quicktime

The list goes on. BeOS was a nice Technological Demo but it lacked in enough areas. Window and OSX would both be fast if they had no legacy to support. I'm sad that BeOS died but upon retrospect we require alot from our current OS even if they are slower than what we want. BeOS gave us all the speed in the world but we couldn't run the apps we have all grown accustomed to.

applenut · January 9, 2002 11:33PM

[quote]Originally posted by hmurchison:



That's because BeOS sucked.

Network Stack never fully completed(BONE)

Poor OpenGL implementation

Could friggin Print for what seemed like forever.

Never fully supported Multi User

Never had a Media Infrastructure like Quicktime

The list goes on. BeOS was a nice Technological Demo but it lacked in enough areas. Window and OSX would both be fast if they had no legacy to support. I'm sad that BeOS died but upon retrospect we require alot from our current OS even if they are slower than what we want. BeOS gave us all the speed in the world but we couldn't run the apps we have all grown accustomed to.<hr></blockquote>

is it ossible for you to put ANYTHING in perspective?

BeOS 5 Pro on Performa 6360= 10

OS X 10.1.2 on dual 800= 5 or 6.

just look at the damn hardware difference there and how many times faster the powermac is. exponentially faster. and its less responsive than the performa. so much for an advanced modern OS with PPC native code that can be fast at the same time as being useful

sizzle chest · January 9, 2002 11:50PM

I don't agree with Hmurch that BeOS "sucked" but I also don't agree with Applenut that BeOS is the absolute technical summit of all operating systems, ever.

You guys both have some points.

Hmurch is right that BeOS was never truly complete. If it was truly such a great operating system, why was it missing such basic components right up to the end?

Applenut is right that BeOS was more responsive on "old" hardware (I'm using my Umax J700 for comparison here, which is where I used BeOS for a while) than OSX on new hardware. Still, if you're just talking about stuff like window resizing, snappy re-draws, etc., then you'd have to admit that Windows 3.1 was more "responsive" on a 386 PC than OSX is on my dual G4. Does that mean Windows 3.1 was "better" than OSX?

Modern operating systems can take at least SOME lessons from BeOS, even if it wasn't finished. In my opinion, BeOS is neither a complete joke, nor the pinnacle to which every future OS should aspire.

bill m · January 10, 2002 12:04AM

BeOS shouldn't be considered a complete OS, so it is not fair to compare performance against X (or other OS's).

If one could get 7.6.1 on a DP-800, I am sure it would kill any other OS out there on speed alone.

But X is only at release 1.2 as we speak, lots and lots of optimization and tweaks are ahead. The foundation is there, and I must say it is the best OS bar none at that level. Give it some time, and it will mature and become the envy of wintel and others. No doubt about that whatsoever.

Besides, let's not forget that even if it seems slow to some right now (i.e. compared to 9), it gives the user a much more desirable computing experience in both stability and performance. Let's not forget its looks.

My TiBook running 10.1.2 at work is converting lots die hard wintel users. I might be biased towards MacOS; my (formerly PC users) co-workers are certainly not.

sizzle chest · January 10, 2002 12:17AM

Bill, my iBook has the same effect at my office. My old blueberry iBook was dismissed as "goofy" by most of them, but I've received a lot of really positive comments about the iBook.

I really think that the less people know about computers, the more they judge them just by looks. The people who are most gaga over my iBook at first glance are the ones who need to ask me for help whenever they do something challenging like saving an MS word document, or printing out an email.

The people who know a little more about computers are impressed with the fact that I can run Windows-only software in Virtual PC, that I can watch DVDs and also burn CDRs, that I can hook up my DV camcorder, and that I can telnet to our Unix server from the OSX terminal.

kestral · January 10, 2002 12:59AM

is it ossible for you to put ANYTHING in perspective?

> BeOS 5 Pro on Performa 6360= 10

> OS X 10.1.2 on dual 800= 5 or 6.

By that measure it would make OS X on my iBook 500 = 2.5 tops, which is about right.

hmurchison · January 10, 2002 11:00AM

[quote]Originally posted by applenut:



is it ossible for you to put ANYTHING in perspective?

BeOS 5 Pro on Performa 6360= 10

OS X 10.1.2 on dual 800= 5 or 6.

just look at the damn hardware difference there and how many times faster the powermac is. exponentially faster. and its less responsive than the performa. so much for an advanced modern OS with PPC native code that can be fast at the same time as being useful

<hr></blockquote>

Applenut...it is YOU who is not putting this in perspective. BeOS had NO middleware! Stop raving and ranting. It was on OS that basically ran the equivalent of Shareware apps. I saw the system run back when Be promoted its BeBox Dual 603 133mhz machines and it was impressive...on fractals and warping text. But I never saw a demo of an App that truly required some serious number crunching. I know your a big boy but the misty eyed affection that you show for BeOS is in my opinion undeserved. Linux is barely older than BeOS and shares many of the benefits yet even it isn't as fast as BeOS but it DOES have more of a complete structure. I think it is all give an take. OSX should become faster and that coupled with faster HW should ease most peoples concerns.

nonsuch · January 10, 2002 12:39PM

On my 350 G4 w/ 512MB of RAM, OS X is acceptable, speed-wise. I prefer it to 9 for the interface and for the stability and multitasking.

I'm pretty much resigned that that's as good as it's going to get until I upgrade to better hardware. Just found out yesterday that my G4 won't take a Sonnet Dual G4 upgrade card ...

jimmac · January 10, 2002 1:26PM

In answer to the question posted in the title of this thread: Yes

moogs · January 10, 2002 1:55PM

Yes. Fast enough for everyday use without slowing me down in any way. Since upgrading to Office X, I've been able to make more direct comparisons on exactly this issue, and I have no complaints at all so far. Office X actually seems snappier than Office 2001 in some respects.

Also, just installed the Painter 7 updater and that application is now noticably faster than the original release. Also better support for Wacom tablets (thank God). Encouraging to say the least , given that application's complexity.

For now, I'm more concerned with Photoshop 7 and InDesign 2 as far as speed goes. Guess I'll be waiting another month or two. Or thee. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

BTW, G4/500, 1GB RAM, 7200 RPM ATA/100 drive.

applenut · January 10, 2002 5:12PM

[quote]Originally posted by Bill M:

BeOS shouldn't be considered a complete OS, so it is not fair to compare performance against X (or other OS's).

If one could get 7.6.1 on a DP-800, I am sure it would kill any other OS out there on speed alone.

<hr></blockquote>

huh?

you are not making ANY sense. did you read my post? why do your bring up 7.6.1 on a Dp-800? I didn't say BeOS 5 on a PowerMac G4 was faster than OS X on it. I said BeOS 5 Pro on my performa is faster. big difference.

and how is it not fair to compare it? oh, BeOS isn't as complete. who cares. I'm not talking about completeness.

[quote]Applenut...it is YOU who is not putting this in perspective. BeOS had NO middleware! Stop raving and ranting. It was on OS that basically ran the equivalent of Shareware apps. I saw the system run back when Be promoted its BeBox Dual 603 133mhz machines and it was impressive...on fractals and warping text. But I never saw a demo of an App that truly required some serious number crunching.<hr></blockquote>

there are tons of demos that are serious "number crunchers" out there. Cinema4D is a perfect example. betas were out for a while.

[quote]I know your a big boy but the misty eyed affection that you show for BeOS is in my opinion undeserved. Linux is barely older than BeOS and shares many of the benefits yet even it isn't as fast as BeOS but it DOES have more of a complete structure. I think it is all give an take. OSX should become faster and that coupled with faster HW should ease most peoples concerns. <hr></blockquote>

open source OS that sees updates daily compared to an OS that was last updated March 2000. perspective here please.

and you are indeed the one not getting my point.

BeOS may not be complete. it may not have as modern and advanced features of OS X but its responsiveness is second to none on extremely old and "slow" hardware, OS X is the exact opposite. It has a ton of features but its responsiveness sucks. even on the fastest machine apple has OS X is still slow in many areas. that's what I am saying. this new hardware should MORE than make up for the addition of the new and advanced features OS X has over BeOS but it doesn't. This hardware is likely 12times faster and the responsiveness is worse.

ghost_user_name · January 10, 2002 8:46PM

X is fast enough for me. :cool:

kidred · January 11, 2002 3:20AM

Nope, not for me.

whyatt thrash · January 11, 2002 5:19AM

Nope. The Apps I use that are slow: Finder =P, 3D games, Adobe apps.

P.S and mouse tracking is too slow..

__________________

All your PCs belong to me, apparently...

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: Whyatt Thrash ]

Is OSX fast enough for you?

Comments