Web browsing speed in Jaguar

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
What do you think of this?

Will it get any faster?



I find it a bit faster in OS 9 and if we compare the current OS X with browsing (both the web and the file system ;-)) in Windows XP I feel ashamed to show OS X to my PC friends...
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 29
    pyr3pyr3 Posts: 946member
    The filesystem browsing in XP is horrible. Especially if you download lots of things (ie have a fragmented hard drive). Sometimes on zip files explorer with just stop and go to 99% CPU usage. Sometimes it will do this also while trying to read the file properties of files that are just in the browser window, not even files that you have selected or anything. All too often explorer won't let me delete a file because it is still trying to read the properties, forcing me to close explorer and use the command-line.
  • Reply 2 of 29
    Let's not turn this into a Mac vs. Windows flame-war, mmm-kay?



    That said, the Finder is much improved in Jagwire.



    Internet browsers, however, are not completely dependent on Apple for good speed. The efficiency (or lack thereof) is the sole responsibility and fault of the browser's creators. However, there *are* great things coming in the future of browsers for Mac OS X. The Mozilla project is advancing nicely (as well as Chimera) and the next major OmniWeb upgrade (5.0) is purported to bring major speed boosts (particularly in large tables).



    I suggest you try some browsers other than IE for Mac OS X. OmniWeb, Mozilla, and Chimera are all excellent alternatives and superior to IE in MANY respects.
  • Reply 3 of 29
    the g5the g5 Posts: 42member
    [quote]Originally posted by pyr3:

    <strong>The filesystem browsing in XP is horrible. Especially if you download lots of things (ie have a fragmented hard drive). Sometimes on zip files explorer with just stop and go to 99% CPU usage. Sometimes it will do this also while trying to read the file properties of files that are just in the browser window, not even files that you have selected or anything. All too often explorer won't let me delete a file because it is still trying to read the properties, forcing me to close explorer and use the command-line.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    sounds like you had a shitty computer. what's your point?



    oh and btw, macs are just as susceptible to drive fragmentation as windows. they just require 3rd party software to defrag.
  • Reply 4 of 29
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Er, no.



    NTFS is horrible for fragmentation. HORRIBLE. One of the worst file system out there for it, actually. I had an NT4 development box that would regularly hit 50% fragmentation in the course of a single *workweek*, on a 6GB drive. The majority of these were system files, it seemed like. Why it felt the need to move those around, I have no idea.



    HFS+ in comparison is excellent. I've never, not once, run a defrag tool on any of my machines... but when I'm curious, I'll actually take a peek with a tool. The highest I've seen is, IIRC, 28%. It was definitely under 30%. This is in, er... 13 years of my own machines.



    UFS is even less prone to fragmentation. If it hits 10% on an average system, that's considered excessive.



    Bottom line: Macs need defragmentation tools about as much as they need anti-virus tools, in relation to Windows. Don't confuse lack of tool with lack of need.
  • Reply 5 of 29
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,215member
    [quote] oh and btw, macs are just as susceptible to drive fragmentation as windows. they just require 3rd party software to defrag.



    <hr></blockquote>



    Erase this from brain. Kickaha summed it up well but it's pretty much fact that fragmentation on a Mac is much less severe. Search Google you'll finds lot's of info.
  • Reply 6 of 29
    Apple doesn't make the browser so I don't see how you can put all the blame on them. Now may be if Apple makes a browser ?! That would be nice.
  • Reply 7 of 29
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,215member
    Could Apple purchase Chimera? It makes me wonder since they've hired Hyatt an all. Wonder what's cookin' there?
  • Reply 8 of 29
    I have read on some sites that Apple is creating its own browser which would be kind of nice. I wouldn't mind seeing that.
  • Reply 9 of 29
    pyr3pyr3 Posts: 946member
    [quote]Originally posted by The G5:

    <strong>



    sounds like you had a shitty computer. what's your point?



    oh and btw, macs are just as susceptible to drive fragmentation as windows. they just require 3rd party software to defrag.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    It's not my comp. I'm running a 1.4GHz Athlon. It's the way that explorer handles file parsing. When you have a folder open it tries to grab properties of every file in the background, this is ok except when it runs into problems it doesn't handle errors or lag too gracefully. Another issue XP is that I have had lots of problems with programs not freeing resources. Lots of times where no process was using a file ( or there SHOULDN'T have been a process using the file) but windows says it can't delete it or move it because it is being used. Sometimes it is a folder too. I've been able to empty an entire folder of ALL files and XP still complains that the folder is in use. Granted this is 9 months of problems rolled into one post, these are the main problems that I have with XP anyways.
  • Reply 10 of 29
    Mozilla is the fastest browser I've used in OS X, but I can't stand it's GUI, and it is horribly threaded (click on a menu, and the app freezes until you release the mouse). The GUI is so nasty and fugly, but if you can stand it, then this is probably the best browser choice. But the GUI is important to me, so I don't regularly use Mozilla.

    <a href="http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/latest/"; target="_blank">http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/nightly/latest/</a>;



    Chimera uses the same engine as Mozilla, but it's got a pristine GUI. Only problem is that it's not done and so it lacks features... also, the creator of Chimera was recently hired to work at Apple. It should make for some interesting developments.

    <a href="http://chimera.mozdev.org/"; target="_blank">http://chimera.mozdev.org/</a>;



    Omniweb is my favorite. It's slower than Mozilla, probably about the same speed as IE, but it's got the best interface of any OS X browser. A joy to use. Omniweb 5 is looking to be even better, and if it's as good as rumored, it will be THE OS X browser to use.

    <a href="http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omniweb/"; target="_blank">http://www.omnigroup.com/applications/omniweb/</a>;



    Netscape: Forget about it, just use Mozilla.



    There's also a few other browsers, but I've had little luck in using them. iCab is a browser with an ugly GUI and slow rendering engine, and it lacks compatibility with many websites. Opera is another one, it's reportedly fast, but lacks in features and GUI...but I've never used it so I can't really say much about it.
  • Reply 11 of 29
    dobbydobby Posts: 794member
    OmniWeb certainly isn't the fastest but its GUI sure is smooth. (I even paid for a copy)



    On the newest 10.2 seed (6C106) it even feels faster although I don't know why. I am waiting for the OmniWeb update for a real speed increase.



    Downloads appear to be more efficient though as I seem to be getting higher download times on average.

    App starts seem to have improved.



    IE on my 500Mhz G4 now starts in 1 bounce which is about the same on my 2.4Ghz W2K machine (minus eye-candy).





    Dobby.
  • Reply 12 of 29
    hobbeshobbes Posts: 1,252member
    As usual, The Dawg says it like it is.



    One addition I have is that the UI for Mozilla is somewhat improved by the Pinstripe (or Navzilla, if you like Chimera's look) theme.



    It'll still be clunky as hell, but at least it's closer to the Aqua standard.
  • Reply 13 of 29
    badtzbadtz Posts: 949member
    is omniweb based off mozilla? or did they do there own thing from scratch?
  • Reply 14 of 29
    airslufairsluf Posts: 1,861member
  • Reply 15 of 29
    smirclesmircle Posts: 1,035member
    Originally posted by Badtz:

    [quote]is omniweb based off mozilla? or did they do there own thing from scratch?<hr></blockquote>

    OmniWeb is much older than Mozilla. They don't share any code.
  • Reply 16 of 29
    patchoulipatchouli Posts: 402member
    I agree that web browsing under OS X is not as fast as my PC (running XP). I've tried ALL the browsers for X and I still keep coming back to IE. Omniweb crashes - too often. Mozilla has a horrid GUI and takes too long to load and Opera and the others are too slow loading pages. IE seems to be the fastest, with no bombing, and can handle most of the webpages out there (unlike the others). I am not a slave to MS, I will gladly use a better browser when one becomes available. But, I guess we all see things differently.



    On my PC - I do not have any of those problems mentioned above. Using my cable internet access on my PC is a much better experience than on my Mac (for now). Pages load instantly and the program launches instantly (thanks the MS integration which I happen to like).



    I have read that Mac drives do get less fragmented then NTFS PC drives, but there is some fragmentation there. I run an auto defrag once a week on my PC. It takes literally 5 minutes to complete ('Diskeeper' is highly recommended). In addition to defragmenting the drive, it also moves any files that you use frequently to the front of the drive for faster access. Even if your drive isn't as fragmented as others, these defragmenting apps offer other features that I find valuable. I do not have constant CPU process and or file access violations as mentioned above. In fact, I run into more 'Trash file' issues with my Mac than I do with my PC.



    [ 07-25-2002: Message edited by: Patchouli ]</p>
  • Reply 17 of 29
    [quote]Originally posted by Patchouli:

    <strong>I agree that web browsing under OS X is not as fast as my PC (running XP). I've tried ALL the browsers for X and I still keep coming back to IE. Omniweb crashes - too often. Mozilla has a horrid GUI and takes too long to load and Opera and the others are too slow loading pages. IE seems to be the fastest, with no bombing, and can handle most of the webpages out there (unlike the others). I am not a slave to MS, I will gladly use a better browser when one becomes available. But, I guess we all see things differently.



    On my PC - I do not have any of those problems mentioned above. Using my cable internet access on my PC is a much better experience than on my Mac (for now). Pages load instantly and the program launches instantly (thanks the MS integration which I happen to like).



    I have read that Mac drives do get less fragmented then NTFS PC drives, but there is some fragmentation there. I run an auto defrag once a week on my PC. It takes literally 5 minutes to complete ('Diskeeper' is highly recommended). In addition to defragmenting the drive, it also moves any files that you use frequently to the front of the drive for faster access. Even if your drive isn't as fragmented as others, these defragmenting apps offer other features that I find valuable. I do not have constant CPU process and or file access violations as mentioned above. In fact, I run into more 'Trash file' issues with my Mac than I do with my PC.



    [ 07-25-2002: Message edited by: Patchouli ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Agreed that browsing is superior in Windows to OS X. Infact browsing is superior in Windows to just about anything. My big hope for this is the next big Opera release which purports to be much faster.



    File browsing on the other hand is frankly plss-poor in XP. It desperately strives to anticipate your every need, generally failing or overwriting previous settings you wanted to keep. I do get the 'you cannot delete this file' bug far too often, and directory updating is dodgy (as it has always been).



    But if you like it - fair enough. Simply understand that it's certainly not to everyones tastes (it's the main problem I have with Winders).
  • Reply 18 of 29
    At least on my brothers Windows XP machine (1,4 Ghz Pentium 4) the speed when browsing the file system and the web is far superior to my Mac G4 867 Mhz running OS X. It feels like I'm on an old computer , but still his machine is about 6 months older than mine...



    I'm sure there are other things that OS X handles better than Windows XP. But this time I was talking about speed.



    [ 07-25-2002: Message edited by: a Martin ]</p>
  • Reply 19 of 29
    [quote]Originally posted by a Martin:

    <strong>At least on my brothers Windows XP machine (1,4 Ghz Pentium 4) the speed when browsing the file system and the web is far superior to my Mac G4 867 Mhz running OS X. It feels like I'm on an old computer , but still his machine is about 6 months older than mine...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Maybe you need to defrag your Mac's hard drive





    I'm running XP at work and I get a lot more browser errors and bombs in IE 6 than in IE 5.5. It is step backwards or more strict in pointing out bad web code. Hopefully the latter. I'm talking about sites like CNN and ESPN.



    Of course, I get different issues in Omniweb and IE under OS X. Both platforms give me a mixed bag of issue, but none that are show stoppers (usually).
  • Reply 20 of 29
    nonsuchnonsuch Posts: 293member
    Is there some bona fide intelligence as to what Omniweb 5.0 is going to be like? Is speed definitely the priority? (I think when it comes to OW I'd take CSS compliance over speed right now.)
Sign In or Register to comment.