Hear that apple? Send all the programmers home. mr. phd has spoken and since he obviously is smarter than all you, you should just pack it up and give the money back to the share holders.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My reply is not for Apple but for the dolts that keep telling people that the great speed up is just around the corner. It's not.
Here on a Dual G4 800, the speed is the same as 10.1.5 BUT the Finder is faster and more reactive. Sherlock is SLOW to start up BUT in general apps are launching faster (one or two bounces). Here is the list of great improvements in 10.2 (not exhaustive):
- Finder
- Print Center
- Mail
- ODBC administrator
- Address Book
- Calculator
- Preview
- Rendezvous
- Bluetooth
- Disk Utility (repair permissions)
- Firewall (GUI)
- Flurry screensaver built-in
- Faster scrolling in the Finder (just try to sort by kind (list view) in 10.1.5 with a hundred or thousand files...)
- for others stuffs go to apple.com
It's a great upgrade. Jaguar is not faster than 9, but when you do multitasking there is no better alternative (even XP can't do that at this level).
EDIT: Quartz Xtreme like you said is a little deception, don't know why. Can't understand. Maybe apps must be upgraded to use it well or Xtreme is just for complex task. Don't know.
But here is 2 things that apparently will not be in the final version: Minimize to windows (windowshade on steroids) and badge on icons in the dock (when a pap crash).
This is slightly off topic but does any one who has one of the dev builds of 10.2 use the SMB file sharing with a windows 2000 server? I tried using 10.1.5 but I keep getting file coruption and sprious files with a ._ at the front. any thoughts I don't want to have to buy DAVE (our current solution is a 30 day trial)
<strong>This is slightly off topic but does any one who has one of the dev builds of 10.2 use the SMB file sharing with a windows 2000 server?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I did try it once. It worked perfectly for me, mounted the share on my desktop and I could transfer files back and forth. I'll try it some more this coming week. So far, it's very impressive to me.
<strong>Checked the minimum requirements again. 16MB and AGP 2X. But I bet those results came from nothing less than 4X AGP and GF4Ti. What that means is the vast majority of currently shipping macs will NOT see as dramatic a performance improvement as that shown on Apple's page.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What else but pure speculation are you basing this on?
In particular, what makes you think AGP4x will be a requirement for good performance? Given the fact that the memory architecture found in all current Macs (except XServe) can only sustain one gig per second peak, what real-world use can being able to pump two gigs per second through AGP (i.e. AGP4x) really be?
I seriously doubt Apple used anything less than their fastest system to graph the speed boost provided by quartz extreme (that's a dual Ghz PM with 4X AGP GF4Ti). Any other system will have a slower GPU and provide less of an overall boost. Better GPU's tend to support 4X (and 2X) but there is a boost to be had with the fast writes. But first and foremost AGP 4x provides 1GB of bandwidth, and AGP 2X provides 533MB (well below even Apple's pathetic 133MPX bus) add the latency of the bus itself and there you have it. From Apple's description, QE turns each window into a big texture and then lets the CPU go to work. There's a lot of res independent stuff going on, transparency, and ooey-gooey aquaesque goodness to draw. Get a few windows open, resize, minimize and open objects and don't forget that the graphics card still has to draw 60+ frames per second and you see that it's not too hard at all to use up all that bandwidth. Certainly in the case of 2X speeds.
But I don't know anything about this sort of thing, go see XLR8yourMac, it's been posted in a couple of forums that the guys there have reached the same conclusions, and they do actually know what they're doing.
Regardless, the point is the same only amplified, you don't just need a faster GPU/AGP bus, you need a FASTER MEMORY BUS (which no shipping desktop mac currently has, Xserve is not a desktop) and the situation only gets worse when you lose a 3rd of your memory bandwidth on the hamstrung consumer models and their 100Mhz RAM/2X AGP.
So while QE is a great addition, there's no arguing that it still needs more power to truly shine. Your criticism only amplifies my point that faster hardware is needed to make the enhancements of QE truly dramatic. I'm sure it 'works' with todays lesser systems, but I'm equally sure it doesn't make everything instantaneous in the way that some people here seem to believe.
If, on current systems, it makes it possible to use iPhoto and iMovie without the halting stutter both sometimes display, then it's doing it's job well enough, even if all apps, sherlock, (and the finder) don't launch with blinding instantaneousness. An iTunes visual that doesn't sputter to 15fps, while spiking CPU utilization to over 75%, would be nice too.
Notice the willfully ambiguous bit about the G3 and G4 on Apple's own page. "You will detect a small improvement if you have a G3 processor." Apple sells systems, not processors. Any G3 system (even now) comes with a merely adequate GPU. It isn't the prosessor alone, it's the whole system and Apple knows that. Notice also, the part about the Duals: "They will be more remarkable if you have multiple G4 processors." Is it any co-incedence that these systems came with the fastest GPU's aswell?
Basically Apple is telling you, in as straight-out a way as marketing speak will allow, that while Jaguar and Quartz Extreme certainly 'work' on all their currently shipping systems only the faster/est machines will see 'remarkable' boosts from said technology.
Not my words, Apple's. I guarantee you that the posted results on Apple's page are typical only of their top pro-machines, and that everything else sees proportionally less boost.
I installed 10.2 on a PM G4 733MHz with 256MB of RAM and I can tell a difference. OS X would run generally faster if I installed more RAM but the GUI and actions on the screen happen noticably faster. It takes longer at start up to finish loading stuff from the hard drive after you log in it seems. If I try to open iChat as soon as the icons on the desktop appear it takes a long time, I have to wait several seconds until the HD isn't being read from to open an app. But the apps seem to open faster although sherlock is slower Also when i'm in the finder browsing through it seems like it takes longer to display the files contained inside a folder. Overall I am pleased, its seems very stable and I don't know if apple will keep this look but I like the startup screen and the new 'chasing arrows' to indicate progress.
<strong>Face facts people. Apple has never had an ace up their sleeve when it comes to OS X speed. The only real speed up was the update prebinding one. Since then just about nothing.
You should expect nothing because that?s what you?re going to get.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>I seriously doubt Apple used anything less than their fastest system to graph the speed boost provided by quartz extreme (that's a dual Ghz PM with 4X AGP GF4Ti). Any other system will have a slower GPU and provide less of an overall boost.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree that any other system will provide lower overall numbers, but what makes you think the relative improvement will be smaller too?
[quote]<strong>But first and foremost AGP 4x provides 1GB of bandwidth, and AGP 2X provides 533MB (well below even Apple's pathetic 133MPX bus)</strong><hr></blockquote>
True, my bad. Mixed up the specs, 2.1GB/s will be introduced in AGP3.0 / 8x.
[quote]<strong> add the latency of the bus itself and there you have it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
DDR, QDR etc. don't improve latency. The time between putting an address on the bus and the beginning of the actual data transfer (a.k.a. latency) stays the same, only the duration of the data transfer is halved / quartered / ...
[quote]<strong>Get a few windows open, resize, minimize and open objects and don't forget that the graphics card still has to draw 60+ frames per second and you see that it's not too hard at all to use up all that bandwidth.</strong><hr></blockquote>
By 60+ frames per second you mean the refresh rate? If so, this doesn't mean that the data has to be fetched from memory that often. In fact, data only needs to be transferred between the cards frame buffer and main memory whenever a screen area gets updates. Quartz, as far as I understand it, renders into an offscreen buffer, and regularly copies that buffer to the card's frame buffer. But "regularly" does not mean "on every screen refresh".
[quote]<strong>So while QE is a great addition, there's no arguing that it still needs more power to truly shine.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Certainly, but this holds true for just about any technology, anytime.
[quote]<strong>Notice the willfully ambiguous bit about the G3 and G4 on Apple's own page. "You will detect a small improvement if you have a G3 processor." (...) Notice also, the part about the Duals: "They will be more remarkable if you have multiple G4 processors." Is it any co-incedence that these systems came with the fastest GPU's aswell?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Note that, even with QE, a lot of the graphics stuff in OS X is still handled by the CPU(s). So it's pretty obvious that having more computing power at hand will improve the responsiveness of the system, regardless of the graphics card.
[quote]<strong>Basically Apple is telling you, in as straight-out a way as marketing speak will allow, that while Jaguar and Quartz Extreme certainly 'work' on all their currently shipping systems only the faster/est machines will see 'remarkable' boosts from said technology.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What they are saying is basically that faster systems will get better performance - and it's kinda hard to argue that, isn't it?
[quote]<strong>Not my words, Apple's. I guarantee you that the posted results on Apple's page are typical only of their top pro-machines, and that everything else sees proportionally less boost.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As said above, I agree that the absolute numbers (x fps, y ops/s) quoted there probably come from the top-of-the-line machines, and that slower machines will only give smaller values there, but I don't see much of a reason to think that they will also give smaller relative numbers (i.e. x% faster than before).
Apple's own benchmarks show that Jaguar's GUI runs TWICE as fast as Puma's on a G4.
But, if you're lucky enough to have a Radeon or NVIDIA card, each onscreen element becomes a texture stored in video memory. Your GPU then takes over the task of combining these elements, relieving the CPU from burdening transparency and shadow calculations.
According to Apple, this yields a 400% speed improvement over Puma, so there should be no visual delays in Jaguar as you navigate around.
Unfortunately, if you own a G3, all Jaguar will be is "snappier."
<strong>Apple's own benchmarks show that Jaguar's GUI runs TWICE as fast as Puma's on a G4.
But, if you're lucky enough to have a Radeon or NVIDIA card, each onscreen element becomes a texture stored in video memory. Your GPU then takes over the task of combining these elements, relieving the CPU from burdening transparency and shadow calculations.
According to Apple, this yields a 400% speed improvement over Puma, so there should be no visual delays in Jaguar as you navigate around.
Unfortunately, if you own a G3, all Jaguar will be is "snappier."
I installed 6C106 on a 333Mhz Blueberry iMac and, compared to 10.1.x, there is a noticable speed difference. I was fairly surprised! Now if only I had an iPod so I could boot Jaguar on my Ti!
The Rage 128 only supports textures with dimensions that are a power of two like 2X2, 2X4, or 4X16.
Because windows in OS X be any size from 614 X 418 to 724 X 1168, after being converted into a texture, most would be unusable by a Rage 128.
Sure you could limit the size of windows to powers of two, but how many headaches and complaints would that generate? We need to be taking steps forward remember.
The bottom line is that QE isn't possible on a Rage 128 and it isn't possible on a PCI bus.
You may have a PCI Radeon, but there isn't enough bandwidth available on the PCI bus to give you a performance edge when multiple 32-bit 1024 X 768 sized textures need to be sent over to the video card.
Memory is key too. 16MB of VRAM will fill up fast if you lots of windowed applications open. Everything on your screen is being converted into a texture remember, so current-gen iBook and last-gen TiBook may not always get 400% better performance.
The bottom line is QE just isn't possible on an old Mac and there really isn't anything we can do about it. Just be happy that Apple is making their GUI snappier even if you need a new video card and a G4 to enjoy it.
I'm sure Apple would speed things up on a bondi blue iMac if they could, but it just isn?t possible.
Face facts people. Apple has never had an ace up their sleeve when it comes to OS X speed. The only real speed up was the update prebinding one. Since then just about nothing.
You should expect nothing because that?s what you?re going to get.<hr></blockquote>
My sentiments are along these lines, even though on my systems, I may see a smidgen of improvements in speed.
What I would really like is more stability. Sure, X crashes less often than 9 for me (I just have look at 9 and it crashes), but X was supposed to be a rock.
Okay, maybe not a rock, but at least a major pebble.
<strong>This is slightly off topic but does any one who has one of the dev builds of 10.2 use the SMB file sharing with a windows 2000 server? I tried using 10.1.5 but I keep getting file coruption and sprious files with a ._ at the front. any thoughts I don't want to have to buy DAVE (our current solution is a 30 day trial)
-ray</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm able to connect to a Win2K server at work with my TiBook. I don't know what's going wrong with your setup, but the filename & ._filename pair are the data fork and resource fork files respectively. HFS+ supports multiple file forks, FAT32 does not, NTFS does support multiple file streams (similar to forks) but MS does not use this capability so to save a mutliforked file onto a PC share requires that either two separate files be created on for each fork or both be encoded into one file like binhex of apple-double.
If you delete the ._ files you will be deleting the resource information of the mac files. This can result in simple things like custom file icons being lost to the corruption of the file and it refusing to open.
[quote]Originally posted by GardenOfEarthlyDelights:
<strong>
My sentiments are along these lines, even though on my systems, I may see a smidgen of improvements in speed.
What I would really like is more stability. Sure, X crashes less often than 9 for me (I just have look at 9 and it crashes), but X was supposed to be a rock.
Okay, maybe not a rock, but at least a major pebble.
Less spinning beach-ball of death, please?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't know what you use your computers for, but I have X on one iMac DV 400/128MB and on one PB G4 667/768 MB and X doesn't crash. Period.
I use X for webdesign with DW MX, Apache, Lasso PhotoShop, FileMaker Servers, MySql and more. And when I get tired with that I boot to 9 and use Logic Platinum with MOTU 828.
If you find X instable, it's probably some other factor (hardware, RAM?) that's the problem.
[quote]Originally posted by GardenOfEarthlyDelights:
<strong>
What I would really like is more stability. Sure, X crashes less often than 9 for me (I just have look at 9 and it crashes), but X was supposed to be a rock.
Okay, maybe not a rock, but at least a major pebble.
Less spinning beach-ball of death, please?</strong><hr></blockquote>
How often does OSX crash on you? I've had 1 crash in 6 months, which I consider an acceptable rate.
Comments
<strong>
Hear that apple? Send all the programmers home. mr. phd has spoken and since he obviously is smarter than all you, you should just pack it up and give the money back to the share holders.</strong><hr></blockquote>
My reply is not for Apple but for the dolts that keep telling people that the great speed up is just around the corner. It's not.
<strong>You should expect nothing because that?s what you?re going to get.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i'm fed up with ms. phd too
- Finder
- Print Center
- Mail
- ODBC administrator
- Address Book
- Calculator
- Preview
- Rendezvous
- Bluetooth
- Disk Utility (repair permissions)
- Firewall (GUI)
- Flurry screensaver built-in
- Faster scrolling in the Finder (just try to sort by kind (list view) in 10.1.5 with a hundred or thousand files...)
- for others stuffs go to apple.com
It's a great upgrade. Jaguar is not faster than 9, but when you do multitasking there is no better alternative (even XP can't do that at this level).
EDIT: Quartz Xtreme like you said is a little deception, don't know why. Can't understand. Maybe apps must be upgraded to use it well or Xtreme is just for complex task. Don't know.
But here is 2 things that apparently will not be in the final version: Minimize to windows (windowshade on steroids) and badge on icons in the dock (when a pap crash).
[ 07-27-2002: Message edited by: jeromba ]</p>
-ray
<strong>But here is 2 things that apparently will not be in the final version: Minimize to windows (windowshade on steroids)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unfortunately, I've read that in other threads and other fora.
[quote]<strong>...and badge on icons in the dock (when a pap crash).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Really?!? You mean the little yellow(?) exclamation badge which appears when an app crashes is gone? That's disappointing.
[ 07-27-2002: Message edited by: LudwigVan ]</p>
<strong>This is slightly off topic but does any one who has one of the dev builds of 10.2 use the SMB file sharing with a windows 2000 server?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I did try it once. It worked perfectly for me, mounted the share on my desktop and I could transfer files back and forth. I'll try it some more this coming week. So far, it's very impressive to me.
<strong>Checked the minimum requirements again. 16MB and AGP 2X. But I bet those results came from nothing less than 4X AGP and GF4Ti. What that means is the vast majority of currently shipping macs will NOT see as dramatic a performance improvement as that shown on Apple's page.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What else but pure speculation are you basing this on?
In particular, what makes you think AGP4x will be a requirement for good performance? Given the fact that the memory architecture found in all current Macs (except XServe) can only sustain one gig per second peak, what real-world use can being able to pump two gigs per second through AGP (i.e. AGP4x) really be?
Bye,
RazzFazz
But I don't know anything about this sort of thing, go see XLR8yourMac, it's been posted in a couple of forums that the guys there have reached the same conclusions, and they do actually know what they're doing.
Regardless, the point is the same only amplified, you don't just need a faster GPU/AGP bus, you need a FASTER MEMORY BUS (which no shipping desktop mac currently has, Xserve is not a desktop) and the situation only gets worse when you lose a 3rd of your memory bandwidth on the hamstrung consumer models and their 100Mhz RAM/2X AGP.
So while QE is a great addition, there's no arguing that it still needs more power to truly shine. Your criticism only amplifies my point that faster hardware is needed to make the enhancements of QE truly dramatic. I'm sure it 'works' with todays lesser systems, but I'm equally sure it doesn't make everything instantaneous in the way that some people here seem to believe.
If, on current systems, it makes it possible to use iPhoto and iMovie without the halting stutter both sometimes display, then it's doing it's job well enough, even if all apps, sherlock, (and the finder) don't launch with blinding instantaneousness. An iTunes visual that doesn't sputter to 15fps, while spiking CPU utilization to over 75%, would be nice too.
Notice the willfully ambiguous bit about the G3 and G4 on Apple's own page. "You will detect a small improvement if you have a G3 processor." Apple sells systems, not processors. Any G3 system (even now) comes with a merely adequate GPU. It isn't the prosessor alone, it's the whole system and Apple knows that. Notice also, the part about the Duals: "They will be more remarkable if you have multiple G4 processors." Is it any co-incedence that these systems came with the fastest GPU's aswell?
Basically Apple is telling you, in as straight-out a way as marketing speak will allow, that while Jaguar and Quartz Extreme certainly 'work' on all their currently shipping systems only the faster/est machines will see 'remarkable' boosts from said technology.
Not my words, Apple's. I guarantee you that the posted results on Apple's page are typical only of their top pro-machines, and that everything else sees proportionally less boost.
<strong>Face facts people. Apple has never had an ace up their sleeve when it comes to OS X speed. The only real speed up was the update prebinding one. Since then just about nothing.
You should expect nothing because that?s what you?re going to get.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And you *know* this... how?
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong>I seriously doubt Apple used anything less than their fastest system to graph the speed boost provided by quartz extreme (that's a dual Ghz PM with 4X AGP GF4Ti). Any other system will have a slower GPU and provide less of an overall boost.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree that any other system will provide lower overall numbers, but what makes you think the relative improvement will be smaller too?
[quote]<strong>But first and foremost AGP 4x provides 1GB of bandwidth, and AGP 2X provides 533MB (well below even Apple's pathetic 133MPX bus)</strong><hr></blockquote>
True, my bad. Mixed up the specs, 2.1GB/s will be introduced in AGP3.0 / 8x.
[quote]<strong> add the latency of the bus itself and there you have it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
DDR, QDR etc. don't improve latency. The time between putting an address on the bus and the beginning of the actual data transfer (a.k.a. latency) stays the same, only the duration of the data transfer is halved / quartered / ...
[quote]<strong>Get a few windows open, resize, minimize and open objects and don't forget that the graphics card still has to draw 60+ frames per second and you see that it's not too hard at all to use up all that bandwidth.</strong><hr></blockquote>
By 60+ frames per second you mean the refresh rate? If so, this doesn't mean that the data has to be fetched from memory that often. In fact, data only needs to be transferred between the cards frame buffer and main memory whenever a screen area gets updates. Quartz, as far as I understand it, renders into an offscreen buffer, and regularly copies that buffer to the card's frame buffer. But "regularly" does not mean "on every screen refresh".
[quote]<strong>So while QE is a great addition, there's no arguing that it still needs more power to truly shine.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Certainly, but this holds true for just about any technology, anytime.
[quote]<strong>Notice the willfully ambiguous bit about the G3 and G4 on Apple's own page. "You will detect a small improvement if you have a G3 processor." (...) Notice also, the part about the Duals: "They will be more remarkable if you have multiple G4 processors." Is it any co-incedence that these systems came with the fastest GPU's aswell?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Note that, even with QE, a lot of the graphics stuff in OS X is still handled by the CPU(s). So it's pretty obvious that having more computing power at hand will improve the responsiveness of the system, regardless of the graphics card.
[quote]<strong>Basically Apple is telling you, in as straight-out a way as marketing speak will allow, that while Jaguar and Quartz Extreme certainly 'work' on all their currently shipping systems only the faster/est machines will see 'remarkable' boosts from said technology.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
What they are saying is basically that faster systems will get better performance - and it's kinda hard to argue that, isn't it?
[quote]<strong>Not my words, Apple's. I guarantee you that the posted results on Apple's page are typical only of their top pro-machines, and that everything else sees proportionally less boost.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As said above, I agree that the absolute numbers (x fps, y ops/s) quoted there probably come from the top-of-the-line machines, and that slower machines will only give smaller values there, but I don't see much of a reason to think that they will also give smaller relative numbers (i.e. x% faster than before).
Bye,
RazzFazz
But, if you're lucky enough to have a Radeon or NVIDIA card, each onscreen element becomes a texture stored in video memory. Your GPU then takes over the task of combining these elements, relieving the CPU from burdening transparency and shadow calculations.
According to Apple, this yields a 400% speed improvement over Puma, so there should be no visual delays in Jaguar as you navigate around.
Unfortunately, if you own a G3, all Jaguar will be is "snappier."
[ 07-28-2002: Message edited by: Kecksy ]</p>
<strong>Apple's own benchmarks show that Jaguar's GUI runs TWICE as fast as Puma's on a G4.
But, if you're lucky enough to have a Radeon or NVIDIA card, each onscreen element becomes a texture stored in video memory. Your GPU then takes over the task of combining these elements, relieving the CPU from burdening transparency and shadow calculations.
According to Apple, this yields a 400% speed improvement over Puma, so there should be no visual delays in Jaguar as you navigate around.
Unfortunately, if you own a G3, all Jaguar will be is "snappier."
[ 07-28-2002: Message edited by: Kecksy ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
SO,You are telling me that i need a new graphics card if I want to feel a 400% improvement?
[ 07-29-2002: Message edited by: Xool ]</p>
The Rage 128 only supports textures with dimensions that are a power of two like 2X2, 2X4, or 4X16.
Because windows in OS X be any size from 614 X 418 to 724 X 1168, after being converted into a texture, most would be unusable by a Rage 128.
Sure you could limit the size of windows to powers of two, but how many headaches and complaints would that generate? We need to be taking steps forward remember.
The bottom line is that QE isn't possible on a Rage 128 and it isn't possible on a PCI bus.
You may have a PCI Radeon, but there isn't enough bandwidth available on the PCI bus to give you a performance edge when multiple 32-bit 1024 X 768 sized textures need to be sent over to the video card.
Memory is key too. 16MB of VRAM will fill up fast if you lots of windowed applications open. Everything on your screen is being converted into a texture remember, so current-gen iBook and last-gen TiBook may not always get 400% better performance.
The bottom line is QE just isn't possible on an old Mac and there really isn't anything we can do about it. Just be happy that Apple is making their GUI snappier even if you need a new video card and a G4 to enjoy it.
I'm sure Apple would speed things up on a bondi blue iMac if they could, but it just isn?t possible.
Face facts people. Apple has never had an ace up their sleeve when it comes to OS X speed. The only real speed up was the update prebinding one. Since then just about nothing.
You should expect nothing because that?s what you?re going to get.<hr></blockquote>
My sentiments are along these lines, even though on my systems, I may see a smidgen of improvements in speed.
What I would really like is more stability. Sure, X crashes less often than 9 for me (I just have look at 9 and it crashes), but X was supposed to be a rock.
Okay, maybe not a rock, but at least a major pebble.
Less spinning beach-ball of death, please?
<strong>This is slightly off topic but does any one who has one of the dev builds of 10.2 use the SMB file sharing with a windows 2000 server? I tried using 10.1.5 but I keep getting file coruption and sprious files with a ._ at the front. any thoughts I don't want to have to buy DAVE (our current solution is a 30 day trial)
-ray</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm able to connect to a Win2K server at work with my TiBook. I don't know what's going wrong with your setup, but the filename & ._filename pair are the data fork and resource fork files respectively. HFS+ supports multiple file forks, FAT32 does not, NTFS does support multiple file streams (similar to forks) but MS does not use this capability so to save a mutliforked file onto a PC share requires that either two separate files be created on for each fork or both be encoded into one file like binhex of apple-double.
If you delete the ._ files you will be deleting the resource information of the mac files. This can result in simple things like custom file icons being lost to the corruption of the file and it refusing to open.
<strong>
My sentiments are along these lines, even though on my systems, I may see a smidgen of improvements in speed.
What I would really like is more stability. Sure, X crashes less often than 9 for me (I just have look at 9 and it crashes), but X was supposed to be a rock.
Okay, maybe not a rock, but at least a major pebble.
Less spinning beach-ball of death, please?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't know what you use your computers for, but I have X on one iMac DV 400/128MB and on one PB G4 667/768 MB and X doesn't crash. Period.
I use X for webdesign with DW MX, Apache, Lasso PhotoShop, FileMaker Servers, MySql and more. And when I get tired with that I boot to 9 and use Logic Platinum with MOTU 828.
If you find X instable, it's probably some other factor (hardware, RAM?) that's the problem.
Cheers
<strong>
What I would really like is more stability. Sure, X crashes less often than 9 for me (I just have look at 9 and it crashes), but X was supposed to be a rock.
Okay, maybe not a rock, but at least a major pebble.
Less spinning beach-ball of death, please?</strong><hr></blockquote>
How often does OSX crash on you? I've had 1 crash in 6 months, which I consider an acceptable rate.