Just how fast is Jaguar?

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 67
    When you get the spinning beachball of death its just an indication of a frozen app. you can click or switch to another and keep going, Modern Multitasking. Also if its any indication of how fast jaguar is i`m using the build seeded to me 6c106 and it boots in about 5 seconds (compared to the 3 minutes of before). I have yet to have an application boot in under say 10 seconds, resizing is faster but not as much as 10.1 to 10.0.4 and things are generally much faster. Also other then mysql not working the way it should, Jag seems "smaller" it seems like you have more relastate on lower resolutions than in 10.1 just my 2¢
  • Reply 42 of 67
    zapchudzapchud Posts: 844member
    [quote]Originally posted by Mount_my_floppy:

    <strong>When you get the spinning beachball of death its just an indication of a frozen app. you can click or switch to another and keep going, Modern Multitasking. Also if its any indication of how fast jaguar is i`m using the build seeded to me 6c106 and it boots in about 5 seconds (compared to the 3 minutes of before). I have yet to have an application boot in under say 10 seconds, resizing is faster but not as much as 10.1 to 10.0.4 and things are generally much faster. Also other then mysql not working the way it should, Jag seems "smaller" it seems like you have more relastate on lower resolutions than in 10.1 just my 2¢</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Emm...boots in 5 seconds?

    well..
  • Reply 43 of 67
    gambitgambit Posts: 475member
    I've used many versions of Jag and I wouldn't go as so far as to say it's FASTER, per se, it's just so much more responsive. It feels like it should. You double click on a folder and it opens as soon as you're done double clicking, the way it should be, instead of waiting that split second. It also eliminates all the little Finder bugs like windows and dialogue boxes not resizing correctly. Finder in Jag is just....... responsive... not fast. See, let me try to compare it to 9. In OS 9, when you opened a folder, you saw the zoom rectangles and the window then popped up. With a faster processor, the zoom rectangles animated faster, and therefore the window popped up quicker, giving the impression of speed. With Jaguar, if you have live zooming on (which you activate by hiding the toolbar), when you double click a folder, the window zooms open the instant after the double click. However, if you're on an old clamshell iBook 300 or on a 933 G4, the window takes exactly the same amount of time to open. In OS 9, the animation speed would depend on the processor speed, but in OS X, it just resizes it at a consistent speed, no matter what the processor. So, given that, it's not FASTER in the OS 9 sense of the word, it's just responsive, much more responive then 9 or any version of X previous. That's exactly the way all of Jaguar feels: just.... responsive.



    Hope that makes sense. (I've used Jag, all builds I've gotten my hands on on blueberry iBook 300, Ti400, Ti500, 933G4, and an iMac 800.)



    [ 07-29-2002: Message edited by: Gambit ]</p>
  • Reply 44 of 67
    keyboardf12keyboardf12 Posts: 1,379member
    thanks. it did make sense at least to me. here's a big question maybe somebody can answer:



    in order for 3rd party apps to see the full speed increase of jaguar, they must be recompiled with gcc 3.1 correct? until that happens, the app with run slighty faster but not as fast as it can be?
  • Reply 45 of 67
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Correct.



    Expect a bunch of point releases from application developers after Jag ships.
  • Reply 46 of 67
    keyboardf12keyboardf12 Posts: 1,379member
    so part of this whole "not fast thing" are people using old apps that have not been updated for jag. the finder HAS been updated.
  • Reply 47 of 67
    errr i ment 30 seconds i dont know where the 5 came from
  • Reply 48 of 67
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    [quote]Originally posted by keyboardf12:

    <strong>so part of this whole "not fast thing" are people using old apps that have not been updated for jag. the finder HAS been updated.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    That could be part of it, but consider also that most apps use a *lot* of underlying code that ships with the OS (frameworks, libraries and such). All of those will have been recompiled already, so it won't be like the app is going from 'all old compile' to 'all new compile' at one shot. Just running an old app on Jaguar should see *some* speedup, if the underlying code has been sped up by the recompile. Of course, the developer's own code won't get that helping hand until they recompile as well.



    So expect two smaller speed bumps instead of one big one with recompiled apps. One for replacing the underlying code when migrating to 10.2, and another bump for replacing the upper code. You'll get two snappier updates instead of one big one.



    [ 07-29-2002: Message edited by: Kickaha ]</p>
  • Reply 49 of 67
    rogue27rogue27 Posts: 607member
    Applications compiled with Code Warrior (which has it's own compiler) instead of with GCC or Project Builder (which uses GCC) won't need to have those point updates for speed after Jaguar since the Metrowerks compiler was writing fast power pc code.



    This is mostly games that fall into this category, but hopefully the improvements to jaguar and the game related technologies (graphics, sound) will allow those games to run better as well. I'm thinking along the lines of WarCraft III and Baldur's Gate II. They are significantly slower in OS X than in OS 9.
  • Reply 50 of 67
    bigbluebigblue Posts: 341member
    Then why exactly is X *still* slower than 9.2 ? It's based on *nix, isn't it ? And wasn't that the fastest OS in the world (but not user friendly)? Is it purely because of Aqua ?

    Is it maturity (but the underpinnings are quite old, aren't they ) ?

    Why, why ? Im fed up with the 'Jag is faster, but still not as fast as 9' routine.
  • Reply 51 of 67
    razzfazzrazzfazz Posts: 728member
    [quote]Originally posted by BigBlue:

    <strong>Then why exactly is X *still* slower than 9.2 ? It's based on *nix, isn't it ? And wasn't that the fastest OS in the world?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I don't think so. UNIX isn't primarily about speed, it's more about portability and stability, both of which often come at the cost of slightly reduced speed.



    Bye,

    RazzFazz
  • Reply 52 of 67
    gambitgambit Posts: 475member
    [quote]Originally posted by BigBlue:

    <strong>Then why exactly is X *still* slower than 9.2 ? It's based on *nix, isn't it ? And wasn't that the fastest OS in the world (but not user friendly)? Is it purely because of Aqua ?

    Is it maturity (but the underpinnings are quite old, aren't they ) ?

    Why, why ? Im fed up with the 'Jag is faster, but still not as fast as 9' routine. </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Relax. Jeez. Didn't you read my post? The animations happened faster in 9 the faster your processor was, which could have been nothing but perception of speed. However, it seems like the animations in Jaguar are timed because of the consistency of length from machine to machine. Responsiveness is good, if not better, then the perception of speed. For instance, sometimes the animation in OS 9 happened fast, but then you had to wait for the icons to draw in if the information wasn't cached. In Jag, it's done in real time, from what I've seen.
  • Reply 53 of 67
    Just adding to the general chorus that 10.2 is definitely faster. I notice the difference both on my 466MHz Sawtooth and 876MHz Quicksilver. With QuartExtreme, things are very snappy indeed.



    I use my macs for Java development and Java ( even without JDK 1.4) is tons faster on 10.2.



    Overall I would put the speed improvements (without QE) in the same league as 10.0 -&gt; 10.1 and with QE it far exceeds it.
  • Reply 54 of 67
    bigbluebigblue Posts: 341member
    [quote] The animations happened faster in 9 the faster your processor was, which could have been nothing but perception of speed. However, it seems like the animations in Jaguar are timed because of the consistency of length from machine to machine. Responsiveness is good, if not better, then the perception of speed. For instance, sometimes the animation in OS 9 happened fast, but then you had to wait for the icons to draw in if the information wasn't cached. In Jag, it's done in real time, from what I've seen. <hr></blockquote>



    If that's true, it should be smart of Apple to add an 'animation speedup' or 'no animation (at all)' button or something in the finder pref's.

    You're right when you say that there's a lot in perception. If Joe Sixpack sees how fast the UI flies, he will be more tempted by it. And that 'slow X UI' thing will finally end.
  • Reply 55 of 67
    [quote]Originally posted by gmon:



    How often does OSX crash on you? I've had 1 crash in 6 months, which I consider an acceptable rate.<hr></blockquote>



    I've been using X on a G4 AGP since Beta (er, the original beta), and a dual USB iBook since last year.



    It's been better since I ran Apple's fix permissions, but before that, I would have Mail and iTunes hang when I would quit them. Force quite would sometimes work, but I would invariably end up doing a forced restart after 10 minutes of the Beach Ball of Death?.



    My guess is it's a networking issue.



    Now I only get major hangs (which requires a forced reboot) once in a while when I shut the lid of the iBook instead of selecting Sleep from the menu.



    On the G4, I use Dr. Bott to switch the monitor and keyboard with my Windoze machine. Every so often, I get a kernel panic just by switching.



    Still better than 9, but not as good as NT at work. We write a lot of internal applications, and most behave well now. The only thing that crashes on me is Word 97.



    On my girlfriend's TiBook, her M$ programs crash all the time (Entourage, Word) in OS9, but I think it's because her Ti550 gets all hot and bothered. You can fry an egg on it. Electronics don't like heat.
  • Reply 56 of 67
    gambitgambit Posts: 475member
    [quote]Originally posted by BigBlue:

    <strong>If that's true, it should be smart of Apple to add an 'animation speedup' or 'no animation (at all)' button or something in the finder pref's.

    You're right when you say that there's a lot in perception. If Joe Sixpack sees how fast the UI flies, he will be more tempted by it. And that 'slow X UI' thing will finally end.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    One more time: the GUI in Jaguar (read: the Finder) is not slow. It's VERY responsive, which is what you want. OS 9 will still FEEL faster, though, because of what I had said before. Again, ever get a window pop up fast in OS 9 only for you to wait for the contents to be drawn, even though the window came up fast? In Jag, there's no waiting: you double click, window springs open, and contents are there. (Unless, of course, you have thousands of items in a window and it has to draw them all.) I don't know.... you guys will see. There's a difference between perceived speed and actual speed and most of OS 9 was perceived; you CAN'T do anything processor intensive in the background in that OS, so you can keep your perception of speed and give me 10. Better yet, give me Jag.
  • Reply 57 of 67
    physguyphysguy Posts: 920member
    [quote]Originally posted by Mount_my_floppy

    ... Also other then mysql not working the way it should, Jag seems "smaller" it seems like you have more relastate on lower resolutions than in 10.1 just my 2¢[/QB]<hr></blockquote>



    Can you elaborate the problems with mysql. My web development environment on my pizmo includes mysql and php. Its been great to fully develop and test locally and them upload with complete confidence. I need to keep mysql working when I finally upgrade to 10.2. Any hints/help beforehand would be greatly appreciated.



    [ 07-31-2002: Message edited by: physguy ]</p>
  • Reply 58 of 67
    neurokidneurokid Posts: 108member
    [quote]Originally posted by Gambit:

    <strong>



    One more time: the GUI in Jaguar (read: the Finder) is not slow. It's VERY responsive, which is what you want. OS 9 will still FEEL faster, though, because of what I had said before. Again, ever get a window pop up fast in OS 9 only for you to wait for the contents to be drawn, even though the window came up fast? In Jag, there's no waiting: you double click, window springs open, and contents are there. (Unless, of course, you have thousands of items in a window and it has to draw them all.) I don't know.... you guys will see. There's a difference between perceived speed and actual speed and most of OS 9 was perceived; you CAN'T do anything processor intensive in the background in that OS, so you can keep your perception of speed and give me 10. Better yet, give me Jag.</strong><hr></blockquote>
  • Reply 59 of 67
    neurokidneurokid Posts: 108member
    What I meant to say was....

    That's great...that 10.2 will give us a faster finder, faster app opening, maybe some faster window re-sizing, etc. And I too agree that X's ability to mulitask is gold.



    But what I want to see is increased responsiveness with APPLICATIONS....once they are opened! Take any current app, from PShop to Canvas to Virtual PC to Explorer to Excel...each currently runs much slower in X than they would in 9. Have you tried scrolling through a PDF file in Acrobat lately? It's deadly! And I'm using the new 800 MHz PBook.



    The question: Will Jaguar help with these issues? Or will Jaguar just open my slow applications more quickly?
  • Reply 60 of 67
    gambitgambit Posts: 475member
    Applications run faster in Jag than any previous version of X. (For those who are wondering, yes, this is including computers that do not support Quartz Extreme.) As for scrolling, I haven't tried that yet, but browsing the web and other every day functions are faster than before.
Sign In or Register to comment.