Why is OSX SO slow????

ghost_user_nameghost_user_name
Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> WHY is it so slow - compare the speed to OS9.2 on a Powerbook G4 667 DVI model - the folders spring alive and the contents are draw up in a nano second



In OSX however - you click to open a folder and the rainbow wheels spins around for a while whilst it decides if it should have gone the Bill gates route.



IS it BOGUS and Super slow - I hate it
«134

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 61
    brianmacosbrianmacos Posts: 548member
    OS X 10.1.5 isn't all that bad, I went from XP and to OSX and it doesn't bug me at all. 10.2 will solve a lot of speed problems, or at least I hope it does .
  • Reply 2 of 61
    artman @_@artman @_@ Posts: 2,546member
    Well, I have OS X on my iMac SE G3 700 (768 MB RAM) and all the applications installed run great. Fast (as fast as OS 9 or better) and works fine. You didn't mention how much RAM you have. I think any RAM upgrade will help...



    I don't get it. you have a G4 and it's slow? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
  • Reply 3 of 61
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    RAM. You'll want RAM. 128MB of RAM is barely tolerable. 256MB of RAM is amazingly better.



    You'll also want to mention what version of OS X you're using. 10.1.5?



    For what it's worth, I'm on a PowerBook G3 400MHz with 192MB, and it zips along pretty darned well. The Finder is, admittedly, one of the weakest parts of 10.1.x. RHI that 10.2's Finder is much improved in many areas.
  • Reply 4 of 61
    nebrienebrie Posts: 483member
    Yup, as long as you have a fast comp like your powerbook, X.2 is zippy. I haven't gotten a good chance to look at the new rainbow wheel since I don't see it often on my DP 450.
  • Reply 5 of 61
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    as for RAM I have 512Mb

    Its not a question of apps running slow - its the way you open folders and have to wait for the contents to appear.



    You've gotta admit it is a little bogus compared to OS9 - also I still hate the system font - I used tinker tool to change but Ijust love the system font crispness of OS9 - the OSX 1.1.5 font is so soft and fluffy and bad basically



    I hope OSX Jaguar solves the finder probs with folder content waiting.



    But I have now gone back to OS9 as I can not stand the frustatring wait for folder contents to appear - yes it is only a few seconds - but after spending what I spent on a powerbook DVI I would rather run OS9 and get more speed for my buck.



    Any more thoughts woudl eb welcome - has OSX10.2 come out yet in the US? in the UK not yet



    Also does anyone know how to get the system font of OS9 into OSX?



    Jools
  • Reply 6 of 61
    leonisleonis Posts: 3,427member
    [quote]Originally posted by kittylitterdesign:

    <strong>as for RAM I have 512Mb

    Its not a question of apps running slow - its the way you open folders and have to wait for the contents to appear.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Base on my "observation" the way OS 9 and OS X show up content in the folder is different



    Assuming you have like 180 folder/files inside the folder that you want to open



    In OS 9. When double clicking that folder the new pop up window will show and keep scanning for content at the same time.



    But in OS X. Everything has to be "scan" before they show up.



    That maybe why you feel it slow
  • Reply 7 of 61
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    And this delayed scanning/instant display is one of the big new items in the new 10.2 Finder. (It's Snappier!(tm))



    No, 10.2 isn't out anywhere yet. Expect it available Aug 24th, both here and in the UK.



    kittylitterdesign, I have to say that it sounds like you have a problem with the Finder, not the system in general. I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by 10.2.
  • Reply 8 of 61
    cubedudecubedude Posts: 1,556member
    I'm on a G4 Cube 450 with 384mb and OSX is quite fast. Maybe there is something wrong with your software. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
  • Reply 9 of 61
    bill dolanbill dolan Posts: 1member
    I have a 350mhz G4 (AGP) with 896 MB and am also tired of seeing the spinning CD while opening folders and windows. Applications, though not as quick as in OS 9, do seem to run fine. Apple is promising a faster Finder in Jaguar, so my guess is that it IS a problem and hope that they have addressed it.
  • Reply 10 of 61
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    [quote]Originally posted by CubeDude:

    <strong>I'm on a G4 Cube 450 with 384mb and OSX is quite fast. Maybe there is something wrong with your software. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>



    QUITE FAST - not fast - just quite fast - I rest my case! <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
  • Reply 11 of 61
    scott_h_phdscott_h_phd Posts: 448member
    Don't bother kittylitterdesign. This site is about to under go a name change from AppleInsider to AppleApologist.
  • Reply 12 of 61
    rodukroduk Posts: 706member
    I agree with Leonis and Kickaha. In 10.2 the finder is more multithreaded, enabling it to scan a folder and display its contents at the same time. Items should therefore appear as they are found, rather than all appearing at the end.



    I think CubeDude may have been taking his hardware into account, in relation to yours, when mentioning quite fast.



    [ 08-05-2002: Message edited by: RodUK ]</p>
  • Reply 13 of 61
    rogue27rogue27 Posts: 607member
    [quote]Originally posted by kittylitterdesign:

    <strong>



    QUITE FAST - not fast - just quite fast - I rest my case! <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>





    "Quite fast" means "very fast". Anyway, the finder responsivness is said to be much improved in 10.2.
  • Reply 14 of 61
    codewarriorcodewarrior Posts: 196member
    It's all the debugging code still in OS X 10.1.



    It's because OS X has a completely different windowing system which has a much higher overhead than OS 9. OS 10.2 and QE will improve it, but it probably won't ever be as 'snappy' as OS 9. Of course Quartz is 3-4 years old and QE is not even out, so it will take some time (Color QuickDraw has been around for 14+ years?). Faster Macs will help too. I doubt legacy Macs will get much 'snappier'.



    I like OS X and look forward to the improvements 10.2 will bring.
  • Reply 15 of 61
    pyr3pyr3 Posts: 946member
    OSX isn't 'slow' ... it's 'special'.
  • Reply 16 of 61
    chromoschromos Posts: 191member
    I know it's a matter of personal preference, but have you tried working exclusively in column view in the Finder? There's definitely no lag when displaying the contents of any folder. And, you can switch between icon or list view and column view simply by double-clicking any folder in column view (again with no lag). I really like the flexibility.



    As for hardware, I'm on a 2-yr old Pismo 400 with 512 MB RAM. (I wish everyone would state their hardware specs when complaining about Snappiness(TM)).
  • Reply 17 of 61
    ghost_user_nameghost_user_name Posts: 22,667member
    [quote](I wish everyone would state their hardware specs when complaining about Snappiness(TM)).[/QB]<hr></blockquote>



    I did!!! - look at my first message

    on a Powerbook G4 667 DVI model
  • Reply 18 of 61
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    [quote]Originally posted by kittylitterdesign:

    <strong>



    I did!!! - look at my first message

    on a Powerbook G4 667 DVI model </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Woah now, calm down there, little kitty.



    He *did* say 'everyone'. You weren't singled out. Take a deep breath... good.



    [ 08-05-2002: Message edited by: Kickaha ]</p>
  • Reply 19 of 61
    pyr3pyr3 Posts: 946member
    [quote]Originally posted by kittylitterdesign:

    <strong>



    I did!!! - look at my first message

    on a Powerbook G4 667 DVI model </strong><hr></blockquote>



    When talking about programs, memory is a necessary spec. I'm sure that it's not too snappy when you are running that TiBook 667 DVI with 2 megs of RAM, dumbass. 'hardware model' and 'hardware specs' are NOT the same.
  • Reply 20 of 61
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    [quote]Originally posted by kittylitterdesign:

    <strong>



    I did!!! - look at my first message

    on a Powerbook G4 667 DVI model </strong><hr></blockquote>



    You really have problems. He said everyone. Idiot.
Sign In or Register to comment.