Try compiling Mozilla, exporting a high-quality movie in QuickTime, be hosting an internet connection for several other computers on an LAN, watch a DVD without skipping a frame, and have the interface still completely responsive -- all at the same time under OS 9.
Seriously, try it.
Then do it in OSX and tell us which OS is slow.[CODE]
I am running
photoshop
flash
fireworks
quicktime
cleaner
yahoo messenger
entourage
explorer
In OS9 it runs super smooth and fast - In OSX it is slow period - I hear what your saying but this thread is dead now - lets all face it OS10.2 hopefully will be faster - but at present OSx10.1.5 makes G4s run like G3s
Yahoo Messenger sure is a great test of an OS. I would also like to know how you got the windows shell 'explorer' to run on a Mac, you must be some sort of binary god. And as others have stated, I can open a million idle programs, and if they aren't doing anything what kind of a benchmark is that? They don't release those Q3 benchmarks based on just opening up quake and staring at a wall in the level. I could run at 60fps on a TNT2 just staring at the wall. THe point is to *tax* the hardware, which in this case proves how well the software (OS 9 vs OS X) handles interpretation between the application and the hardware. Your example is like saying that you drove a car under opitimal conditions and you got great fuel mileage. Try that same test under city driving conditions and watch the real fuel efficient cars pop through. (not the best analogy, but the best I could think up in like 2 seconds)
Makes G4's run like G3's? You mean that the difference between the G4 and the G3 is the 3-4 seconds of rendering time in the Finder? That seems like an awfully small performance perk for Apple to make a completely new processor (I knwo that Apple doesn't make the processors, but you get the point). Maybe when the G5's come out it will only take 1-2 seconds to pop up in Finder. That will surely justify buying a new computer for an extra $1000.
Seems to me that you just want to crucify OS X or something. Did it wipe your HD and you're out for revenge or something? You keep praising OS 9 for it's amazing power and speed. If it's so amazing then why didn't Apple just stop development then and there and say "We can't out do this".
[quote]Its not a question of apps running slow - its the way you open folders and have to wait for the contents to appear.<hr></blockquote>
First you say this, but then you say this:
[quote]In OS9 it runs super smooth and fast - In OSX it is slow period <hr></blockquote>
hmmm....that sounds mighty conflicting to me,=.
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
So after spending all that money you can't deal with a few seconds? Sounds like someone is a trust-fund baby.
[quote]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
<hr></blockquote>
Wow, it's gone from just 'a few seconds' to 'Super slow'. You might want to get your story straight first. Seems like you want everything five minutes ago. It's a computer, not a psychic
I just realized something, kittylitterdesign is the same idiot that wants Appe to go back to the old resolution on the Ti's. Every post I've seen of his is retarded.
<strong>I just realized something, kittylitterdesign is the same idiot that wants Appe to go back to the old resolution on the Ti's. Every post I've seen of his is retarted.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<strong>I just realized something, kittylitterdesign is the same idiot that wants Appe to go back to the old resolution on the Ti's. Every post I've seen of his is retarted.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And if you are going to call someone retarded you could at least spell it right.
Or get OmniWeb, Check Spelling As You Type is a nice option.
Although I do agree that this guy is a moron.
There is no way it's going to take 2 seconds for a finder window to pop open unless his HD is fragmented to all hell.
<strong>I just realized something, kittylitterdesign is the same idiot that wants Appe to go back to the old resolution on the Ti's. Every post I've seen of his is retarted.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I decided to find out...6 posts. 5 were typical of what answers or replies you can get here and one that was absolutely locked. So what? I read nothing that indicated kittylitterdesign was a troll. More or less a frustrated OS X user (one of many, including myself)...My advice to the...
s
...get out of the basement, see and talk to real people. And be a little more understanding.
I too am running a Powerbook G4 667 with 512 megs ram running 10.1.5. I have just upgraded from a Powerbook G3 333 with 384 megs ram running system 9.1 (with virtual memory disabled).
As far as the finder goes at times I think my G3 in OS9 was faster. But I have found there are a lot of timesaving features in OS X such as opening an app and instead of waiting for it to open immediatly switching to another program and working in that.
I like OSX enough not to switch back.
I have noticed your list of Apps are similar to mine as well. I have downloaded Memory Usage Getter from Apple's website and have found that some apps use a huge amount af memory. Entourage on my cumputer consumes 85 megs of Ram.
So after Jag. I think I'll be saving up some coin and upgrading my memory.
9 is snappity clickity. But it's ugly compared to 'X'. 9 isn't really doing much, though?
'X' looks light years ahead. Feels lightyears ahead.
It's easier to be super quick when the interface graphics aren't up to much ala 9. Same on W2000. But the user experience is crap on W2000. At least 9 has grace. But...it's the past, Kitty, you gotta let it go man.
And why do you insist on coming back and remaking your point after your initial 'that's it, I'm done' comment. We get it. You don't think 9 is as fast as x. Right?
10.2 should address the 'snap' issue. I'm looking forward to running Jag' on me wife's ibook...
Jaguar is the answer guys. At least for now. I had installed 6C113 recently and it just didn't seem to be all that much of an improvement. So I backed up my stuff, formatted the drive and did a clean install.
I'd just like to say OMFG now. Snappy snappy snappy. Quite a few things it does are faster than OS 9, and it's a lot more usable than 10.1.5 was. Spring loaded folders kick ass and they're fast, opening apps is faster across the board... noticably faster, not just "a little bit". I can do so much more in so much less time now.
I'm using an iMac 800/Superdrive with 256 MB of RAM... can't wait to see what it's like with 512.
HOW IS THAT MIGHTY CONFLICTING? - you explain that - I'd love to hear it!
ALSO!!! I listed my apps as these
I am running
photoshop
flash
fireworks
quicktime
cleaner
yahoo messenger
entourage
explorer
And a gazillion other apps - I am NOT using all at once - what do you take me for a RETRAD (note spelling!)
All I ever ever ever asked in this post was
1..Why is OSX slower
Hoping to get some general reasons why
Now some of you out there were cool enough to answer in a mature fashion - and thansk to all of those
The answer was mentioned as the finder in OSX opposed to finder in OS9
2..I then went on to ask if Jaguar was out yet overseas
Some of you replied cool - thanks and the thread then went all out of shape by OSX purists
hey I get it! - you dont need to call me a RETRAD! - I get the fact that 99% of you all here love OSX
Fine and dandy - great - put it in a letter and mail me last week when I was interested - I am not interested in that side of things, that wasn't what this thread was about - If I was I woudl have started a thread saying "who loves OSX"..and you would have all replied, and it would have been the longest agreed thread ever here - great, whatever.
I purely asked about speed issues with OSX finder
For those of you sincerely answered my Q,s thank you very very much - for the others, again as I replied in another thread - I pity your girlfriends/wifes if you get bent out of shape so easily over this nerdy stuff - I really do pity them - I do - like. you all take it so seriously, ridiculously so..one q leads to another - then after a few new answers it always gets so distorted from the original thread.
if all you are gonna reply is wise cracks and pent up one liners then please goto the park and have a picnic and RELAX!!!!!
Later Alligator
Jools
P.S. Please no wise cracks or replies here now about - "us get bent out of shape - look at you writing all that - its you who is bent out of shape..etc etc..yadda yadda" Just dont be predictable and boring and start up on that
HOW IS THAT MIGHTY CONFLICTING? - you explain that - I'd love to hear it!
ALSO!!! I listed my apps as these
I am running
photoshop
flash
fireworks
quicktime
cleaner
yahoo messenger
entourage
explorer
And a gazillion other apps - I am NOT using all at once - what do you take me for a RETRAD (note spelling!)
All I ever ever ever asked in this post was
1..Why is OSX slower
Hoping to get some general reasons why
Now some of you out there were cool enough to answer in a mature fashion - and thansk to all of those
The answer was mentioned as the finder in OSX opposed to finder in OS9
2..I then went on to ask if Jaguar was out yet overseas
Some of you replied cool - thanks and the thread then went all out of shape by OSX purists
hey I get it! - you dont need to call me a RETRAD! - I get the fact that 99% of you all here love OSX
Fine and dandy - great - put it in a letter and mail me last week when I was interested - I am not interested in that side of things, that wasn't what this thread was about - If I was I woudl have started a thread saying "who loves OSX"..and you would have all replied, and it would have been the longest agreed thread ever here - great, whatever.
I purely asked about speed issues with OSX finder
For those of you sincerely answered my Q,s thank you very very much - for the others, again as I replied in another thread - I pity your girlfriends/wifes if you get bent out of shape so easily over this nerdy stuff - I really do pity them - I do - like. you all take it so seriously, ridiculously so..one q leads to another - then after a few new answers it always gets so distorted from the original thread.
if all you are gonna reply is wise cracks and pent up one liners then please goto the park and have a picnic and RELAX!!!!!
Later Alligator
Jools
P.S. Please no wise cracks or replies here now about - "us get bent out of shape - look at you writing all that - its you who is bent out of shape..etc etc..yadda yadda" Just dont be predictable and boring and start up on that
haha, look d0od. All your posts seems like are are pissed at OS X and that you feel OS X has anally raped you or something. This is why I took pleasure in picking apart what you said.
The conflict is that first you said that you only were having problems with a few extra seconds in the Finder. And in a later post you said that all OS X was slower. You went from saying that one thing is wrong to saying everything is wrong. That is what I was talking about.
I admit that I was constipated this morning and maybe I was a little anal. But after reading the 'poo' thread I was able to clean house.
Why is X slower? There are a hundred and one reasons, each of which have been hashed and rehashed over and over. The one that I'd like to point out, though, is that it's perceptual. Things don't snap to place like they did in 9. We have no auditory cues that anything is going on either (at least until Jag comes out). It's all in your head, really. Unless, as some have suggested, you're trying to open a folder with a billion and one things in it. Yes, the finder in X.1 is crap. But the finder in Jag is much better. And it has the snap sounds we're all fond of, too. kittylitter, maybe it's best for you to go back to OS 9 anyway. If it's that important to you and the benefits of X aren't painfully obvious to you, than you should stay there. I, for one, have been using OS X as my primary OS since the public beta. All the plusses way outweigh the minuses for me. And the minuses are being addressed one by one (or 150 of them in Jag, if you believe what SJ has to say ).
Go to OS 9 and come back on August 24th. You'll be pleasantly surprised.
Apparently some of you havent tried the new os x 10.2 <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" /> Its 40-50% faster than 10.1.5 and its the same speed as os 9.
<strong>Why is X slower? There are a hundred and one reasons, each of which have been hashed and rehashed over and over. The one that I'd like to point out, though, is that it's perceptual. Things don't snap to place like they did in 9. We have no auditory cues that anything is going on either (at least until Jag comes out). It's all in your head, really. Unless, as some have suggested, you're trying to open a folder with a billion and one things in it. Yes, the finder in X.1 is crap. But the finder in Jag is much better. And it has the snap sounds we're all fond of, too. kittylitter, maybe it's best for you to go back to OS 9 anyway. If it's that important to you and the benefits of X aren't painfully obvious to you, than you should stay there. I, for one, have been using OS X as my primary OS since the public beta. All the plusses way outweigh the minuses for me. And the minuses are being addressed one by one (or 150 of them in Jag, if you believe what SJ has to say ).
Go to OS 9 and come back on August 24th. You'll be pleasantly surprised. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Technically that's not really 150 minuses addressed. New technologies like Rendevous and iChat aren't things that you counted as minuses before...
Comments
<strong>[QUOTE]Originally posted by Defiant:
Originally posted by Brad:
You think Mac OS X is slow?
Try compiling Mozilla, exporting a high-quality movie in QuickTime, be hosting an internet connection for several other computers on an LAN, watch a DVD without skipping a frame, and have the interface still completely responsive -- all at the same time under OS 9.
Seriously, try it.
Then do it in OSX and tell us which OS is slow.[CODE]
I am running
photoshop
flash
fireworks
quicktime
cleaner
yahoo messenger
entourage
explorer
In OS9 it runs super smooth and fast - In OSX it is slow period - I hear what your saying but this thread is dead now - lets all face it OS10.2 hopefully will be faster - but at present OSx10.1.5 makes G4s run like G3s
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yahoo Messenger sure is a great test of an OS. I would also like to know how you got the windows shell 'explorer' to run on a Mac, you must be some sort of binary god. And as others have stated, I can open a million idle programs, and if they aren't doing anything what kind of a benchmark is that? They don't release those Q3 benchmarks based on just opening up quake and staring at a wall in the level. I could run at 60fps on a TNT2 just staring at the wall. THe point is to *tax* the hardware, which in this case proves how well the software (OS 9 vs OS X) handles interpretation between the application and the hardware. Your example is like saying that you drove a car under opitimal conditions and you got great fuel mileage. Try that same test under city driving conditions and watch the real fuel efficient cars pop through. (not the best analogy, but the best I could think up in like 2 seconds)
Makes G4's run like G3's? You mean that the difference between the G4 and the G3 is the 3-4 seconds of rendering time in the Finder? That seems like an awfully small performance perk for Apple to make a completely new processor (I knwo that Apple doesn't make the processors, but you get the point). Maybe when the G5's come out it will only take 1-2 seconds to pop up in Finder. That will surely justify buying a new computer for an extra $1000.
Seems to me that you just want to crucify OS X or something. Did it wipe your HD and you're out for revenge or something? You keep praising OS 9 for it's amazing power and speed. If it's so amazing then why didn't Apple just stop development then and there and say "We can't out do this".
[quote]Its not a question of apps running slow - its the way you open folders and have to wait for the contents to appear.<hr></blockquote>
First you say this, but then you say this:
[quote]In OS9 it runs super smooth and fast - In OSX it is slow period <hr></blockquote>
hmmm....that sounds mighty conflicting to me,=.
[quote]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.<hr></blockquote>
So after spending all that money you can't deal with a few seconds? Sounds like someone is a trust-fund baby.
[quote]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
<hr></blockquote>
Wow, it's gone from just 'a few seconds' to 'Super slow'. You might want to get your story straight first. Seems like you want everything five minutes ago. It's a computer, not a psychic
[ 08-06-2002: Message edited by: pyr3 ]</p>
[ 08-06-2002: Message edited by: EmAn ]</p>
<strong>I just realized something, kittylitterdesign is the same idiot that wants Appe to go back to the old resolution on the Ti's. Every post I've seen of his is retarted.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Lay off the personal attacks.
<strong>I just realized something, kittylitterdesign is the same idiot that wants Appe to go back to the old resolution on the Ti's. Every post I've seen of his is retarted.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And if you are going to call someone retarded you could at least spell it right.
Or get OmniWeb, Check Spelling As You Type is a nice option.
Although I do agree that this guy is a moron.
There is no way it's going to take 2 seconds for a finder window to pop open unless his HD is fragmented to all hell.
<strong>
LOL!
<strong>I just realized something, kittylitterdesign is the same idiot that wants Appe to go back to the old resolution on the Ti's. Every post I've seen of his is retarted.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I decided to find out...6 posts. 5 were typical of what answers or replies you can get here and one that was absolutely locked. So what? I read nothing that indicated kittylitterdesign was a troll. More or less a frustrated OS X user (one of many, including myself)...My advice to the...
...get out of the basement, see and talk to real people. And be a little more understanding.
<strong>
And if you are going to call someone retarded you could at least spell it right.
Or get OmniWeb, Check Spelling As You Type is a nice option.
Although I do agree that this guy is a moron.
There is no way it's going to take 2 seconds for a finder window to pop open unless his HD is fragmented to all hell.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oops... my bad. The spell checker is the only thing I actually like about OmniWeb, but it's not enough to make me start using it.
I too am running a Powerbook G4 667 with 512 megs ram running 10.1.5. I have just upgraded from a Powerbook G3 333 with 384 megs ram running system 9.1 (with virtual memory disabled).
As far as the finder goes at times I think my G3 in OS9 was faster. But I have found there are a lot of timesaving features in OS X such as opening an app and instead of waiting for it to open immediatly switching to another program and working in that.
I like OSX enough not to switch back.
I have noticed your list of Apps are similar to mine as well. I have downloaded Memory Usage Getter from Apple's website and have found that some apps use a huge amount af memory. Entourage on my cumputer consumes 85 megs of Ram.
So after Jag. I think I'll be saving up some coin and upgrading my memory.
'X' 1.5.
Not slow but any means. Fluid.
9 is snappity clickity. But it's ugly compared to 'X'. 9 isn't really doing much, though?
'X' looks light years ahead. Feels lightyears ahead.
It's easier to be super quick when the interface graphics aren't up to much ala 9. Same on W2000. But the user experience is crap on W2000. At least 9 has grace. But...it's the past, Kitty, you gotta let it go man.
And why do you insist on coming back and remaking your point after your initial 'that's it, I'm done' comment. We get it. You don't think 9 is as fast as x. Right?
10.2 should address the 'snap' issue. I'm looking forward to running Jag' on me wife's ibook...
Lemon Bon Bon
STFU. What does that mean?
I'd just like to say OMFG now. Snappy snappy snappy. Quite a few things it does are faster than OS 9, and it's a lot more usable than 10.1.5 was. Spring loaded folders kick ass and they're fast, opening apps is faster across the board... noticably faster, not just "a little bit". I can do so much more in so much less time now.
I'm using an iMac 800/Superdrive with 256 MB of RAM... can't wait to see what it's like with 512.
<strong>STFU. What does that mean?
shut the **** up
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In OS9 it runs super smooth and fast - In OSX it is slow period
------------------------------------------------------------------------
hmmm....that sounds mighty conflicting to me,=.
HOW IS THAT MIGHTY CONFLICTING? - you explain that - I'd love to hear it!
ALSO!!! I listed my apps as these
I am running
photoshop
flash
fireworks
quicktime
cleaner
yahoo messenger
entourage
explorer
And a gazillion other apps - I am NOT using all at once - what do you take me for a RETRAD (note spelling!)
All I ever ever ever asked in this post was
1..Why is OSX slower
Hoping to get some general reasons why
Now some of you out there were cool enough to answer in a mature fashion - and thansk to all of those
The answer was mentioned as the finder in OSX opposed to finder in OS9
2..I then went on to ask if Jaguar was out yet overseas
Some of you replied cool - thanks and the thread then went all out of shape by OSX purists
hey I get it! - you dont need to call me a RETRAD! - I get the fact that 99% of you all here love OSX
Fine and dandy - great - put it in a letter and mail me last week when I was interested - I am not interested in that side of things, that wasn't what this thread was about - If I was I woudl have started a thread saying "who loves OSX"..and you would have all replied, and it would have been the longest agreed thread ever here - great, whatever.
I purely asked about speed issues with OSX finder
For those of you sincerely answered my Q,s thank you very very much - for the others, again as I replied in another thread - I pity your girlfriends/wifes if you get bent out of shape so easily over this nerdy stuff - I really do pity them - I do - like. you all take it so seriously, ridiculously so..one q leads to another - then after a few new answers it always gets so distorted from the original thread.
if all you are gonna reply is wise cracks and pent up one liners then please goto the park and have a picnic and RELAX!!!!!
Later Alligator
Jools
P.S. Please no wise cracks or replies here now about - "us get bent out of shape - look at you writing all that - its you who is bent out of shape..etc etc..yadda yadda" Just dont be predictable and boring and start up on that
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
<strong>First you say this, but then you say this:
quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In OS9 it runs super smooth and fast - In OSX it is slow period
------------------------------------------------------------------------
hmmm....that sounds mighty conflicting to me,=.
HOW IS THAT MIGHTY CONFLICTING? - you explain that - I'd love to hear it!
ALSO!!! I listed my apps as these
I am running
photoshop
flash
fireworks
quicktime
cleaner
yahoo messenger
entourage
explorer
And a gazillion other apps - I am NOT using all at once - what do you take me for a RETRAD (note spelling!)
All I ever ever ever asked in this post was
1..Why is OSX slower
Hoping to get some general reasons why
Now some of you out there were cool enough to answer in a mature fashion - and thansk to all of those
The answer was mentioned as the finder in OSX opposed to finder in OS9
2..I then went on to ask if Jaguar was out yet overseas
Some of you replied cool - thanks and the thread then went all out of shape by OSX purists
hey I get it! - you dont need to call me a RETRAD! - I get the fact that 99% of you all here love OSX
Fine and dandy - great - put it in a letter and mail me last week when I was interested - I am not interested in that side of things, that wasn't what this thread was about - If I was I woudl have started a thread saying "who loves OSX"..and you would have all replied, and it would have been the longest agreed thread ever here - great, whatever.
I purely asked about speed issues with OSX finder
For those of you sincerely answered my Q,s thank you very very much - for the others, again as I replied in another thread - I pity your girlfriends/wifes if you get bent out of shape so easily over this nerdy stuff - I really do pity them - I do - like. you all take it so seriously, ridiculously so..one q leads to another - then after a few new answers it always gets so distorted from the original thread.
if all you are gonna reply is wise cracks and pent up one liners then please goto the park and have a picnic and RELAX!!!!!
Later Alligator
Jools
P.S. Please no wise cracks or replies here now about - "us get bent out of shape - look at you writing all that - its you who is bent out of shape..etc etc..yadda yadda" Just dont be predictable and boring and start up on that
<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
haha, look d0od. All your posts seems like are are pissed at OS X and that you feel OS X has anally raped you or something. This is why I took pleasure in picking apart what you said.
The conflict is that first you said that you only were having problems with a few extra seconds in the Finder. And in a later post you said that all OS X was slower. You went from saying that one thing is wrong to saying everything is wrong. That is what I was talking about.
I admit that I was constipated this morning and maybe I was a little anal. But after reading the 'poo' thread I was able to clean house.
Go to OS 9 and come back on August 24th. You'll be pleasantly surprised.
<strong>In 10.2 the finder is more multithreaded...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Don't you mean: "In 10.2 the finder is multithreaded"?
Sorry for going back to this old post, but this just had me laughing
<strong>
Don't you mean: "In 10.2 the finder is multithreaded"?
Sorry for going back to this old post, but this just had me laughing
That would imply that in 10.1 it isn't multithreaded at all. I'm not sure thats the case!
[ 08-06-2002: Message edited by: RodUK ]</p>
<strong>Why is X slower? There are a hundred and one reasons, each of which have been hashed and rehashed over and over. The one that I'd like to point out, though, is that it's perceptual. Things don't snap to place like they did in 9. We have no auditory cues that anything is going on either (at least until Jag comes out). It's all in your head, really. Unless, as some have suggested, you're trying to open a folder with a billion and one things in it. Yes, the finder in X.1 is crap. But the finder in Jag is much better. And it has the snap sounds we're all fond of, too. kittylitter, maybe it's best for you to go back to OS 9 anyway. If it's that important to you and the benefits of X aren't painfully obvious to you, than you should stay there. I, for one, have been using OS X as my primary OS since the public beta. All the plusses way outweigh the minuses for me. And the minuses are being addressed one by one (or 150 of them in Jag, if you believe what SJ has to say
Go to OS 9 and come back on August 24th. You'll be pleasantly surprised.
Technically that's not really 150 minuses addressed. New technologies like Rendevous and iChat aren't things that you counted as minuses before...
<strong>
That would imply that in 10.1 it isn't multithreaded at all. I'm not sure thats the case!
Apple says: "the new Finder has been rewritten to handle multi-threaded tasks." The absence of the word "better" is telling.