10.2 w/out QE

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
Is anyone using 10.2 without quartz extreme? is it faster then 10.1.5 was on ur comptuer, and what kind of computer?



I'm only allowed to make my brothers BW G3 better not worse he said, haha

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 18
    stevesteve Posts: 523member
    Since 10.2 is a refinement of the OS X code, it will naturally make any machine run faster, regardless of whether or not it can utilize Quartz Extreme.
  • Reply 2 of 18
    kelibkelib Posts: 740member
    Especially launching application is supposed to be faster
  • Reply 3 of 18
    I have tried 10.2 on a 350 MHz Blue/White G3, and a 266MHz Powerbook.



    While it might be faster due to the newer version of the GCC compiler, it is pretty hard to tell really (tough to notice a 10% speed increase in real life). Fast enough for general use, but I use Fireworks and Dreamweaver on the 350 and man it gets painful...
  • Reply 4 of 18
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    [quote]Originally posted by The Pie Man:

    <strong>I have tried 10.2 on a 350 MHz Blue/White G3, and a 266MHz Powerbook.



    While it might be faster due to the newer version of the GCC compiler, it is pretty hard to tell really (tough to notice a 10% speed increase in real life). Fast enough for general use, but I use Fireworks and Dreamweaver on the 350 and man it gets painful...</strong><hr></blockquote>



    ...you mean dreamweaver/fireworks is worse in 10.2 or just painful on a 350MHz, because i use them and although slower, i wouldn't say its painful...i hvae 384mb ram
  • Reply 5 of 18
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    I was just asking becuase I didn't know if there were many things optimized, but i'll give it a try.





    Is there any way to put 10.1.5 back on after 10.2?
  • Reply 6 of 18
    Can Someone send me the tools to turn off Quartz and the page draw speedometer?
  • Reply 7 of 18
    kelibkelib Posts: 740member
    [quote]Originally posted by Altivec_2.0:

    <strong>Can Someone send me the tools to turn off Quartz and the page draw speedometer?</strong><hr></blockquote> If you like speeding-up your G3 you should try stuff like <a href="http://www.versiontracker.com/moreinfo.fcgi?id=12158&db=mac"; target="_blank">Shadow Killer</a>. You'll experience something like 20-30% speed increase. Drawing shadows is CPU demanding and this freeware turns it off. Used it on my old G3 with great results although the UI looks a bit weird with shadows missing. You don't need anything to turn off quarts extreme.



    [HTML edit]



    [ 10-08-2002: Message edited by: kelib ]</p>
  • Reply 8 of 18
    [quote]Originally posted by ast3r3x:

    <strong>



    ...you mean dreamweaver/fireworks is worse in 10.2 or just painful on a 350MHz, because i use them and although slower, i wouldn't say its painful...i hvae 384mb ram</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Not any slower on 10.2 - just painful in general in OS X. Thats how much RAM is in the B/W too - 384. I am gonna stick another 256 in there since they are so cheap - maybe that will help a bit...
  • Reply 9 of 18
    rogue27rogue27 Posts: 607member
    I'm on a 400Mhz G3 PowerBook and 10.2 is at least as fast as 10.1.5.



    There's no reason it should be any slower. The compiler was optimized, so every part of the OS that was recompiled will be faster because of it, plus several parts of OS X were also optimized.



    It's definitely not slower, and it works a lot better, but maybe a couple updates (like 10.2.2) will make it feel safer if you're worried.



    [ 10-08-2002: Message edited by: rogue27 ]</p>
  • Reply 10 of 18
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    Jaguar is not damn fast : here some benchmarks taken on SVM mac (french Mac newspaper) :



    boot :

    os 9.2 = 65 sec

    os 10,15 = 73 sec

    os 10,2 = 67 sec



    scrolling of fnder

    os 9,2 : not possible

    os 10,15 = 64 sec

    os 10,2 = 78 sec



    launch explorer 5

    os 9,2 = 5,5 sec

    os 10,15 = 9 sec

    os 10,2 = 8,5 sec



    launch photoshop 7

    os 9,2 = 17 sec

    os 10,15 = 25 sec

    os 10,2 = 23,5 sec



    launch classic

    os 10,15 = 33 sec

    os 10,2 = 27 sec



    duplicate one element of 86 M

    os 9,2 = 9,5 sec

    os 10,15 = 11 sec

    os 10,2 = 12,5 sec



    duplicafe folder of 51 MB (5555 elements)

    os 9,2 = 40,5 sec

    os 10,15 = 68 sec

    os 10,2 = 77 sec



    conversion DV/MPEG 75 mo

    os 9,2 = 88 sec

    os 10,15 = 65 sec

    os 10,2 = 56 sec



    all test made upon a G4 400. Same benchmarks on a i mac DV 400 with similar results (even in the i mac is slower )



    Jaguar was more schedule for more fonctionality rather than improving performance (at the difference of 10,1)



    [ 10-09-2002: Message edited by: Powerdoc ]</p>
  • Reply 11 of 18
    rhoqrhoq Posts: 190member
    I am running Jaguar on my iMac G3/350MHz - I have not noticed any speed differences at all except that it takes twice as long to start-up!!!
  • Reply 12 of 18
    matveimatvei Posts: 193member
    Finally got jag for my ibook600/512MB and performed a brand new install (wiped the HD clean).



    Short story: It rocks!



    Longer story: It is a VERY worthwhile upgrade. Everything feels more solid and "snappier"(tm). I really feel the difference. Plus, you get the new apps... Mail is much improved and I've had fun with iCal. The jag version of Backup is better, sherlock is fun, new find command is very useful.



    BTW: I don't have the advantage of QE...



    Don't hesitate, run to the nearest store!
  • Reply 13 of 18
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    [quote]Originally posted by Matvei:

    <strong>



    BTW: I don't have the advantage of QE...

    !</strong><hr></blockquote>



    QE deal only with compositing effects of video : transparancy and the genius effect, but is useless concerning scrolling and most of the classical 2D effects
  • Reply 14 of 18
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    10.1 -&gt; 10.2 is nowhere near the speed-up that 10.0 -&gt; 10.1 was.



    I haven't noticed any difference in speed, and I definitely haven't noticed anything at all with QuartzExtreme. Oh yeah, the volume display is now transparent over a DVD.



    Yippee.



    I'd suggest installing it if you want to use some of the software that requires is - iCal, iChat, etc. Otherwise, I'd say it's not worth it if the speed increase is what you're primarily looking for.
  • Reply 15 of 18
    For whatever reason, I have noticed a big difference between a clean install (on a wiped drive) and an upgrade or even an archive/install.



    Once again this isn't as noticeable on lower end machines (like the B/W G3 the discussion started on), but on my main machine (Dual 500 G4) there was a huge difference when I first archived and installed, then wiped and did a clean install. Very big difference. I was amazed actually.
  • Reply 16 of 18
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    [quote]Originally posted by The Pie Man:

    <strong>For whatever reason, I have noticed a big difference between a clean install (on a wiped drive) and an upgrade or even an archive/install.



    Once again this isn't as noticeable on lower end machines (like the B/W G3 the discussion started on), but on my main machine (Dual 500 G4) there was a huge difference when I first archived and installed, then wiped and did a clean install. Very big difference. I was amazed actually.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    On my 733 QS G4, there was a big difference, it went from 10.1.5, to pretty snappy.

    I am was jw how much optimizations there were that weren't caused from QE, and i gues i hear its not too much
  • Reply 17 of 18
    serranoserrano Posts: 1,806member
    [quote]Originally posted by BRussell:

    <strong>10.1 -&gt; 10.2 is nowhere near the speed-up that 10.0 -&gt; 10.1 was.



    I haven't noticed any difference in speed, and I definitely haven't noticed anything at all with QuartzExtreme. Oh yeah, the volume display is now transparent over a DVD.



    Yippee.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    B&W 450, Radeon ME, 512.

    10.2 was faster, but less stable. For whatever reason 10.2 didn't like my hardware.



    iBook 700, Radeon Mob, 640.

    10.2 is rock solid, the benefit of QE is obvious.
  • Reply 18 of 18
    I've seen benchmarks showing that 10.2.1 dramatically boosts the performance of 10.2.0, and I'd have to agree with that. Sorry but I don't have a link...



    10.2.0 seemed slower than 10.1.5 on my system, but 10.2.1 is about the same.



    powermac G4 400 Mhz, Radeon 32 MB, 576 MB RAM



    10.1.5 was also more stable with respect to the finder and utilities. Of course, no version of OS X ever crashes on me entirely (KP).



    I'm looking forward to later revisions of 10.2 to give even more speed.
Sign In or Register to comment.