For those of you who argue standards compliance...
A standard is "the norm" "the common"
"widely recognized or employed"
Making Windows the standard in computing. Java works better on Windows than Mac OS X. This makes my Mac OS X machine sub-standard.
If you're going to make a machine with a smaller market share it's up to you to not only meet the standard, but go above and beyond it in crazy ways. While it might be unfair to blame Apple, I still do. They have to fight harder to win customers, even if that means making java emulate how most of the world expects it to work and providing more.
Sun's implementation of Java is the standard. They wrote it, they own it, they define it.
MS broke it on purpose, was sued, and LOST.
According to the technical definitions, MS's Java is non-standard.
According to the legal definitions, MS's Java is non-standard.
You can argue semantics until you are blue in the face, but the matter of the fact is that copying MS's Java behaviour is *precisely* what they want you to do. Why? Because they own the copyright on the API changes, it weakens Sun's legal claims, and it ultimately would weaken Java as a standard even further, strengthening MS's goal of having *them* control every component of the technical pipeline. Or perhaps you had forgotten about .NET and C#?
Java on MacOS X is standard. It needs improvement in speed. Breaking the standard is precisely the wrong way to go, as always.
They have to fight harder to win customers, even if that means making java emulate how most of the world expects it to work and providing more.
Apple should certainly NOT emulate Microsoft's illegal and soon-to-be-unsupported-by-Microsoft JVM based on Java 1.1.x.
AFAIK you can't even download it at microsoft.com anymore, and doesn't every Dell and HP computer come with Sun's JVM pre-installed?
Java 2 is slower mainly because it has a lot more features than 1.1.x (but Apple's implementation needs improvement and some improvement is in the coming 1.4.2_04 update).
If you're going to make a machine with a smaller market share it's up to you to not only meet the standard, but go above and beyond it in crazy ways. While it might be unfair to blame Apple, I still do. They have to fight harder to win customers, even if that means making java emulate how most of the world expects it to work and providing more.
Ohhhhh no! Non-compliance to standards leads to heavy, non cross-platform, and slow implementations. Just look at how the HTML format got all f***ed up by Microsoft introducing new proprietary things in it, in order to beat up Netscape. Unfortunately, Netscape counter-attacked, to keep its leadership, which leaded to the "best viewed on IE" or "best viewed on Netscape" heresy, and which is also the cause of the (relative) sluggishness and the (not so relative) complexity of the web browsers we have now, since they must take account of all the special cases introduced by MS and Netscape.
Apple does not want to do what Netscape did before. Anyway, they have absolutely no power on the JAVA users, and all they would do if they adopted proprietary pieces of code would be upsetting all the UNIX geeks.
However, JAVA is not aimed at producing speedy apps. If you want to produce real-time code, go for C or ASM. So I don't think that the sluggishness of JAVA in OS X is such a big deal.
When it comes to lacking graphics speed on OSX, isn't Aqua partly to blame? I know that my G3 Powerbook can draw graphics much faster under OS9 than under OSX.
Quartz is probably slower if you don't have the necessary video hardware for Quartz Extreme (GeForce 2 MX/Radeon or higher), which a G3 PowerBook probably won't have.
Quartz is probably slower if you don't have the necessary video hardware for Quartz Extreme (GeForce 2 MX/Radeon or higher), which a G3 PowerBook probably won't have.
I can see how a more powerful video card would make Quartz on OSX faster, but it would also make Quickdraw on OS9 faster. I think Quickdraw would always keep its speed advantage over Quartz.
I can see how a more powerful video card would make Quartz on OSX faster, but it would also make Quickdraw on OS9 faster. I think Quickdraw would always keep its speed advantage over Quartz.
Yes and no. The whole premise of Quartz is that the average PC/Mac has a graphics card of incredible power sitting doing nothing most of the time. Bigger and faster graphics cards will have far less impact on OS 9 as they are vastly underutilized by that system.
It is however true that OS 9 will always be doing far less than OS X and the nature of it's multitasking will make it's UI 'snappier' at a cost to real multi-tasking speed.
Comments
" target="_blank">Linpack benchmark
a Java benchmarking applet.
My experience developing with Java (Eclipse) correlates well with the benchmarks reported.
Java on a G4 is pretty slow on anything under a 1.25Ghz G4. On my dual G5 it moves pretty darn quick as the benchmark shows.
VM speeds on OS X have been improving too, 1.4.2 is noticeably faster then 1.3.x generation.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
If it's such a great dev platform why hasn't everyone switched to Java? And why are Java apps so shitty?
What a stupid answer !
Why hasn't everyone just switched to Mac if it's a so great platform huh ?
Why has M$ created C#, which is very very close to Java, if it's a so shitty dev language ?
A standard is "the norm" "the common"
"widely recognized or employed"
Making Windows the standard in computing. Java works better on Windows than Mac OS X. This makes my Mac OS X machine sub-standard.
If you're going to make a machine with a smaller market share it's up to you to not only meet the standard, but go above and beyond it in crazy ways. While it might be unfair to blame Apple, I still do. They have to fight harder to win customers, even if that means making java emulate how most of the world expects it to work and providing more.
MS broke it on purpose, was sued, and LOST.
According to the technical definitions, MS's Java is non-standard.
According to the legal definitions, MS's Java is non-standard.
You can argue semantics until you are blue in the face, but the matter of the fact is that copying MS's Java behaviour is *precisely* what they want you to do. Why? Because they own the copyright on the API changes, it weakens Sun's legal claims, and it ultimately would weaken Java as a standard even further, strengthening MS's goal of having *them* control every component of the technical pipeline. Or perhaps you had forgotten about .NET and C#?
Java on MacOS X is standard. It needs improvement in speed. Breaking the standard is precisely the wrong way to go, as always.
Originally posted by webmail
They have to fight harder to win customers, even if that means making java emulate how most of the world expects it to work and providing more.
Apple should certainly NOT emulate Microsoft's illegal and soon-to-be-unsupported-by-Microsoft JVM based on Java 1.1.x.
AFAIK you can't even download it at microsoft.com anymore, and doesn't every Dell and HP computer come with Sun's JVM pre-installed?
Java 2 is slower mainly because it has a lot more features than 1.1.x (but Apple's implementation needs improvement and some improvement is in the coming 1.4.2_04 update).
Originally posted by webmail
If you're going to make a machine with a smaller market share it's up to you to not only meet the standard, but go above and beyond it in crazy ways. While it might be unfair to blame Apple, I still do. They have to fight harder to win customers, even if that means making java emulate how most of the world expects it to work and providing more.
Ohhhhh no! Non-compliance to standards leads to heavy, non cross-platform, and slow implementations. Just look at how the HTML format got all f***ed up by Microsoft introducing new proprietary things in it, in order to beat up Netscape. Unfortunately, Netscape counter-attacked, to keep its leadership, which leaded to the "best viewed on IE" or "best viewed on Netscape" heresy, and which is also the cause of the (relative) sluggishness and the (not so relative) complexity of the web browsers we have now, since they must take account of all the special cases introduced by MS and Netscape.
Apple does not want to do what Netscape did before. Anyway, they have absolutely no power on the JAVA users, and all they would do if they adopted proprietary pieces of code would be upsetting all the UNIX geeks.
However, JAVA is not aimed at producing speedy apps. If you want to produce real-time code, go for C or ASM. So I don't think that the sluggishness of JAVA in OS X is such a big deal.
Originally posted by Stoo
Quartz is probably slower if you don't have the necessary video hardware for Quartz Extreme (GeForce 2 MX/Radeon or higher), which a G3 PowerBook probably won't have.
I can see how a more powerful video card would make Quartz on OSX faster, but it would also make Quickdraw on OS9 faster. I think Quickdraw would always keep its speed advantage over Quartz.
Originally posted by Tidris
I can see how a more powerful video card would make Quartz on OSX faster, but it would also make Quickdraw on OS9 faster. I think Quickdraw would always keep its speed advantage over Quartz.
Yes and no. The whole premise of Quartz is that the average PC/Mac has a graphics card of incredible power sitting doing nothing most of the time. Bigger and faster graphics cards will have far less impact on OS 9 as they are vastly underutilized by that system.
It is however true that OS 9 will always be doing far less than OS X and the nature of it's multitasking will make it's UI 'snappier' at a cost to real multi-tasking speed.