Surfing On A Mac Is Slooooow

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Thinine

    Fine, be an idiot...



    gee.. that's a little harsh. You might want to try it out for yourself though if you really are considering a Mac. Macs really are solid, fast, quality computers. You may find you don't notice a big difference surfing on a Mac vs PC.



    I use a 3GHz Pentium 4 (running Win2k) on a T1 line at work, and a 1.4GHz G4 (running 10.3.7) on DSL at home. Web surfing doesn't feel much different on either machine.
  • Reply 62 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally posted by mikef

    I use Firefox as my main browser. Safari is just a dog, so I've given up on it. Compare Safari to Firefox on Windows and Firefox is still that much faster.



    I'm exactly the opposite. I use Safari as my main browser because the UI is so much more responsive than Firefox. Firefox may render some complex pages slightly faster, but not fast enough to put up with its comparatively sluggish UI.
  • Reply 63 of 98
    mikefmikef Posts: 697member
    I don't know which version of Firefox you're using, but it is across-the-board faster than Safari on my machine.



    Use whatever you're comfortable with, however there's still no doubt in my mind that OS X is slower at web browsing than Windows 2000 or Windows XP.
  • Reply 64 of 98
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    Once I can access applenova I'll post a link, but firefox is more of a perceived speed.



    Firefox starts to render before everything is loaded, so it looks like it's faster, when in reality it might be a few ms slower.
  • Reply 65 of 98
    mikefmikef Posts: 697member
    I'll buy that argument, however if it feels faster to me that's what I'll use. Safari needs some optimization still.
  • Reply 67 of 98
    jonejone Posts: 102member
    Wow, that is pretty bad. Still, I've seen sites with some simple frames make scrolling a little jerky. Firefox renders Gamespot smooth on Windows, and far from it on OS X. I suppose this is due in part to the graphic subsystem, but I still believe there are things that could be improved.



    BTW, http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.appleinsider.com
  • Reply 68 of 98
    johnqjohnq Posts: 2,763member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JonE

    Wow, that is pretty bad. Still, I've seen sites with some simple frames make scrolling a little jerky. Firefox renders Gamespot smooth on Windows, and far from it on OS X. I suppose this is due in part to the graphic subsystem, but I still believe there are things that could be improved.



    BTW, http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.appleinsider.com




    Pumping it all out to the graphic subsystem will win everyday as opposed to throwing (a lot of) it onto the CPUs. Tiger is going to address that right?



    As far as IE, particularly Win IE, they let coding errors go and try to render no matter how much invalid crap is in the coding, whereas standards based browsers try to be prim and proper purists about it and suffer for it, speedwise, I feel.



    Hell, IE still doesn't render PNG alpha transparencies yet! Strip that code out of Safari and it'd blaze (kidding)
  • Reply 69 of 98
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by johnq

    Pumping it all out to the graphic subsystem will win everyday as opposed to throwing (a lot of) it onto the CPUs. Tiger is going to address that right?





    All joking aside, is Tiger supposed to address some of the sluggishness of the GUI? If so, do you think it would be very apparent or hype?
  • Reply 70 of 98
    johnqjohnq Posts: 2,763member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Relic

    All joking aside, is Tiger supposed to address some of the sluggishness of the GUI? If so, do you think it would be very apparent or hype?



    I did hear it's supposed to put more of the GUI workload into the GPU, but I can't back it up.
  • Reply 71 of 98
    I can't tell the difference on smaller pages, but on bigger pages, there is definitely some sluggishness on the Mac side (Mac Camino is what I use primarily).



    Is it a dealbreaker? No way, I doubt you'd even notice it unless you're visiting some huge or odd pages.



    What Apple really needs to work on is the Finder. The Windows Explorer destroys it in speed (that is, when it's not completely polluted by spyware). A multithreaded OS X finder is long overdue.
  • Reply 72 of 98
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gizzmonic



    What Apple really needs to work on is the Finder. The Windows Explorer destroys it in speed (that is, when it's not completely polluted by spyware). A multithreaded OS X finder is long overdue.






    Yes, fix that f..king finder. NO MORE SPIINNING WHEEL OF DEATH.! NO MORE SPIINNING WHEEL OF DEATH! GGGRRRRRR makes me so mad, stupid classic.
  • Reply 73 of 98
    e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,075member
    I bought an eMac (800 MHz, I think) - and it was basically

    unusable as a browser.



    Once I enabled DNS caching (via root access and changing

    a file in /etc, grep for DNS to find it), it was much better,

    but still quite a bit slower than my 1.5 GHz PC (as

    expected).



    She uses and old build of Mozilla, because once she starts

    using something she will not change even if the new thing

    is better.



    I think that Safari and firefox are about equal in speed.

    Mozilla is slow to load, but still about the same speed

    also once it gets started.
  • Reply 74 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally posted by e1618978

    I bought an eMac (800 MHz, I think) ...

    ...






    I think i've married a woman yesterday

    or was it a boy?

    Loopy boy you are.
  • Reply 75 of 98
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Vox Barbara



    I think i've married a woman yesterday

    or was it a boy?

    Loopy boy you are.




    It?s not very nice to make fun of people who are unaware of the megahertz they posses. I mean it is pretty confusing. By the way what?s a megahertz, if it?s like a hurtsdoughnut I don?t want any!
  • Reply 76 of 98
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Relic

    It?s not very nice to make fun of people who are unaware of the megahertz they posses. I mean it is pretty confusing. By the way what?s a megahertz, if it?s like a hurtsdoughnut I don?t want any!



    Ok i go editing a bit:

    Quote:

    Originally posted by Vox Barbara





    Quote:

    Originally posted by e1618978

    I bought an eMac (800 MHz, I think) ...

    ...






    I think i've married a boy yesterday

    or was it a girl?

    Snoopy boy you are.



  • Reply 77 of 98
    I use Firefox regularly on an iBook 1.33 Ghz, an AthlonXP 1800+ and now have had a chance to use FireFox under winXP on a P4 2.8 GHz.



    What I found is that Firefox on my iBook is the fastest. I blame Win98 on my athlon for making it feel like its "coughing up" web pages...that is it stutters.



    The big shock though...I guess...is that surfing on that damn P4 is the worst. Its the most stuttery. Obviously the P4 in comparison is going to be more powerful but something about windows makes it just sit there saying "ddaaaah, what now boss" and then runs off to converse with winsock about BS...then gets around to grabbing the page and rendering it. Anyways, XP is poop.
  • Reply 78 of 98
    A megahertz is when the man gets too excited.
  • Reply 79 of 98
    mikefmikef Posts: 697member
    Give me a break! If you're saying that any Powerbook is faster at surfing than a P4 2.8, your P4 system is f!!ked up.



    Dissing XP seems like the 'cool' (hardly) thing to when you're a Mac user.
  • Reply 80 of 98
    Quote:

    Give me a break! If you're saying that any Powerbook is faster



    Ok, have a kit-kat. Thx Dr.Lingras..ROFLMAODBLLOL



    Clearly,
    Quote:

    What I found is that Firefox on my iBook is the fastest.



    and hence we define MY iBook to be the set of all powerbooks? No.







    Quote:

    any Powerbook is faster at surfing than a P4 2.8



    You say this because you did not read my post.

    Quote:

    its "coughing up" web pages...that is it stutters.



    Also,
    Quote:

    Obviously the P4 in comparison is going to be more powerful



    Quote:

    surfing on that damn P4 is the worst.



    clearly meaning A computer some place at some time. I was referring to a personal experience.





    Quote:

    your P4 system is f!!ked up.



    I did not state that it was mine. You'll notice:

    Quote:

    Its the most stuttery.



    , which is a simple complaint about the characteristics of surfing on that machine and similarly with Win98 from MY experience.





    You would have been right in saying that I did not properly characterise Windows XP's processes of bringing a webpage to the user but instead I receive:

    Quote:

    Dissing XP seems like the 'cool' (hardly) thing to when you're a Mac user.



    Maybe you're concerned with being cool but I was posting a rather straight forward problem I was having with windows surfing. If you would prefer to characterise me as an idiot, go ahead, I'm sure everyone will follow your dynamic, credible lead.

    As for my being a Mac user, I am proud to say that I have had a chance to be truely productive using the runoff of Atkinson's genius. However much you just love XP, there are indeed serious issues with its stability and usability as myself and many people, I myself, know.



    In the end though...try reading the post first. 8)
Sign In or Register to comment.