Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Thilo Ettelt · Aug 18, 2003, 04:21 AM

I bet that the Dual 2 GHz G5 will make OS X finally be Snappy�. The reason for thinking this is that we no longer have this horrible bottleneck and as far as i'm informed the FSB is a major factor for the Aqua interface's speed. What do you think?

- Thilo

PS: A friend of mine already had his hands on a (prototype) G5 saying it really was "snappy".

Apple Pro Underwear · Aug 18, 2003, 06:02 AM

if you started using a dual 1.42 g4 w/ a 256mb video card...it's snappy on osX too

snappy only applies to older machines now and if apple did anything to make osX more streamlined for us. you know: remmove debug code and etc.

SteveJobs · Aug 18, 2003, 08:08 AM

The issue is that there are no 256 MB graphics cards on the Mac...

Steve

saru boy · Aug 18, 2003, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by SteveJobs:
The issue is that there are no 256 MB graphics cards on the Mac...

Steve

Why would you need a 256MB graphics card? Every review of 256MB cards I've read states that everything else being equal, having 256MB over 128MB makes practically no difference.

The Jackalope · Aug 18, 2003, 10:46 AM

I played with a dual 2gig G5 in Osaka last week, and I can officially say that it is Snappy�. DAMN Snappy�!

ddma · Aug 18, 2003, 12:31 PM

OS X is Snappy� on my dual G4s 1.25Ghz with 1GB memory too.

sniffer · Aug 18, 2003, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by saru boy:
Why would you need a 256MB graphics card? Every review of 256MB cards I've read states that everything else being equal, having 256MB over 128MB makes practically no difference.

B/c Quartz Extreme� loves to have a big playground.

Angus_D · Aug 18, 2003, 12:53 PM

OS X is snappy on my Dual 1GHz with Radeon 9000.

exa · Aug 18, 2003, 01:05 PM

Hmm OS X can begin to lag a bit on a DP1250 in single processor mode (CHUD tools) and you're doing a lot of stuff, but with both processors, it is ultra snappy�... except for finder, which better be multi threaded up the wazoo in panther... damn beach ball.

OS X is molasses on a G3/500(ibook), G4/466(beige) and G4/542(beige).

dfiler · Aug 18, 2003, 01:33 PM

Somehow, i think an additional .1 of OS will be the harbinger of near-term snapocity for most of us.

MattiMattMatt · Aug 18, 2003, 02:36 PM

An additional .1 of OS and 1 of G harbingers the demise of my ever de-snappifying� G3.

Superchicken · Aug 18, 2003, 02:44 PM

My friend just got a 12 inch power book and it was snappy, I really don't think there's a major problem for anyone with a G4 over 800Mhz.

osxisfun · Aug 18, 2003, 03:06 PM

and when panther ships we get another 2 scoops of snappiness according to testers...

idyll · Aug 18, 2003, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
My friend just got a 12 inch power book and it was snappy, I really don't think there's a major problem for anyone with a G4 over 800Mhz.

Ehh.. it depends as to what kind of "snappiness" you're used to. My 12" PowerBook wasn't adequate enough for me so I sold it and ordered a G5

. The PowerBook was OK for everyday tasks, but working in Photoshop was a pain. But then again, you don't buy a laptop to work in Photoshop all day

.

DeathMan · Aug 18, 2003, 04:58 PM

I don't find those other OSes to be all that much more snappy than Jaguar on my dual 500 mhz. And I don't even have QE.

Windows 2000 on a current gaming rig seems to have its share of lag with certain things. And it can't handle transparent windows and things (with the Nvidia driver that game with the card) worth anything. Laggy, slow framerates, just bad. My transparent terminal is a little jumpy, but I'm on a 16mb card vs. his 128mb. (maybe it was a 64, not sure. seems like he would have gotten 128 though)

But I'm always up for improvement. Panther...mmmmm.

sailin74 · Aug 18, 2003, 05:52 PM

I'd just like Safari or any web browser to feel like IE on the PC. I had a 1.25 DP G4 and Browsing wasn't as "snappy" as it is with my PC box at 1.2GHz Celeron. Go figure. It was enough to make me send the DP back as the fan was making more noise than the PC was. I know there's a fix out there but it was a refurb so AppleCare didn't.

Here's hoping Snappy come through with the G5 and Panther.

-Jason

osxisfun · Aug 18, 2003, 06:01 PM

all i know is i am not as "snappy*" on any other OS as I am with OSX.

*creative, productive, happy, knowledgeable, multitasking

CatOne · Aug 18, 2003, 07:18 PM

Originally posted by Thilo Ettelt:
I bet that the Dual 2 GHz G5 will make OS X finally be Snappy�. The reason for thinking this is that we no longer have this horrible bottleneck and as far as i'm informed the FSB is a major factor for the Aqua interface's speed. What do you think?

- Thilo

PS: A friend of mine already had his hands on a (prototype) G5 saying it really was "snappy".

javascript:smilie('

')

osiris · Aug 18, 2003, 07:40 PM

Snappy? I better be blown away, f*ck snappy.

rambo47 · 08:15 PM

Arty50 · Aug 18, 2003, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by saru boy:
Why would you need a 256MB graphics card? Every review of 256MB cards I've read states that everything else being equal, having 256MB over 128MB makes practically no difference.

Also because when Doom 3 comes out, you're going to need all the help you can get.

King Chung Huang · Aug 18, 2003, 08:13 PM

Originally posted by rambo47:
My personal, blue ribbon study on the Snappiness� of Mac OS X in relation to the processor of the machine running the OS

Isn't that image just a tad big?

rambo47 · Aug 18, 2003, 08:16 PM

Yeah, I took it down while I figure out how to get it right.

rambo47 · Aug 18, 2003, 08:24 PM

Ah, never mind. For a second I thought it was funny, but the moment is lost and it's jost not funny anymore.

Cadaver · Aug 18, 2003, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by osiris:
Snappy? I better be blown away, f*ck snappy.

For those of us crazy enough to consider a $3000 machine, it better be just as you say!!

michaelb · Aug 19, 2003, 07:37 AM

Originally posted by Cadaver:
For those of us crazy enough to consider a $3000 machine, it better be just as you say!!

"Crazy?"

How young are you?

People have been paying more than $3000 for the top Power Mac model for years and years. Computer prices have been getting lower and lower over the years.

The top model G3s and G4s were more expensive when they were new.

$2999 is actually quite reasonable for something as new as the G5. In real terms, computer enthusiasts have little reason based on cost not to want this.

SMacTech · Aug 19, 2003, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by Cadaver:
For those of us crazy enough to consider a $3000 machine, it better be just as you say!!

I was crazy about 20 years ago when I bought a 128k 8mhz Mac with a 9" black and white screen with an ImageWriter for $3000.
I am still crazy, as I will be getting a G5, but not till next year. My dual 867 runs OS X just fine.

jac · Aug 19, 2003, 09:27 AM

Rumor has it that soon to be disclosed benchmarks show that on a G5 Mac OSX has a snappicosity of 42 Zp OR MORE!!!

(For newbies: anything over 16 Zp is considered mathematically Snappy�. For ultra-newbies: Zp = zip, the standard unit for measuring snappicosity; named after Austrian metaphysicist Gert Zipsfelder who accidentily discovered snappicosity in 1657 while manually moving a large number of documents (according to legend these documents contained vital information of ridding his garden of bugs), from his desktop to a brand new filing cabinet standing against the wall. This action was perceived by Zipsfelder as being significantly faster and more efficient compared to performing the same task with his old cabinet (which was old, fitted with numerous malfunctioning locks and situated in his neighbor's attic). This gain in efficiency was considered so great that Zipsfelder deemed the new filing function to be the ultimate in snappicosity, and thusly gave it the highest value he could think of at the time: 1 squagillion Zp.

When snappicosity began to be more widely spread (early 18th century) it was considered impractical to have to deal with a fictitious value when measuring. Therefore Zipfelder's filing practice was given the value of 10 Zp. At first it was considered heresy to claim that anything could exceed 10 Zp, but when more and more astronomers claimed that anomalies in planetary rotation could only be accounted for using a 'residual snappicosity constant', people started doubting the absolute of 10.

Soon 'the race for eleven' started, costing an untold number of lives, and in 1817 a team of Botswanese snappicosity scientists were able to synthesise snappicosity of 11 Zp for 4 seconds. Since then the race to reach new levels has been conducted in a far safer manner.

Zips are, of course, measured on a (mostly) logarithmic scale. Thus endeth the history lesson.)

Even more exciting than the new G5 benchmarks are the (unverified) reports of Mac users being able to experience actual cracklinity in the (nearly) forseeable future, possibly as soon as the G6. Popitude, however, won't be attained until at least the G9.

ae77 · Aug 19, 2003, 10:46 AM

Originally posted by jac:
Rumor has it that soon to be disclosed benchmarks show that on a G5 Mac OSX has a snappicosity of 42 Zp OR MORE!!!
...

boardsurfer · Aug 19, 2003, 05:09 PM

Soon 'the race for eleven' started, costing an untold number of lives, and in 1817 a team of Botswanese snappicosity scientists were able to synthesise snappicosity of 11 Zp for 4 seconds.

Holy crap thats funny. thanks for the lesson.

osiris · Aug 19, 2003, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by Arty50:
Also because when Doom 3 comes out, you're going to need all the help you can get.

Doom 3 will probably require a 1gb video card