[Green Leaf]

Many of us were stunned when Apple released the original OS X. It was slow and buggy.

With the release of OS 10.2, i was glad to see some of the familar features coming back, but i was really excited about the speed increase which did exist.

With 10.3 next in line to be released, what type of speed increases are we going to see? (If Apple was improving the speed, shouldn't it show in the newly released 10.2.3? After all, this is their latest update. Since no speed gains exist, a rational person would have to assume that they are all 'optimised' out).

Of course the simple solution is to buy a new; faster mac!
But that's an easy solution for Apple. (Many of you are conviced that our OS is fast. Why you trick yourselves into believing this, i don't know. It's slow and to prove it, use a web browser on a PC). We shouldn't have to settle for speeding thousands of $ on a new computer. DEMAND MORE and we GET MORE.

I just want to point out one more thing. This week, VPC 6 was introduced. VPC was suppose to have a 25% speed increase under 10.2.3. I and many others have found no such increase. (If you launched that program without anyone telling you that a 'speed increase was suppose to happen', you wouldn't notice anything).

What Connectix did was known as a psychology trick. They tell you that a speed increase exists. Then you actively look for it. And since you are looking so hard (and want to believe it), you actually convince yourself that it does exist. A 25% is a lot! Don't kid yourself! If it was 25% faster, you WOULD REALLY NOTICE. Maybe a 5% increase exists. But for them to be throwing out numbers like 25%...COME ON!

[xenu]

This is pretty sad.

[TC]

I have been wondering for a while what happened to Kelly Hogan/El Pre$idente and now I know.

[Green Leaf]

Can't address the issues can you?

[wadesworld]

So go buy a PC.

I use OS X on a fairly old Mac and love it.

If you don't, quit whining and go buy something you like.

Wade

[Thinine]

There are optimizations in 10.2.3. Lauch iCal or Address Book (or even OmniWeb) and you'll see that Apple was able to speed up the Quartz drawing routines a bit and it is visible in those programs. The OpenGL 1.4 that was added speeds up most 3D programs and adds the potential for further optimizations by 3D game makers. And if you want fast browsing, DON'T USE IE you bloody moron. Now, if you don't have anything productive to say, SHUT THE HELL UP!

[TC]

Originally posted by Green Leaf:
Can't address the issues can you?

The main issue is you being a troll. I can address that one.

If you want me to address your other point we have never seen major speed increases in Apple's small updates. They were saved for the 10.1 and 10.2 releases. So there is a chance of having another increase in 10.3.
Point is that OS X doesn't feel that slow anymore and I can live with the productivity and lack of system crashes.

What are you running on, 800MHz powerbook and G4 iMac? How much memory you running on both?

[BuonRotto]

I'm quite content with 10.2.3's speed. I guess HTML rendering could be improved as MacHelp is a bit pokey still as is OmniWeb with rendering complex tables. That and maybe more responsive WebDAV (at least in the Finder) and everything would be as snappy™ as I could want or need.

[TC]

Originally posted by wadesworld:
So go buy a PC.

I use OS X on a fairly old Mac and love it.

If you don't, quit whining and go buy something you like.

Wade

If it is Kelly Hogan he already has a PC which he used to describe as his multimedia system (using a shìtty old ibm 21" monitor). Then he admitted it was in his cupboard, guess he got better performance when he kept it in a warm place.

[Adam Betts]

Report Trolling

[CheesePuff]

I'm on a Power Mac G4 at 800 MHz that now costs $1000 (or $1100 refurbished). It's quite fast running OS X 10.1 and 10.2. Mac OS X 10.2.3 I am convinced has brought new speed after upgrading, and its nearly as fast as OS 9.

But who the hell cares when all I can do is one task on OS 9, but with OS X I can do 10 things at once. When I had to open IE 5 in OS 9, it took about 4 seconds or so, and all I could do is sit there and watch it open.

[macmike42]

BURN THE TROLL!!!

Note: If you burn the troll with acid, it won't regenerate (or so it says in my Dungeon Master's Guide).

[TC]

Originally posted by Adam Betts:
Report Trolling

Yeah but it says this:
This is ONLY to be used to report spam, advertising messages, and problematic (harassment, fighting, or rude) posts.

He is just annoying, none of the above.

[piracy]

You have no idea how OS development works, do you Green Leaf? (I'm referring to your backward logic: "10.2.3 is the latest release of Mac OS X, and I, personally, don't think it's faster than 10.2.x, ergo, Mac OS X is as fast as it will get.")

Mac OS X is by no means "optimized out". Second, VPC 6 does experience significant speed gains when paired with 10.2.3 (vs. VPC 5.x with Mac OS X pre-10.2.3).

But keep trolling; it's amusing.

[Green Leaf]

Did i ruffle your feathers?
I'm stating the issues! Plain and simple!

I remember when you all claimed that OS 10.0 was FAST!
and i posted messages saying it was slow.

It wasn't until OS 10.1 or 10.2 that you guys ADMITTED that OS 10.0 was SLOW

why is that?

why were you in such denial?
and then why did you have acceptance later on?

where you really blind?
or just pretending like you are now?

[bgmccollum]

Originally posted by CheesePuff:
I'm on a Power Mac G4 at 800 MHz that now costs $1000 (or $1100 refurbished). It's quite fast running OS X 10.1 and 10.2. Mac OS X 10.2.3 I am convinced has brought new speed after upgrading, and its nearly as fast as OS 9.

But who the hell cares when all I can do is one task on OS 9, but with OS X I can do 10 things at once. When I had to open IE 5 in OS 9, it took about 4 seconds or so, and all I could do is sit there and watch it open.

wow, 4 seconds burned while opening an app. think of all the miliseconds wasted evey time you minimize a window, or click a menu. that surely adds up to more than 4 seconds...proof is in the pudding...


bg

[Emotionally Fragile Luke]

Originally posted by Green Leaf:
I just want to point out one more thing. This week, VPC 6 was introduced. VPC was suppose to have a 25% speed increase under 10.2.3. I and many others have found no such increase. (If you launched that program without anyone telling you that a 'speed increase was suppose to happen', you wouldn't notice anything).

What Connectix did was known as a psychology trick. They tell you that a speed increase exists. Then you actively look for it. And since you are looking so hard (and want to believe it), you actually convince yourself that it does exist. A 25% is a lot! Don't kid yourself! If it was 25% faster, you WOULD REALLY NOTICE. Maybe a 5% increase exists. But for them to be throwing out numbers like 25%...COME ON!

I just want to point out that you are superhuman. First if you can really detect a 5% speed increase in anything then you are above all other humans on the planet who have a hard time noticing anything less then 20% speed differences.

Also VPC will bring UP TO 25% speed increases IF your computer supports Quartz Extreme.

P.S. troll.

[JLL]

Originally posted by Green Leaf:
Many of us were stunned when Apple released the original OS X. It was slow and buggy.

With the release of OS 10.2, i was glad to see some of the familar features coming back, but i was really excited about the speed increase which did exist.

With 10.3 next in line to be released, what type of speed increases are we going to see? (If Apple was improving the speed, shouldn't it show in the newly released 10.2.3? After all, this is their latest update. Since no speed gains exist, a rational person would have to assume that they are all 'optimised' out).

Of course the simple solution is to buy a new; faster mac!
But that's an easy solution for Apple. (Many of you are conviced that our OS is fast. Why you trick yourselves into believing this, i don't know. It's slow and to prove it, use a web browser on a PC). We shouldn't have to settle for speeding thousands of $ on a new computer. DEMAND MORE and we GET MORE.

I just want to point out one more thing. This week, VPC 6 was introduced. VPC was suppose to have a 25% speed increase under 10.2.3. I and many others have found no such increase. (If you launched that program without anyone telling you that a 'speed increase was suppose to happen', you wouldn't notice anything).

What Connectix did was known as a psychology trick. They tell you that a speed increase exists. Then you actively look for it. And since you are looking so hard (and want to believe it), you actually convince yourself that it does exist. A 25% is a lot! Don't kid yourself! If it was 25% faster, you WOULD REALLY NOTICE. Maybe a 5% increase exists. But for them to be throwing out numbers like 25%...COME ON!

Optimised for your pleasure

[libraryguy]

Originally posted by TC:


The main issue is you being a troll. I can address that one.

If you want me to address your other point we have never seen major speed increases in Apple's small updates. They were saved for the 10.1 and 10.2 releases. So there is a chance of having another increase in 10.3.
Point is that OS X doesn't feel that slow anymore and I can live with the productivity and lack of system crashes.

What are you running on, 800MHz powerbook and G4 iMac? How much memory you running on both?

Maybe he is a troll and maybe not. But, just because someone has a complaint about Mac OSX doesn't make them a troll. I'm used to Mac OSX and so I don't really think it's slow. But, sometimes when I drop by my friends house and use his computer (which run win xp) I am amazed and how much faster it is...especially browsing the web...I literally couldn't believe how fast pages loaded! I've used every browser out there and although some of them are faster...they often have other problems that make them a pain to use. In the OS itself I see the BBOD a lot. Some times, just opening a folder will bring it up. I've reinstalled 10.2 twice thinking that maybe something else was wrong. My computer also supports quartz extreme but I'm not sure I'm seeing any benefits. I love Mac OS X, I think it's stable and very well diesigned. I love the iApps and the control and integration apple has over their hardware and software. I Love the Gui. I enjoy the look and feel of the OS as well. So, NO I won't go buy a pc because I have far worse things to say about them. However, that doesn't meen that I can't complain about some of the few bad experiences i have with the Mac OS. I have owened three macs in the 6 years since I switch and have convinced my brother, sister (now on her 2nd iMac), as well as my dad to all switch. I've invested a great deal of money in Apple and have convinced other to do so as well so I feel justified in complaining when something isn't quit right. Okay, I'm done. Flame away.

[macmike42]

Originally posted by Green Leaf:
Did i ruffle your feathers?
I'm stating the issues! Plain and simple!

I remember when you all claimed that OS 10.0 was FAST!
and i posted messages saying it was slow.

It wasn't until OS 10.1 or 10.2 that you guys ADMITTED that OS 10.0 was SLOW

why is that?

why were you in such denial?
and then why did you have acceptance later on?

where you really blind?
or just pretending like you are now?

Err, I not only "admitted" that 10.0 was slow, I switched to Debian for 8 months. Talk about fast! Woo! Debian is fast! So fast, that it only took me 8 months to get all my hardware working. Man could I recompile my broken-ass kernel into another broken-ass kernel quickly. Woo! Yeah! Fast! Snappy™ even! Fast isn't everything, numbnuts.

Are you telling me that you *cannot* see the speed increase in 10.0->10.1->10.2? If you *can* (which you seem to "admit"), then you have obviously been trolling since the start of this thread. If you *can't*, well, then it is you, my dear cave-dwelling friend, who is in fact blind.

Now, read your *own* post again (the one I quoted). Do you notice how each question that you ask is rhetorical? If you don't think they are rhetorical, pick one question which you asked in a genuine fashion, without assuming that you already know "The Truth". Hmm, can't do it? Well, you just defined rhetorical, chump.

Are you in denial that you are a troll?

Do you realize that you are a *poor* troll?

libraryguy - you have been trolled! No one is calling Green Leaf a troll because he has valid complaints about OS X. We are calling Green Leaf a troll because a) he is a known troll and b) he is not complaining about OS X's speed, he is claiming that there has not yet been "A speed increase that we can actually see", then not only claims that 10.2 is much faster than 10.0, but also has the audacity to claim that he can "see" a 5% speed increase in Virtual PC, which is far too miniscule an amount to be noticed by human perception or to be within the realm of statistical signifigance.

[JLL]

Originally posted by Green Leaf:
…and i posted messages saying it was slow.

It wasn't until OS 10.1 or 10.2 that you guys ADMITTED that OS 10.0 was SLOW

And how could you post messages about 10.0 when you registered in June this year?

Either you weren't here when 10.0 was the new kid on the block, or you were posting under another name.

Care to come forward and reveal the login names you've been using on this board?

[TC]

Originally posted by Green Leaf:
I remember when you all claimed that OS 10.0 was FAST!
and i posted messages saying it was slow.

It wasn't until OS 10.1 or 10.2 that you guys ADMITTED that OS 10.0 was SLOW

Accoding to the info to the left of your post you registered in June 2002, so how the feck could you have been around here when OS X was released?

If you were here you would know that everyone was pìssed off that 10.0 really was the final release. There where lots and lots of threads just before the release talking about the speed increases we would see when Apple took out the debug code. If you where really here when it happened you would remember all this stuff. 10.0 was slow but 10.1 made things a lot better, 10.2 made it much better for people with the right hardware.

OS X isn't perfect and nobody tries to say it is, just that most people on this forum prefer OS X in its current form over OS 9 (cipher exlcuded) or any flavour of Windows.

At the end of the day we don't work for Apple and it isn't up to us to convince you that OS X is perfect. It's a free world and if you don't like OS X then go an use a PC.

[libraryguy]

Originally posted by TC:


The main issue is you being a troll. I can address that one.

If you want me to address your other point we have never seen major speed increases in Apple's small updates. They were saved for the 10.1 and 10.2 releases. So there is a chance of having another increase in 10.3.
Point is that OS X doesn't feel that slow anymore and I can live with the productivity and lack of system crashes.

What are you running on, 800MHz powerbook and G4 iMac? How much memory you running on both?

Maybe he is a troll and maybe not. But, just because someone has a complaint about Mac OSX doesn't make them a troll. I'm used to Mac OSX and so I don't really think it's slow. But, sometimes when I drop by my friends house and use his computer (which run win xp) I am amazed and how much faster it is...especially browsing the web...I literally couldn't believe how fast pages loaded! I've used every browser out there and although some of them are faster...they often have other problems that make them a pain to use. In the OS itself I see the BBOD a lot. Some times, just opening a folder will bring it up. I've reinstalled 10.2 twice thinking that maybe something else was wrong. My computer also supports quartz extreme but I'm not sure I'm seeing any benefits. I love Mac OS X, I think it's stable and very well diesigned. I love the iApps and the control and integration apple has over their hardware and software. I Love the Gui. I enjoy the look and feel of the OS as well. So, NO I won't go buy a pc because I have far worse things to say about them. However, that doesn't meen that I can't complain about some of the few bad experiences i have with the Mac OS. I have owened three macs in the 6 years since I switch and have convinced my brother, sister (now on her 2nd iMac), as well as my dad to all switch. I've invested a great deal of money in Apple and have convinced other to do so as well so I feel justified in complaining when something isn't quit right. Okay, I'm done. Flame away.

[TC]

Originally posted by libraryguy:
I've invested a great deal of money in Apple and have convinced other to do so as well so I feel justified in complaining when something isn't quit right. Okay, I'm done. Flame away.

So you agree with him that since we saw no significant speed increase in 10.2.3 that Apple has finished optimizing OS X?

Open discussion about the faults with OS X is one thing, blatant trolling is another.

If this guy is Kelly Hogan then you missed the mother of all Trolling when he got upset because Apple wouldn't support old video cards with Quartz Extreme. After been told in great detail why it wasn't possible his response was to post images taking the pìss of people who had proved him wrong. I have never seen any thread where Kelly Hogan/El Pre$idente/Green Leaf have ever admitted they might have got something wrong.

[mitchell_pgh]

The sad truth is, Apple will probably not make OS X all that much faster with 10.3 or whatever else they make. I think they have it going as fast as it will go for the most part. With time, they will iron out some of the bump and snage...

Why should they optimize any more. Faster CPUs are coming, and that's all that matters. The base is all here (well, most of it is) so things are only going to get faster with time (hardware wise)

They have OS X at the OK point (I love Apple, but sometimes the beachball drives me nuts when I'm doing something as simple as opening a folder... I'll burn CDs, watch a DVD, work in Photoshop, Illustrator and Quark via Classic, and something as dump as launching iTunes will bring up the ball for a good 10+ seconds...)

OS X is strange in that some things are MUCH faster (networking, Web server etc.) while other things are dogs... Oh well..

I can't wait for 10.3 and IBM 970 chips!!!

[MadBrowser]

There is always more optimization that can be done...

You shouldn't expect to see a lot of major speed ups in minor releases basically because they have a shorter development and testing cycle... They don't have the time to do all the QA required for optimizations that touch many different system components...

I would expect to see the OS get more and more optimized as time goes on and it is easier to for Apple to see where the most important optimizations need to go...

Drivers will improve, math will get faster, the kernel will be optimized, etc... This stuff is *hard* and takes *time*...

[JLL]

Originally posted by MadBrowser:
There is always more optimization that can be done...

Plus most Carbon apps aren't even optimized for Mac OS X yet.

This is from another board:

Currently the biggest efficiency issue in the GUI, as far as I know, is that many applications written in Carbon are still polling for events. This means they ask the system for processing time continuously, and when they get it they check to see if any GUI events have arrived plus do whatever housekeeping they need to. This was the MacOS 1.x - 9.x way of doing things. The proper way to do this stuff in a preemptive multitasking OS is to ask the OS to tell you when events have arrived so that the OS can ignore your application until the user actually does something. This doesn't matter as much for the application in the foreground since that's the one the user is actively working with, but applications in the background can use up a noticable amount of time just figuring out that they don't have to do anything. As more applications are updated this will get better... although the set I tend to use all the time are Cocoa based and don't have this problem. There are other things that the applications can do to eliminate those annoying pauses and wait times, but many developers just don't bother. Some are Apple's fault, many aren't.

[Emotionally Fragile Luke]

OK so how come all Cocoa apps are slow as Dawgs and Carbon ones are all faster?

iCal = Dog
iPhoto = Dog
Transmit 2 = Dog
OmniWeb =Dog

Bow wow wow!

[JLL]

Originally posted by Emotionally Fragile Luke:
OK so how come all Cocoa apps are slow as Dawgs and Carbon ones are all faster?

iCal = Dog
iPhoto = Dog
Transmit 2 = Dog
OmniWeb =Dog

Bow wow wow!

Didn't notice the Plus did we?

And there are only four Cocoa apps?

[suhail]

I do not know if anyone else realized, but VPC 5 is faster on 10.2.3, it actually became useable.
Apparantly you do not need VPC 6 to see the speed gains.

[Emotionally Fragile Luke]

Originally posted by JLL:


Didn't notice the Plus did we?

And there are only four Cocoa apps?

Those are the 4 most used (for most people) and they make Cocoa look slow as all hell. I wish it wasn't true but I can't argue with the slowness I am seeing from all of them.

When Transmit as Carbon it was much faster.

[macmike42]

Originally posted by Emotionally Fragile Luke:
Those are the 4 most used (for most people) and they make Cocoa look slow as all hell. I wish it wasn't true but I can't argue with the slowness I am seeing from all of them.

When Transmit as Carbon it was much faster.

Can you please prefix your *opinions* as such. My most frequently used Cocoa apps are Chimera, Mail, Project Builder, and LaunchBar, all of which are extremely fast, especially compared to my most frequently used Carbon apps: Photoshop and Microsoft Word.

[Developer]

Originally posted by macmike42:
Project Builder

CodeWarrior is much faster

It's no secret that Cocoa isn't designed for for maximal execution speed, but for maximal development speed - which is fine. You can create a decent Cocoa application much easier than a decent Carbon application; but if you'd like to write something with maximum performance you might run into the problem that lots of code isn't under your control (see OmniGroup who now have to rewrite a lot of stuff for OmniWeb 5 to remove dependencies from default Cocoa classes).

[Emotionally Fragile Luke]

Originally posted by macmike42:
Can you please prefix your *opinions* as such. My most frequently used Cocoa apps are Chimera, Mail, Project Builder, and LaunchBar, all of which are extremely fast, especially compared to my most frequently used Carbon apps: Photoshop and Microsoft Word.

Sorry, my stats must be off. Can you see yours?

[besson3c]

Maybe he is a troll and maybe not. But, just because someone has a complaint about Mac OSX doesn't make them a troll. I'm used to Mac OSX and so I don't really think it's slow. But, sometimes when I drop by my friends house and use his computer (which run win xp) I am amazed and how much faster it is...especially browsing the web...I literally couldn't believe how fast pages loaded! I've used every browser out there and although some of them are faster...they often have other problems that make them a pain to use. In the OS itself I see the BBOD a lot. Some times, just opening a folder will bring it up. I've reinstalled 10.2 twice thinking that maybe something else was wrong. My computer also supports quartz extreme but I'm not sure I'm seeing any benefits. I love Mac OS X, I think it's stable and very well diesigned. I love the iApps and the control and integration apple has over their hardware and software. I Love the Gui. I enjoy the look and feel of the OS as well. So, NO I won't go buy a pc because I have far worse things to say about them. However, that doesn't meen that I can't complain about some of the few bad experiences i have with the Mac OS. I have owened three macs in the 6 years since I switch and have convinced my brother, sister (now on her 2nd iMac), as well as my dad to all switch. I've invested a great deal of money in Apple and have convinced other to do so as well so I feel justified in complaining when something isn't quit right. Okay, I'm done. Flame away.

These are all really fair comments. One of the reasons why I think people get frustrated with Kelly Hogan is because we've had this conversation 392048023948092348092384092384092348 times in here. It's just getting old.

Every day I can log in here and expect to see:

Somebody: "I find OS X slow on my 1Ghz G4"

Somebody else: "I really find it usable on my B&W G3. Have you tried adding RAM and using a different web browser?"

Somebody: "OS 9 was faster"

Somebody else: "yeah, but it crashed frequently, and was only good at doing one thing at a time. OS X is the future"

It doesn't bother me when I see new people in here with these comments, but Kelly has seen them come and go and he KNOWS that we've had this conversation before, and we know what his opinion is.

The funny thing is, even though these conversations don't serve any educational purpose for me like several others have, they are intriguing in an odd sort of way.

[beb]

This is going to sound troll-like. Oh well...

I'm far more interested in seeing what Apple will do with Marklar. (the not-so-secret anymore OS X intel port) Assuming that anything related to software is technically feasable. -I'm sick of hearing arguements that this won't work, that won't work, what will work? Assuming that it can be done. Why doesn't Apple simply release it?

I went to a Gateway store today. What got me is not that I'm particually fond of cows or whatever. What got me was how nice and helpful those people were. These folks were more than happy to build me a pc with whatever I asked for -and while I've always thought Windows was a crappy OS -I do not think that the computer that those folks would have built for me is crappy or shoddy or anything else than the best they could deliver. These folks wold have no problem selling me a PC with OS X on it instead of Windows. And that's where to attack. Get Steve on his Gulfstream V and fly out to every major PC CEO, from Carly to Waitt to incentivize the hell out of the vendors to sell PCs running OS X. -To at least offer it as an option.

I'm pretty damn certain, that if Apple were to release X for intel it would completely destroy the powermac and part of the imac lineup. Yet this last SEC filing tells us all that we need to know. In the 1990s the powermac line made up more than 40% sales. Today, it's less than 25%. That number will dwindle even further no matter how great the 970 is.

I have complete faith in whatever digital devices Apple produces will be a success of some order. But now instead of just thinking different, it's time to go about the business of making money differently. Apple has far more practically untapped jewels such as QuickTime, Gigawire, AppleScript, xServe with 970s, and a zillion other things to make money off of.

It is risky, it would require a ton of work, but... oh, nevermind. I like my iMac. It has crappy speakers but I like it a lot.

[Emotionally Fragile Luke]

Originally posted by beb:

I went to a Gateway store today. What got me is not that I'm particually fond of cows or whatever. What got me was how nice and helpful those people were. These folks were more than happy to build me a pc with whatever I asked for

That is because they are about 6 months from going bankrupt. Did they also rub your feet while you waited?

[Millennium]

First, Green Leaf, kindly get your terminology right. What OSX lacks is responsiveness, not speed. Or, if you want, you can use the dreaded S word, "snappiness", instead. This is not a case of "playing the lawyer", as it were; speed and responsiveness are related, but they are still two very different things, and they must be handled differently.

Now, will Panther have noticeable responsivity gains? Probably. However, your original post would seem to indicate that you seem to have little if any clue of how the software development process works.

Taking only the PowerPC port into account, there are two major branches of the OSX source code at the moment. I will use Mozilla's names for the corresponding branches here, but Apple might call them something else.

The first branch of the code, we will call, oddly enough, the branch. This is the Jaguar codebase. The only stuff which goes in here, more or less, are bugfixes and "safe" optimizations ("safe" being defined as "doable without risking raising bugs in other areas"). This codebase is kept as stable as possible, because 10.2 was itself considered stable.

The other branch of the code is the trunk. This is destined to become Panther. Riskier things, like completely new features and more dangerous optimizations, are put into this codebase, because there is much more time to iron out the bugs. Also, of course, all of the code changes to the branch are merged into the trunk, and occasionally (very occasionally) a change from the Panther codebase might be backported to Jaguar if it is deemed important enough to risk destabilizing the codebase or safe enough that it can be merged in with no risk. When Panther is released, this trunk will become the new branch, and a new trunk will be started for whatever comes next.

It is possible that Apple might maintain branches for Puma (10.1), Bagheera (10.1 Server) and Cheetah (10.0), but that is doubtful at this stage. The x86 codebase is probably nothing more than a port of the trunk (since they haven't released it, there's no need to keep a branch).

And finally, why doesn't Apple release their x86 port? Probably for the same reason they killed the clones: Apple's own sales would be cannibalized. Not only that, but in the process, the Mac user experience would likely be shot completely to hell, because of the inferior hardware standardization common to x86 machines. Better for Apple to keep working on the superior architecture.

But man, if only they would learn to price competitively...

[beb]

Did they also rub your feet while you waited?

-Uh no. But I thought the redhead wearing faded bluejeans with one of those silvery belts had a great ass.

[wadesworld]

Did i ruffle your feathers?
I'm stating the issues! Plain and simple!

Once again, why are you even here?

You think OS X is too slow and a PC is much faster.

Why are you here?

Wade

[bgmccollum]

Originally posted by besson3c:


These are all really fair comments. One of the reasons why I think people get frustrated with Kelly Hogan is because we've had this conversation 392048023948092348092384092384092348 times in here. It's just getting old.

Every day I can log in here and expect to see:

Somebody: "I find OS X slow on my 1Ghz G4"

Somebody else: "I really find it usable on my B&W G3. Have you tried adding RAM and using a different web browser?"

not so. i have a blue g3 with a GIG of ram. i could literally go take a **** and photoshop STILL wouldn't have finished launching...and yes, i have tried all the browsers with it. moot point.

Somebody: "OS 9 was faster"

Somebody else: "yeah, but it crashed frequently, and was only good at doing one thing at a time. OS X is the future"

again not so. daily i run several processor intensive apps in os9 and it rarely ever crashes. these include photohsop, illustrator, golive, and imageready. on top of those i have open IE, netscape, transmit, macssh, AIM, entourage and a few other utils here and there. and the system is rock solid.

It doesn't bother me when I see new people in here with these comments, but Kelly has seen them come and go and he KNOWS that we've had this conversation before, and we know what his opinion is.

The funny thing is, even though these conversations don't serve any educational purpose for me like several others have, they are intriguing in an odd sort of way.

os x is unresponsive
os x is a ram hog.
os x is a processor hog.
os x has unnecessary GUI effects. it like having a ****lng circus follow you around all day.

people are too caught up in the "oohs and aahs" of osx and aqua, and not realizing the serious flaws of this operating system. granted, 90% of the people on these forums dont do shlt with their computers except listen to music, surf the web, chat, and write email.

angry designer...

[BuonRotto]

Perhaps my experience is entirely unique, and I live in a vacuum with special builds of Mac OS that no one else has, but I think I should restate my previous comment to read that OS x is not only acceptably fast, it is very fast on my "piddly" iMac LCD 700 MHz.

os x is unresponsive
os x is a ram hog.
os x is a processor hog.

I find all of these things 100% wrong in my experience. (I'm leaving out the last "unnecessary GUI effects" one because it is more subjective however I think it is also wrong. If I went by the "bare bones" criteria in my computer interfaces, I'd be using a green and black monitors and text only display and input. I like having a computer with a personality too, and most -- let's be reasonable, shall we? -- GUI effects are useful feedback for the user.)

I also use tons of Cocoa apps, most of my everyday apps are Cocoa, and I can tell you they are not slow. I'm not too stubborn to say that iCal and iPhoto were slow, and iCal still is half a beat behind me when I switch calendar types in 10.2.3, but obviously this update improved things for those apps nicely. Everything else has been nothing short of zippy™ or snappy™ or whatever silly term you prefer. Now, those crappy Adobe and Macromedia apps may make you think differently about the performance of OS X (PS Elements is the first app from these guys to perform well in the OS), but all these mom-and-pop shops seem to produce far better-performing and in many cases better-featured apps with better interfaces than these 800 lbs. gorillas. It is clearly a develop issue, not an OS one. I use Stone Studio, TIFFany, and SketchUp on a regular basis, so these are not "trinket" apps either. If your only experience in OS X is with MS, Adobe and Macromedia, then I can see why you might think OS X is a stinker.

Once again, I suppose anything is possible and you can make OS X "faster," but I won't notice much except in the areas I mentioned above (iCal, WebDAV and HTML/Mac Help).

It never ceases to maze me how people just fall into one extreme or the other. OS X could get faster in some areas, and it's perfectly fast in many too. See? It doesn't have to be a bunch of blanket statements in the attempt to sound more -- what? Authoritative? Emphatic? Juvenile? Nothing is perfect, everything can be improved, and that does not mean that it sucks. Imagine it!

Good day, good evening and good night.

[bgmccollum]

a conversation between steve jobs and phil schiller about low cpu sales.

phil: steve, the figures are in. PM G4 sales are in fact down. this trend follow OS X sales and adoption rates as well.

steve: hmm...what should we do?

phil: shlt i dont know.

steve: why arent people getting new machines?

phil: cause their old machines work just fine. we made some really good shlt back in the day.

steve: ya, we sure did. those yose machines were top notch.

phil: ya...almost brings a tear to my eye.

steve: well, why arent people moving to OS X? i mean, we got some really cool names for all this useless technology. like aqua, quartz, and what-the-***-not. plus, we have all this lickable GUI shlt, and windows fly all the *** around the screen. people should be eating this up.

phil: well, it seems that since we made such great computers back in the day, and OS 9 was so damn fast on those machines, people are just refusing to upgrade to OS X because it is so slow.

steve: well genius, what should we do?

phil: *** if i know....

steve: i got it!

phil: well lets hear it hippie...

steve: ok, here is the plan. it begins with a new technology called quartz extreme. we offload the GUI processing to the graphics card, freeing up the processor. here is the catch. we make quartz extreme only work on the fastest machines.

phil: and how is that going to help us?

steve: hear me out...some people are bearing with the slowness of OS X, right?

phil: yes.

steve: so, we make the fastest computers faster, and the slower computers get no benefit from quartz extreme. then, over time, we add more and more GUI effects. this will never hurt the newer machines, but will slowly kill all the older machines.

phil: oh, i get it now.

steve: yes, we develop OS X to the point where only new machines can cope with OS X.

phil: whats is to prevent people from just going back to OS 9, cause it will always be faster.

steve: we just drop OS 9 booting on these new machines.

phil: holy shlt steve, you're a genius.

steve: i know.

phil: planned obseleting of machines. man i love you.

steve: back off homo.

phil: sorry.

[piracy]

Originally posted by bgmccollum:
bunch of **** deleted

http://homepage.mac.com/stattenf/FutureOfMacOS9/

[bgmccollum]

Originally posted by piracy:


You know, the only people who are still bitching about OS X are graphic artists and web designers...

I may just be in a bad mood right now, but I really wish you would shut the f*ck up, get off the platform, and stop your constant trolling. If you want to go back to the ancient pile of sh*t OS 9 is, be my guest. And if you want to go to Windows, don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

]

so as a web developer/graphic designer (apples bread and butter), we should just be ignored and left in the dust?

sure as hell makes a lot of sense to me...

[bgmccollum]

how is an OS dead if a whole industry relies on it? hmmm?

[Hi I'm Ben]

You're all so silly! LOL
Macheads bug me.
I can't wait till the next update so someone can tell me it's "Snappier" again
every time people go "I think it's quicker!" LOL

Then some troll comes along and he's gonna tell me he's going to buy a windows machine.... i guess he's just attention seeking.
i got a windows machine. it runs great i love it.

i like my mac too.
i like them the same. I Guess i'm one of those "pc drones" or maybe i'm just opened minded?

[neoTony]

*cough*TROLL*cough*OS9 = Win 98

People still use it, but they're missing out on some of the fantastic features of the newer operating systems.

I work as a HI designer in an online application development team, and I made the switch to Mac OS X when 10.2 came out - it has been nothing short of a godsend! My workflow has been sped up 3 times over. My workplace uses WebDAV on it's webservers, and Mac OS X's built-in webDAV mounting is just great. Don't even get me started on being able to compile UNIX programs - they have saved at least five large projects of mine thus far

And yes, ( this is the most common complaint from designers, etc.) Photoshop is perceptually slower from a UI perspective, but while photoshop is saving a large file or applying a filter, I can still read my mail, author HTML pages, browse the web, etc. Anybody who believes that a OS9 has a future needs to reassess just how much they understand about Mac OS X and start thinking about refocussing their skill set...

hehe, maybe OS9 users just enjoy wasting time watching their computer spend all it's CPU time on one task?? Less work...
*cough*TROLL*cough*

[TheIceMan]

Originally posted by Millennium:
First, Green Leaf, kindly get your terminology right. What OSX lacks is responsiveness, not speed. Or, if you want, you can use the dreaded S word, "snappiness", instead. This is not a case of "playing the lawyer", as it were; speed and responsiveness are related, but they are still two very different things, and they must be handled differently.

Now, will Panther have noticeable responsivity gains? Probably. However, your original post would seem to indicate that you seem to have little if any clue of how the software development process works.

Taking only the PowerPC port into account, there are two major branches of the OSX source code at the moment. I will use Mozilla's names for the corresponding branches here, but Apple might call them something else.

The first branch of the code, we will call, oddly enough, the branch. This is the Jaguar codebase. The only stuff which goes in here, more or less, are bugfixes and "safe" optimizations ("safe" being defined as "doable without risking raising bugs in other areas"). This codebase is kept as stable as possible, because 10.2 was itself considered stable.

The other branch of the code is the trunk. This is destined to become Panther. Riskier things, like completely new features and more dangerous optimizations, are put into this codebase, because there is much more time to iron out the bugs. Also, of course, all of the code changes to the branch are merged into the trunk, and occasionally (very occasionally) a change from the Panther codebase might be backported to Jaguar if it is deemed important enough to risk destabilizing the codebase or safe enough that it can be merged in with no risk. When Panther is released, this trunk will become the new branch, and a new trunk will be started for whatever comes next.

It is possible that Apple might maintain branches for Puma (10.1), Bagheera (10.1 Server) and Cheetah (10.0), but that is doubtful at this stage. The x86 codebase is probably nothing more than a port of the trunk (since they haven't released it, there's no need to keep a branch).

And finally, why doesn't Apple release their x86 port? Probably for the same reason they killed the clones: Apple's own sales would be cannibalized. Not only that, but in the process, the Mac user experience would likely be shot completely to hell, because of the inferior hardware standardization common to x86 machines. Better for Apple to keep working on the superior architecture.

But man, if only they would learn to price competitively...

Yes, price it better. Man, I wanna be a moderator when I grow up.=> Seriously, nice summary Millenium. As for bgmccollum, i can feel the anger and fire coming from san antonio! Goodness dude. Truth is, Apple (like Microsoft) is a business. They are going to try to get people to buy their stuff by making it look nice (eye-candy). I don't like Steve Jobs any more than I like Bill Gates. They're in business to make money. America thrives on the competitive market. Whoever has the coolest gadget wins. Unfortunately, there are going to be people who may be/will be left out. Look at our economy. Heck, I've been looking for work for the past few months (not long compared to most, but it's not fun) and I don't work in the computer or business fields. Not everyone will be happy.

[bgmccollum]

Originally posted by neoTony:
*cough*TROLL*cough*OS9 = Win 98

People still use it, but they're missing out on some of the fantastic features of the newer operating systems.

I work as a HI designer in an online application development team, and I made the switch to Mac OS X when 10.2 came out - it has been nothing short of a godsend! My workflow has been sped up 3 times over. My workplace uses WebDAV on it's webservers, and Mac OS X's built-in webDAV mounting is just great. Don't even get me started on being able to compile UNIX programs - they have saved at least five large projects of mine thus far

And yes, ( this is the most common complaint from designers, etc.) Photoshop is perceptually slower from a UI perspective, but while photoshop is saving a large file or applying a filter, I can still read my mail, author HTML pages, browse the web, etc. Anybody who believes that a OS9 has a future needs to reassess just how much they understand about Mac OS X and start thinking about refocussing their skill set...

hehe, maybe OS9 users just enjoy wasting time watching their computer spend all it's CPU time on one task?? Less work...
*cough*TROLL*cough*

thats funny. i must have a special "OS X Feature Enabled" version of OS 9, because while im saving a photoshop file, or running a filter, i too can read my mail and surf the web...

and it aint too bad down here in san antonio, about 60°-70° during the day...


bg