 |
 |
Classic faster than OS 9.1?
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Status:
Offline
|
|
I read somewhere that Classic under OSX final works faster than OS 9.1? Is that true?
Any experience?
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Boulder, CO, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Wow, I *love* the mouth-drop-open bit. That's cool. 
Um, so anyway. I'm sure you've seen bunches of threads elsewhere, by now...
I think some OS functions may be snappier in Classic, (launching apps, opening files, etc) and my experience is that Classic *is* pretty speedy, but...
I don't see any way that any application running in Classic can, in general, be faster than the same application running in a raw boot of OS 9. Here's why: Classic is a process, just like any other in OS X, and as such it must share the processor with every other process. So in OS 9, the "Classic environment" can use every available processor cycle, since it's the only thing running on the processor. In OS X, Classic must compete for CPU time with everything else running on the machine. So it gets fewer cycles, and so its cooperatively threaded applications also get fewer cycles. It just doesn't make sense.
It's probable that Apple has given Classic a very high scheduling priority, so that it will get the lion's share of CPU time if it needs it. But I maintain that any app whose performance bottlenecks are in the CPU (that is, any app that does any real work  ) cannot possibly perform better in Classic than in a raw boot of OS9.
An educated guess, not a statement of fact, of course.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2000
Location: us
Status:
Offline
|
|
One explanation I have seen for why Classic might be faster is that it has to do less than OS 9 normally has to do.
OS 9 normally has to manage the whole OS, memory, disk access etc. But now that is done by OS X, and done more efficiently, according to almost everyone. Also, OS X lets Classic think that it has tons of memory. This shifts the virtual memory work over to OS X, which does a much better job at that than OS 9.
[This message has been edited by sje789 (edited 03-10-2001).]
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Mexico City, Mexico
Status:
Offline
|
|
People might one to read an article on Mac Central where an explanation of why Classic might be faster than 9.1 is put forward. (The previous post more or less describes the same idea).
[This message has been edited by Juggler (edited 03-10-2001).]
[This message has been edited by Juggler (edited 03-10-2001).]
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top