[gorgonzola]

Look what I found when poking around the system directories in /private (under 4P12/10.0.2):

/private/Drivers/ppc/IONDRV.config/ATYRagePro_ndrv

I think this means that they're at least working on it, and that full Rage Pro support should come in a matter of months. Does anybody actually know what that file is, though? It's not the actual driver, I don't think...

------------------
the oddball newsletter
------------------
it's only after you lose everything that you're free to do anything

[gorgonzola]

So, with all the bitching everyone (including me) did last week, no one cares about the fact that Rage Pro support is very likely coming despite what we thought?!

Whatever...

------------------
the oddball newsletter
------------------
it's only after you lose everything that you're free to do anything

[I'mDaMac]

Originally posted by gorgonzola:
So, with all the bitching everyone (including me) did last week, no one cares about the fact that Rage Pro support is very likely coming despite what we thought?!

Whatever...

This indeed may be good news for us with RagePro chips in our machines but I'll believe it when I see it. Until then I'm still skeptical. I noticed this in the ATIDriverUpdate.plist as well:

<key>ATY,Version</key>
<string>1.7f3</string>
<key>IONDRVList</key> <array>
<string>ATY,Rage128P2ks</string>
<string>ATY,Rage128k</string>
<string>ATY,Rage128Pk</string>
<string>ATY,Rage128Pd</string>
<string>ATY,Rage128Ps</string>
<string>ATY,RageM3p</string>
<string>ATY,RageM3p1</string>
<string>ATY,RageM3p12</string>
<string>ATY,mach64_3DU</string>
<string>ATY,mach64_3DUPro</string>
<string>ATY,RageLTPro</string>
<string>ATY,264LTPro</string>
<string>ATY,264LT-G</string>
<string>ATY,mach64</string>
</array></dict></plist>

A good sign maybe but still no .kext files for the RagePro as yet. I'm hoping sooner than later but will reserve any celebration until they actually appear.

[This message has been edited by gorgonzola (edited 05-04-2001).]

[Group51]

Sorry Gorgonzola, I only just saw this.

Woohoo! I hope it comes quickly, becuase I just ugraded to 256MB, after reading that was the 'sweet spot' and got 10.0.2 after people were saying 'oh, I can really see the difference'; I don't see much difference...apart from app launch time. Omni is down to about 20 bounces from 70-80, and IE...well, I can't be bothered with that anymore.

I could almost convince myself that the text is sharper. But that would be too much sleep right? I wonder though, why do I like Classic so much , but hate booting back into OS 9?

[Drizzt]

That's great ;o)

With that I believe my iBook will get graphic speeds near MacOS 9..

I remmeber something I head on MacAddict's CDs a couple of year ago...

"As Gill Amelio says : "Stay with the Mac""

Now I'll really feel it's true power ;o)

[JLL]

Originally posted by Group51:
I could almost convince myself that the text is sharper. But that would be too much sleep right?

No, something definitely happened with the anti-aliasing in 10.0.2.

------------------
JLL

[Skywalkers new Hand]

Originally posted by Group51:
Omni is down to about 20 bounces from 70-80, and IE...well, I can't be bothered with that anymore.

Say what? 70-80??? What type of computer do you have?
-------------------

[Ghoser777]

Originally posted by Skywalkers new Hand:
Say what? 70-80??? What type of computer do you have?

I think he was exaggerating, but if ur low on ram and have a sub 333 processor, it's possible. I only have 64Megs of ram and 333 MHz G3, and it takes 10 bounces (use to be 20+ before OSX 1.0.2).

F-bacher

[Group51]

Originally posted by Ghoser777:
I think he was exaggerating, but if ur low on ram and have a sub 333 processor, it's possible. I only have 64Megs of ram and 333 MHz G3, and it takes 10 bounces (use to be 20+ before OSX 1.0.2).

F-bacher

No, I actually, sat down and counted about 80 bounces before the Omniweb window came up (4k78/4l13). I know this is a somewhat different bounce-count to what I have seen elsewhere, and I wonder if I need to do a sort of clean install of Omniweb. I dragged the app to the trash, but is that enough?

Now, in 10.0.2, I just counted it and it is 17 bounces. This is acceptable. Once the actual web browsing is fast enough that I don't need Classic browsers, I will pay for it.

I think...this is my 100th post. Gosh, and I don't even know what UBB is!

Oh yeah, I have Lombard 333, 256 MB (just upgraded from 192), and thankfully, no freezing problems.

[This message has been edited by Group51 (edited 05-04-2001).]

[Skywalkers new Hand]

Originally posted by Group51:
Now, in 10.0.2, I just counted it and it is 17 bounces. This is acceptable. Once the actual web browsing is fast enough that I don't need Classic browsers, I will pay for it.

Have a look at the Omniweb release notes, it says that THEY (Omni) improved launch time by 3x. It is not 10.0.2.
-------------------

[macvillage.net]

Well, it was ATI who said they wouldn't be doing it, Apple never said it had no plans.

------------------
Robert Accettura
Owner/Webmaster of

[griffman]

>>No, something definitely happened with the anti-aliasing in 10.0.2.<<

I heard this rumor elsewhere before I updated, so I did a pre- and post-update screenshot. These were taken as TIFF screen grabs, and converted to JPEG at 100% quality in GraphicConverter. Images taken on a 1600x1200 monitor in millions of colors.

So which is pre-update and which is post-udpate ... and what are the differences? [NOTE: The backgrounds are different colors on purpose, and should not be considered part of the shot!]

Image #1
Image #2

-rob.

[This message has been edited by griffman (edited 05-04-2001).]

Griffman--
Maybe I'm just not looking hard enough, but I can't seem to see any difference between your two photos (except of course for the border color). But I'm running 8.6, so I can't see the OS X antialiasing itself--just your images of it. Thoughts from anyone else?

[sKP]

I think they provide 2d accelleration currently, my old 233 iMac (overclocked to 300) has a Rage Pro, and is now MUCH smoother with graphics in OS X since the update...
but there's still no OpenGL, so I'm betting they're currently 2d drivers

[Milio]

Originally posted by Group51:
Now, in 10.0.2, I just counted it and it is 17 bounces. This is acceptable.

No. Two bounces would be acceptable. On a Windows machine, clicking the IE icon in the QuickLaunch bar brings up IE instantly. That is the baseline.

[Milio]

Originally posted by gorgonzola:
So, with all the bitching everyone (including me) did last week, no one cares about the fact that Rage Pro support is very likely coming despite what we thought?!

Whatever...

Great, wonderful, I'll beleive it when I see it. And even then, it will be a question of what the drivers do. The Radeon and 128Pro drivers are working at full capacity now, but because of how the system is written, ATI can't leverage the vector processing side.

And besides, I have RageIIc.

[griffman]

>>but I can't seem to see any difference between your two photos <<

We have a winner! :-)

I'm not sure about machines with different video cards, but there's certainly been no change in anti-aliasing on my GeForce2-MX based system. It would seem odd that they'd improve the anti-aliasing on a certain card and not others -- wouldn't that be a system-wide thing?

I'm looking for someone who thinks there's been an improvement who also has a spare hard drive or partition. As an experiment, install 10.0.0, upgrade to .1, take a screenshot, upgrade to .2, take another screenshot, and compare - is there actually a change?

-rob.

[spectre]

Doesn't IE on windows launch fast because Microsoft built it into windows? Netscape launch time isn't great on windows...

Well, whatever.. I'm personally more concerned about GUI speed.

I just want some sort of 2d acceleration for my Rage2c

[lgerbarg]

Originally posted by gorgonzola:
Look what I found when poking around the system directories in /private (under 4P12/10.0.2):

/private/Drivers/ppc/IONDRV.config/ATYRagePro_ndrv

I think this means that they're at least working on it, and that full Rage Pro support should come in a matter of months. Does anybody actually know what that file is, though? It's not the actual driver, I don't think...

NDRVs are small rom based drivers that Mac OS Classic uses after OF is done to display stuff before it has loaded extensions. Mac OS X has a special driver that can graft onto "well-behaved" NDRVs (this is likely the reason some people can use things like Voodoo cards).

I doubt this driver has anything to do one way or the other with an accelerated driver, it is mainly a compatibility shim to make them work at all.

This is not my area of expertise, so take everything I just said with a grain of salt.

Louis

------------------
Louis Gerbarg
Darwin Developer

[Zadian]

Originally posted by Milio:
On a Windows machine, clicking the IE icon in the QuickLaunch bar brings up IE instantly. That is the baseline.

IE is an integrated part of Windows, it already runs. If you click it it just opens a new window.

Opening a new window in OS X is fast. So just don't quit your apps.

[gorgonzola]

Well, Louis, you've single-handedly dashed my hopes . Oh well, ... I suppose they may still come. I wasn't betting on it for this release and I was pretty surprised to find the file at all.

And looking at the modification date, it seems as if it was installed with 4L13, not 4P12. Dammit! Oh well ... Louis -- you have any information about drivers or anything to come? I know it's a long shot but ...

------------------
the oddball newsletter
------------------
it's only after you lose everything that you're free to do anything

[Milio]

Originally posted by Zadian:
IE is an integrated part of Windows, it already runs. If you click it it just opens a new window.

Opening a new window in OS X is fast. So just don't quit your apps.

The Explorer half of Internet Explorer may be integrated, but the Internet half isn't. There's a real app that if it gets corrupted, you can't get to the web.

Okay, some more examples: QuickTime, instant. WinAmp, instant. RealPlayer, instant. Baulder's Gate, nearly instant. Acrobat Reader, instant. Seeing a trend here? The biggest lag on application launching on my Windows computer is the hard drive speed. My old hard drive slowed things down to a half-second launch time.

[tyris]

Originally posted by I'mDaMac:
This indeed may be good news for us with RagePro chips in our machines but I'll believe it when I see it. Until then I'm still skeptical. I noticed this in the ATIDriverUpdate.plist as well:

<key>ATY,Version</key>
<string>1.7f3</string>
<key>IONDRVList</key> <array>
<string>ATY,Rage128P2ks</string>
<string>ATY,Rage128k</string>
<string>ATY,Rage128Pk</string>
<string>ATY,Rage128Pd</string>
<string>ATY,Rage128Ps</string>
<string>ATY,RageM3p</string>
<string>ATY,RageM3p1</string>
<string>ATY,RageM3p12</string>
<string>ATY,mach64_3DU</string>
<string>ATY,mach64_3DUPro</string>
<string>ATY,RageLTPro</string>
<string>ATY,264LTPro</string>
<string>ATY,264LT-G</string>
<string>ATY,mach64</string>
</array></dict></plist>

A good sign maybe but still no .kext files for the RagePro as yet. I'm hoping sooner than later but will reserve any celebration until they actually appear.

[This message has been edited by gorgonzola (edited 05-04-2001).]

Me and my poor IIc.

[tyris]

woops, better pay more attention before i hit back...

[This message has been edited by tyris (edited 05-04-2001).]

[tyris]

ahem triple post

[This message has been edited by tyris (edited 05-04-2001).]

[mumble]

Originally posted by gorgonzola:
Well, Louis, you've single-handedly dashed my hopes . Oh well, ... I suppose they may still come. I wasn't betting on it for this release and I was pretty surprised to find the file at all.

And looking at the modification date, it seems as if it was installed with 4L13, not 4P12. Dammit!

10.0.2Update replaces those files, 10.0.1Update does not. But they have the exact same contents as they did in 10.0.0. Mod dates on mine are

Feb 28 03:43 - 10.0.0
Apr 27 16:30 - 10.0.2

[Spirit_VW]

Originally posted by Milio:
No. Two bounces would be acceptable. On a Windows machine, clicking the IE icon in the QuickLaunch bar brings up IE instantly. That is the baseline.

Yadda yadda yadda....

I do wonder, why are you still here?

------------------
Kevin Buchanan
The Spirit of Volkswagen
The Retro New Beetle Headquarters
Webmaster, Fort Worth VolksFolks Club

[GnOm]

Originally posted by Milio:
On a Windows machine, clicking the IE icon in the QuickLaunch bar brings up IE instantly. That is the baseline.

you just can�t compare that. IE on Windows is almost completly integrated to the OS.

Bye.


whoops, seems like i�m a little bit to late, whe already had that...

[This message has been edited by GnOm (edited 05-05-2001).]

[PerfectlyNormalBeast]

Originally posted by Milio:
...Okay, some more examples: QuickTime, instant...

Wow, what version of quicktime are you using? My Win2k machine takes a while to start Quicktime. I agree, most of the MS apps take very little time to startup.

One of the main reasons app launch is so slow is the really cool way Apple is doing shared libraries. We pay a price for speed, but it's much harder to break a program on OS X by accidentally removing a DLL or corrupting the registry. The new linking model should make our machines behave much more predicably. Also, there's still plenty of room to get faster. App launch is one of the big things being worked on for the summer release.

If you want the same effect as windows, buy a 256 meg ram module and start the apps you use when you startup, then just leave them running. That's what I do.

Originally posted by tyris:
Me and my poor IIc.

This <string>ATY,mach64_3DU</string> is the Rage IIc identifier.

I'm not sure the earlier chipsets will ever be able to do much with Quartz, but we can hope.

[Millennium]

No. Two bounces would be acceptable. On a Windows machine, clicking the IE icon in the QuickLaunch bar brings up IE instantly. That is the baseline.

Unfair comparison, by a long shot. The only reason IE comes up so fast in Windows is that it's basically loaded at boot time. What you see as "explorer" is actually just a frontend, and a comparatively small one, to the real IE. This "real IE," the one that actually handles the Net connections and Web browsing and such, is all loaded at boot time. In other words, IE on Windows boots so quickly because it cheats. Even before you double-click the icon, most of it is already loaded; what's left isn't too much more complex than maybe TextEdit.

As for QuickTime booting instantly, it's almost the opposite situation. A small frontend boots fast, but the real work isn't loaded yet. That doesn't get loaded until you start playing the movie; this is why there's a delay there.

WinAmp... well, I don't claim to know what's up with WinAmp. I should point out, though, that their Mac port is just as fast.

And so on, and so forth. I don't mind this idea of comparing launch times on OSX and Windows, but make sure you're comparing things that actually compete on a semi-level playing field.

[Ironfist.cmg]

Millenium is 100% correct. The only difference between Windows Explorer and Internet Explorer is the 'Windows' part and the 'Internet' part. In fact, if you have Active Desktop installed you can perform a neat trick that blurs the lines and makes both programs (frontends) look exactly like each other and share local/internet file browsing functionality to the point that you can 'explore' your local disks in IE and browse the Internet in WE.

Sorry Milio, gonna have to do better than that.

IF.cmg


------------------
feh, my image in my sig went away.

[tyris]

Originally posted by jethro:
This <string>ATY,mach64_3DU</string> is the Rage IIc identifier.

I'm not sure the earlier chipsets will ever be able to do much with Quartz, but we can hope.

You just made my morning!

[Milio]

Originally posted by Ironfist.cmg:


Sorry Milio, gonna have to do better than that.

No I'm not, Apple is. Look, the average user like me doesn't care about the technical reasons why one computer is faster than another. We just see that one is faster. And in this case Windows is faster. That's not my job to fix. I, and most others, will just use the computer that's faster.

I used to be a Mac zealot, so I understand the need to defend the ways the Mac is better. But now that I've started using Windows (because of OS X) I really wonder if it's really all just rationalizations to stay with the Mac. "It's slower, but that's good because..." I don't get it anymore.

[Millennium]

Milio, this is an honest question. If you've switched to Windows because of OSX, why are you still here? If you've made the switch, then what business do you have griping about something you actively made the decision not to even use? Are you trying to convert the rest of us away, or something?

[Millennium]

No I'm not, Apple is.

So what you're saying is, Apple's responsible for Microsoft's programs? You would dare say this, knowing Microsoft's predatory practices? The fact is, IE's launch time on the Mac cannot be made faster than IE's perceived launch time on Windows, because, as I said, IE/Windows is cheating. You expect Apple to be able to overcome this? Amazing; this may well be the first completely unreasonable request you've made of Apple. It disheartens me to see it; I've been here for a long time, and never before have I ever seen a post from you that I considered a whine.

[gzl: fixed quote code]

[This message has been edited by gorgonzola (edited 05-05-2001).]

[Milio]

Because I now use Windows at home and OS 9 at work. It's hard as a long-time Mac advocate who justified work to buy me G4 because it was great and with OS X it would be even better, then to go to your boss and say, "looks like I was wrong, I want a PC."

I can continue to use OS 9 for the time being, but it's a dead product. I would like to be able to upgrade to OS X and have everything be even better than OS 9, but so far it isn't. At least not for me. So I keep tabs here, and make my voice heard expressing my needs and dissatisfaction in an effort to get people to pressure Apple into improving OS X considerably.

[dogzilla]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Milio, this is an honest question. If you've switched to Windows because of OSX, why are you still here? If you've made the switch, then what business do you have griping about something you actively made the decision not to even use? Are you trying to convert the rest of us away, or something?

Hmmmm. I'll second Millenium's question, and extend it to the rest of the folks who say they've done the same, or are about to. If the decision's already made, why keep bringing it up to others who obviously haven't? No offense, but just about every variation of these comments has already been covered before and the speed of apps launching doesn't have much to do with Rage Pro support.

[This message has been edited by dogzilla (edited 05-05-2001).]

[Milio]

[quote]Originally posted by Millennium:
[quote]No I'm not, Apple is.

So what you're saying is, Apple's responsible for Microsoft's programs? You would dare say this, knowing Microsoft's predatory practices?

If it was just IE that was slow on OS X, you would be right, I would be unreasonable. But so many apps launch slowly, that I can only look to the way the OS works.

[Mr Scruff]

Originally posted by Milio:
No I'm not, Apple is. Look, the average user like me doesn't care about the technical reasons why one computer is faster than another. We just see that one is faster. And in this case Windows is faster. That's not my job to fix. I, and most others, will just use the computer that's faster.

I used to be a Mac zealot, so I understand the need to defend the ways the Mac is better. But now that I've started using Windows (because of OS X) I really wonder if it's really all just rationalizations to stay with the Mac. "It's slower, but that's good because..." I don't get it anymore.

Windows has all of the explorer HTML libraries loaded at startup. This is how apps like Winamp can render HTML, or active desktop can have a webpage as your background.

Benefits are systemwide integration of HTML rendering, and fast startup times for IE.

Problems are increased startup time (while the libaries are loaded) and increased use of system memory.

I don't know that I'd say one system is intrinsicly superior to anothers. On Windows people tend to shut apps down and relaunch them a lot more (by closing the last open window) so I guess this is important. On Mac OS X this is less of an issue (just leave the app running).

Other prominent Windows apps (such as Office) also load much of themselves at startup (even on the mac). I would prefer it if they didn't personally.

Please note Milio there is no zealotry here.

[Arty50]

Originally posted by jethro:
This <string>ATY,mach64_3DU</string> is the Rage IIc identifier.

I'm not sure the earlier chipsets will ever be able to do much with Quartz, but we can hope.

Just when all hope was lost, and I was about to breakdown and relegate my trusty old rev. A to a backup role, jethro came through. This is such good news. I thank you, and my rev. A thanks you. Now if I could just get a glimmer of hope for my iMac GameWizard.

One day I will have a new machine though. I just refuse to use credit to buy it. That day I'm gonna go large.

[lgerbarg]

Originally posted by gorgonzola:
Well, Louis, you've single-handedly dashed my hopes . Oh well, ... I suppose they may still come. I wasn't betting on it for this release and I was pretty surprised to find the file at all.

And looking at the modification date, it seems as if it was installed with 4L13, not 4P12. Dammit! Oh well ... Louis -- you have any information about drivers or anything to come? I know it's a long shot but ...

I have no idea about drivers to come. That means that I can only give you bad news (like I just did), I do not know if there is good news. It sucks sometimes.

Louis


------------------
Louis Gerbarg
Darwin Developer

[Milio]

Originally posted by Mr Scruff:

I don't know that I'd say one system is intrinsicly superior to anothers. On Windows people tend to shut apps down and relaunch them a lot more (by closing the last open window) so I guess this is important. On Mac OS X this is less of an issue (just leave the app running).

Unfortunately, I find that if I have more than a few apps open, the entire sytem slows down noticeably. That's with 192MB ram.

Please note Milio there is no zealotry here.

I was not saying there was. I was only saying that in the past it was I who has been a zealot.

[miro7]

Milio, why use app launching as a benchmark for anything? If the philosophies for coding apps is different, as some are pointing out, then it will never compare. Using the app, IMHO, is where the benching should be done, as that is where the productivity begins, not at launch time.

If productivity is reduced, then that is much more telling than launch times. Since OS X has much to do in order to gain polish and apps, I imagine that, unless your app of choice has already been ported (and ported well), it will most likely lose here as well.

OS X is a huge task. It will only get better as apps are released and drivers are updated. BTW, as someone stated earlier, that plist looks to include just about every ATI product since the 2D only Mach64.

[Millennium]

Milio, who here has said that OSX's slowness is a good thing? No one has. What many people, including myself, have said is that even though it's slow, there are many tradeoffs that make the switch to OSX worth it, despite (not because of) the slowness, at least for now.

We all want to see it fixed. Even the biggest zealots here do. No one here is truly satisfied with the speed of OSX. But we also know that sitting around griping about it isn't going to change one single line of code. We know that a fix is not going to be simple, despite what you seem to claim, even though we know more or less exactly what needs to be fixed (in a nutshell: the task scheduler needs to work right, the Finder needs basically a total rewrite, and Quartz needs more hooks so that the necessary driver changes to make 3D acceleration work can be made).

Why is IE so slow on OSX? Plenty of reasons, actually, but the biggest one is that it's an incredibly poor Carbon port. Microsoft did the absolute minimum necessary, just enough to get a semblance of functionality, and their halfhearted job is reflected in the snail's-pace speed and house-of-cards stability of that app. I mean, come on; when even Mozilla is faster than IE, that should tell you something about where the cause of the problems must lie.

[TimmyDee51]

Milio, why are you using OS X at work? So what if it's a dead product in the long run, but for the short term, Apple is encouraging businesses not to switch. Early adopters tend to be single users and not people who depend on a certain level of performance. Use OS 9 until OS X is ready. What's the harm in that? I don't see why you are all worked up about ditching the platform you like (or liked) after less than 2 months of a new OS to which you are not even suited yet.

Everyone seems to be knee-jerk responding to the claim that windows is faster at launching stuff than OSX.. anyone who thinks this is because MS is 'cheating' by pre-loading lots of libraries are kidding themselves. This may be true to some extent, but if you performed the following in OSX you -should- see a near instant app launch for the same 'all the code is pre-loaded' reason:

Open an app (OmniWeb). Surf the net a bit just to convince yourself its running. Quit it. Don't do anything else but re-launch the app. Does it start instantaneously? No. Even though all the code needed to run the app is still sitting in RAM.

I do this with most apps on windows and I will see the near-instant start. Try it with Netscape (since this was used as an example). It does this on my PII running Win2k at work with only 64MB RAM. Why not on my 128MB Mac at home?

Currently, app launch times and running-application performance are unacceptable for 'the most advanced operating system in the world'. I'm not saying that it will stay this way, and I'm sure they wont, but to say it is 'just fine' at the moment is kidding yourselves. Take a trip back to OS9 to remember how fast IE5 -used- to open.

[ctt1wbw]

Let's keep something in mind, ladies and gentlemen. We are all called "early adopters" for using OS X right now. OS X isn't even shipping on new computers yet. It just gets old hearing people complain and whine about OS X's shortcomings. I am sure people here could go on for days and days about Windows shortcomings, and Windows is actually shipping on computers right now. Who can say where OS X will be come June or July when it is installed on new computers? Everyone bitching and moaning now will probably be singing OS X tunes in their sleep by then because it may be so good, but who knows.

[The Evener]

Milio and others,

Your criticisms of the speed of OS X have been echoed by other users, but let's not lose sight of the context -- OS X has been a "real world" operating system for roughly 43 days. Apple wants to, and is working on optimizing OS X. I don't understand the "need for speed" leading to a switch to Windows, though. If that platform meets your needs in a way Apple can't, then obviously there's little to debate. But if your leaning to Windows is based on its speed, why not just stick with OS 9? It's not as if all your major apps will stop working on OS 9 once summer arrives or something. Besides, rather than get into a "Windows is better than OS X" debate, you might as well re-start the "OS 9 is better than OS X" debate about speed -- it's needn't be a Microsoft vs. Apple battle. Apple vs. Apple could be just as fun.

For some perspective, check out this review of Windows NT: http://www.zdnet.com/pcmag/features/...16/ntintro.htm

(for those who read this in a different thread I contributed to a few weeks ago, my apologies).

Don't read everything closely if you don't want to, but check out the heading "Why Windows 95 is Faster" than NT 4.0. The technical issues don't apply across the board to the Mac experience, but it illustrates two points in my mind 1) When it comes to pre-emptive multitasking, there may be an early performance hit when compared to "older" OSes 2) Patience. Note how the reviewer did not kick the crap out of NT 4.0 because it was *slower* than Windows 95. Increased stability and computing power on the NT platform, and the knowledge that Microsoft would improve on the NT foundation off-set the need to roast Redmond.

Well, maybe since it was a review in PC Magazine, you're thinking, they used the kid gloves on NT. Maybe. But if Microsoft is good enough for you right now, they must have improved the speed from NT 4.0. Give OS X at least half that time before you write it off. I think we'll all agree OS 9.1 is a huge improvement over the release of OS 8 in July of 1997 -- an improvement nearly four years in the making. Surely you can wait until July of 2001 for OS X improvements.


[This message has been edited by The Evener (edited 05-06-2001).]

[Scott_H]

Originally posted by ctt1wbw:
Let's keep something in mind, ladies and gentlemen. We are all called "early adopters" for using OS X right now. OS X isn't even shipping on new computers yet. It just gets old hearing people complain and whine about OS X's shortcomings. I am sure people here could go on for days and days about Windows shortcomings, and Windows is actually shipping on computers right now. Who can say where OS X will be come June or July when it is installed on new computers? Everyone bitching and moaning now will probably be singing OS X tunes in their sleep by then because it may be so good, but who knows.

That's fine but when ATi drops support for my graphics card and Apple can't make a public statement about what will be supported, it brings into question if there will ever be a proper video driver for the tray loading iMacs. I suspect Apple will drop support for the Rage Pro and claim that the current driver is sufficient. Well it's not.

The "big party" is this summer but If I'm not invited I'll find a party to go to somewhere else.