Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

iKevin · Jun 6, 2002, 10:54 PM

If 10.2 isn't a marked improvement over 10.1 will you jump ship?

Adam Betts · Jun 6, 2002, 11:14 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by iKevin:
If 10.2 isn't a marked improvement over 10.1 will you jump ship?<hr /></blockquote>If your penis didn't grow big enough, will you remove it?

everdream · Jun 6, 2002, 11:27 PM

no

jguidroz · Jun 6, 2002, 11:36 PM

I've used the dev seed from WWDC on my B&W G3/300 and it's faster. Nothing to worry about.

Millennium · Jun 6, 2002, 11:42 PM

This poll is pointless. It has already been very well established that even in its early state, 10.2 is already a marked improvement speedwise. So your "if 10.2 is not a marked improvement" has already been shown false.

KidRed · Jun 7, 2002, 12:05 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Millennium:
This poll is pointless. It has already been very well established that even in its early state, 10.2 is already a marked improvement speedwise. So your "if 10.2 is not a marked improvement" has already been shown false.<hr /></blockquote>That's my vote too.

juanvaldes · Jun 7, 2002, 01:07 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Millennium:
This poll is pointless. It has already been very well established that even in its early state, 10.2 is already a marked improvement speedwise. So your "if 10.2 is not a marked improvement" has already been shown false.<hr /></blockquote>exactly

gorickey · Jun 7, 2002, 01:09 AM

Jump ship to what? OS 9 is dead as a doornail, or were you thinking XP? Just wondering. In either case for me, HECK NO! OS X could slow down for all I care and I would stick by it for sure.

starfleetX · Jun 7, 2002, 02:03 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Millennium:
This poll is pointless. It has already been very well established that even in its early state, 10.2 is already a marked improvement speedwise. So your "if 10.2 is not a marked improvement" has already been shown false.<hr /></blockquote>I'll fourth that.

Somebody... please lock this stupid thread.

Wevah · Jun 7, 2002, 08:01 AM

No, no...

I think if 10.2 is not faster, and is infact slower and less responsive, then I will go on a mad rampage, since it will be quite obvious that nothing is real...

iKevin · Jun 7, 2002, 09:53 AM

Millenium....I can't believe you are a moderator....You think just because something doesn't reflect your opinion that it's not valid.

Also, really good job of you guys going on the offensive against your own kind....erode what little bit of support you have left

[ 06-07-2002, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: iKevin ]

clebin · Jun 7, 2002, 10:01 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by iKevin:
Millenium....I can't believe you are a moderator....You think just because something doesn't reflect your opinion that it's not valid.
<hr /></blockquote>Added to the fact that while G4 owners see the improvements Millenium talked about, many G3 owners have reported worse performance in 10.2.

Anyway, my answer is no, unsurprisingly

10.2 looks fab.

Chris

Ron Goodman · Jun 7, 2002, 10:11 AM

I will absolutely sell my Mac and start running XP!(Heavy sarcasm mode on.)

Love Calm Quiet · Jun 7, 2002, 10:15 AM

All we have right now is a preview. PREVIEW. P-R-E-V-I-E-W.

That's why the poll is a big '' I F ''.

Apple makes mistakes, but they're not likely to release a preview that's faster if there's (somehow

) any chance the speed enhancement might not be reproducible in the Golden.

Admittedly G3s *may* not get the same kind of benefit... Could possibly even experience some slowdown. In that case they may want to consider:

The Future is G4.

(Actually: the present is G4. The future is G5)

"But I didn't think my Rev A iMac would ever be obsolete"

iKevin · Jun 7, 2002, 10:52 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Love Calm Quiet:
All we have right now is a preview. PREVIEW. P-R-E-V-I-E-W.

That's why the poll is a big '' I F ''.

Apple makes mistakes, but they're not likely to release a preview that's faster if there's (somehow

) any chance the speed enhancement might not be reproducible in the Golden.

Admittedly G3s *may* not get the same kind of benefit... Could possibly even experience some slowdown. In that case they may want to consider:

The Future is G4.

(Actually: the present is G4. The future is G5)

"But I didn't think my Rev A iMac would ever be obsolete"

<hr /></blockquote>I agree...the G3 really is past it's time and should be killed off. Sucks for the G3 owners though... expecially the ones that just purchased iBooks.

mahoney2 · Jun 7, 2002, 11:27 AM

Whats the point of this thread? 10.2 is faster, even the earliest builds are faster than 10.1.

I think i'm gonna start a similar thread, What if $5 was more valuable than $10.

Mac Guru · Jun 7, 2002, 11:27 AM

Why does it suck for us? My iBook 500 runs 10.1.5 and 10.2 just fine. the G3 may be a tried and true chip but if it is so old that it's useless, we wouldn't be using it. It's still a very good chip if you don't need something as expencive as a G4 Powerbook.

I love my iBook and it runs OS X fast enough for me.

Mac Guru

brown monk · Jun 7, 2002, 11:47 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by mahoney2:
Whats the point of this thread? 10.2 is faster, even the earliest builds are faster than 10.1.

I think i'm gonna start a similar thread, What if $5 was more valuable than $10.<hr /></blockquote>hehe

I wouldn't jump ship. I'll just go back to 10.1. But I'm pretty sure that 10.2 will be a speed improvement over 10.1 among other things.

voodoo · Jun 7, 2002, 11:52 AM

Just by being better multithreaded it is faster. So there!

surfacto · Jun 7, 2002, 02:52 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by gorickey:
Jump ship to what? OS 9 is dead as a doornail, or were you thinking XP? Just wondering. In either case for me, HECK NO! OS X could slow down for all I care and I would stick by it for sure.<hr /></blockquote>What? Are you crazy? I (and the rest of the 8%) am going to sell all my Macs, buy a Sony Vaio with XP and spend hundreds on Windows software just to get back to where I am on X, if 10.2 is not fast enough.

Boy oh boy, I can't wait to sit on hold when I make my first call to tech support!

johnnygs · Jun 7, 2002, 04:04 PM

Is this a joke or what? If you "jump ship" I hope you drown.

CheesePuff · Jun 7, 2002, 04:12 PM

So, if OS X 10.2 is not faster then 10.1 (which is currently just fine for me now), people are going to go spend $1,000 to go and use Windows instead?

Anyway, Apple themselves say it is faster under the Quartz Extreme section on the Jaguar page.

Arty50 · Jun 7, 2002, 04:16 PM

IF 10.2 were slower, I'd still use it over XP. I hate XP, and not merely because it's an MS product. I hate it because it's the most asstastic piece of bloatware ever.

As for this...

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by iKevin:
Millenium....I can't believe you are a moderator....You think just because something doesn't reflect your opinion that it's not valid.

Also, really good job of you guys going on the offensive against your own kind....erode what little bit of support you have left<hr /></blockquote>The great thing about these boards is that the mods join in on the discussions. They're not just lurking censors. Also, forgive him for properly weighing all the evidence for 10.2 and stating the conclusion that he and many others have already come to.

wulf · Jun 7, 2002, 04:20 PM

No (I won't jump ship), but, it will be (a marked improvement) <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Yoda's Erotic Piggyback · Jun 7, 2002, 04:46 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Adam Betts:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by iKevin:
If 10.2 isn't a marked improvement over 10.1 will you jump ship?<hr /></blockquote>If your penis didn't grow big enough, will you remove it?<hr /></blockquote>Did you?

Judge_Fire · Jun 7, 2002, 04:50 PM

By the time it eventually gets released, I will have aged and thus slowed down, so it should logically seem faster, unless of course Apple manages slow it down proportionally.

J

Moonray · Jun 7, 2002, 07:12 PM

I just gave a random vote 'cause I was interested in the results.

Silly hide option.

-

msuper69 · Jun 7, 2002, 07:36 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Judge_Fire:
By the time it eventually gets released, I will have aged and thus slowed down, so it should logically seem faster, unless of course Apple manages slow it down proportionally.

J<hr /></blockquote>I was wondering why OS X was beginning to seem faster and faster with each passing day even before 10.1.5. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

[email protected] · Jun 7, 2002, 10:26 PM

(Actually: the present is G4. The future is G5)

yes. but how 'bout july?

Angus_D · Jun 8, 2002, 07:40 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by voodoo:
Just by being better multithreaded it is faster. So there!<hr /></blockquote>That's not true. Multithreadedness slows things down on single processor machines, but the advantage is you can do more things at once and this might make you work faster and/or give a perceived increase in speed. It can improve performance on dual processor (or more) machines, though.

edddeduck · Jun 8, 2002, 08:24 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Millenium:
This poll is pointless. It has already been very well established that even in its early state, 10.2 is already a marked improvement speedwise. So your "if 10.2 is not a marked improvement" has already been shown false. <hr /></blockquote>Then this....

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by iKevin:
Millenium....I can't believe you are a moderator....You think just because something doesn't reflect your opinion that it's not valid.

Also, really good job of you guys going on the offensive against your own kind....erode what little bit of support you have left<hr /></blockquote>I find no fault in millenium's post.

Your question is like asking "will a human ever run under 10 secs...?"

Asking questions like that are silly 10.2 even in its buggy state is faster on all machines I have tested it on iBook 600, 450MP and an iMac 266. And people have already run under 10 secs.

10.1 got faster near Golden NOT slower so... 10.2 suddenly becoming a slow dog is a *possibility* but so is me breaking the 10 sec barrier at 100 meters possible but not likely...

Now I hope you can see the stupidity of your question.

Cheers Edwin

undotwa · Jun 8, 2002, 08:33 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CheesePuff:
So, if OS X 10.2 is not faster then 10.1 (which is currently just fine for me now), people are going to go spend $1,000 to go and use Windows instead?

Anyway, Apple themselves say it is faster under the Quartz Extreme section on the Jaguar page.<hr /></blockquote>I'll use the $2,000 US required to setup a descent Windows setup (17 LCD monitor, 120 GB HD, 1 GB RAM, 1.6 Ghz Athlon, Windows XP Professional) to upgrade my existing Mac config to something really kickass� (eMac, kickass� sound system, 1 GB RAM, external 120 GB FireWire HD, maybe even a digital still camera??? + my existing software and hardware) so Jaguar will fly!

Mr.E · Jun 8, 2002, 09:00 AM

I have decided that I'm not buying another computer for a long, long time. My 450 mhz G3 can run everything I need at decent speed...so why spend 1k+ on a faster system (Not interested in the shoddy games selection for Mac)?

If 10.2 is no slower than 10.1 on my machine, I'll be satisfied.

Marienbad · Jun 8, 2002, 09:11 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by gorickey:
Jump ship to what? OS 9 is dead as a doornail, or were you thinking XP? Just wondering. In either case for me, HECK NO! OS X could slow down for all I care and I would stick by it for sure.<hr /></blockquote>I'm with gorickey. Os X is so . . elegant. It may be "slow" in comparison to other OSs but that's like comparing the stately grace of a minuet to breakdances. The latter is faster, yes, but to what end?

theolein · Jun 8, 2002, 01:39 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Marienbad:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by gorickey:
Jump ship to what? OS 9 is dead as a doornail, or were you thinking XP? Just wondering. In either case for me, HECK NO! OS X could slow down for all I care and I would stick by it for sure.<hr /></blockquote>I'm with gorickey. Os X is so . . elegant. It may be "slow" in comparison to other OSs but that's like comparing the stately grace of a minuet to breakdances. The latter is faster, yes, but to what end?<hr /></blockquote>This is offtopic, but if I were I'd get that email address off your sig and off the page. Spamming software crawl the web all the time and collect email addresses off boards like this.

Mac-arthur · Jun 8, 2002, 02:33 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Angus_D:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by voodoo:
Just by being better multithreaded it is faster. So there!<hr /></blockquote>That's not true. Multithreadedness slows things down on single processor machines, but the advantage is you can do more things at once and this might make you work faster and/or give a perceived increase in speed. It can improve performance on dual processor (or more) machines, though.<hr /></blockquote>Bingo, spot on. But perception is reality for many users. It's like the olde 9 vs. 10.1.x argument all along. 10 multitasks better, crashes less, has less restarts but the user perceives (rightly) that the GUI is less responsive so they forget about all the time they are saving by not having to restart the machine.

Having used Jaguar on a beige G3 I can say that it feels more responsive. The multi-threading in the finder lets you do more things at the same time and gives you a boost to the performance perception (and reality since you are seeing the Spinning Disk o' Death less often.

This thread is goofy to me having used 10.2 as early, and possible un-optimized, as it is on a machine without Quartz Extreme support and find it much faster in the finder. I think the boost to finder performance alone will be enough to make many people happy with the upgrade. The addition features and tweaking give this OS a much more finished feel to it even in its early stages then 10.1.x.

So 10.2 is faster now even on G3s without Q.A. On QA supported machines the boost is even bigger. I'm a 10 user full time now even though 9 might seem faster every time an app. locks the OS and I have to reboot I've just lost nearly 2 minutes vs. a few seconds here and there in 10.1.5 when finder decides to give me the pink spinner.

DoctorW · Jun 9, 2002, 12:03 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Adam Betts:
If your penis didn't grow big enough, will you remove it?<hr /></blockquote>I haven't yet.

psu03bob · Jun 10, 2002, 12:11 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Love Calm Quiet:

The Future is G4.

(Actually: the present is G4. The future is G5)

"But I didn't think my Rev A iMac would ever be obsolete"

[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>Do you know how tired I am of hearing people say this! Is there some kind of Mac of the month club you people belong to? Or do power macs grow on trees where you live? Stuborness or an allergy to Altivec is not what is keeping from getting a new G4. My computer is only 2 and half years old, it may not be state of the art but is by no means obsolete.

I serously doubt Apple would release 10.2 and have it be slower than 10.1 even on a G3.

Sap · Jun 10, 2002, 02:19 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by jguidroz:
I've used the dev seed from WWDC on my B&W G3/300 and it's faster. Nothing to worry about.<hr /></blockquote>I've also used the dev seed from WWDC (yes, a legit copy), and on my G4 Cube (ATI Rage 128) it's so slow it's almost unuseable.

However, on my brother's G4 766 with a Geforce 3 Ti, it's really fast. I guess we'll see how it works out after it's released.

[email protected] · Jul 19, 2002, 08:14 PM

my penis refused to grow, so i removed it.

i have but one remaining question. can i revert my firmware? i hope it is not too late to ask for your help in this matter, as it is very important to me.

i hope 10.2 will fix it. i really liked it. i can not afford the $50,000 for a new one, as my pet dog just ate my doctoral thesis. i might have to buy a PC. i worked many year on thesis now dog has ruined.

is there any help for the newly severed user of this system? $130 is too much.

moreno · Jul 19, 2002, 08:16 PM

What if 10.2 isn't faster?
Switch.
To Windows XP.

Millennium · Jul 19, 2002, 09:03 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by iKevin:
Millenium....I can't believe you are a moderator....You think just because something doesn't reflect your opinion that it's not valid.

Also, really good job of you guys going on the offensive against your own kind....erode what little bit of support you have left<hr /></blockquote>(gees; I should check this one more often...)

iKevin, do I have to go back and find every single one of the hundreds of posts showing 10.2 as faster even without QE, including some from highly respected developers who've been using legitimate builds this whole time?

And do I then have to go back to try -and fail- to find any threads saying that Jaguar is not as fast as 10.1?

And then do I have to go back and actually compare dates, to show you that this has been the situation for literally months on end now?

Will that satisfy you? I'll start looking if you really want, but the fact is, this isn't opinion. Speed is measurable, and it's been measured to the point where your "what if" isn't even valid, because the answer is already known, and has been beaten to death over these forums for months now. This is not just my opinion. This is fact, as has been measured countless times.

Tell you what. An honest challenge. Show me even one post, from anyone other than yourself, which has claimed Jaguar to not be as fast as 10.1, by a user who actually had a build at the time of posting. Be sure to note the date on it, as well as who posted it, so we can comb back through the posting history to make sure this poster has not changed his or her mind since them. And we'll see if I'm presenting opinion as fact, or if you're just being an immature troll. Do we have a bet?