Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

yukon · May 22, 2001, 04:25 PM

If you visit TheRegister , it talks about OSX and it's (in my opinion) dismal speed. As we knew before, the OS itself is fast (very), but it is quartz and the finder graphics that slow it down. they cite the fact that it's coded in carbon ("dogfood" that it is)and not cocoa, and we all know about the graphics card optimization problem thing...

I'm gong to try RBrowser when I get home.

Ill end this post with a quote. "But it's essentially unchanged since the NeXT days, and NeXT flew on 68000 hardware". does that mean "6800x" or the 68000 systems? woohoo...

[This message has been edited by yukon (edited 05-22-2001).]

honeydew · May 22, 2001, 06:07 PM

If you visit TheRegister , it talks about OSX and it's (in my opinion) dismal speed. As we knew before, the OS itself is fast (very), but it is quartz and the finder graphics that slow it down.

This article says nothing about Quartz or graphics.

yukon · May 23, 2001, 01:29 AM

>This article says nothing about Quartz or graphics.

Thank you for pointing that out.

If you'll notice, I said "As we knew before ... it is quartz and the finder graphics that slow it down" referring to general knowledge, conclusions that were arrived at in these forums. It has been bounced around every macos x forum hundreds of times, that the transparencies, graphics, animation, and quartz rendering used in the finder, dock, and general UI elements, slow down the system. Just open CPU Monitor and move the cursor over the dock

.

KenMo · May 23, 2001, 07:07 AM

This will save Apple tons of money. All they have to do is go to the message boards where all of the root causes for their problems are.

[This message has been edited by KenMo (edited 05-23-2001).]

Gary Finley · May 23, 2001, 01:58 PM

There is a bit of a parallel with the NeXT case in this display-speed issue. When NeXTStep came out in '88, many UNIX 'experts' looked at the choice of Display Postscript and scoffed that it would be much too slow. It was, after all, running on 68030s and 040s at 25 and 33 MHz. At that time, UNIX's had only token graphics. Their UIs were typically just a way to open terminal windows. Later on, X Windows became the de-facto standard for UNIX GUIs. Since they were added at the app layer instead of being well integrated into the OS, these UIs were typically *slower* than the NeXT's DPS. Not to mention being butt-ugly, because most were written by some geek-in-a-basement who knew zip about UI design. Every one was different of course, no two menus looked alike.

In that case Steve was right, because he was looking further ahead than anyone else. Maybe in the long run the same will turn out to be true with Quartz.

Gary Finley · May 23, 2001, 02:00 PM

There is a bit of a parallel with the NeXT case in this display-speed issue. When NeXTStep came out in '88, many UNIX 'experts' looked at the choice of Display Postscript and scoffed that it would be much too slow. It was, after all, running on 68030s and 040s at 25 and 33 MHz. At that time, UNIX's had only token graphics. Their UIs were typically just a way to open terminal windows. Later on, X Windows became the de-facto standard for UNIX GUIs. Since they were added at the app layer instead of being well integrated into the OS, these UIs were typically *slower* than the NeXT's DPS. Not to mention being butt-ugly, because most were written by some geek-in-a-basement who knew zip about UI design. Every one was different of course, no two menus looked alike.

In that case Steve was right, because he was looking further ahead than anyone else. Maybe in the long run the same will turn out to be true with Quartz.