[GaelDesign]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
<STRONG>

I seem to remember everybody laughing Microsoft off the planet when Windows 95 came out, for precisely that reason (well, and others).

Now go back to hiding in the underbrush, you troll.

-chris.</STRONG>

Oh man, yeah -- I remember getting Windows 95 and the brand-spanking new Visual Basic 4.0, and it was SLOW SLOW SLOW! VB 4.0 programs in Windows 95 were way slower than VB 3.0 programs in Win 3.1. I think "native" Windows 95 apps weren't so bad, but there was definitely quite a difference in speed.

Give OS X a bit of time, and you'll see it mature. All software goes through that cycle. Anyone claiming OS X will never get better is, pardon my language, a f**king moron.

Regards,

Jared

[jarinteractive]

powermac G3 350/192

Mac OS X is a little slow, but not bad. Ocassionaly that stupid spinning thing shows up for a minute at a time, but not too often. It will get faster. The Gimp works So does PHP and MySQL and it rocks I'm just waiting for DVD, Toast, and a native OS X Gimp!

-JARinteractive

[ 06-20-2001: Message edited by: jarinteractive ]

I've got a measly iMac-RevA@233Mhz, a 2MbAtiRageIIc video card and 96Mb of RAM and OSX 1.03 :-(
Have pity on my poor soul. Its gorgeous and the fonts are amazing to look at, but it is sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwww. I'm running under specs, so I cannot complain, but some people on this forum have smoking systems and OSX for them is also sloooooooooow.

My other machine is a P3@700 and 192 (with BeOS, Suse 7.1 and W98), and its responsiveness is amazing. I also have an old P200 (non MMX) with 64Mb, BeOS only and that machine is very responsive as well.

Pity Apple chose NeXT instead of BeInc. Anyone want me to cry them a river :-(

Originally posted by tie
:

On the other hand, no one uses OS X because it's fast. I use it for stability, because it looks good (love those 128x128 icons), and because Unix is good for development. [/QB]

Stability is right. It is much more stable than anything Apple has ever had. And Unix is inifitely powerful.

However. There is no excuse for the slowness of the OS/GUI (whatever it is that is making it slow). The few times I've booted into OS 9.x I am amazed at the speed of things. Even on a Titanium 500mhz with 512 MB of RAM, the bloddy thing is slow! It drives me nuts!

[ToonBoomer]

Originally posted by &lt;pata&gt;:
<STRONG>

Stability is right. It is much more stable than anything Apple has ever had. And Unix is inifitely powerful.

However. There is no excuse for the slowness of the OS/GUI (whatever it is that is making it slow). The few times I've booted into OS 9.x I am amazed at the speed of things. Even on a Titanium 500mhz with 512 MB of RAM, the bloddy thing is slow! It drives me nuts!</STRONG>

I have an iMacSE DVD 400 640 ram it is slower than 9.1 that's for sure. I remember the BeOS running on a 604 120 with 64 ram and it was fast, very fast.

Gives me no sense of pleasure to say it but OSX really is unpleasant at times to use slow it is and slow it will be.

[booboo]

Originally posted by &lt;Zenja&gt;:
<STRONG>I've got a measly iMac-RevA@233Mhz, a 2MbAtiRageIIc video card and 96Mb of RAM and OSX 1.03 :-(
Have pity on my poor soul. Its gorgeous and the fonts are amazing to look at, but it is sloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooowwww. I'm running under specs, so I cannot complain, but some people on this forum have smoking systems and OSX for them is also sloooooooooow.

My other machine is a P3@700 and 192 (with BeOS, Suse 7.1 and W98), and its responsiveness is amazing. I also have an old P200 (non MMX) with 64Mb, BeOS only and that machine is very responsive as well.

Pity Apple chose NeXT instead of BeInc. Anyone want me to cry them a river :-(</STRONG>

Yes that's one more thing that people tend to overlook when dismissing Be, that it would have flown on even fairly lowly hardware.

[TNproud2b]

To the guy with the 'responsive' P3/350 running Windows2000:

(1) If it's 350MHz, then it's a P2. I believe that's about 1997.5 vintage.

(2) Have you tried Windows2000 on a machine with dual 1.33GHz AMD Thunderbirds? It's seriously ten times faster.

(3) Think Different...Think AMD

[Apocalypse]

Again we seem to be seeing people who love failure and people who don't even use Macs on our web boards. It is getting annoying. I use OS X all the time and have no HUGE concern with the responsiveness of the GUI (and I single-out the GUI since everything else seems at least as fast as in 9.1 - iTunes rip, etc). That says alot given that I have an iMac 350 with 192 MB of RAM. I don't like using that to show-off to people, though, since the menus and resizes are hideously slow (those are about the only parts that I find too slow).
I would assume that these problems are a result of some cludging done by the developers to try and finish the OS at all. Since Steve said that this will be the next focus after DVD playback/burning I am not all that worried. I think that it will, however, start to cause bad publicity in computer stores if they are still having this problem after the summer.
I don't think that it will be that bad since OS X crushes everything else with the other stuff it does (not just 9.1). For example, anyone I know that uses a M$ OS that is not NT-derived complains of multiple daily reboots, anyone using M$ 2K or XP spends hours configuring it to even approach Unix power (and still has a crash about every week), my buddies with Linux seem to be re-compiling their kernel every day to get around hardware weirdness and still have a grossely unstable window-manager (although they tend to use Enlightenment so that could be to blaim). Meanwhile my year old, cheapest Mac at the time is chugging along with OS X, over 4 weeks of uptime (hit 28 days this morning), a sweet PHP-enabled Apache server, SSH, hot-swapable network connections (I frequently switch between ADSL and campus network with a quick visit to the "Location" sub-menu and a swap of the cable), and a sweet-looking UI.

I love OS X but it would be nice to see some speed to the responsiveness of the system.

Jeff.

[vega24]

Orginally posted by apocolypse:

my buddies with Linux seem to be re-compiling their kernel every day to get around hardware weirdness and still have a grossely unstable window-manager (although they tend to use Enlightenment so that could be to blaim). Meanwhile my year old, cheapest Mac at the time is chugging along with OS X, over 4 weeks of uptime (hit 28 days this morning)

While I'm glad that OS X has been stable for you, I've heard of Linux machines that have gone over 2 years without a shut down or reboot.

[Steve]

I'm in almost the same boat as KooBi. I'm running an iBook SE 366, but with only 128 megs of RAM. I installed OS X about 2 days ago, and I found that the speed was lacking. But, I updated to 10.0.4 and defragged the hard drive, and the speed of OS X makes it usable, on my machine, which fulfills the BASIC requirements to run OS X.

Also, as someone else on this thread stated, when you'r booting up an app, don't sit there and watch it bounce or whatever, go do something else. It is a MULTITASKING operating system, unlike 9.x.

[applenut1]

what I find strange is that there is a very large gap in speed (233Mhz-733/DP533) yet even the fastest newsest machines don't run OS X "fast"

OS X is certainly usable on my G4/400 but it's not comforting that a G4/733 isn't fast with OS X. I feel sorry for people with original iMacs. Actually I'll be getting one tomorrow so I'll see how it is.

But, what machines are they programming on? Wouldn't it make sense to strive for the best performance on the lowest supported model?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by applenut1:
<STRONG>But, what machines are they programming on? Wouldn't it make sense to strive for the best performance on the lowest supported model?</STRONG>

One thing to strive for it; another to actually achieve it.

I'd think that actually getting it to *run*, and stably at that, would be the first thing developers would strive for.

Well, now it does.

Speed next.

-chris.

I love my Macs. I only work on Macs. I have installed OSX correctly and used it, updated to the latest version (10.0.4), on a G3/400 and a G4/Dual450. In both cases OSX has been slow. It has been slow from the release date and managed to get only slightly faster with each update. Fact of the matter is, The Finder takes too long to open applications and navigate directories. Window redraws, highlight selections and menu pop-ups are choppy and frustrating to use as well. I would stay away from OSX until Apple makes it a professional operating system that users that want to br productive can use efficiently. At least wait until July. Rumor are circling that Apple will release an update that will speed the OSX up significantly. Lets just hope this is more fact base than obvious wishful thinking.

Originally posted by SuperHard:
<STRONG>I have not used OSX, I'm still in 9.1, but I am considering adding OSX to my powerbook. I was wondering what your impressions of overall performance in OSX is, when you are using only cocoa written apps? Little things, like opening files, copying files, launching applications, switching windows of different apps, stuff like that. I realized in most cases you are using carbonized apps or running in Classic mode, which is a complicated scenario to evaluate. But in cases like running Omniweb, using iTunes, Mail.app which run in Aqua (right?), how does that "feel" compared to running similar apps in native OS9? I don't mean to open a can of worms, I am just looking for some general, overall,qualitative judgements. Thanks!</STRONG>

[mikerally]

Mac OS X v10.0.4 doesn't run so bad on my Rev/A iBook with 288MB of RAM.

It takes 2 minutes and 40 seconds to boot up, and that is from the startup sound right up to the desktop and the hard drive stops being accessed (this is of course excluding Classic, which I try never to run).

While compared to my PC running Windows ME, which takes just over a 1 minute.

Infact, the only major speed problem I see in Mac OS X is infact the Finder, which takes just over a full minute to load (the OS only takes 1 minute and 30 seconds to get to login).

As for menu responsiveness, granted it is not as responsive as Mac OS 9.1, but it is not slow.

The only thing that does bug me is the launch times of *some* apps, most load in reasonable time. And also the slow window resizing (window dragging is very fast on my iBook, nobody mentions that) and the performance deficit faced by the likes of Quicktime and iMovie.

But Mac OS X runs pretty well for on a 2 year old iBook computer.
Of course if you have the latest 733Mhz G4 and you don't see any increase in speed, then you're bound to call Mac OS X slow.

I've actually seen Mac OS X perform worse on a Powerbook G4 than my revision A iBook too. It seems the type of installation you have can effect the performance.

Obviously, if the OS doesn't run faster on faster machines, I guess there is lack of optimisation for the higher end machines, because if the OS was so slow, why am I not seeing it run slower on slower machines?

I think Mac OS X is performing on a level where the amount of memory seems to be the only factor on how fast it runs. In all reality, like most others, I don't think Mac OS X was ready for release back in March, but Apple needs to get the ball rolling, as there have been too many set backs as it is.

Right now Apple needs to focus pushing developers to migrate. Mac OS X is not the default OS for a reason, it is there to say to developers, that their potential userbase is there.

If you're familar with the development cycle of Mac OS X, you will realise that the OS receives fairly major improvements in a 6 month cycle period.

There is a rumor about suggesting that the next major revision of Mac OS X is to focus on performance, and is due for release at the end of August. However true of false it may be, it does seem to coincide my ideas of which direction Mac OS X is moving.

Ignore the 10.0.x updates, they're only minor bug fixes. We haven't a clue of how the OS is really developing, we're currently running an OS based on what the development cycle had reached in February, with some minor bug fixes and speed tweaks. I honestly don't think Mac OS X was developed enough for release, but if Apple didn't release something they would face some larger problems.

We're four months down the line now (work for the next major release had already begun at the beginning of March), and with idea being put out that we're only in for another demo at Macworld New York of the next major release (slated for an August release). That is tantamount to 5-6 months work.

So were going to see some obvious improvement. Just like the first release of any OS there is shakey ground, but read me, Mac OS X "will get better!" as Apple begins to get more focused on it's development (at the moment they're all over the place with Mac OS 9.2, Quicktime 5, Final Cut Pro 2 and so on) and the amount of work (like hardware support, porting apps, etc) becomes less - and they can focus on performance.

[PBG4 User]

I really think that final assumptions shouldn't be made until after Macworld. If OS X is still in the same shape as .04, then that'll be a problem.

Invidia's new graphic cards are programmable. Quartz is currently not hardware accelerated via graphics cards. The 3D is but the PDF, the replacement for QuickDraw imaging, is not. This will change with the new Invidia cards. All things considered OS X kicks major arse considering all software rendering is currently done via the CPU. I have a feeling this will change with Invidia's G3 cards. Anybody else have opinion on this? It is pure speculation but I feel Apple left ATI for a good reason and not just the impish amount of performance gains over the Radeon.

A small note. Take your Rage or Radeon or GForce2 or whatever out ... take your vram out. And see how fast OS 9.1 does screen updates and redraws. Check out that non-accelerated scrolling. OS X's non accelerated scrolling is five thousand times faster than 9's. Or is that just my dual 500 G4s? Well they have a lot to do with it but I do not doubt OS 9.1 has lower performance non-accelerated graphics than does OS X.

Originally posted by Apocalypse:
<STRONG>

my buddies with Linux seem to be re-compiling their kernel every day to get around hardware weirdness and still have a grossely unstable window-manager (although they tend to use Enlightenment so that could be to blaim

Jeff.</STRONG>

Actually, my linux server has been up for quite a while without a single reboot. I'm very happy that the underpinnings of OSX are in fact UNIX. I will enjoy the same level of stability that I've seen under both FreeBSD and Linux. Here is the uptime from my Linux box:

3:01am up 217 days, 5:38, 1 user, load average: 0.07, 0.03, 0.01

By the way, I do use enlightenment 16.5 and I have never had any problems. I can't wait... a couple of more paychecks and I'll have myself a Mac!

[starfleetX]

Originally posted by applenut1:
<STRONG>what I find strange is that there is a very large gap in speed (233Mhz-733/DP533) yet even the fastest newsest machines don't run OS X "fast"

OS X is certainly usable on my G4/400 but it's not comforting that a G4/733 isn't fast with OS X. I feel sorry for people with original iMacs. Actually I'll be getting one tomorrow so I'll see how it is.

But, what machines are they programming on? Wouldn't it make sense to strive for the best performance on the lowest supported model?</STRONG>

To you, applenut, and to everyone else who wonders about the speed of OS X on different Macs:

Why can't you take a stroll down to your local Mac dealer and actually try OS X on the lowest available iBook or iMac and then try it on a 733 G4 or dual 533 G4 PowerMac?? That would probably solve a lot of the bickering we have going on here... c'mon, really! What's the hold-up?

[Mr Burns]

Hi everyone!

The Mac I use (450 dual, 640 MB RAM) at work has 10.0.4 installed on a separate partition. I consider this what some here called a "smokin' system".

I think nobody has yet mentioned the slowness of printing under OS X.

Currently I use OS X only after my daily work is done. You know � to get in touch with the new system. Sooner or later we all will work with it. What angers me is that printing takes a huge amount of time (we have a networked Laserprinter 8500). So if I need to print more pages I'm back in 9.1.

Apple please fix OS X!

But installation was a breeze ...

[foamy]

Come to think of it, Mr. Burns is right. Printing (Network) is mind-bogglingly slow on OSX. Is it similar on a local printer?

[weinc2001]

My perceived performance is, OS X is slow and it sucks. It is for DOS retards, not Mac users. Apple is boring me with their bullsh!t. It runs like fukin' ****, on everthing I have tried it on...G4,G3...whatever...

I 've been using a DUAL 450Mhz G4 256mb RAM since March, running OS 9.0.4 (uh, yes, still the old one), I use it mainly for graphics and I LOVE it! Before that I had a PII 350Mhz running Win 98. One thing I've noticed about Windows is that it tends to break down over time. Sure, at first it runs great, but after 2 years of use (1 year even), things tend to get a bit messy and you'll probably want to re-format the hard-drive and re-install the whole thing just so you can get it running smoothly again. Another thing that bugs me about Windows is that if you don't uninstall the apps using its own uninstall program, you end up with a bunch of crap in your windows folder. Sometimes even after you've uninstalled the app using its own uninstaller, you still get crap! What's the deal with all those DOS named files in that windows folder? I don't need or want to see them! Let's not forget about those half-assed plug-and-play features that seldomly work. I also hate having one hard disk partitionned into drives named after all the letters of the alphabet, just so Windows can understand it. What am I saying? It's not really Windows, it's really just DOS in disguise!!

Of course, a nice feature in Windows is that if something isn't working, you can still shut it down without your OS crashing fataly. I do not like having to reboot my Mac OS when an app crashes or when there's a type 2 or 3 error it bothers me. However I have to say that although the Mac OS crashes fataly, it doesn't do weird things like my Windows 98. By weird things I mean, warning sound when there's no warning dialogue box, icons that seem to swap themselves for no apparent reason and other miscellaneous little things that make the OS look and feel cheap. I do not like the fact that in Windows the icons all come in various color depts and quality, I find that disturbing. Installing drivers in Windows is also a hassle, and things are never 100% compatible. I know a friend whose Windows crashes all by itself! You just leave it there, you don't touch the keyboard, you don't do anything, you just sit there and stare at the screen and, wow, the computer commits suicide! It's FUN-TASTIC! I'm not saying that Windows is worst or better than Mac OS, they both have good sides and bad sides. If you know a lot about computers you can probably build yourself a pretty solid PC workstation running Windows. Personally I'm done playing with Windows, and I just want to use a computer that's easy to setup, simple to use and keeps all the technical details to itself so I can concentrate on my work. Sure there are lots of games and apps on the PC, but very few of them are actually good or useful, besides, you don't use the computer JUST for games.

Although I find Mac OS much easier to use, I do find it annoying that my desktop always seems to look so cluttered, and the system seems to eat memory like a hungry hog. Sometimes the hog just chokes and die and I have to press the reboot button to restart the system the old fashion way. I find that irritating. I find myself pressing the reboot button more often then when I was using my PII running Windows 98. It's a good thing that the system loads fast. However, re-installing the Mac OS is a breeze. The icons are beautiful and logical, and the extension manager is easy to understand and... um, manage. The language pack is great, and I can switch between typing in Traditional Chinese and English with ease. iTunes is wonderful, and in my opinion it's the best mp3 player around. It makes WinAmp look primitive.

It's useless to debate whether Windows is better than Mac OS or Mac OS is better than Windows, they both have great strengths and terrible flaws. Frankly, I have no idea why anyone would want to post a message on this board just to bash Mac OS. If you prefer Windows, fine, go use your Windows 95/98/NT/2000/ME/XP, it's okay. As for me, I am fortunate enough to have access to both PC and Mac! In the end it's Microsoft and Apple Computers who are the ones with money in their pockets, not you.

Now, tell me more about OSX.

Hi all, have you tried the updated version of Mac OS X? 10.1? You will be shocked by the speed, open Internet Explorer in 2~3 seconds with Powerbook G3 500. If you haven't try it, then read http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1006-200-6742270.html and you'll be shocked!!! BUY OS X NOW!!!

Originally posted by SuperHard:
<STRONG>I have not used OSX, I'm still in 9.1, but I am considering adding OSX to my powerbook. I was wondering what your impressions of overall performance in OSX is, when you are using only cocoa written apps? Little things, like opening files, copying files, launching applications, switching windows of different apps, stuff like that. I realized in most cases you are using carbonized apps or running in Classic mode, which is a complicated scenario to evaluate. But in cases like running Omniweb, using iTunes, Mail.app which run in Aqua (right?), how does that "feel" compared to running similar apps in native OS9? I don't mean to open a can of worms, I am just looking for some general, overall,qualitative judgements. Thanks!</STRONG>

its really kinda funny to read this thread - ppl talking about os x running ok on their DP machines with 640 MB ram i actually did the same when i still ran 10.0.x . i did that because i really wanted os x to be a great os ... wishful thinking :O ... the speed issue *was* really annoying, especially when showing off os x to wintel ppl .
But then came 10.1 which is SUPERB (if you don�t care about the bugs - come on its a beta) i had the chance to put my hands on the "macworld preview" and (after installing it seven times until it really worked) i�m like ! my new ibook with just 128 mb runs many times faster than the 867 quicksilver with 3 times that ram... its pretty funny to put them next to another and do some work, the quicksilver is like slow motion ... anyway the speed issue is about to be solved and as soon as the final is out i�ll completly switch to X.

finally no more wishful thinking - stick with reality

[impromp101]

I'm still on 9.0.4 at home (I have an Epson 870 printer...you'll understand) but tried OS X 10.0 at Microcenter a month ago and it was too slow to really use in terms of GUI interactivity. I went back today and somehow they've managed to fix the speed. They're still on an old build (10.0, some 4... build), I think the same one I saw a month ago. I don't know what G4 they have it on, but it's an old G4, not a Quicksilver. I assume they just added more RAM and did the other stuff (prebinding, etc.). All I know if that this old build of 10.0 seemed just fine to me in terms of speed. I'd be happy using it.

Simply put, OS X on a dual G4/450 feels as fast as 9.1 did on the same machine, except for three things:

1. ) Finder
2. ) Both major browsers
3. ) Classic

Watch out for that last one. Copied from top, a system monitoring application (and one of the many benefits of OS X over 9):

TruBlueEnv 54.3% 41:02:43 19 209 234 123M 1.54M 124M 1.07G

Those last two numbers are the amount of physical RAM and virtual memory that application is using, respectively. The first one is CPU usage, where 200% is the absolute maximum total (dual processors). FYI, this machine has 1152MB of physical RAM, and Classic can still slow it down.

OS X : powerful and power hungry?

Having worked for 10 days solid under OS X (10.0.4) now, I have come to grasp some of its secrets and have come to realise that I like its cool confidence a lot, while I still miss some of those wonderful traits of OS 9.1.

- it feels as though OS X is designed on the most powerful Mac computers with gifted engineers behind those huge flatscreens: the user-interface on my iBook (Oyster, 160 Mb RAM, 2 Mb video memory) feels sluggish, the hard disk is working overtime, and all interface windows are HUGE! There are still people who are very happy with their older iBook, and compared to OS 9.1, OS X is slow in response...

Video too, is slow, where I could play QT movie trailers in full screen mode smoothly under OS 9.1, playback under OS X is useless: jerky, slow-motion and out of synch.
Where iTunes or SoundJam under OS 9.1 would perform its visuals smoothly in full screen mode using millions of colours, under OS X it is again jerky and ungainly. What a shame, when Aqua is especially touted as the clearest, prettiest screen display...

GUI and audio response to user input was better under OS 9.1 too: will we see something like the "appearance" control Panel re-appear in X? Especially the soundsets were fantastic AND useful as they provided me with audio feedback of my actions and the computer's. Will we see the scroll arrows grouped together again, also very useful?

And every interface window takes up enormous amounts of screen real estate on my 800 x 600 (max) screen. I wish I could shrink every window and use my own choice of screen and menu font (smaller). Why is every window so enormous? It feels almost as if I'm visually impaired, or my iBook has turned into "my first Sony computer". And why do I have to have gigantic icons anyway? Don't let's forget the initial function of the icon, a pictorial representation of a command, sentence, or object, to make manipulation on screen easier. It is not and does not need to be a painting; the art of designing 32x32 pixel icons has developed into an art onto itself. Basically I hate those utterly useless screen-hog mega-icons! useless.

Directly accessible controls for volume, screen brightness, resolution, muting also should be provided. Let's have those great combined function keys back, and let's have some sort of control strip, please.

Having said all that, in short: "...can I have OS 9.1 interface with OS X stability and power...?" I recognise the latent power and unflappable calm of OS X fully: strong and confident. Now let's have that software that everyone loves to use: where is PhotoShop X, where is Golive X (where was Golive anyway, one of the best apps ever left to die a quiet unnoticed death? Bugdom indeed!), where is Quark, where is Finale etc?

And realise please, that not everyone has either free local dial-up, fast cable or even ADSL connections: many people on this planet still pay dearly for every second spent online. Let's have help files available on the system disk or whatever, don't make me connect yet again to answer a simple question.

[macintostie]

I have an iMac rev A (233 Mhz G3) with 160 Mb RAM and while OS X is a little slow I use it as my main OS. I haven't started OS 9 in 3 months... You must get used to it. It takes forever to startup, but besides that it rocks! I am a developer so I now have UNIX, Java 2, Cocoa, ... I think it is too slow for the normal user, anyway until September (when 10.1 comes out). After that is is the best OS availible. Where else do you get so cool UNIX platform?

[Nebrie]

Originally posted by vega24:
<STRONG>Orginally posted by apocolypse:



While I'm glad that OS X has been stable for you, I've heard of Linux machines that have gone over 2 years without a shut down or reboot.</STRONG>

In that case we may as well bring up all those Netware machines that have uptimes close to a decade, sealed behind concrete walls and long lost but still showing up on the networks; Netware running on machines that have never been touched since they were put in place nearly a decade ago, etc.

The point is that OS X is a very graphically intense and complex OS that makes use of very demanding apps. It doesn't just sit there in CLI and hand out files once in a while. This makes it far more prone to crashes or faults. That makes it's uptime much more impressive.

Originally posted by &lt;Undo&gt;:
<STRONG>You guys have lost touch with reality. Look at your posts......even with 200 to 500 megs of ram....OSX is slow. I have machines with 64 megs of memory that run Windows 2000 at a good clippy speed. Stevie has you guys in a trance and is selling you a bill of goods. OSX should run fast with no more than 128 megs of ram. I know ram is cheap.....but common sense is free. If Windows 2000 had the kind of performance that OSX has with 256 megs of ram you would be laughing Microsoft off the planet.

But its up to you.....if you want to replace most of your hardware and software so you can have a cool looking desktop......hey its a free society.

Good Luck.</STRONG>

BWahhahhahhahha! Who is this idiot?

I've done more amazing things under osX in the last week than I've pulled off with windoze (95 or 95a or 95b or 95c or 98 or 98sp1 or 98SE or ME or NT4SP3 or NT4SP4 or NT4SP5 or NT4SP6 or 2000 or XP RC2) in the last couple of years. I've got XDarwin serving up WindowMaker rootless, transparent terminals telnet to my FreeBSD firewall, open source packages compiling bing-bang-boom, and my 9 apps performing in a sane/reasonable fashion.

Is the OS a little slow on the response? Yes. Why? probably because Apple wanted to ship product (much like Microsoft) and skipped the optimization phase to get the silly thing out on time. Acording to the Apple's web site, 10.1 is supposed to speed things up considerably.

Anyway, 2000 professional goes bonk a couple of dozen times a day, Visual C++ take the ocassional sporatic nosedive for no reason, but my up-time under OS X is so impressive I freaked out last night when I realized I was still running an app I was using 3 days earlier. Whoops, I forgot to close it and never had rebooted in all that time! What really made this amazing was I was experimenting with my DHCP servier last night, and OSX was picking up the changes almost in realtime.

I was C64 hound, later an Amiga Religious Fanatic, and am a professional Windoze developer for 8 years now. I am amazed by OSX and it's only gonna get better...

Yukster...

Well, on my iBook 500 with 192mb or ram OS X is badly slow. I mean, if you had a snail, it could race from one side of the keyboard to the other in the time OS X loaded (3min exactly) and then he could race to the nearest pen on the desk in the time that it took to load AppleWorks 6. People love the interface, the windows shrinking, the dock, but that was about it. When the see the load times they hate it. I take it to school as my workbook's and it works fine for that, but otherwise it is disappointing. I can't wait for Puma, but I hope it helps alot. My friend on his G4 has the best load times. I still think Mac OS X is awesome and it is the only reason I moved to Mac, other than it has a certain lack of Micro$oft products.

Long live Apple.

[TheTraveller]

Originally posted by &lt;pc_microsoft_hater&gt;:
<STRONG>I can't wait for Puma, but I hope it helps alot.
</STRONG>

Don't worry, be happy - it helps out a *lot*. It can arguably be described as miraculous.

[sniffer]

Been on X since 10.0 GM. Have used it mostly as my main OS, until now lately.. It feels like a release to come back to 9.x. It's just speedy. Sure it crash now and then, but it "works".
Have never been a fan of the Mac OS GUI. So far I think I had my biggest user experience when I used dos-commander for a good while back. Damn.. Have anyone here tried it? Seriusly.. It's effective. But I dubbed that I would use it to day.
I even prefer Windblows over Mac OS in many ways. Never liked the finder. I think MS solution is better. There are flaws on both sides, thougth. Windblows are to technically dos like in a way. Man.. It's about time MS is trying to get rid of those "*.ini" files and other old bagage. One other disadventage with Windblows, is that you cannot move your files around, wich is a great feature in mac os.
I have tried different GUIs over time. KDE, GNOME, OS/2 Warp 3, BeOS 5 , QNX.. And I must admitt.. The Apple staff HAS done a fantastic job so far with the user experience GUI in X. You doesn't need many clicks on your mouse to get your job done. The only thing that is lacking to make it "work" is again the speed issue. Duhh.. I think you all know this allready..
My point is; Can't wait for 10.1!!
It seems like the speed issue is close to become an non-issue, by judging the posts by ppl who is running latest 10.1 builts.
And to the first poster which was considering X.. Perhaps you should be patient.. The X 10.1 seems to become far more mature then what we have seen so far.. (Judging by the posts I have seen so far about newer builds)

Peace!

[ 09-16-2001: Message edited by: sniffer ]

[mactropolis]

The good thing is that OS X is virgin (like most of you here...) and that will only change in time (unlike most of you here...) by becoming harder, better, stronger, faster.

[ 09-16-2001: Message edited by: mactropolis ]

My experience with OS X on a G4/400 384MB RAM:
OS X is slow, very sloooooooooooooowwwwww but it runs stable.

To compare the speed I have written a little Java program with netbeans, an opensource Java IDE available on all relevant platforms. The program is a console application, so it has no GUI as I was mainly interested in performance issues not dependent on the GUI of a certain machine.

Leaving out all the details of the little program here just the overall result when running the program on my Mac and running the same program on a Win2000 machine at work:

G4/400 384Mb: 330 sec
Athlon/600 256Mb: 65 sec

This difference may give you an impression about the real speed of the system. The whole system feels how the result may suggest.

iMan

Originally posted by &lt;iMan&gt;:
<STRONG>My experience with OS X on a G4/400 384MB RAM:
OS X is slow, very sloooooooooooooowwwwww but it runs stable.

To compare the speed I have written a little Java program with netbeans, an opensource Java IDE available on all relevant platforms. The program is a console application, so it has no GUI as I was mainly interested in performance issues not dependent on the GUI of a certain machine.

Leaving out all the details of the little program here just the overall result when running the program on my Mac and running the same program on a Win2000 machine at work:

G4/400 384Mb: 330 sec
Athlon/600 256Mb: 65 sec

This difference may give you an impression about the real speed of the system. The whole system feels how the result may suggest.

iMan</STRONG>

I would buy your G4 for 1/5th of the price of that Athlon. OK?

The most amusing thing that i find about my Win2k box is the sudden need for it to restart at certain times at night. For instance, at around 9.30 every night a blue screen of death pops up and the computer restarts....funny hey? another one was when i was using a program and a box popped up (this computer aint connected to the internet so it aint a virus) and the box said this program will crash in 17secs and counted down. Sure enough the program halted at 17secs, just long enough for me to save. Once again, ehhhh? Lucky for me, my iBook don't do that. Why? Cause i would throw it across the room. That said and done, Puma has gone GM and i cant wait to grab a copy....

[Eugene Fields]

Originally posted by SuperHard:
<STRONG>I have not used OSX, I'm still in 9.1, but I am considering adding OSX to my powerbook. I was wondering what your impressions of overall performance in OSX is, when you are using only cocoa written apps? . Thanks!</STRONG>

First Thing, with a moniker like SuperHard you need OSX, period. OS9 has no sex at all! OSX is Loaded!

At first (when the beta came out) I used to have to boot into 9 all the time, as I felt frustrated I could not operate the OS, like I had OS9, of which I was a master. After having the Beta, then 10.04. I got more fluent in OSX's methods. I began to loath stepping back into 9. Speedy yes but unstable, and downright Homely compared to OSX. With 10.1 I'm with OSX Full Time and I adore it!
Well I have NO reason anymore to boot into OS9, now that I got a Sandisk reader for the Nikon Camera. 10.1 ROCKS!!! When I must boot into 9 I feel as if I'm at Greatful Dead Concert in the 80's... quality tracks, but tired and prehistoric. 10.1 feels like my BMW. OS9 feels like a '69 Chevy Impala

[ 09-23-2001: Message edited by: Eugene Fields ]