Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Software - Troubleshooting and Discussion > macOS > 10.2's Java implementation is still disappointing

10.2's Java implementation is still disappointing
Thread Tools
TheGreatButcher
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2002, 05:38 PM
 
Why is it some Java enabled sites like chat.yahoo.com or games.play.com refuse to work in OS X? I have to constantly switch over to OS 9 to get them to work. How are the people that get will be getting new Macs without a bootable 9 be able to get around this?
     
ntsc
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Glasgow, Scotland UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2002, 05:41 PM
 
if i understand correctly i think that you will find that in most cases that the people you should be complaining to aren't Apple but in fact the Browser makers. It would appear that most of them are still trying to figure out how to use Java under Mac OS X.

I think that this is case perhaps someone could correct me.
"You can't waste a life hating people, because all they do is live their life, laughing, doing more evil."

-ALPHA ROBERTSON,whose daughter was one of four girls killed in the bombing of a Birmingham, Ala., church in 1963.
     
TheGreatButcher  (op)
Senior User
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2002, 05:43 PM
 
Then maybe Apple should work with them more closely. X has been out 16 months and this problem hasn't improved one bit. Since it works fine in OS 9 I don't see what the excuses are
     
stevenhaddon
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Edinburgh, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2002, 05:47 PM
 
Have you tried downloading Mozilla 1.1? I've got chat.yahoo.com working fine on OS X 10.1; I think it's the latest Mozilla update that's done it.

Steve
     
msuper69
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Columbus, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2002, 06:21 PM
 
What browser are you using?
     
miro7
Forum Regular
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: the valley of the sun
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2002, 06:22 PM
 
My understanding is that the Java 1.4 Update should be released shortly after the official release of Jag. I think that you're still using 1.3.1 in 10.2 right now, which is still superior to anything under OS 9, despite any problems that you might have getting a game to run in a browser.
aimlessly wandering through the valley of the sun.
     
piracy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2002, 06:35 PM
 
Originally posted by miro7:
My understanding is that the Java 1.4 Update should be released shortly after the official release of Jag. I think that you're still using 1.3.1 in 10.2 right now, which is still superior to anything under OS 9, despite any problems that you might have getting a game to run in a browser.
You're correct. The current Java implementation (albeit 1.3.1) on Mac OS X is better than any previous Java implementation on any version of Mac OS. Watch for a Java 1.4 update after the release of 10.2; also, watch for IE's handling of Java to be greatly improved with the next major release of IE (tentatively to be versioned IE 6, due out in 2003).
     
mudmonkey
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Other side of your screen
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2002, 06:37 PM
 
Originally posted by TheGreatButcher:
Why is it some Java enabled sites like chat.yahoo.com or games.play.com refuse to work in OS X? I have to constantly switch over to OS 9 to get them to work. How are the people that get will be getting new Macs without a bootable 9 be able to get around this?
You ought to see if it is the Java implementation's fault or the browser's by using appletviewer:

From the command line,

% appletviewer url-of-java-program

If it works well via appletviewer (if you need cookies, etc., then, it may be tougher to get appletviewer to act like a browser) then it is not Apple's fault, but, rather the browser creator hasn't integrating with Apple's Java.
Meh
     
rifferte
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2002, 07:13 PM
 
I think it has everything to do with the browser. Although - I have had success with this.

One thing that is upsetting is how long it has taken apple to get Java 1.4 to us. If Java is to be taken seriously as a major component of OSX (ala Cocoa/Carbon), then this has to change. I can't believe that this did not make it into Jag.

That being said - lets hope it gets a ton of QA and is of great quality.

Later,

Ron
     
awaspaas
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2002, 07:35 PM
 
chat.yahoo.com works fine in IE on 10.2, to the detriment of my real-life social life!
     
Graymalkin
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: ~/
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2002, 07:38 PM
 
rifferte what in the hell are you talking about? OSX has some of the best Java support of any OS on the market. Don't be fooled by version numbers Java 1.4 isn't THAT much of an improvement over 1.3.x and a majority of all Applets you'll run across which are 99% of people's Java exposure are written in either conform to Java 1.2 or in some cases the 1.0 revision. Apple's JVM is top notch and I've love to see you find another major OS that treats Java apps on par with native apps. Most of the improvements between 1.4 and 1.3 are going to be improvements only a handful of developers even care about. Apple taking a long time to roll out 1.4 doesn't mean anything and doesn't detract from the seriousness of Java on OSX. Stop your whining.
     
mahoney2
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2002, 07:46 PM
 
Everytime i go to a site in X (either IE or mozilla) the web browser crashes. Didn't do it for a long time but it started around 10.1.4? Yahoo's Fantasy Baseball Stat Tracker crashes every single time i go to it. Works fine in 9 and in Win. Pisses me off
     
rifferte
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 11, 2002, 10:20 PM
 
Originally posted by Graymalkin:
rifferte what in the hell are you talking about? OSX has some of the best Java support of any OS on the market. Don't be fooled by version numbers Java 1.4 isn't THAT much of an improvement over 1.3.x and a majority of all Applets you'll run across which are 99% of people's Java exposure are written in either conform to Java 1.2 or in some cases the 1.0 revision. Apple's JVM is top notch and I've love to see you find another major OS that treats Java apps on par with native apps. Most of the improvements between 1.4 and 1.3 are going to be improvements only a handful of developers even care about. Apple taking a long time to roll out 1.4 doesn't mean anything and doesn't detract from the seriousness of Java on OSX. Stop your whining.
DUDE - I didn't mean to start a flame!

First off - I am a Java Developer, so not having 1.4 is an issue for me. Mac OSX is my main machine - so its kinda tough not having access to 1.4 to work with it.

Secondly - I agree that Java support is top notch on OSX. I didnt mean to come off as saying it wasn't. I just meant that Apple is slow to keep up with Sun concerning Java. Apple rightfully boasts about there implementation - and they should. I just think that it would be nice to keep pace with Sun (more on this below).

Thirdly - concerning browsers: you are right again, 1.4 doesn't factor as much since most applets are written to 1.8 because of the whole Sun/MS Java license issue.

My main point is that for regular desktop applications - keeping close pace with Sun would be a smart thing to do! With each release Java gets better for the developer and end user. If Apple wants Java to be up there with Cocoa/Carbon, I think that they should keep pace with the Java Community (and the JDK), to keep developer support high so that more applications get developed.

Case in point, 1.4 will allow you to use your scroll wheel, as well add to the overall performance of Java Apps. Those are two things that are good for end users.

I love OSX, and I love Java.
     
PBG4 User
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Deer Crossing, CT
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2002, 09:59 AM
 
From where I sit, OS X's Java implementation is a problem. I have code for a simple AWT applet that draws a sun, then draws lines around the sun using a for loop (think of a kid's drawing of a sun, then think of the sun's "rays" changing colors) and it doesn't work correctly at all.

Run the exact same code (exact same .java file) on win2K using Sun's JVM and it works as expected. I can post the code to show that I'm not doing anything special if anyone's interested.

I just hope issues like mine get resolved ASAP because I've gotten a few people in my school's CS program interested in using PowerBooks and OS X for their main develop machine (we do all java for core CS classes, except for some language classes, C, ASM, etc.).
     
KaptainKaya
Mac Elite
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: somewhere in ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2002, 10:14 AM
 
Originally posted by awaspaas:
chat.yahoo.com works fine in IE on 10.2, to the detriment of my real-life social life!
I have to agree...IE 5.2 in Jaguar works fine with Yahoo chat.
     
Amorph
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Iowa City, IA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2002, 12:02 PM
 
Originally posted by rifferte:

Secondly - I agree that Java support is top notch on OSX. I didnt mean to come off as saying it wasn't. I just meant that Apple is slow to keep up with Sun concerning Java. Apple rightfully boasts about there implementation - and they should. I just think that it would be nice to keep pace with Sun (more on this below).
Do you want Apple to have a top-notch, well-integrated Java runtime, or do you want them to keep up with Sun?

Apple starts with Sun's code, and then optimizes it and integrates it with CoreFoundation and AppleScript and Quartz/Aqua. That takes time. So Apple will always lag at least somewhat behind Sun. The payoff is a world-class implementation of Java.

PBG4 user: AWT has been deprecated.
James

"I grew up. Then I got better." - Sea Wasp
     
rifferte
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2002, 01:07 PM
 
Originally posted by Amorph:


Do you want Apple to have a top-notch, well-integrated Java runtime, or do you want them to keep up with Sun?

Apple starts with Sun's code, and then optimizes it and integrates it with CoreFoundation and AppleScript and Quartz/Aqua. That takes time. So Apple will always lag at least somewhat behind Sun. The payoff is a world-class implementation of Java.

PBG4 user: AWT has been deprecated.
In a perfect world - both

But I do understand that it takes time to get things right. But - it just seems that it has been taken a long time waiting for 1.4.

Just my opinion.
     
Back up 15 and punt
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2002, 01:32 PM
 
Originally posted by TheGreatButcher:
Why is it some Java enabled sites like chat.yahoo.com or games.play.com refuse to work in OS X? I have to constantly switch over to OS 9 to get them to work. How are the people that get will be getting new Macs without a bootable 9 be able to get around this?
The implementation of Java under OS 9 is horrible at best. I took my Java training using OS 9 and I can tell you that the bugs are endless. Furthermore, I do not believe that OS 9 allows Mac users to use any Java implementation beyond 1.1.
     
PBG4 User
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Deer Crossing, CT
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2002, 02:03 PM
 
Originally posted by Amorph:
[snip]



PBG4 user: AWT has been deprecated.
It is still included and accessible. Therefore it should still work.

I'm sure you won't agree with me, but that's my position. Why do I have to settle with less functionality on my PBG4 than I have on my PC?
     
Graymalkin
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2001
Location: ~/
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2002, 02:57 PM
 
I'd rather see Apple keep their JVM running well than keep up with Sun's releases. Mirosoft's Java runtime used to try to keep up with the evolvig Java spec before all the lawsuits. It was pretty disasterous for Microsoft because in order to keep up with the new releases they had some serious performance problems. I'd much rather see Apple keep their performance up. Java apps run so well under OSX it is ridiculous at times, especially when you compare it to a JVM like Blackdown which has horrible performance on the same hardware. It's an unfortunate tradeoff at times but to 99% of people, developers and users alike, performance is more important than minor features.
     
CyberDave
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Eastern Washington (St. John/Cheney)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2002, 03:05 PM
 
Originally posted by PBG4 User:


Originally posted by Amorph:


PBG4 user: AWT has been deprecated.

It is still included and accessible. Therefore it should still work.

I'm sure you won't agree with me, but that's my position. Why do I have to settle with less functionality on my PBG4 than I have on my PC?
AWT has *not* been deprecated. Take a look at the Swing classes...they all inherit from AWT classes. How the hell can you deprecate AWT without totally screwing up Swing?

Personally, not having JDK 1.4 is a bit annoying (speaking as a Java developer). There's some nice enhancements to some of the GUI classes I've been working with recently, and a few new ones as well.

CyberDave
( Last edited by CyberDave; Aug 12, 2002 at 03:17 PM. )
     
kwiersma
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2002, 03:33 PM
 
One reason why some applets have trouble on OS X and probably OS 9 is that none of the mac browsers (except maybe Mozilla) supports LiveConnect where as the PC browsers do. LiveConnect is a way of passing information from JavaScript in a HTML page to an applet and vis versa.

Once MS puts LiveConnect into Mac IE 6 (2003) then I am quessing most of the major java applet problems will go away.

Apple's OS X java implementation should not blamed for this. OS 9 was stuck back at version 1.1 of Java with the ablity to run a rough version of swing (it is pretty ugly). OS X Java is up to 1.3.1 which is what a major of production java release use right now and for the next several months. I don't think Apple with be to late with 1.4 support, however, developers (like me) would love to have it now.

--Kdub
     
barbarian
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2002, 03:48 PM
 
I don't know much about Java but online Java applets always seem deadly slow under OS X. After reading this thread I decided to try out a few online Java benchmarks. When compared to other machines, results looked depressing. How valid are these scores? Is there a better java benchmark? Is the new java release finally going to add speed?

----------------------

10.2, 500mhz G4,

http://www.netlib.org/benchmark/linpackjava/

10.2: Mflops/s 16.486
Time 5.09
Norm Res 5.68
Precision 2.2204460492250313E-16

Top scores 223 Mflops/s

CaffineMark

http://www.webfayre.com/pendragon/cm3/runtest.html

Run Locally:

Sieve 4989
Loop 9193
Logic 11230
String 11210
Float 6918
Method 5519
Graphics 125
Image -
dialog 602

Run Online:

Sieve 4954
Loop 9194
Logic 12681
String 11392
Float 6792
Method 5099
Graphics 125
Image 275
dialog 519

CaffineMark 3.0 2514

http://math.nist.gov/scimark2/

Scores on the lower 5th.

http://www.cs.ucsd.edu/users/wgg/JavaProf/javaprof.html

Compiled under Sun javac, with optimization (-O)
*** runtime = 15.206

Compiled under Sun javac, with optimization (-O), no GC benchmark.
*** runtime =14.369
     
wingdo
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Chicago, Earth
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2002, 09:11 PM
 
Originally posted by piracy:
watch for IE's handling of Java to be greatly improved with the next major release of IE (tentatively to be versioned IE 6, due out in 2003).
I'll just sit here holding my breath.
MBP - 2.33GHz C2D, 3GB RAM, 256MB VRAM, 160GB HD
PB - 1.5GHz G4, 2GB RAM, 128MB VRAM, 80GB HD
PM - Dual 1GHzG4, 1.5GB RAM, NVidia GForce 3, 2x 80 GB HD
     
ratlater
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Seattle, WA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2002, 09:59 PM
 
Originally posted by barbarian:
----------------------

10.2, 500mhz G4,

http://www.netlib.org/benchmark/linpackjava/

10.2: Mflops/s 16.486
Time 5.09
Norm Res 5.68
Precision 2.2204460492250313E-16

Top scores 223 Mflops/s
Your machine isn't running very well:

10.2 600mhz iBook G3 -- Omniweb 4.1

Mflops/s 21.894
Time 3.83/s


CaffineMark

http://www.webfayre.com/pendragon/cm3/runtest.html

Run Locally:

Sieve 4989
Loop 9193
Logic 11230
String 11210
Float 6918
Method 5519
Graphics 125
Image -
dialog 602

Run Online:

Sieve 4954
Loop 9194
Logic 12681
String 11392
Float 6792
Method 5099
Graphics 125
Image 275
dialog 519

CaffineMark 3.0 2514
Run Locally:

Sieve 5125
Loop 10639
Logic 13170
String 12516
Float 7573
Method 6636
Graphics 114
Image 0
Dialog 500

Run Online:

Sieve 5889
Loop 10585
Logic 12914
String 12262
Float 7457
Method 6352
Graphics 101
Image 274
Dialog 268

CaffeineMark 3.0 2473


http://math.nist.gov/scimark2/

Scores on the lower 5th.


Looks like about 40, the scale is tough to read. Also this is run from the browser.


http://www.cs.ucsd.edu/users/wgg/JavaProf/javaprof.html

Compiled under Sun javac, with optimization (-O)
*** runtime = 15.206

Compiled under Sun javac, with optimization (-O), no GC benchmark.
*** runtime =14.369
Compiled under Sun javac, with optimization (-O)
*** runtime = 14.278

Compiled under Sun javac, with optimization (-O), no GC benchmark.
*** runtime =12.954

These were run with my machine under fairly heavy load too. 5 Terminal windows, 4 OmniWeb windows, iChat, Sherlock, Photoshop, and Mail were all running.

-matt
     
theolein
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2002, 11:38 PM
 
In Mozilla 1.0 with the MRJPlugin 1.0, chat.yahoo.com works fine. The other site you mentioned doesn't exist(typo?).
weird wabbit
     
theolein
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: zurich, switzerland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2002, 11:48 PM
 
Java1.4 brings regular expressions which are very useful. Apple still needs to do some serious hardware improvements though in order to appease the masses.
weird wabbit
     
barbarian
Senior User
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2002, 01:38 AM
 
>Your machine isn't running very well:

Actually that was just the machine running under a normal load Jag + classic + a few apps.

Alone (all apps quit except for dock, launchbar, browser) I get slightly better times:

http://www.netlib.org/benchmark/linpackjava/

Omniweb 29.13 (27.5 w/ Classic running)
IE 25.32 (24.53 w/ Classic running)
Mozilla 28.06 (26.14 w/ classic running)
     
ImpishLM
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2002, 10:26 AM
 
I switched from OmniWeb because it can't handle Java... too bad, it's a great browser otherwise.

Mozilla 1.1b handles Java well.. not a single problem so far.

HOWEVER, I read recently that Mozilla will not be compatible with Jaguar!

Arrrgh! I hope someone's working on a fix...
'Tis a sin to kill a mockingbird
     
absmiths
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Edmond, OK USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2002, 10:52 AM
 
Please, enough benchmarks! I am a professional Java developer and as such I never touch a JDK release until it is stable on Linux, Windows, OS X and a few other odd unices. The problem is that I write some cool little app on Windows on the greatest JDK to date, then someone tells me I have to deploy it on the little HPUX machine in the corner - looks like a rewrite!

So, I really don't care too much that 1.4 support is still lagging. I am only just now using 1.3 stuff in production code.

What I do care about however is performance on my desktop, which is getting better.
     
absmiths
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Edmond, OK USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2002, 10:55 AM
 
Originally posted by PBG4 User:
From where I sit, OS X's Java implementation is a problem. I have code for a simple AWT applet that draws a sun, then draws lines around the sun using a for loop (think of a kid's drawing of a sun, then think of the sun's "rays" changing colors) and it doesn't work correctly at all.

Run the exact same code (exact same .java file) on win2K using Sun's JVM and it works as expected. I can post the code to show that I'm not doing anything special if anyone's interested.

I just hope issues like mine get resolved ASAP because I've gotten a few people in my school's CS program interested in using PowerBooks and OS X for their main develop machine (we do all java for core CS classes, except for some language classes, C, ASM, etc.).
Not to doubt your code, but just because it works on Windows does NOT mean that it will work on OS X. You would have to tell us the nature of your problem and post either a screen shot showing the anomalies or the source code. Java2D and AWT work very well on OS X, or else Forte, ObjectDomain, LimeWire, and all the Java2D sample apps would not work right.

It is also possible that you use the one method that noone else uses and that method has a problem. Go ahead and post the code.
     
sambeau
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Dundee, Scotland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2002, 07:01 PM
 
Originally posted by absmiths:

LimeWire
*cough* *splutter*

still the only app that will completely crash OSX on my machine..

     
Kristoff
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: in front of the keyboard
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2002, 08:00 PM
 
Originally posted by sambeau:


*cough* *splutter*

still the only app that will completely crash OSX on my machine..

At worst it will crash the JVM. If it is crashing the kernel, then there is something wrong with the OS.
signatures are a waste of bandwidth
especially ones with political tripe in them.
     
PBG4 User
Senior User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Deer Crossing, CT
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2002, 08:58 AM
 
Originally posted by absmiths:


Not to doubt your code, but just because it works on Windows does NOT mean that it will work on OS X. You would have to tell us the nature of your problem and post either a screen shot showing the anomalies or the source code.

. . . [snip]

It is also possible that you use the one method that noone else uses and that method has a problem. Go ahead and post the code.
I had someone from here look at the code, and it is an issue with when and how I called the repaint() method. So it was my bad.
     
absmiths
Mac Elite
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Edmond, OK USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 14, 2002, 09:53 AM
 
Originally posted by sambeau:


*cough* *splutter*

still the only app that will completely crash OSX on my machine..

We are talking about the 2D rendering of the interface - not the apps usability - which does leave a little to be desired.
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:02 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,