Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Noob · Jul 5, 2002, 05:20 PM

Which will it be? I'm worried the it'll be sluggish and slow compared to 10.1.x.

BTP · Jul 5, 2002, 05:26 PM

Well that wouldn't make sense, would it?

From my experience, it is faster, but smoother would also be accurate. There are too many variable among users that will prevent blanket statements like "it's 15% faster" from being true.

I had a build to use until today and it was faster for me.

Developer · Jul 5, 2002, 05:26 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Noob:

I'm worried the it'll be sluggish and slow compared to 10.1.x.<hr /></blockquote>In which case you could just not update, right?

Severed Hand of Skywalker · Jul 5, 2002, 05:28 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Developer:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Noob:

I'm worried the it'll be sluggish and slow compared to 10.1.x.<hr /></blockquote>In which case you could just not update, right?<hr /></blockquote>Tell that to microsoft.

starfleetX · Jul 5, 2002, 06:03 PM

It baffles me to no end why people think Jaguar will be SLOWER than 10.1. <img border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" title="" src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" />

+ You get Quartz Extreme to offload compositing to the GPU.
+ You get further optimizations to the code.
+ You get an updated, much more efficient gcc compiler.

Even if your Mac doesn't support QE, it won't run any slower than 10.1 was before QE was implemented. QE does nothing more than the current Quartz compositor does, except move compositing to the GPU instead of the CPU.

Where are people getting confused here? Seriously??

Millennium · Jul 5, 2002, 08:09 PM

Apparently there's a significant speed boost even if you can't use QE. There are many reasons for this, one of which is that the new compiler is much better.

Mactoid · Jul 5, 2002, 08:31 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Millennium:
Apparently there's a significant speed boost even if you can't use QE. There are many reasons for this, one of which is that the new compiler is much better.<hr /></blockquote>I sure hope so! Anyone have any experience with Jaguar on an original iMac?
I'm not expecting miracles, but I can't wait to get my hands on it.

benh57 · Jul 5, 2002, 08:43 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by starfleetX:
It baffles me to no end why people think Jaguar will be SLOWER than 10.1.
Where are people getting confused here? Seriously??

<hr /></blockquote>Well, if you think about it in terms of mac OS 7-8-9's evolution it makes sense. Would you run 9 on a 6100? Sure you could (I think), but it would be slow. (mostly due to the memory requirements rising, and the horrible codeball that classic MacOS became)

Jaguar is different however. There are many optimizations to the code that have not been made yet. Mac OS X is still very new.

Superchicken · Jul 5, 2002, 09:22 PM

Yeah i have no idea why people think OS X.2 would be slower, apple can't really afford to make it slower

They siad they'll bring speed increases, I dout they'd lie... that's just bad PR.

And you know.... I think people have finnaly stopped belly acheing about QE not being supported for their computers that arn't able to support it

b*tchy · Jul 5, 2002, 09:45 PM

Almost certainly faster. I've been trying the betas and see major speedups even on crappy hardware. This includes hardware with bad video cards (proformance cards and 8meg vram ati cards) and underpowered machines (the pismo & g3 imacs). I consider the current 10.1 to be almost unusable on anything less than a 600mhz machine. 10.2 finally brings the finder up to parity speedwise with OS 9 on hardware down to about 300mhz... On newer/faster machines (especially those with good video cards, dual processors, and lots of memory) the speed improvements are major. Big big jumps in speed and fluidity.

[ 07-05-2002, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: b*tchy ]

jguidroz · Jul 5, 2002, 11:22 PM

It continues to surprise me all the people questioning the speed of Jaguar when it hasn't even been released yet. No one has seen the final version yet. All we have is unfinished builds, and yes so far it is faster. I used the WWDC version on my B&W G3/300, and it's a lot faster, and this build is no where close to the builds now.

Mactoid · Jul 5, 2002, 11:53 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by jguidroz:
It continues to surprise me all the people questioning the speed of Jaguar when it hasn't even been released yet. No one has seen the final version yet. All we have is unfinished builds, and yes so far it is faster. I used the WWDC version on my B&W G3/300, and it's a lot faster, and this build is no where close to the builds now.<hr /></blockquote>Everyone keeps hearing about QE and how it is going to make the whole OS so much faster. That's great for the people who have graphic cards that support QE. The concern is from the rest of us. We don't get QE, and we don't hear much about the improvements that do apply to us. It's good to hear that the improvements are there, but that news gets lost in the noise.

I can understand the doubts. I personally flinch every time I hear about how the scaling effect is now everywhere. The scaling effect is terrible on my machine! Ugh. Regardless, I'm not to worried. I know I have a dinosaur and I'll be happy with Jaguar regardless

Detrius · Jul 6, 2002, 01:24 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mactoid:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by jguidroz:
It continues to surprise me all the people questioning the speed of Jaguar when it hasn't even been released yet. No one has seen the final version yet. All we have is unfinished builds, and yes so far it is faster. I used the WWDC version on my B&W G3/300, and it's a lot faster, and this build is no where close to the builds now.<hr /></blockquote>Everyone keeps hearing about QE and how it is going to make the whole OS so much faster. That's great for the people who have graphic cards that support QE. The concern is from the rest of us. We don't get QE, and we don't hear much about the improvements that do apply to us. It's good to hear that the improvements are there, but that news gets lost in the noise.

I can understand the doubts. I personally flinch every time I hear about how the scaling effect is now everywhere. The scaling effect is terrible on my machine! Ugh. Regardless, I'm not to worried. I know I have a dinosaur and I'll be happy with Jaguar regardless

<hr /></blockquote>On my iBook 500, under 10.1.x, minimizing windows is painfully slow. I have chosen to use scale, as it is much simpler than the traditional genie effect. Still, I get about two intermediate steps on a window's way into the dock. This is the 8MB internal ATI graphics chip.

10.1.x on my Dual G4 w/ GeForce2MX (42MB) is relatively nice, even using the genie effect. It's still just a wee bit jumpy.

6C75 on the iBook is almost up to par with the dual G4 for minimizing windows. The fact that the scale effect is used all over the place is reasonable. Significantly less processor time goes to drawing the interface, though it still takes a small chunk on the CPU Monitor.

6C75 on the dual G4 is absolutely amazing. The interface effects are perfectly smooth while taking virtually no processor time whatsoever.
This is what OS X is supposed to look like... I can't wait until I can afford a GeForce4...

So, even though KellyHogan was complaining about QE not supporting the 8MB chip, that 8MB chip is still significantly improved under Jaguar.

All I need now for this iBook isa 512MB RAM chip... (256MB still isn't enough)

MDA · Jul 6, 2002, 02:56 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mactoid:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by jguidroz:
It continues to surprise me all the people questioning the speed of Jaguar when it hasn't even been released yet. No one has seen the final version yet. All we have is unfinished builds, and yes so far it is faster. I used the WWDC version on my B&W G3/300, and it's a lot faster, and this build is no where close to the builds now.<hr /></blockquote>Everyone keeps hearing about QE and how it is going to make the whole OS so much faster. That's great for the people who have graphic cards that support QE. The concern is from the rest of us. We don't get QE, and we don't hear much about the improvements that do apply to us. It's good to hear that the improvements are there, but that news gets lost in the noise.

I can understand the doubts. I personally flinch every time I hear about how the scaling effect is now everywhere. The scaling effect is terrible on my machine! Ugh. Regardless, I'm not to worried. I know I have a dinosaur and I'll be happy with Jaguar regardless

<hr /></blockquote>That's good because Apple is after all out to make money as well as produce the best OS available. Why would they want to make sure that every Tom, Dick and Harry that owns a legacy machine can run OS X as well as the people who have invested in the latest hardware? To me that doesn't seem to make much business sense.

MDA