Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Shylock · May 25, 2002, 11:55 AM

Is it just my imagination, or is KDX client for OSX very fast.
Granted, the GUI is out of place on OSX but is not bad.
The application launches very fast, windows snap into view and scrolling is very fast. What does the developer of KDX know that Apple does not. The responsiveness of KDX is what I had expected OSX to be when it came out, instead OSX has proved to be lethargic and slow.
Is there a lesson to be learned here that will benefit OSX?
Any constructive comments welcome.

Anand · May 25, 2002, 12:20 PM

Hry, what is the KDE client?

ls -al · May 25, 2002, 12:45 PM

Shylock, loosen your purse strings and buy a new system. It'll be worth the pound of flesh

and will be quite responsive on a newer system.

The reason KDE is fast is the reason Classic/OS 9 is fast on the machine. For review of technical details see Ars Technica's excellent review of the Quartz architecture

[ 05-25-2002: Message edited by: ls -al ]

ls -al · May 25, 2002, 12:47 PM

[double post]

[ 05-25-2002: Message edited by: ls -al ]

m2bored · May 25, 2002, 01:02 PM

ls-al and Anand...

You mean KDX right?

Kde is something completely different....

(not flaming just checking)

I agree though, KDX is responsive

M2

Shylock · May 25, 2002, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by ls -al:
Shylock, loosen your purse strings and buy a new system. It'll be worth the pound of flesh

and will be quite responsive on a newer system.

The reason KDE is fast is the reason Classic/OS 9 is fast on the machine. For review of technical details see Ars Technica's excellent review of the Quartz architecture

[ 05-25-2002: Message edited by: ls -al ]

Is -al, I was referring to "KDX" Client for OSX, not KDE.
I am running a Cube 500/ 512 ram which though old, should run OSX better than it does. My observation with "KDX" on OSX is that it runs very briskly, unlike any other program I have run under OSX.
I am just wondering why that is so, what is it about KDX that makes it so responsive. Could that be the way forward in improving the speed of OSX even on older hardware?

Fotek2001 · May 25, 2002, 02:21 PM

1) What is KDX?

2) I have a Powerbook G4 550 MHz and 512 MB RAM, it works fine for me, it's not as fast as 9.0 but never so slow that it actually gets in the way. Granted OS X could run better but I could not physically do my job (PHP developer and graphic designer) on a computer that runs OS 9 only. For that reason alone, OS X is a dream come true for me.

dr. zoidberg · May 25, 2002, 02:28 PM

well one would think that it is because it doesn�t have any drop shadows and transparency and all the funky stuff... that may very well be a factor.

but i�d also guess that it is coded very well, since it�s not just responsive, but also rock solid and stable.

Shylock · May 25, 2002, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Fotek2001:
1) What is KDX?

2) I have a Powerbook G4 550 MHz and 512 MB RAM, it works fine for me, it's not as fast as 9.0 but never so slow that it actually gets in the way. Granted OS X could run better but I could not physically do my job (PHP developer and graphic designer) on a computer that runs OS 9 only. For that reason alone, OS X is a dream come true for me.

KDX is a "BBS"-style (Bulletin Board System) encrypted internet communications system that provides file transfer, chat, messaging, news, trackers etc. It uses strong encryption to protect your communications for security and privacy.

Yes, OSX does run well but is still much slower than Os9.x, and could run better. KDX running in OSX feels like it is running in Os9, fast and responsive. I am just wondering why it runs so well. If KDX can do it then why can't all other applications. It is just a coincidental observation I thought I would share on this forum. Frankly if the GUI of KDX is responsible for the performance increase I would happily trade "Aqua, Quartz" for a simple GUI that performs.

[ 05-25-2002: Message edited by: Shylock ]

Shylock · May 25, 2002, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by dr. zoidberg:
well one would think that it is because it doesn�t have any drop shadows and transparency and all the funky stuff... that may very well be a factor.

but i�d also guess that it is coded very well, since it�s not just responsive, but also rock solid and stable.

I have tried doing that in other applications in OSX, using shadow killer, tinker tools etc. but never got close to such a performance boost. Perhaps as you say it is well coded.

Scrod · May 25, 2002, 04:37 PM

KDX is fast because it was written using completely custom interface APIs. As you've noticed, it's completely non-standard; the scrollbars, windows, buttons, menus--EVERYTHING--is completely independent from the appearance manager API. Because of this, the developer was presumably able to optimize his custom interface libraries as much as possible for his own purposes. Apple's has to be able to handle cases for all applications out there. You'll also notice how KDX's interface is in general much simpler than that of other applications.

KellyHogan · May 25, 2002, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Scrod:
KDX is fast because it was written using completely custom interface APIs.

Nah. It's fast because the developer's have been doing the Scrod dance and making geek videos at home.

barbarian · May 25, 2002, 04:54 PM

KDX is super fast on OS 9/OS X and in windows. In all cases it is faster than the native GUI. Too bad it is disgustingly ugly.

This is the developer's explanation:
<a href="http://www.haxial.com/policies/gui-policy.html" target="_blank">http://www.haxial.com/policies/gui-policy.html</a>

[ 05-26-2002, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: barbarian ]

Fluffy · May 26, 2002, 01:33 AM

Thank God there aren't very many developers like this. The last thing we need is separate UIs for each app. That "philosophy" is bullsh!t, too. Maybe if the interface was halfway usable it would be partially excusable, but it isn't.

Developers like that piss me off.

sniffer · May 27, 2002, 04:51 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Shylock:
Is it just my imagination, or is KDX client for OSX very fast.
Granted, the GUI is out of place on OSX but is not bad.
The application launches very fast, windows snap into view and scrolling is very fast. What does the developer of KDX know that Apple does not. The responsiveness of KDX is what I had expected OSX to be when it came out, instead OSX has proved to be lethargic and slow.
Is there a lesson to be learned here that will benefit OSX?
Any constructive comments welcome.<hr /></blockquote>Interesting..
Yesterday I tried classic MS I.E. for no reason, and my first impression is that it seems faster than any other webbrowser out there "for" X as far as I have experienced. Scrolling and rendering are the noticable things that I saw. Althought this is based on my personal impression after using it for a few minutes, but still it made me ask my self why Aqua seems slower in a few areas running side by side and compared with classic..
Classic do have more obvius bottle necks, like it runs trough blueenvariment, and it does seem to have little to none hardware acceleration..
Any ideas?

Scrod · May 27, 2002, 05:09 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by sniffer:
and it does seem to have little to none hardware acceleration..[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>That's false. QuickDraw is accelerated when running in Classic.

sniffer · May 27, 2002, 05:30 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Scrod:
That's false. QuickDraw is accelerated when running in Classic.<hr /></blockquote>It might be so, but in my experience classic's "acceleration" is slower than KDE (PPC Linux -yellowdog 2.1) without acceleration.

(Just look at the time it needs to update content while moving a objekt over a classic window..)
But scrolling is still faster in classic than Aqua, and obvius seems to be about the same speed as KDE Linux without acceleration..
Quartz acceleration or not, it doesn't feel like there is much of it. <img border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" title="" src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" />

[ 05-27-2002, 05:50 AM: Message edited by: sniffer ]

Scrod · May 27, 2002, 05:42 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by sniffer:
(Just look at the time it needs to update content while moving a objekt over a classic window..)[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>You're very confused as to how OS X and classic applications update their windows. I'm not even going to bother explaining it here. I've said it many times before on this messageboard, as have other people. Go search for it and find out for yourself.

sniffer · May 27, 2002, 06:09 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Scrod:
You're very confused as to how OS X and classic applications update their windows. I'm not even going to bother explaining it here. I've said it many times before on this messageboard, as have other people. Go search for it and find out for yourself.[/QB]<hr /></blockquote>Never tried to give an impression that I know much about the fundation behind how classic gets "accelerated" in Quartz or how it update its windows. What I have said in earlyer posts in this threath is only based on how I experience things as a user and not as a developer.
Giving another impression was never my intention.
My comments was all based on personal observations, and was not intented to be an attach on your argument. <img border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" title="" src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" />

Perhaps we could now go back to topic now..