[quattrokid73]

I have a 2.16ghz Core Duo MBP with 2gb ram and I am wondering if since Leapord is 64bit, should I expect worse, equal, or better overall computer performance with the new OS. I am currently running osx 10.4.8. I planned on reformatting with leapord once it came out....

thanks, adam

[Horsepoo!!!]

Originally Posted by quattrokid73 

I have a 2.16ghz Core Duo MBP with 2gb ram and I am wondering if since Leapord is 64bit, should I expect worse, equal, or better overall computer performance with the new OS. I am currently running osx 10.4.8. I planned on reformatting with leapord once it came out....

thanks, adam

Better...

The single reason is that OS X for Intel is probably not as optimized as it should be and will probably see a steady stream of optimizations like OS X for PPC did between 10.0 and 10.4. Leopard being 64-bit will make no difference since it will also be 32-bit and will run 32-bit on your Core Duo. That aspect won't change.

[Catfish_Man]

Leopard should be overall faster on all Macs.

[mikemako]

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!! 

Better...

The single reason is that OS X for Intel is probably not as optimized as it should be and will probably see a steady stream of optimizations like OS X for PPC did between 10.0 and 10.4. Leopard being 64-bit will make no difference since it will also be 32-bit and will run 32-bit on your Core Duo. That aspect won't change.

Agreed. This is going to be the first significant upgrade of Mac OS X since Apple officially switched to Intel. If they're placing priority on optimizing for a specific architecture, you can bet it'll be for Intel-based Macs.

[mduell]

I doubt you'll see much change. 10.3->10.4 didn't show much of a performance improvement (10.0->10.1->10.2->10.3 did), even with more memory (which 10.4 definitely needs).

Then again, maybe they can pull something of the compiler if they're using icc.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by quattrokid73 

I have a 2.16ghz Core Duo MBP with 2gb ram and I am wondering if since Leapord is 64bit, should I expect worse, equal, or better overall computer performance with the new OS.

You'll be running a 32bit Leopard.

[Catfish_Man]

10.4 is actually significantly faster than 10.3 in places (unfortunately mds/mdimport then proceed to make a bunch of stuff slower >.< ). Also, I have info on specific things they're doing to make 10.5 faster, I just can't talk about it.

[Chuckit]

Being 64-bit will not make a difference to you, since you don't have a 64-bit processor anyway.

[quattrokid73]

good news! of course it always sucks when the new, better, version of what you have comes out...

but i got such a good deal i cant help but be happy...

2.16 core duo, 2gb, 120gHD, applecare for $2k...

oh, and any ETA for leapord anyways?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Being 64-bit will not make a difference to you, since you don't have a 64-bit processor anyway.

We should have a 64-bit FAQ because I can foresee that we'll run into this question again.

[quattrokid73]

yes that might be a good diea

[Gee4orce]

No release of OS X has been slower than the release it replaces, so I think we can safely rule that option out. Of course, 'slower' is subjective, and thinks like Spotlight indexing can have a short term effect on responsiveness, and Time Machine might also have unpredictable effects too, you milage may vary and errors and omissions excepted.....

In short:

Who knows ??!!

[Morpheus]

Originally Posted by Catfish_Man 

Also, I have info on specific things they're doing to make 10.5 faster, I just can't talk about it.

Remove debug code?

[Catfish_Man]

Originally Posted by Gee4orce 

and Time Machine might also have unpredictable effects

I'm wondering about this one myself. Unfortunately, I haven't got an extra external drive to experiment with.

[zerroeffect]

Would 64-bit actually help drive the OS or is that something used more for video encoding and such?

[Catfish_Man]

Originally Posted by zerroeffect 

Would 64-bit actually help drive the OS or is that something used more for video encoding and such?

In the general sense, neither, aside from being able to use >4GB of ram.

However, this line: "...However, the functionality for 64-bit QuickTime is only provided via the QTKit framework. The current C-based QuickTime API will only be supported in 32-bit mode..." from Apple's leopard preview page may or may not imply that they've taken advantage of the lack of backwards compatibility hassles (not exactly a lot of 64 bit code out there to maintain compatibility with) to make some changes in 64 bit mode. Could also just be that they decided not to bother* upgrading the old API to 64 bit compatible.


*some of the old QT datatypes were probably explicitly sized as 32 bit anyway, since it's all quickdraw derived.

[quattrokid73]

so is there any kind of ETA for Leapord? Also, will it come with a nicer program suite?

Adam

[Chuckit]

Apple - Apple - Mac OS X - Leopard Sneak Peek

[JKT]

Originally Posted by quattrokid73 

so is there any kind of ETA for Leapord? Also, will it come with a nicer program suite?

Adam

It's due in "spring" next year which can mean anything from January to May, with somewhere closer to May being the more likely of those two extremes.

[quattrokid73]

:-/

[mitchell_pgh]

I would rather hear "Spring 2007"

vs.

Winter 2005
Summer 2005
Fall 2005
Spring 2006
Fall 2006
Very Late 2006
Early 2007

I feel Microsoft should be sued regarding their false advertising. IMHO, they have been stringing many people along since early 2004 that Longhorn/Vista was "just around the corner." Now, here we are years later... and half the features they originally indicated.

I'm not saying Apple is perfect, but at least I generally trust their delivery schedules.

[Salty]

I can't see Leopard getting slower, which is nice to think . Every version of OS X has given us performance increases not decreases. Keep in mind it matters for Apple that the hardware feel fast. As opposed to Microsoft, where if the machine feels slow someone will soon buy a new comp with a new copy of the OS.

[seanc]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh 

I would rather hear "Spring 2007"

vs.

Winter 2005
Summer 2005
Fall 2005
Spring 2006
Fall 2006
Very Late 2006
Early 2007

I feel Microsoft should be sued regarding their false advertising. IMHO, they have been stringing many people along since early 2004 that Longhorn/Vista was "just around the corner." Now, here we are years later... and half the features they originally indicated.

I'm not saying Apple is perfect, but at least I generally trust their delivery schedules.

IMO, Microsoft should be sued for a lot of reasons.

[tkmd]

I really think that 10.5 is going to slower than 10.4 and especially 10.3 (on a G4). Think of all the added overhead that has been added in Leopard so far - time machine, reworked spotlight, not to mention all the add-ons that Apple has not yet released publicly. Now granted some things like time machine will be able top be turned off, but there are still components of it running in the backround. All these things take up CPU, although little, but enough of them running at the same time your machine will take a performance hit.

10.4 was a turning point for OS X. Up to 10.3 each iteration of OSX ran faster than the one prior to it - until 10.4. Not sure if the engineers said "that's all we can do" or if any optimizations in 10.4 were off set by added "bloat" (look at the size of 10.3 install cd vs 10.4 install dvd). I expect that 10.5 will have much more bloat than 10.4 but will run as fast as 10.4 on Intel (their hw just gets faster so quickly) because of multiprocessor nature of core duo line.

The real answer to your question is to ask will 10.5 run faster on a g4 system.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by tkmd 

I really think that 10.5 is going to slower than 10.4 and especially 10.3 (on a G4). Think of all the added overhead that has been added in Leopard so far - time machine, reworked spotlight

How do you know that these add significant overhead — if any at all? The reworked Spotlight could actually be more efficient for all we know. Beyond that, speedups in other areas could more than compensate.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

How do you know that these add significant overhead — if any at all? The reworked Spotlight could actually be more efficient for all we know. Beyond that, speedups in other areas could more than compensate.

I agree... Time Machine simply uses components already in the OS... and Spotlight is already there, so I'm guessing it's not going to be overwhelming.

Also, those two features may have ZERO overhead to the system when not in use.

[Catfish_Man]

Spotlight is certainly not going to get slower.

[tkmd]

Like I said the CD chips are fast enough to make up for increased overhead because of the CD shear speed. However, can you honestly say that if one takes a g4 PB and put leopard on it that it will be faster than say Panther? I think G4 chips will begin to choke on leopard.

I think that Apple is starting to do what MS has been doing for years- adding unnecessary weight (ie unneeded functions/ eye candy) to its applications ( think iTunes 7) and there's nothing to suggest that they wont do the same for the OS in 10.5. But to respond to the OP, I dont think CD/C2D users will notice much because of the powerful chip.

[Catfish_Man]

there's nothing to suggest that they wont do the same for the OS in 10.5

Except for Time Machine (which is optional, of course), I can't think of anything* that would be adding overhead in 10.5, and I know they're speeding parts of it up. I just can't talk about what or how.

So yes. On my G4 PowerBook, I have seen things go faster. I've also seen things go slower, but I asked around and one case appears to have been a bug fixed in later versions. The other cases are all one application, so we'll see...


*I just remembered one other thing that might be a little bit of overhead, but it's very small and the overhead goes away quickly.

[nathanxu]

I am still unsure whether I should wait for the 10.5 pre installed MBP or I should just buy the much needed MPR now. Would there be much different to the machine if I will install the 10.5 after I purchase the machine. Because I noticed that my GF's G3 iBook came with 10.2, I was only able to install 10.3 afterward, but her machine does not recognise 10.4, so I guess apple doesn't usually let you install 2 system gap.
I am planning to use this MBP for 3 years at least, does that means I can't install 10.6?
Hard choice.

[Salty]

That makes little sense. You should have been able to install Tiger on that iBook.

Anyway, I don't think Apple is adding tons of feature bloat. iTunes 7 still feels like a snappy application. Granted I moved from running 6 on my old PowerBook to 7 on the new MacBook so I don't know how it would feel on an older machine though I haven't heard anyone in dorm complain.

[]

Leopard should be faster than Tiger on almost any recent Mac.

[lookmark]

Maybe, maybe not.

We don't really know until we've seen the final version.

I have a little suspicion that Leopard is going to be very different, and a bit more demanding, than any previous version of OS X.

But in reference to the OP.... yes, you should be just fine with a recent machine like a MBP.

[Drizzt]

Originally Posted by nathanxu 

I am still unsure whether I should wait for the 10.5 pre installed MBP or I should just buy the much needed MPR now. Would there be much different to the machine if I will install the 10.5 after I purchase the machine. Because I noticed that my GF's G3 iBook came with 10.2, I was only able to install 10.3 afterward, but her machine does not recognise 10.4, so I guess apple doesn't usually let you install 2 system gap.
I am planning to use this MBP for 3 years at least, does that means I can't install 10.6?
Hard choice.

That iBook probable don't have a DVD drive, that's why it didn't recognise your install media.

[Chuckit]

I don't know about the iBook, but 10.4 supports my 400 MHz G3 iMac from 2000 (which came with OS 9 installed). No doubt 10.6 will be able to run on a Mac Pro.

[JKT]

Originally Posted by Drizzt 

That iBook probable don't have a DVD drive, that's why it didn't recognise your install media.

You can get Apple to send you CD install media in place of your DVDs (at the sadly additional cost that is typical of Apple). Alternatively, if the iBook has a Firewire port and you have a second Mac with a DVD drive, you can use Firewire target disk mode to install onto the iBook from that other Mac.