[JCS]

Don't be too impressed by these video clips. I have a dual G4/450 with 256MB RAM at work, and sure, it looks just like these clips when I'm resizing a few windows for demo purposes. But in real-world usage (e.g. actions with a purpose, not just demonstrations), there's no getting around the fact that the lag between my actions and the screen response *slows me down* relative to the same actions in OS 9.

My giant bookmarks menu, for example, appears to "spring down quickly" as a demonstration, but when my task is to actually go to the menu to select something, the small delay *is* noticeable and annoying.

This, IMO, is what's driving people nuts: not that the OS X GUI is (necessarily) demonstrably slow in a way that would show up in big red letters on a video clip, but that it's noticeably slow when folks are trying to actually do things in their daily work.

And under heavy load (i.e. many apps open, many windows on-screen, many things going on in the background), my dual G4/450 *can* exhibit behavior that, if seen on video, would be shocking (provided the video was clear enough to see the huge disparity between my cursor and the screen display--an important point in such videos).

Finally, a great trial by fire is to simply ask some random Windows user to resize a window on your OS X box. I asked an office mate who have never heard of or seen OS X to simply come over and resize a window for me. His immediate reaction: why is that so slow?

We all know why, of course: the price of progress... :-/

[Toyin]

That's funny because I find the exact opposite of what you're saying.

Menus: Long menus in OSX do take a fraction of a second to appear and on my machine no faster then long menus in OS9 (which may appear faster, but items are drawn from top to bottom a fraction of a second later). However in OSX you can start navigating the menu before the menu appears. This really tests the vaunted muscle memory that everyone talks about. If you know where the item you will select is, the menu will be up before you get there. Try that in OS9 and the menu either collapses or selects the wrong item.


Resizing Windows: Gross resizing (ie very small, to very big) is slower in OSX. Fine resizing (millimeters change) is faster in OSX for me. If I'm trying to arrange windows just right in OS9 it usually takes more than 1 resize because I need the window to be redrawn to see if it's exactly where I want it (same goes for moving windows). In OSX what you see is what you get so 1 resize and 1move is all I need.

All that said and done, yes resizing needs to be improved. In my eyes comparison to OS9 just don't cut it. OSX (for me) is much faster and more efficient than OS9. What we need is for the Aqua GUI to be faster than Win98 and Win2K.

------------------
-Toyin

ToyinFayemi.com

[This message has been edited by Toyin (edited 05-18-2001).]

[OverclockedHomoSapien]

This isn't about the "price" of progress, because it isn't progress. Comparisons to the original mac are invalid, because the original mac implemented the novel idea of an entirely GUI-driven OS.

Quartz offers some refinement of the current paradigm, but it's nothing revolutionary. People have been doing live resizing, live dragging, ect, for many years on Wintels, and it's been smooth as silk way back to the Pentium 1 running at 100MHz. There is simply no excuse for OS X to exhibit such slow performance on any current hardware. The ONLY explanation is that Apple is purposely trying to con mac users into buying new hardware.

I don't make such an accusation lightly. But are we to believe that with all of the programming talent and brilliance at Apple and NeXT combined, that OS X's GUI speed is as good as they could do? I don't believe that for one second. I think that the OS X engineers intentionally fine-tuned the performance of the GUI to be barely acceptable on current hardware, and unusable on macs even one revision old.

Here's what I predict: when OS X is loaded preinstalled, Apple will have OS X running at full speed. BUT, the only way to get this version of OS X will be to buy a new Mac with it preinstalled, the system restore disks won't install this fast GUI version of OS X on anything but the new models. The OS X CD will still be the slow version, tricking consumers into thinking they need new hardware, when in reality if they could install the preinstall version of OS X, it would fly on a 233MHz iMac.

Yeah this sounds like a conspiracy theory but I refuse to believe the alternative: that Apple is stocked with hordes of grossly inept programmers who cannot implement basic features into an OS. I don't believe that all those NeXT programmers are such idiots that they can't optimize the speed of the GUI. Even harder to believe is that Microsoft has a team of geniuses with 200+ IQs that all figured out how to do live resizing and dragging smooth as silk on a 100MHz pentium. Microsoft programmers aren't that brilliant and Apple programmers aren't that dumb.

To summarize, there will be two versions of OS X:

1. The retail box version, with a specially tuned GUI that is purposly slow, to give mac users the incentive to buy new hardware.

2. The preinstalled version, that runs fast and slick on all of the Macs, even the iBook. This version will only be on system restore disks, and it will be impossible to install it on any mac save the one it came with.

The end result will be that we will see OS X preinstalled iBooks with faster GUI performance than 733MHz powermac G4s running OS X installed from the retail box.

This is hardball for Apple. They are scared of going belly up and they will resort to the most devious and crafty tactics they can to sell more hardware. Laissez faire capitalism will look like a church bake sale compare to the measures Apple will resort to.

[This message has been edited by OverclockedHomoSapien (edited 05-18-2001).]

Wow. All I can say after seeing the demos is that my faith in OS X is restored. But my faith in the ability for my Bronze G3 PB w/192MB ram and 4 gigs to run it will isn't.

W

[gorgonzola]

Decided. Getting a Titanium. No chance in hell I'm getting another G3 after seeing this. Speeds may not be perfect but they're insanely fast compared to what I'm seeing. I have no camcorder/firewire so I can't film the Finder wildly trying to chase my mouse. It's like Falstaff vs the Cheetah. Ridiculous.

ckohler, thanks for that video. I have to say I'm very, very impressed by the speed of X under that machine (bear in mind that I'm speaking relative to a iMac/333 with crap 6 GB drive and unsupported graphics card w/ 160 MB RAM) as well as your incredible unproductivity.

I'll be getting a G4. The gap can only widen since they will perform more AltiVec optimizations, not less. If they can pull out a T4 w/ a new graphics card and faster chips ... they have my $$$. I may even wait until MWSF if they don't pull out the new T4 this summer.

That video was a real eyeopener ... boy I wish you guys could see what I'm seeing. I'm really now thinking that G3 and OS X: G4 and OS X as G4 and OS X: Win2k resizing et al.

G3 is ass slow...
The thought of those speeds + 10.1 this summer cheer me up immensely.

------------------
the oddball newsletter
------------------
it's only after you lose everything that you're free to do anything

[GnOm]

Originally posted by OverclockedHomoSapien:
I think that the OS X engineers intentionally fine-tuned the performance of the GUI to be barely acceptable on current hardware, and unusable on macs even one revision old.

sure they want to sell new Macs because that�s where the money comes in, but i serously doubt they are going that far to push sales. That would be really miserable.
On the Other hand the Wintel alliance does it....


cu

Originally posted by OverclockedHomoSapien:
Quartz offers some refinement of the current paradigm, but it's nothing revolutionary. . . . There is simply no excuse for OS X to exhibit such slow performance on any current hardware. The ONLY explanation is that Apple is purposely trying to con mac users into buying new hardware.

Only explanation?

Please surf over to:
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/1q00/...s-x-gui-2.html

to read up on "Quartz: A Third Generation Display Layer" before you go making up these conspiracy theories.

Just so you know: Poor reception of the OS on current hardware is causing a lot of grief inside Apple... Getting better GUI performance is a rather high priority for 10.1

[AAPl Shareholder]

I have a Dual 450 G4, 256 megs, and a Radeon.

I guess you could say that aqua runs just like the video for me... but I think that is still fairly crappy. IE re-sizes a bit quicker then Omni web because it has a low refresh rate and List view in the finder suuuuuuucks.

I'm use to seeing those smooth Win2k resizes...which look great.

[griffman]

I managed to steal the LCD display for a bit late last night, and made a clip of window resizing and miscellaneous other things. There are two versions:

Smaller - 3.6mb

Larger - 7.5mb

This video was made on my G4/733 (GeForce2 MX), running at 1024x768 in thousands. Overall, I find the speed of every operation great, EXCEPT for scrolling or resizing large list-view windows. GUI speed is definitely the most important area (from a consumer visibility point of view!) for Apple to work on, especially with the opening of the retail stores.

-rob.

[This message has been edited by griffman (edited 05-19-2001).]

[mindwaves]

Good video Griffman (none of this banding stuff).
One point:

Can any of you make a video resizing a complicated web page with a background other than white?

[Groovy]

griffman that was nice and it proves LIST VIEW SUCKS

even slow on a 733mhz : (


later


groovy

[griffman]

>>griffman that was nice and it proves LIST VIEW SUCKS - even slow on a 733mhz : (

yea, that's why i never use it :-). until i made that clip last night, i hadn't realized how little time i spend resizing windows. with two column-view windows, i hardly ever need to resize a window. i'd like to be ABLE TO, don't get me wrong, but i don't have much of a NEED TO with OS X.

i'll see if i can film a resize on a colored background web page - any thoughts on which particular page? let me know, and i'll try to get it done sometime tonight or tomorrow morning.

-rob.

[This message has been edited by griffman (edited 05-19-2001).]

How about just the resizing of a picture in 'Preview' or a finder window in icon view (without gridded icons) to see just how fast resizing can be? We've already seen everything else in all the videos posted here I think...

[dfbennett]

Originally posted by z0ne81:
How about just the resizing of a picture in 'Preview' or a finder window in icon view (without gridded icons) to see just how fast resizing can be? We've already seen everything else in all the videos posted here I think...

That's not resizing. That's simply cropping which is why it's so much quicker.

------------------
Regards,
Dave

[edddeduck]

I think the idea apple would deliberatally make quartz slow is stupid I think again apples quartz layer is ahead of its time as said in the other forum...

And the only solution is 6-12 months of processor development then these compaints will be in the past..

Remember when apple started development motarola expected to have 1.4/5 Ghz G4 chips. So if they were around there would be no problem would there???

Its not apples fault totally its motarola too....



------------------
450DP/448MB/80GB/Rage/Apple 17"/Zip250/ZipCD/Epson740

ICQ 60617180

I Took The Red Pill

[mr_sonicblue]

Here is a direct-feed of my TiBook 500Mhz with 256 RAM. It is set at 800x600 and thousands of colors. That's the only res and color-depth the video-out would work at.

http://www.elitehardware.com/TiOSX.mpg

I'm doubling the RAM to 512 on Monday. If it makes a difference, I'll post another video.

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

[pooka]

I've made two videos of the OSX experience on my powerbook(firewire/400mhz/320MB). Not too zippy. My new g4/466/512MB isn't much of a speed demon when it comes to OSX either.
http://homepage.mac.com/mr_freakin_t/osx2.mov

[OverclockedHomoSapien]

Just so you know: Poor reception of the OS on current hardware is causing a lot of grief inside Apple... Getting better GUI performance is a rather high priority for 10.1

How do you know this? Specifics, please.

And if it's true, then what a lot of idiots there are at Apple. They have current hardware at their disposal for testing OS X--so they know what sort of performance it gets. There is absolutely no reason for anyone at Apple to be surprised at the consumer's reaction to the slow GUI. This was all premediated.

[lcohen]

Originally posted by OverclockedHomoSapien:
How do you know this? Specifics, please.

And if it's true, then what a lot of idiots there are at Apple. They have current hardware at their disposal for testing OS X--so they know what sort of performance it gets. There is absolutely no reason for anyone at Apple to be surprised at the consumer's reaction to the slow GUI. This was all premediated.

I've been using (like some people here..) MacOS X since the beginning. SInce Rhapsody, since MacOS X Server, since all Alpha's, Beta's, Public Beta and nearly final builds. The OS is a hell of a system, clearly one OS that will lead Apple to the future BUT it is NOT acceptable for Apple to expect us to support and understand such a poor graphic performance on it's day to day use, windows redraw, menus. It is not normal. I even have an old NeXTStation, with a 68040 processor, 32Mb Ram running OpenSTEP 4.2, the last release from NeXT/Apple and it's graphic performance is YEARS ahead comparing to the performance on our Mac G3/G4 based machines! Why ? Also, OpenSTEP 4.2 running on Intel hardware, even on a bare Pentium I is 5/10 times faster compared with it's new brother, MacOS X. I do understand that Quartz makes all the difference, BUT OpenSTEP is Display Postscript, and it is not a simple task to handle onscreen PostScript interpretation and rendering.. and NeXT 680x0 based machines handle it with ease! (imagine OpenSTEP running on Athlon 1Ghz...)

My Apple PowerBook Pismo 400Mhz / 256Mb of Ram is terrible running MacOS X. So terrible that in the beginning I tought that something was wrong with my installation....I re-installed it more than 7 times!!!! Just to discover that I was wrong and MacOS X is really slow!

Apple really should do something. We are an Apple reseller company in Portugal and Brazil and it is VERY FRUSTRATING to hear from our customers about how slow the OS is (Speaking about GUI performance, off course!) during presentations and demos. And nearly 70/80% of them just decide to wait for a new release! So we also lose sales.

Anyone here that already played with a Pentium box with live windows redraw/scroll/move Operating System like Windows 95/98/ME/NT/2000/NeXT/OpenSTEP/Irix/Linux/Unix knows what we are all talking about.. They FLY compared with Apple MacOS X.

Triyng to justify and forgive Apple for that is not normal. They are not giving us an OS for free, we are paying for it. We deserve a better release. We love to talk bad on Microsoft and etc and we should do the same on Apple, it is the only way they will notice and move.

Making machines like the iMac, G3 nearly unasable on MacOS X is terrible for Apple. They are losing marketshare for their OS INSIDE their own market!

Apple, please take note and DO something. We deserve it.

Cheers for all and thx for all the movies posted here.

Leonardo Cohen - an Apple believer since 1984


[This message has been edited by lcohen (edited 05-19-2001).]

[pooka]

Originally posted by lcohen:
Making machines like the iMac, G3 nearly unasable on MacOS X is terrible for Apple. They are losing marketshare for their OS INSIDE their own market!

Apple, please take note and DO something. We deserve it.

Amen. This notion that we should wait for newer hardware to take full advantage of OSX is a crock of poo. My so called "Fully OSX Certified" digital audio G4 runs like crap with X. Don't even ask how my 5 g3's perform. I for one hope the critics keep yelling as loud as they can until Apple resolves these issues. That or they better issue refunds.

[griffman]

While I completely agree that Apple needs to make the GUI faster, I think the implication that it's slow on purpose is somewhat ludicrous. Don't you think Apple would have loved to release an OS that went zooooooooooooom when you resixed windows? Obviously, they couldn't. So they were left with a decision - release the OS now, or wait and hope to solve the GUI speed problems first. Obviously, they picked release.

For their sake, I think it was the right decision. After fouling off the last four or five pitches (Copland, Blue, Pink/Taligent, Rhapsody), Apple had to get something into play. And other than the GUI speed issues (primarily in the Finder), OS X plays quite nicely.

I just hope some combination of code optimization and graphics acceleration can make the GUI speed reasonably good on the G3's and lightning fast on the G4's...

-rob.

[edddeduck]

Yes Griffman I agree totally.....

------------------
450DP/448MB/80GB/Rage/Apple 17"/Zip250/ZipCD/Epson740

ICQ 60617180

I Took The Red Pill

[PerfectlyNormalBeast]

Do you guys who are freaking out about OS X actually think that it won't get better? I know it's been said, but If you don't like X now, don't use it. Apple isn't advertising it. Apple isn't bundling it with their machines. They know it's not necessarily the foot they want to put forward right now. They had to release it, and are having quite a bit of success getting the developer community to commit to it.

Making the window server faster is most certainly achievable. Making the finder not suck is something that can happen.

If 10.1 comes out this summer and it isn't much faster, I'll be the first to send bitter email to Apple. If Apple starts bundling OS X while it's as slow as it is I'll cry. The thing is, they won't. We're talking about chilling out for two figgan months here. Just calm down. It's not like Apple hasn't heard you yet...

[edddeduck]

We meet again beast...

I have to agree totally on this post...

Nothing more to add really.

------------------
450DP/448MB/80GB/Rage/Apple 17"/Zip250/ZipCD/Epson740

ICQ 60617180

I Took The Red Pill

[PerfectlyNormalBeast]

Hey, duck! Stop following me!

[pooka]

Originally posted by PerfectlyNormalBeast:
Do you guys who are freaking out about OS X actually think that it won't get better?

First, let me just say that for the most part, I agree with your statements. I think that OSX is a major step forward. It has some serious potential. That said, let me remind everyone that Apple/Steve Jobs don't like to admit making mistakes... much less correcting them. What ever became of the QT/Sherlock interface uproar? Winshade widgets and a volume slider? How many years did the round mouse and tiny keyboard ship with systems? And not to start a dock flame war but to me it seems more like fluff from a vir2l style flash interface than a productivity enhancer.
The saying "If you don't like it, don't use it" only works for a short time. Soon support for OS9 will drop. Games, apps, etc will only work with OSX. Then it becomes "If you don't like the Mac OS, don't use it." All I'm saying is, whatever you're opinion, love or hate, make sure you let Apple know. And yes, sometimes you have to yell.

[PerfectlyNormalBeast]

Originally posted by pooka:
And yes, sometimes you have to yell.

I'm just saying that a lot of yelling has been done. Maybe it's best to wait two months and give Apple a tiny bit of a chance to listen to users and get the problem fixed or subdued. Like I said, if it's not fixed by MacWorld, then I'll join you in the good fight.

[pooka]

Originally posted by PerfectlyNormalBeast:
I'm just saying that a lot of yelling has been done. Maybe it's best to wait two months and give Apple a tiny bit of a chance to listen to users and get the problem fixed or subdued. Like I said, if it's not fixed by MacWorld, then I'll join you in the good fight.

I understand where you are coming from. I just really hate sitting quietly

[Aldie G]

Hey NormalBeast, we said the same thing when the public beta came out.. Everyone was crying because of it's slowness, but we all were sure that Apple would fix that by yhe time OS X final would come out.

Now it's May and we're sitting here with 10.0.3 with still the same UI-speedproblems and hoping that they will fix it with 10.1 ! Dream on! Anyone who is expecting miracle speed-improvements by summer is living in wonderland. It's sad, but it's true.

[This message has been edited by Aldie G (edited 05-20-2001).]

[Xeo]

Originally posted by Aldie G:
Hey NormalBeast, we said the same thing when the public beta came out.. Everyone was crying because of it's slowness, but we all were sure that Apple would fix that by yhe time OS X final would come out.

Now it's May and we're sitting here with 10.0.3 with still the same UI-speedproblems and hoping that they will fix it with 10.1 ! Dream on! Anyone who is expecting miracle speed-improvements by summer is living in wonderland. It's sad, but it's true.

Then when? Ever? Look at how much Aqua changed from the PB to the final. That isn't happening now. I hope they are refining now. I'm just afraid with all the "We want THESE features back!" along side the "We want it FASTER!" we're only gonna see one and not the other.

I hope Apple has something up there sleeve... I really do.


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

[PerfectlyNormalBeast]

I think Apple had a lot of work to do between PB and 10.0 that they did (Most of). From what I hear, they're working on speed for the next release quite a bit. Already, for machines with Rage128 and above chips, 10.0 is worlds faster than PB.

I know for a fact that there's plenty of room to optimize this OS, and that Apple has been more busy just making it work in the past.

Give them till MacWorld. If you're so sure it's not going to get any better, than what's the point of bitching about it?

[JCS]

If Apple starts bundling OS X while it's as slow as it is I'll cry.

So...need a tissue...?