[Cipher13]

ckohler, if you could show me that video, all fluidly, no delay, no spinning disc whenever you go to a menu, then I'd believe that my system is an exception.

By the way... I know what was killing my 4K78. Classic.
Classic implementation in 78 is horrible - it kills OSX.
I'm not running quite speedily in 78 without Classic, and OmniWeb is behaving very well.

I only have 128 megs of RAM remember, so... argh.

This isn't nearly as fast as OS9 still, but its much better than I've been making it out to be as all other times I've been running Classic.

People... the last line of the book 1984 comes to mind right now... (don't get any ideas! Not quite yet!)

Cipher13

[jamesa]

Originally posted by Cipher13:

Not that it matters a whole lot, with all you people pre-ordering an OS you haven't even seen yet!
Sorry, I just find that really dumb.

Cipher13

In and of itself, yeah, it's not the most sensible thing to do. I did it so Apple could take pre-order sales figures and say to the app vendors... "well, look how many people pre-ordered it... and you're just ignoring this market?"



------------------
"Note: Silencing the alarm does not solve the problem that caused it."
-- Sola (UPS) Users Guide

[Spirit_VW]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
ckohler, if you could show me that video, all fluidly, no delay, no spinning disc whenever you go to a menu, then I'd believe that my system is an exception.

By the way... I know what was killing my 4K78. Classic.
Classic implementation in 78 is horrible - it kills OSX.
I'm not running quite speedily in 78 without Classic, and OmniWeb is behaving very well.

I only have 128 megs of RAM remember, so... argh.

This isn't nearly as fast as OS9 still, but its much better than I've been making it out to be as all other times I've been running Classic.

People... the last line of the book 1984 comes to mind right now... (don't get any ideas! Not quite yet!)

Cipher13

SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER FOR THOSE WHO NEVER READ IT:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Wasn't that, "He loved Big Brother?" What exactly you getting at here Cipher?

------------------
Kevin Buchanan
The Spirit of Volkswagen
The Retro New Beetle Headquarters
Webmaster, Fort Worth VolksFolks Club

[This message has been edited by Spirit_VW (edited 03-18-2001).]

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by jamesa:
In and of itself, yeah, it's not the most sensible thing to do. I did it so Apple could take pre-order sales figures and say to the app vendors... "well, look how many people pre-ordered it... and you're just ignoring this market?"

Good response

Cipher13

[sitox]

...spinning disc whenever you go to a menu...

your system must be an exception Cipher13!

..and yes, 4k78 is slower than OS 9, but I will not complain about speed until I saw the shipping version. I use a Lombard 400 with 128 megs of RAM and I'm aware of the fact that 128 megs of RAM is the very low end of a usefull hardware requirement vor X. Time the system begins swapping, you just CAN'T tell anything about Xs speed, that'd have been the time OS 9 would've come up with a message like 'not enough memory to...' BTW!

[Cobra]

Cipher,

If you do not like OS X, just stay out of the freakin thread!

Not all of us want to listen to your constant moaning and groaning. Its truly getting old.

Why don't you and JB72 start up a thread on the OS 9 section or something.

And stay there!

Cobra

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by sitox:
...spinning disc whenever you go to a menu...

your system must be an exception Cipher13!

..and yes, 4k78 is slower than OS 9, but I will not complain about speed until I saw the shipping version. I use a Lombard 400 with 128 megs of RAM and I'm aware of the fact that 128 megs of RAM is the very low end of a usefull hardware requirement vor X. Time the system begins swapping, you just CAN'T tell anything about Xs speed, that'd have been the time OS 9 would've come up with a message like 'not enough memory to...' BTW!

Yeah, that problem has gotten much better after killing Classic, but not much better...
Yeah, I need more RAM.

OS9's VM is so much better than X's - I NEVER get out of mem errors in OS9.
I have 250 vitual, 128 physical.
And no swap probs like that on OS9.

OOOHHH!!! Something OS9 does better than OSX!

LOL... X touts having better memory management than OS9, and yet its VM management is so bad?
Heh...

Cipher13

[brown monk]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
I stand by the statement that ordering something you have no idea about is dumb. Maybe not really dumb, but dumb. Dumb not defining intelligence, just... well, the other way it is meant.

Cipher13

You keep making the same mistake, same assumption.
We DO know what it will be like and perhaps it might be better.
Like I said before most of us ordered the beta (here is where we
saw what it will be like!). Others have seen later builds which
is closer to the final, they know more than I do.

If you have made Mac OS 9 run faster and more stable than Mac OS X PB
or whatever build you are comparing it to, please do share how you accomplished
this in the amount of time you did.
It took Apple quite a few years.

[cmoney]

Originally posted by Kosmo:
I was crunching a huge movie file last night on my Tower and wrecked my hard drive, had to reinstall everything after doing a zero wipe...

My Tower runs 9.1 while my PowerBook runs OS X K78. Although OS X is way slower to the touch than 9.1 is it still a beautiful interface to work in. But 9.1 allows me to actually work with all my apps...

It's depressing to see them side by side, I WANT to use OS X every minute but I can't and I don't imagine I will come next Saturday.

Anyone else feel this way? Have you seen OS X and 9.1 side by side, does it depress you as well?

John Manzione
(just trying to start a new thread that doesn't mention yesterdays geek war)

Ok, lest this become a Cipher13 v. OS X lovers argument, let's reply to the original question.

Personally I don't feel depressed. You have to take into account the fact that OS X is a BRAND NEW Mac operating system and as such, you really shouldn't expect to be able to change your workflow instantly. If you use your computer on a professional basis, unless you can somehow get 75% of your daily work done in OS X native, don't run OS X just yet. I think it's unreasonable to expect an operating system transition to happen overnight! Unfortunately, many consumers and especially analysts see the future of Apple this way. If OS X isn't an instant success, the future of the company is in the air. Oh no! Pack the bags, Wintel here we come! NOT!

Think a little bit longer term. If Apple can get the major apps and developers transitioned to OS X in a timely manner they will have been successful in creating an incredible platform upon which they can build the future of the Mac. That's the importance of OS X, not how well it runs TODAY.

Yes your apps will be slower in OS X than OS 9. A big factor in that is Classic. Expect things to be up in the air for at least 6-9+ months! Classic is not a solution, it's a workaround. The solution is OS X native apps.

And finally, don't forget that OS 9 won't suddenly expire come the 24th. DVD Player or no, OS X won't be "complete" until most major apps are on OS X native. If OS X doesn't suit your needs just yet, wait a few months. So, this post may not help your particular situation, but seeing OS X and OS 9 side by side shouldn't be a cause for depression. The speed will come, it always does. (except in 2000 where we were stuck at 500MHz, god forbid that happens again!) The transition to OS X won't be cheap, it won't be easy, but I think Apple and the Mac has a whole lot in store for us in the coming months.

Originally posted by Cipher13:
OS9's VM is so much better than X's - I NEVER get out of mem errors in OS9.

Whaaaaaaaaaaat?!

You've got to be joking! In OS 9 you have exactly "y" memory to any app, no dynamic reallocation. You will always run out of memory in OS 9 at some point, no matter how much you jack up the allocation to an app (which IMHO is a huge pain in the ass and not acceptable) or how much you jack up VM (which becomes self-defeating at some point too). If you have fewer problems in OS 9 it's because you've trained yourself to work around this limitation and are very careful not to trap memory when quitting apps. You argument makes no rational sense when you analyze the two models. OS X may be slow right now by swapping a lot, but it is by far the superior system at work. I'm shocked to even see someone claim otherwise.

[PS: cmoney is right. Pros shouldn't be expected to, nor should they jump head-first into a new OS. This will take at least a year on a normal to fast timeline to switch to OS X for the majority of users, especially pros. Anyone claiming otherwise is either naive or stupid, and I'm referring to the C|Net writers and analysts of the world.]

[This message has been edited by Joey (edited 03-18-2001).]

[Austinc]

"OS9's VM is so much better than X's - I NEVER get out of mem errors in OS9.
I have 250 vitual, 128 physical.
And no swap probs like that on OS9.

OOOHHH!!! Something OS9 does better than OSX!

LOL... X touts having better memory management than OS9, and yet its VM management is so bad?
Heh..."

Ok cipher, now you're just wrong. I don't know how you're getting out of memory messages on OSX, but it's not really even possible as far as I can tell. OSX dynamically balances memory, so if it needs more memory, it just enlarges its swap file. On OS9, you would have to restart to increase your virtual memory allowance. The only way OSX could run out of memory is if your hard-drive was full, and you might not have the same problem under OS9 because the OS itself takes less memory to run.

Still- OSX VM is both handled better and is faster than OS9. That's an immutable fact, along the lines of OSX multi-tasking being better than OS9.

-Austin

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by brown monk:
You keep making the same mistake, same assumption.
We DO know what it will be like and perhaps it might be better.
Like I said before most of us ordered the beta (here is where we
saw what it will be like!). Others have seen later builds which
is closer to the final, they know more than I do.

If you have made Mac OS 9 run faster and more stable than Mac OS X PB
or whatever build you are comparing it to, please do share how you accomplished
this in the amount of time you did.
It took Apple quite a few years.

No, YOU are assuming.
You have no clue what OSX will be like - it may not even have Aqua!
You have ZERO proof!
Common sense says it will, but, does the world revolve around common sense? No.

My OS9 is much faster. Would you like to make yours scream too?
I would be glad to.
Get me a ticket to wherever you live and I'll do it for free
Your last sentence doesn't make sense.
My OS is tweaked - Apple made it ABLE to scream.

Cipher13

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Joey:
Whaaaaaaaaaaat?!

You've got to be joking! In OS 9 you have exactly "y" memory to any app, no dynamic reallocation. You will always run out of memory in OS 9 at some point, no matter how much you jack up the allocation to an app (which IMHO is a huge pain in the ass and not acceptable) or how much you jack up VM (which becomes self-defeating at some point too). If you have fewer problems in OS 9 it's because you've trained yourself to work around this limitation and are very careful not to trap memory when quitting apps. You argument makes no rational sense when you analyze the two models. OS X may be slow right now by swapping a lot, but it is by far the superior system at work. I'm shocked to even see someone claim otherwise.

[PS: cmoney is right. Pros shouldn't be expected to, nor should they jump head-first into a new OS. This will take at least a year on a normal to fast timeline to switch to OS X for the majority of users, especially pros. Anyone claiming otherwise is either naive or stupid, and I'm referring to the C|Net writers and analysts of the world.]

[This message has been edited by Joey (edited 03-18-2001).]

Translation: In OS9 you have CONTROL.
I like control. A lot.
I can say how much everything uses.
Not to mention, I'm talking not about memory management, but Virtual Memory management, and I don't mean memory allocation.
And as I said, I never run out of memory... sure, I would at some point, but not one I'd pass in day to day use.
And OSX is awful, the way it makes you use VM when you don't want to, etc...

My point is, OS9 VM management is much better. With VM running, on OS9, do you ever get a level of swap activity where the OS becomes unusable while it tries to make a menu drop down???
NEVER. EVER.
THAT, is my point. VM usage in each. OS9 kicks OSX. I have real world proof sitting in front of my face.

Cipher13

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Austinc:
"OS9's VM is so much better than X's - I NEVER get out of mem errors in OS9.
I have 250 vitual, 128 physical.
And no swap probs like that on OS9.

OOOHHH!!! Something OS9 does better than OSX!

LOL... X touts having better memory management than OS9, and yet its VM management is so bad?
Heh..."

Ok cipher, now you're just wrong. I don't know how you're getting out of memory messages on OSX, but it's not really even possible as far as I can tell. OSX dynamically balances memory, so if it needs more memory, it just enlarges its swap file. On OS9, you would have to restart to increase your virtual memory allowance. The only way OSX could run out of memory is if your hard-drive was full, and you might not have the same problem under OS9 because the OS itself takes less memory to run.

Still- OSX VM is both handled better and is faster than OS9. That's an immutable fact, along the lines of OSX multi-tasking being better than OS9.

-Austin

First of all, I never said I was getting error messages in OSX. You obviously never read my posts
My point is, swap is handled better by OS9.
The proof of that lies in the simple fact that the time spent swapping in OSX is nearly intolerable.
In OS9, its seamless.
I've stated other things towards that too, and I'm not going to again unless you ask me to, cause my arm is sore, and typing hurts

Cipher13

Originally posted by Lars_:
It is slow because 4K78 was an internal/FC development build. The final which we will all get come March 24 will be debugged and run a lot faster

Wrong! Your punishment on the 24th will be banishment from these boards for a week.

[brown monk]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
No, YOU are assuming.
You have no clue what OSX will be like - it may not even have Aqua!
You have ZERO proof!
Common sense says it will, but, does the world revolve around common sense? No.

Sure .

My OS9 is much faster. Would you like to make yours scream too?
I would be glad to.
Get me a ticket to wherever you live and I'll do it for free
Your last sentence doesn't make sense.
My OS is tweaked - Apple made it ABLE to scream.

Cipher13

I would love to . Apple is going to do it for $50
and throw in a few more features.
The ticket would be more expensive
(there I go assuming again :rolleyes .

Here is something a bit off topic (if that is possible). Open a Quicktime
movie in OS 9 and then go pull down a window. See how much it
skips and then just comes to a stop? Try the same thing in OS X.
See how it just keeps playing?

In the end is the little things. Which is why (I see) some people will
never like Mac OS X. As for me, the little things that annoy me about
Mac OS 9 seem to have been fixed in X and then some.

[eevyl]

Everytime I see a post of Cipher in a thread, my blood starts boiling... It is really frustrating to only read again and again the same mantra. OS 9 is faster than OS X, OS 9 is faster than OS X, OS 9 is faster than OS X, OS 9 is faster than OS X, OS 9 is faster than OS X, OS 9 is faster than OS X, OS 9 is faster than OS X, �

Also you say VM is better implemented in OS 9. Well, that's the funniest thing I have heard in my life. No other "feature" of Mac OS have ever bothered me more than its memory management. In OS X if you got at least 128MB you don't have to worry about anymore. Of course IT IS SLOWER THAN OS 9, but I'm not saying that, I'm putting it here just to write it for you Cipher.

In my experience, the PB was way slower than OS 9. Every recent build is faster and faster, and the only one that gave me kernel panics was 4K17.

Please Cipher go to the Mac OS forums and leave us alone with the best SLOW operating system in the world.

[Cipher13]

Too bad that boiling blood of yours doesn't seem to have caused any bodily harm to you. I guess I'll just have to try harder eh?
You hate the fact that your next-gen OS isn't as fast as "last years thing".

Brown Monk - what, just a roll of the eyes?
You don't even challenge what I said.
Why is that?
Because I'm right? Because you can't be bothered?
Enlighten me please...

Cipher13

[Kosmo]

Cipher, I'm interested...What do you do for a living?

5280 post since April 2000... That's an average of 16 posts a day, everyday....

I'm not slamming you , I swear, I just want to know where you find the TIME??



John Manzione
(I'm gonna catch up)

[NeilCharter]

Cipher - a few questions about your mac.

What is your machine?

How much free space do you have?

Have you upgraded the CPU?

Any partitions?

Neil

[johnnylundy]

Originally posted by Cipher13:

My point is, OS9 VM management is much better. With VM running, on OS9, do you ever get a level of swap activity where the OS becomes unusable while it tries to make a menu drop down???
NEVER. EVER.
THAT, is my point. VM usage in each. OS9 kicks OSX. I have real world proof sitting in front of my face.

Cipher13

I agree completey with you, Cipher. I am watching it do that (spin the freaking beachball waiting for a drop down of a menu) exactly now, with 256 of real RAM. I haven't had the pleasure of that since the original 128K Mac as it used the segment loader to get another part of the application off the floppy when you hit a menu! Now this is UNIX VM and is not *supposed* to behave this way, but it does - it's buggy. Or maybe it's not the VM - maybe the kernal isn't timeslicing right to give absolute priority to a mousedown.

OS 9, even under Classic, is WAY faster than 4K78 - no doubt. And I have the "real" developer version as I am a registered developer.

I will say there is one thing faster in X though - moving windows. The layering of Quartz seems to help this to be instant, compared to Power Windows on 9.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by NeilCharter:
Cipher - a few questions about your mac.

What is your machine?

How much free space do you have?

Have you upgraded the CPU?

Any partitions?

Neil

G4/400 Sawtooth, 128 megs RAM, 7200 rpm 10 gig FireBall, 4 gig 5200 RPM Caviar, no CPU upgrades, 4 partitions.

2 partitions per drive - 5/5 on the 10 gig, and 1.5/the rest on the other drive.

Cipher13

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Kosmo:
Cipher, I'm interested...What do you do for a living?

5280 post since April 2000... That's an average of 16 posts a day, everyday....

I'm not slamming you , I swear, I just want to know where you find the TIME??



John Manzione
(I'm gonna catch up)

I'm sorry, thats classified information.
And the first few months, I didn't post a lot
I post while I work, basically...

Cipher13

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by Spirit_VW:
Wasn't that, "He loved Big Brother?" What exactly you getting at here Cipher?

Basically, that... well, OSX 4K78 isn't all that bad
If you get me...

Cipher13

[macrenegade]

Ok ok ok...so Mac OS X is less responsive than 9; I don't disagree.

BUT, I use Mac OS X 4k73 (ok so that isn't the bleeding edge but pretty close) at work everyday and have used it since its release. I absolutely love it. I have a 533 G4 with 384 megs of ram and 2 17in monitors. I am a web designer and so everyday I use Dreamweaver, Fireworks, Photoshop, BBEdit, and Outlook 2001 in classic. I am extremely happy with X.

I understand cipher's complaints about responsiveness, but there is so much that X does to make up for that which it lacks. I have not had to restart X once since installing it, not once. I am able to use other apps while Fire is connecting...go try and use any other app while aim connects, not going to happen. I am so happy to have an os that is truly modern and truly multitasks. Being able to use many applications (you know at the same time: ie is loading a page, fire is connecting, itunes is ripping a cd and playing an mp3, and fireworks is creating an animation) slowly, is more important to me, than be able to use 1 application more quickly. I actually hate going back to os 9 because it no longer allows me to work at peak performance.

Well, there is also the fact that I am the envy of every person who has been by my desk. Everyday users love that Mac OS X is different; tech people love that it is technical, and beginners love that it is easy. I think we have a great os at hand and the week before it is to come out is not the time to speculate or to scare people away. Maybe it is dumb to buy a product we have never seen; maybe it is even worse to judge a product we have never used.

-macrenegade

[This message has been edited by macrenegade (edited 03-18-2001).]

[dbogdan]

Hey Everybody!
I've got a great idea... let's all pitch in and buy Cipher13 some more memory! That way, he'd have more than 128MG of RAM to work with and he'd notice what the rest of us have been telling him - 4K78 is fast -- really fast. RAM is soooo cheap, surely cost can't be the prohibitive factor, could it? Or does it cost a bunch more out there in Oceania/Australia than here in the states? Or is he just "ca$hing in" on his lack of memory to reiterate his mantra ad naseum? For those who may have missed his pithy points of wisdom, they are essentially as follows:

"A) OSX sucks! OS9 does everything better, including memory management;
B) OSX sucks! OS9 runs faster, including memory management;
C) OSX sucks! OS9 screams, OSX whines;
D) OSX sucks! If 4k78 is any indication, it will continue to suck;
E) OSX sucks! You are all a bunch of misguided lemmings, following Stevie's direction like the mindless masses that you are;
F) OSX sucks! Those of who claim it doesn't are simply exaggerating its performance because you are the suffering the effects of Apple's Reality Distortion Field;
G) OSX sucks! It might not suck so bad once we get a hold of the GM, but trust me -- OSX sucks!"

With all due respect, dude, get some more RAM, get a life, and *don't get OSX.* (Since it sucks so badly). Leave those of us who are enthused about it to continue to work upon improving it as time goes by. That way, when OSX doesn't suck so much, we'll give you a holler and ask if its suckability index is low enough to have gotten your seal of approval... yet...

Nothing personal, dude. I just disagree with your observations. I hope that sometime after the 24th you get the chance to try to actual release and find that your oft-touted points were incorrect. Then, I hope you find it in your heart to come back here and 'fess up that things weren't as gloomy as you'd initially thought. But first and foremost, please, *please* get more RAM for your machine!!! You'll notice a huge difference in performance both in the "ever-sucky" OSX *and* in our beloved OS9.x. I've got 512MG RAM and never use VM any more. It made OS9.1 into a totally supercharged and stable beast for me, boosting performance noticeably. OSX runs like a top, and nothwithstanding some software incompatibility, I couldn't be happier with it. Bugs? Sure, but everyone's expecting them...

Clambering off my soapbox, I remain faithfully addicted to Macintosh!!

[brown monk]

Originally posted by Cipher13:
Brown Monk - what, just a roll of the eyes?
You don't even challenge what I said.
Why is that?
Because I'm right? Because you can't be bothered?
Enlighten me please...

Cipher13

Hehe, I'll try.
First of all, you are not right. Second, this is about you typing something I don't agree with (you called something many
people did dumb earlier, remember?)
Okay, I know that for me the final will be better than the PB...Basically,
it can't worse as all those reviews I've read say the newer builds got
better and better.
Now, I know it will have Aqua. I know it will have Darwin.
I know it will have symmetric multiprocessing. I know it will have protected
memory. I know it will have preemptive multitasking. How do I know you ask? Well, these are the things that make up Mac OS X. These are the things that Apple, and the rest of us, have been wanting in
our Mac OS for a LONG time (okay, maybe not Aqua, but you gotta give me the rest).

So, you see, I do know enough about Mac OS X to pre-order it.
And if it its not what I want? Then I can always switch to Mac OS 9.
The Final is only costing me as much as a game would have. Probably,
less. Anyhow, bugs, no bugs, lots of bugs, no features, whatever the case is
when it comes out, I would have still bought a copy before I made my
mind about it...So, I just saved myself some time in pre-ordering it.
Finally, in any case, what I and many others did, was not dumb.

[mindwaves]

buy cipher some memory

Can you buy me some too? I only have 128 megs.

[Cipher13]

Originally posted by dbogdan:
Hey Everybody!
I've got a great idea... let's all pitch in and buy Cipher13 some more memory! That way, he'd have more than 128MG of RAM to work with and he'd notice what the rest of us have been telling him - 4K78 is fast -- really fast. RAM is soooo cheap, surely cost can't be the prohibitive factor, could it? Or does it cost a bunch more out there in Oceania/Australia than here in the states? Or is he just "ca$hing in" on his lack of memory to reiterate his mantra ad naseum? For those who may have missed his pithy points of wisdom, they are essentially as follows:

"A) OSX sucks! OS9 does everything better, including memory management;
B) OSX sucks! OS9 runs faster, including memory management;
C) OSX sucks! OS9 screams, OSX whines;
D) OSX sucks! If 4k78 is any indication, it will continue to suck;
E) OSX sucks! You are all a bunch of misguided lemmings, following Stevie's direction like the mindless masses that you are;
F) OSX sucks! Those of who claim it doesn't are simply exaggerating its performance because you are the suffering the effects of Apple's Reality Distortion Field;
G) OSX sucks! It might not suck so bad once we get a hold of the GM, but trust me -- OSX sucks!"

With all due respect, dude, get some more RAM, get a life, and *don't get OSX.* (Since it sucks so badly). Leave those of us who are enthused about it to continue to work upon improving it as time goes by. That way, when OSX doesn't suck so much, we'll give you a holler and ask if its suckability index is low enough to have gotten your seal of approval... yet...

Nothing personal, dude. I just disagree with your observations. I hope that sometime after the 24th you get the chance to try to actual release and find that your oft-touted points were incorrect. Then, I hope you find it in your heart to come back here and 'fess up that things weren't as gloomy as you'd initially thought. But first and foremost, please, *please* get more RAM for your machine!!! You'll notice a huge difference in performance both in the "ever-sucky" OSX *and* in our beloved OS9.x. I've got 512MG RAM and never use VM any more. It made OS9.1 into a totally supercharged and stable beast for me, boosting performance noticeably. OSX runs like a top, and nothwithstanding some software incompatibility, I couldn't be happier with it. Bugs? Sure, but everyone's expecting them...

Clambering off my soapbox, I remain faithfully addicted to Macintosh!!

Yeah, RAM is very expensive down here.
And if you had read ANY of my posts of late, you'd see that I was actually saying how good 78 is, even if slower than OS9.
I know I need more RAM - its when I load Classic that it all goes to hell and runs like sh!t.

If 78 is the GM, then I'll be very disappointed.
If the GM is 78 with a few bugs fixed, and all manner of debugging code taken out, driver rewrites etc (vid), then I will be happy.

Cipher13

Originally posted by Cipher13:
G4/400 Sawtooth, 128 megs RAM, 7200 rpm 10 gig FireBall, 4 gig 5200 RPM Caviar, no CPU upgrades, 4 partitions.

2 partitions per drive - 5/5 on the 10 gig, and 1.5/the rest on the other drive.

Cipher13

Cipher, you said (in this or another post - I can't remember) that you use OmniWeb. Well, as of 4b9, OmniWeb had a memory leak that would render your machine pretty sluggish after about 1/2 hour of use. Try running without OmniWeb.

why not pre-order? Honestly, cipher, I must have missed you're post explaining WHY it's dumb to pre-order. Could you re-explain or tell me where I can find your post explaining this?

The way I see it, you have 4 options:
1) don't use Mac anymore
2) continue using OS 9 forever
3) upgrade to 10.0 and then pay whatever price Apple charges for 10.1
4) or wait until 10.1 comes out

To me, #3 seems like the best option b/c I'm already using PB so 10.0 can't be worse (at least that's what my "common sense" tells me) and if I have to upgrade to 10.1 in the summer for $30, or $50, or even $100 -- so WHAT!

Unless you plan on using OS 9 or Windows (or pirating it), I don't understand why you wouldn't pre-order?

Please enlighten me on why my decision to pre-order was dumb? PLEASE! before I run out of time to cancel it . . .

[Raman]

Originally posted by cipher is dumb:
why not pre-order? Honestly, cipher, I must have missed you're post explaining WHY it's dumb to pre-order. Could you re-explain or tell me where I can find your post explaining this?

Please enlighten me on why my decision to pre-order was dumb? PLEASE! before I run out of time to cancel it . . .

if "cipher is dumb" then why are you begging them for their opinion and why would a "dumb" person's opinion be so life-changing for you? grow some sac and get the freaking 10.0 if you want it or quit crying and cancel alreay. I canceled my preorder.

[Raman]

Originally posted by Raman:
I canceled my preorder.

[b]...NOT!/b]

Originally posted by SawThis:
Cipher, you said (in this or another post - I can't remember) that you use OmniWeb. Well, as of 4b9, OmniWeb had a memory leak that would render your machine pretty sluggish after about 1/2 hour of use. Try running without OmniWeb.

Actually, I/You don't need to make guesses here. Why not get your 4K78 system into it's sluggish state and then run "top -w" from a wide Terminal window (CPUMonitor has a pulldown to run a simpler version but the wide version gives very useful info). Then look for applications that are taking lots of time and/or memory. Top is very useful for figuring out what is making the system less responsive.

128MB should be plenty - especially without Classic.

PS: You claim to have a Sawtooth G3 with two disks. That wouldn't happen to be one of these first Sawtooth machines that didn't really support two disks correctly is it? I assume not, but its worth asking anyway.

Originally posted by Kosmo:
Lars, is that you? You know, the Lars I know, the Apple employee guy...come on, it's you, isn't it

Yes it is me

[NeilCharter]

Hey Cipher,

So I guess the memory is your problem. I have the same system as yours (minus the funky hard drives) but with 192 MB. Compared to OS 9, 4K78 is slow, but not enough to really bug me. How much would 256 cost you down there? I personally think that 256 is what is needed especially with classic. I don't really see a performance hit with Classic on with the G4. However I did with my G3 at work.

The other trick (which you've probably tried already) is to copy OS 9 to X and really streamline that mother. This is especially true if a lot of unused extensions are being loaded in Classic. Worth a try if you haven't done so.

4K78 is really the first build that I've been happy with and I expect the GM to be a lot faster. Remember Rome wasn't built in a day and if it was then it would have been all pre-fab like most of the US!

Neil

[SillyMonk]

Let's all pitch in, have a car wash and buy cipher some more RAM!!

[Cipher13]

Brown Monk, your points are taken, but you still have no proof of that.
Basically, I'm just defending a dumb statement I made in a blinding flash of irrationality last night.
It was at the same time I literally blew up one of my HD's.

Cipher13

[Cipher13]

To the top poster of this page: there are many more options than that. Wait a little while and get 10.5, stick with 9 a while... you are stupid.
I gave my reasons - you do not know what to expect performance wise from GM, and many other things.

SawThis: I'll check that out, thanks
No, my Sawtooth G4/400 isn't one of the first ones, its the latest batch of Sawtooth. It does dual disks fine. And yeah, it is sweet without Classic

NeilCharter: Yep, memory problem... I'm gonna get more, but its like $400 or $500 for 256 down here. I'll most likely purchase it overseas.
I haven't tried that, I don't have the disk space on my OSX partition for that right now
I will later though cause my 9.1 is a fairly heavy system, compared to my beautiful OS9.04...
73 was the first build where I was happy with Classic, and 78 is the first build I have actually USED like it was my main OS - I like it.
LOL, I certainly hope GM is faster

SillyMonk: I'm in!
LOL

Cipher13