Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ambush · Jul 10, 2002, 10:41 AM

For all of you, on 6C87,

Apps lauchs so fast you could think you're in OS9.
Sys. Prefs.->1 1/2 Bounce
Mail dot app.->1 1/2 Bounce
iChat-> 1 Bounce
Proteus-> 2 Bounces
Address Book-> 1 Bounce
Adobe Photoshop 7.0 -> 7 bounces ( BIG improvement )
IE 5.2->2 bounces (wow)
OmniWeb 4.1->3 bounces (now that's a surprise)

tests on a g4 400 512 mb ram

Also, scrolling is way faster
Resizing windows choppy in carbon apps like Moz. but smoooooooth in cocoa apps ( even with NSToolbars, NSDrawers, etc. )

Today my computer booted in 15 second exactly ( no kext tough )
The new boot screen is very user friendly in my book; the average mac user will like it.

[ 07-10-2002, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: ambush ]

absmiths · Jul 10, 2002, 10:50 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ambush:
For all of you, on 6C87,

Apps lauchs so fast you could think you're in OS9.
Sys. Prefs.->1 1/2 Bounce
Mail dot app.->1 1/2 Bounce
iChat-> 1 Bounce
Proteus-> 2 Bounces
Address Book-> 1 Bounce
Adobe Photoshop 7.0 -> 7 bounces ( BIG improvement )
IE 5.2->2 bounces (wow)
IE 5.2->3 bounces (now that's a surprise)

tests on a g4 400 512 mb ram

<hr /></blockquote>Why do you show IE 5.2 twice? Is the second measurement a second-launch measurement? Are all of these first launches? I remember that in 10.1 they optimized second and subsequent launches, so if these are first launches that is impressive (unless as IE shows, they merely stole some of the second launch optimization). Also, are these bounce-marks until the icon stops bouncing, or is this when the screen is visible? Some apps seem to stop bouncing right away, but then take forever to actually be usable.

billybob · Jul 10, 2002, 10:54 AM

i dont think many people doubt anymore that jaguar will be fast. I just got 6c75 installed on a 700mhz ibook and it just absolutely flies. I'm seriously just blown away. I can't wait for the official release.

Kristoff · Jul 10, 2002, 10:58 AM

Just wait until all that debugging code is removed

.

Sorry, couldn't resist.
It better damn well be faster. And if they don't fix all those lookupd bugs, I'll really be ****ed.

Kristoff · Jul 10, 2002, 11:01 AM

funny how these forums let you say damn, but not p. i. s. s.

I wonder what else get's *****'d out?

****
****
hell
bastard
bitch

absmiths · Jul 10, 2002, 11:05 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Kristoff:
funny how these forums let you say damn, but not p. i. s. s.

I wonder what else get's *****'d out?

****
****
hell
bastard
bitch<hr /></blockquote>****. Hmmm, and all along I just thought people were being cutesy with the *'s, didn't realize that it was automatic.

Colonel Panic · Jul 10, 2002, 11:10 AM

when you say scrolling is much improved, is that versus 10.1.5 or 6c75?
6c75 is very fast all-around, but scrolling (while improved over 10.1) still iscn't up-to-snuff versus OS 9 or Win. Curious to know if scrolling has improved since 6C75...

ambush · Jul 10, 2002, 11:11 AM

Back to the topic, eh?

BTW I edited my post.. Second IE=OW
But OW takes forever to lauch ( load screen ).

dazzla · Jul 10, 2002, 11:15 AM

I havent agree, I've just installed 6C85. The only other previous beta I had tried was 6C48, but this beta is amazing.

So quick, everything really does feel instant, I'm never waiting around for anything. Scrolling in the finder has no lag, srolling in mozilla has no lag. Resizing finder windows is almost instant. I love it, Apple have certainly done us good here.

iMac G4 700
512mb
32m gf2

CheesePuff · Jul 10, 2002, 11:56 AM

Just finished installing 6C89 on an iBook 700 MHz with (apparently) supported Quartz Extreme hardware, and it really does *fly* compared to 10.1.5.

Scribble · Jul 10, 2002, 11:57 AM

89!!!??? Man, they're really cranking out the builds...

Betox · Jul 10, 2002, 12:05 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ambush:
For all of you, on 6C87,

Today my computer booted in 15 second exactly ( no kext tough )
The new boot screen is very user friendly in my book; the average mac user will like it.<hr /></blockquote>Can you post a picture of the new boot screen???

biscuit · Jul 10, 2002, 12:13 PM

CheesePuff, does the 6C89 (wow, 89!) installer/System Prefs tell you that your graphics hardware is supported, or are you guessing from speed?

biscuit

ambush · Jul 10, 2002, 12:17 PM

CheesePuff claims to have 6D11, also.
Man he must be a high rank apple seed member.

CheesePuff · Jul 10, 2002, 12:22 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ambush:
CheesePuff claims to have 6D11, also.
Man he must be a high rank apple seed member.<hr /></blockquote>Uhh, I said 6B11 you nimrod.

That was released in December of 2001.

CheesePuff · Jul 10, 2002, 12:23 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by biscuit:
CheesePuff, does the 6C89 (wow, 89!) installer/System Prefs tell you that your graphics hardware is supported, or are you guessing from speed?

biscuit<hr /></blockquote>From the speed mostly - and the fact that the new iBooks have the new 16 MB video card on an AGP 2x slot.

CheesePuff · Jul 10, 2002, 12:24 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Scribble:
89!!!??? Man, they're really cranking out the builds...<hr /></blockquote>Sure are. It was actually spotted a few days ago but only got it installed today. Most builds are a week or more old, anyway.

Jim Paradise · Jul 10, 2002, 12:40 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ambush:
For all of you, on 6C87,

Apps lauchs so fast you could think you're in OS9.
Sys. Prefs.->1 1/2 Bounce
Mail dot app.->1 1/2 Bounce
iChat-> 1 Bounce
Proteus-> 2 Bounces
Address Book-> 1 Bounce
Adobe Photoshop 7.0 -> 7 bounces ( BIG improvement )
IE 5.2->2 bounces (wow)
OmniWeb 4.1->3 bounces (now that's a surprise)

tests on a g4 400 512 mb ram

Also, scrolling is way faster
Resizing windows choppy in carbon apps like Moz. but smoooooooth in cocoa apps ( even with NSToolbars, NSDrawers, etc. )

Today my computer booted in 15 second exactly ( no kext tough )
The new boot screen is very user friendly in my book; the average mac user will like it.<hr /></blockquote>Very nice results indeed considering I'm running the exact same hardware. ^_^ But do you have a 32MB card in there or just the regular stock 16MB card?

ambush · Jul 10, 2002, 12:43 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Can you post a picture of the new boot screen??? <hr /></blockquote>No ( no digital cam).... the pics of the boot screens on the other threads are legit...

Basically when you boot there's a mac happy face with a bubble below.. the bubble rotates... then the hello appears then the aqua booting progress window appears.

[ 07-10-2002, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: ambush ]

Scribble · Jul 10, 2002, 12:48 PM

How long is it taking a normal boot process to complete in Jaguar?

ambush · Jul 10, 2002, 12:59 PM

for me it'S 15-20 secs.

biscuit · Jul 10, 2002, 01:49 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CheesePuff:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by biscuit:
CheesePuff, does the 6C89 (wow, 89!) installer/System Prefs tell you that your graphics hardware is supported, or are you guessing from speed?

biscuit<hr /></blockquote>From the speed mostly - and the fact that the new iBooks have the new 16 MB video card on an AGP 2x slot.<hr /></blockquote>I was wonderin' cos the 16 MB card in the new iBook isn't officially "supported", you need 32 MB for that don't you? I'd like to know if my 600 MHz iBook will gain anything from QE despite being "unsupported".

biscuit

CheesePuff · Jul 10, 2002, 02:30 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by biscuit:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CheesePuff:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by biscuit:
CheesePuff, does the 6C89 (wow, 89!) installer/System Prefs tell you that your graphics hardware is supported, or are you guessing from speed?

biscuit<hr /></blockquote>From the speed mostly - and the fact that the new iBooks have the new 16 MB video card on an AGP 2x slot.<hr /></blockquote>I was wonderin' cos the 16 MB card in the new iBook isn't officially "supported", you need 32 MB for that don't you? I'd like to know if my 600 MHz iBook will gain anything from QE despite being "unsupported".

biscuit<hr /></blockquote>32 MB of video RAM is for optimal performance. It apparently works with 16 MB.

8 MB however will not work at all.

Big Mac · Jul 10, 2002, 04:05 PM

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

I was wonderin' cos the 16 MB card in the new iBook isn't officially "supported", you need 32 MB for that don't you? I'd like to know if my 600 MHz iBook will gain anything from QE despite being "unsupported". biscuit<hr /></blockquote>

Apple officially states that 16MBs is the minimum for QE. 32MBs is for optimal performance. On another note, I'm really happy to hear about all the wonderful speed gains, and I'll be very happy if my machine boots in 20 seconds!

[ 07-10-2002, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Big Mac ]

Guy Incognito · Jul 10, 2002, 04:35 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ambush:
for me it'S 15-20 secs.<hr /></blockquote>C'mon...are you serious? What machine do you have?

This can't be from power-on to desktop...please give us the time it takes from hitting the power button to a fully functional desktop.

[ 07-10-2002, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: Guy Incognito ]

mikemako · Jul 10, 2002, 04:55 PM

Right!

this is unbelievable!! wasn't it like 90 seconds for 10.1?

Of course Windows ME was around 90 secs i believe, while XP boots to usable in about 35, so such leaps have been made on other platforms. it might be possible...

BTP · Jul 10, 2002, 04:58 PM

I was given an opportunity to use Jaguar last week in an external FW HD and it booted on my iBook (700) and G4/450. Speed is there for me. However, speed is so subjective, I can't equate it into units that mean anything to anyone.

It is smooth and fast now, my guess is it will satisfy many, but there will be a vocal minority that will be unhappy.

Group51 · Jul 10, 2002, 06:20 PM

Right, so its really fast on G4s (knew that already), and its really fast on Quartz Extreme 700Mhz iBooks.

Sorry, but although I have faith its faster, there is nothing here to convince me.

Alex00087 · Jul 10, 2002, 08:58 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Guy Incognito:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ambush:
for me it'S 15-20 secs.<hr /></blockquote>C'mon...are you serious? What machine do you have?

This can't be from power-on to desktop...please give us the time it takes from hitting the power button to a fully functional desktop.<hr /></blockquote>Maybe he means its 15-20 secs from power-on to Login Screen. (?) <img border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" title="" src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" />

Nonsuch · Jul 10, 2002, 09:04 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Guy Incognito:
This can't be from power-on to desktop...please give us the time it takes from hitting the power button to a fully functional desktop.<hr /></blockquote>I'd like to hear the answer to that too, taking into account all the grinding and sputtering the system still does even after putting the desktop on the screen.

macrenegade · Jul 10, 2002, 09:28 PM

I am using 6c85 on a 533 G4 with a geforce 2 mx. I like it for the most part but how do you know quartz extreme is working and what things is it supposed to pass off to the gpu? I fired up the cpu monitor and minimized some windows and ran accross the dock, with magnification on, a couple times; cpu usage shot to the top. Also, new boot screen doesn't work for me. It says hello and has the spinning ball over the top of the happy mac and the colors are all jacked; anyone else experiencing this?

SkullMacPN · Jul 10, 2002, 09:41 PM

Why is scrolling so much faster in Jaguar vs. 10.1?

Open Quartz Debug and check "Flash screen updates" and "No delay after flash" and the answer becomes apparent.

When scrolling in 10.1, the whole window and scroll bar flashes yellow.
In Jaguar, only the new portion of the window and the scroll tab flashes yellow.

Ken_F2 · Jul 10, 2002, 09:47 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I am using 6c85 on a 533 G4 with a geforce 2 mx. I like it for the most part but how do you know quartz extreme is working and what things is it supposed to pass off to the gpu? I fired up the cpu monitor and minimized some windows and ran accross the dock, with magnification on, a couple times; cpu usage shot to the top. Also, new boot screen doesn't work for me. It says hello and has the spinning ball over the top of the happy mac and the colors are all jacked; anyone else experiencing this? <hr /></blockquote>I don't have Jaguar installed (as of this posting), but in another thread, it's mentioned that if QE is working, you get a cursor with a shadow, whereas if it's not, the cursor has no shadow. That said, keep in mind this description from moki: <blockquote>quote:<hr />Under the current implementation of Quartz Extreme, the actual drawing of things to a window, such as text, graphics, UI widgets, etc. is not accelerated. What *is* accelerated is the the compositing of windows onto the screen in layers, after their contents have been rendered by Quartz (and thus the CPU did the work, not your graphics card).

Ideally, you'd want everything to be rendered by the graphics card, but unfortunately, that isn't entirely practical. Things like the special algorithms Quartz uses for font smoothing and vector graphics really can't be accelerated well, even with more modern programmable video cards. It would take a very custom graphics card to be able to offload *all* of Quartz onto it.

You also don't really want to be doing this piecemeal; if you can't accelerate all of Quartz via a video card, you'll have to shuttle fairly large chunks of data to/from the video card so that the CPU can render what little bits of it (say, some text) that the video card can't handle. This takes time and bus bandwidth.

In an ideal world, I suppose we'd have a super-customizable video card onto which Quartz can be entirely "uploaded" to the video card and executed from there. All that would be sent to the video card would be simple Quartz drawing commands, and the video card would do all of the bit pushing and compositing right there, leaving the CPU free.

I have no idea if this will ever happen or not, and I'm sure I'm simplifying some of the technical issues -- but that's it in a nutshell. Accelerating Quartz isn't easy -- Quartz Extreme is one step in the direction of offloading the graphics rendering to the video card.

So what do you get? Well, once a window is already rendered (and remember, under OS X, menus, the dock, even icons on your desktop are all technically windows), it can be drawn in any position on the screen, at any rotation, at an scale, at any transparency, essentially for free. A bouncing dock icon, for instance, shouldn't chew up nearly as much CPU as it does now, and window transparencies and shadows should all be rendered "for free".

What don't you get? The actual drawning of the contents of a window (the text, graphics, interface widgets, etc.) are still drawn by the CPU.<hr /></blockquote>

gorickey · Jul 10, 2002, 09:50 PM

CheesePuff:

What can you see that is diff./new in c89? Thanks!

Tommo · Jul 10, 2002, 10:01 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by gorickey:
CheesePuff:

What can you see that is diff./new in c89? Thanks!<hr /></blockquote>Wow - I just installed 6C87 over 6C85.. what a speed difference. I'm using an original TiBook 400, and the difference is amazing.. especially scrolling windows (goes for windows, IE, Omniweb etc etc). I can't imagine what people who have QE-enable machines must be seeing, but it must really be impressive!

If you're feeling blue that you're only just reading about people going on about how great 10.2 is rather than being able to play with it yourselves, then take a lot of comfort from the fact that it will blow you away when you get it.. well worth the wait.

Now if only they'd get window-minimising back in

~T

Gee4orce · Jul 11, 2002, 03:13 AM

Boot time is insignificant in Mac OS X - you will do it at most once a day (and you can go and make a coffee can't you ?). I always sleep my machines - even for days at a time. I just love that instant-on with Mac OS X.

JB72 · Jul 11, 2002, 03:49 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Gee4orce:
Boot time is insignificant in Mac OS X - you will do it at most once a day (and you can go and make a coffee can't you ?). I always sleep my machines - even for days at a time. I just love that instant-on with Mac OS X.<hr /></blockquote>Me2. Boot time means very little to me. Always on, always on.

biscuit · Jul 11, 2002, 04:26 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CheesePuff:
32 MB of video RAM is for optimal performance. It apparently works with 16 MB.

8 MB however will not work at all.<hr /></blockquote>OK, thanks for clearing that up for me, I hadn't seen the 16 MB minimum before. No matter, the rest of the Jag speed bumps will be great from what I read. From reading moki's description, it doesn't seem like QE does that much, I thought the whole lot went to the gpu.

I wonder how far away such a set-up would be, Apple are supposed to be cooking up something with nVidia.....you never know.....

biscuit

eno · Jul 11, 2002, 10:14 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by billybob:
i dont think many people doubt anymore that jaguar will be fast. I just got 6c75 installed on a 700mhz ibook and it just absolutely flies. I'm seriously just blown away. I can't wait for the official release.

<hr /></blockquote>Do a clean install of 10.1.5 and you'll think that's fast too.

Colonel Panic · Jul 11, 2002, 10:48 AM

clean install of 10.1.5 may be faster than messy 10.1.5 but falls pretty far short of a 10.2 install, at least from what I've seen. 10.1->10.2 is a greater speed jump than 10.1->10.1 was (by a decent margin, I'd say), at least on QE-supported machines.

JellyBeen · Jul 11, 2002, 10:59 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Colonel Panic:
clean install of 10.1.5 may be faster than messy 10.1.5 but falls pretty far short of a 10.2 install, at least from what I've seen. 10.1->10.2 is a greater speed jump than 10.1->10.1 was (by a decent margin, I'd say), at least on QE-supported machines.<hr /></blockquote>I guess you meant 10.0>10.1...
Just making it clear.

k2man · Jul 11, 2002, 01:42 PM

Boot time isn't insignificant for everyone. I use a Powerbook DVI, and would love to drive a DVI display off my Ti...but plugging in a screen requires a reboot, and right now, the idea of a 90 second start up isn't thrilling. I'd definitely appreciate a faster start up...

3.1416 · Jul 11, 2002, 02:53 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Ken_F2:
[QB][QUOTE]in another thread, it's mentioned that if QE is working, you get a cursor with a shadow, whereas if it's not, the cursor has no shadow.<hr /></blockquote>I don't believe that's correct. I ran Jaguar on my G4/400 Sawtooth with a Rage 128, which definitely does not support QE, but the cursor did have a shadow.

3.1416 · Jul 11, 2002, 02:56 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by k2man:
I use a Powerbook DVI, and would love to drive a DVI display off my Ti...but plugging in a screen requires a reboot<hr /></blockquote>Really? I drive a VGA monitor off my Rev. B TiBook, and I only have to put it to sleep to connect or disconnect the monitor.

Dez · Jul 11, 2002, 03:48 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Guy Incognito:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by ambush:
for me it'S 15-20 secs.<hr /></blockquote>C'mon...are you serious? What machine do you have?

This can't be from power-on to desktop...please give us the time it takes from hitting the power button to a fully functional desktop.<hr /></blockquote>PBG4 500MHz 512MB; 10.2 6C87

Power button -> Login prompt 75 secs
Login -> Desktop 15 secs

k2man · Jul 11, 2002, 05:18 PM

VGA signals are apparently easier to engage on the fly, as oppossed to DVI signals. I haven't personally tried it myself, but several sources have told me that plugging in a DVI monitor requires a reboot.

And that, unfortunately, is why I don't use a DVI monitor with my Ti...

yaro · Jul 12, 2002, 01:28 AM

Yep, just tested it. 6c87 has real speed. I mean not 'feels fast' speed.
But boot time is not 15 seconds on my Qs 733.

Spheric Harlot · Jul 12, 2002, 05:26 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by yaro:
Yep, just tested it. 6c87 has real speed. I mean not 'feels fast' speed.
But boot time is not 15 seconds on my Qs 733.<hr /></blockquote>I think he meant *login*, not boot time.

-s*

Love Calm Quiet · Jul 12, 2002, 10:01 AM

k2man and 3.1416 ...

Um maybe I am showing that I live ''on the edge'', but I hot plug / unplug my TiBook DVI from the Apple adaptor with *no* problems. The screens blink for a moment but then come back (with windows all moved to TiBook when I hot unplug)..

Maybe the manual *says* to sleep or shut down? Been doing this a couple months with no apparent consequences.

I just thought this one of the most incredible examples of how seamless computing ought to work.

'' Try it: you'll LIKE it! ''

[ 07-12-2002, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: Love Calm Quiet ]

t h e f l y · Jul 12, 2002, 11:49 AM

I sure as hell hope this new release is SIGNIFICANTLY faster. I have been an avid Mac user since '84 and find myself staring at that beachball half the day. Although X's interface is great, I won't recommend an update to it, or move my other machines to it until it responds at 9.2 speeds.

Where's my LCIII when I need it.