Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Peabo · May 10, 2002, 03:26 PM

I've installed the WWDC preview on an iMac 500 with rage 128 with 256 megs of ram and a G4 733 with Geforce 3 and 640 megs of ram and it performs worse than 10.1 on both. I installed onto a blank partition in both cases, not ontop of any previous version of X.

I have no idea why everyone says it's so 'snappy', windows resize so much slower (especially on icon view with 'snap to grid' turned on) sometimes as slow as 10.0 if there are enough items in the window. Genie effects are a little slower too, even dragging windows around isn't as slick. Genieing quicktime movies causes them to stop dead on a frame as they move into the dock too.

the only thing that was faster was iTunes visuals which were up about 3fps.

I'm not saying that it matters to me since I know it's just a preview but it just seems odd since everyone else waffled on about how it's 10x faster.

I have a feeling that QE isn't even enabled in this build or if it is, it's nowhere near finished.

Leia's Right Bun · May 10, 2002, 03:35 PM

Well since everyone else says it is fast I have no reason to believe them and trust what you are saying instead.

Peabo · May 10, 2002, 03:38 PM

*shrug* you don't have to believe me. I'd make a movie of it if I could

SMacTech · May 10, 2002, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by z0ne81:
*shrug* you don't have to believe me. I'd make a movie of it if I could

A movie to show the speed of it!

Peabo · May 10, 2002, 03:46 PM

I'm speaking seriously. I'm shocked to say the least. Everyone made sucha huge deal out of how fast it was and I've found next to nothing that's faster than 10.1 (one thing I noticed - making a selection by clicking and holding the mouse is actually very smooth)

Paco500 · May 10, 2002, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by z0ne81:
I'm speaking seriously. I'm shocked to say the least. Everyone made sucha huge deal out of how fast it was and I've found next to nothing that's faster than 10.1 (one thing I noticed - making a selection by clicking and holding the mouse is actually very smooth)

You're in London- are you sure the issue isn't jet-lag?

Paco

gorickey · May 10, 2002, 03:56 PM

Build #? OS X 10.2 "Jaguar" 6b11 is NOT WWDC Jaguar, sure you weren't ripped off when pirating?

What you are describing sounds EXACTLY like 6b11.

Just a hunch.

CheesePuff · May 10, 2002, 03:56 PM

10.2 Preview is around 25% + faster here. Scrolling, quartz text smoothing, minizming, etc. are all faster. Just not as fast as I had expected, but a very nice speed boost indeed. (G4 733)

Peabo · May 10, 2002, 03:58 PM

it's build 6C35 and came on 2 CDs

The Placid Casual · May 10, 2002, 04:00 PM

I've *seen* 10.2 installed over 10.1.4 on an iMac DV+ 450 with 192 MB RAM, and have to say that it was quite a bit faster than 10.1.4... Not a beach ball of despair (or Agua blob) in sight... Window and menu operations were *noticeably* faster...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing anything, or anyone, but it seems odd that different people are having such different results...could performance differ depending on what installation type was chosen?

Peace,

Marc

Peabo · May 10, 2002, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by CheesePuff:
10.2 Preview is around 25% + faster here. Scrolling, quartz text smoothing, minizming, etc. are all faster. Just not as fast as I had expected, but a very nice speed boost indeed. (G4 733)

What about resizing? get a window with 10 or more icons in it, set them to 'snap to grid' and resize it. When i do it, it's like chuga-chuga-chuga....

SpeedRacer · May 10, 2002, 04:01 PM

zone... i agree. Gonna post back with a more comprehensive analysis, but i've run 10.2 DP now on 3 machines: Cube/500/Radeon/384, Tower/450/Rage128/512, and iBook 500/256 and the iBook is by and large a major dog. There's even more reliance on the G4 processor than there was before - at least at this stage 10.2DP is fully unusable on a G3 iBook.

Ironically, i don't even notice much more acceleration on either the Tower or the Cube though either. I think the Rag128-based machine has actually seen a greater boost than the "supported" Radeon-based system!

One thing i have noticed is that, without question, both G4 systems browse the web significantly faster than before using the same old standard IE that i'm running under 10.1.4 now.

Either way, there's definitely a general speed up feeling simply b/c of better multitasking - i've hit only 3 instances of a delay caused by a spinning (now) aqua ball in the over 7 hours of testing i've done on it. And the Finder.. well it's an entirely different animal.

Definitely a bit disappointing to see (still) poor performance on systems Apple is still selling as new machines, but i guess that's the cost of Quartz. Regardless, i do hope (and expect) to see reasonable performance gains come September when we've moved beyond developer releases and debug code.

Speed

[ 05-10-2002: Message edited by: SpeedRacer ]

Peabo · May 10, 2002, 04:02 PM

Originally posted by Marc2211:
I've *seen* 10.2 installed over 10.1.4 on an iMac DV+ 450 with 192 MB RAM, and have to say that it was quite a bit faster than 10.1.4... Not a beach ball of despair (or Agua blob) in sight... Window and menu operations were *noticeably* faster...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing anything, or anyone, but it seems odd that different people are having such different results...could performance differ depending on what installation type was chosen?

Peace,

Marc

On the imac, I installed on a partition with files on it, on the G4, I set it to initialise the partition first. Dunno why it's not that impressive

Peabo · May 10, 2002, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by SpeedRacer:
zone... i agree. Gonna post back with a more comprehensive analysis, but i've run 10.2 DP now on 3 machines: Cube/500/Radeon/384, Tower/450/Rage128/512, and iBook 500/256 and the iBook is by and large a major dog. There's even more reliance on the G4 processor than there was before - at least at this stage 10.2DP is fully unusable on a G3 iBook.

Ironically, i don't even notice much more acceleration on either the Tower or the Cube though either. I think the Rag128-based machine has actually seen a greater boost than the "supported" Radeon-based system!

One thing i have noticed is that, without question, both G4 systems browse the web significantly faster than before using the same old standard IE that i'm running under 10.1.4 now.

Either way, there's definitely a general speed up feeling simply b/c of better multitasking - i've hit only 3 instances of a delay caused by a spinning (now) aqua ball in the over 7 hours of testing i've done on it. And the Finder.. well it's an entirely different animal.

Definitely a bit disappointing to see (still) poor performance on systems Apple is still selling as new machines, but i guess that's the cost of Quartz. Regardless, i do hope (and expect) to see reasonable performance gains come September when we've moved beyond developer releases and debug code.

Speed

[ 05-10-2002: Message edited by: SpeedRacer ]

Exactly, I'm sure there is better multitasking and such but the whole point of Quartz Extreme was to make the UI smooth as silk right? It's uhhh....not working.

CheesePuff · May 10, 2002, 04:08 PM

What about resizing? get a window with 10 or more icons in it, set them to 'snap to grid' and resize it. When i do it, it's like chuga-chuga-chuga....

Just did that in my apps folder, with over 70 icons in it. Worked like a charm, kept right up with me, no lag at all.

Peabo · May 10, 2002, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by CheesePuff:


Just did that in my apps folder, with over 70 icons in it. Worked like a charm, kept right up with me, no lag at all.

that sounds like more than a 25% speed boost...

Yoda's Erotic Piggyback · May 10, 2002, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by z0ne81:
it's build 6C35 and came on 2 CDs

Then:

1) You downloaded it and burnt it and who knows what the hell you are using.

2) You are a developer majorly breaking his NDA.

So which one is it?

Peabo · May 10, 2002, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by Yoda's Erotic Piggyback:


Then:

1) You downloaded it and burnt it and who knows what the hell you are using.

2) You are a developer majorly breaking his NDA.

So which one is it?

Doesn't matter. My point was that this version is being over-hyped.

Guy Incognito · May 10, 2002, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by z0ne81:

Doesn't matter. My point was that this version is being over-hyped.

This version is for developers' eyes only. Nothing is being overhyped...go back to bed.

Yoda's Erotic Piggyback · May 10, 2002, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by z0ne81:

Doesn't matter. My point was that this version is being over-hyped.

Yes it does matter. Who knows if you have the real thing.

Peabo · May 10, 2002, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by Guy Incognito:


This version is for developers' eyes only. Nothing is being overhyped...go back to bed.

I guess I imagined all the posts from G4 350 users calling it a 'speed demon'. The point I am trying to make is that this sounds like yet another '4k78' fiasco

walrusjb · May 10, 2002, 06:05 PM

6C35 isn't the WDDC build. If you read around you'll find out about numerous differences.

Leia's Right Bun · May 10, 2002, 06:14 PM

Originally posted by z0ne81:
I guess I imagined all the posts from G4 350 users calling it a 'speed demon'. The point I am trying to make is that this sounds like yet another '4k78' fiasco

The point I am TRYING to make (and you either don't get or are avoiding) is that if you downloaded this build from Hotline or whatever then it might not be the real thing or currupt.

Get it yet?

Gene Jockey · May 10, 2002, 06:22 PM

Originally posted by z0ne81:
I guess I imagined all the posts from G4 350 users calling it a 'speed demon'. The point I am trying to make is that this sounds like yet another '4k78' fiasco

Yeah, but that was a bunch of people getting their hopes up on hotline builds. When the folks at the WWDC say it's fast, I believe them...they are there, they have the real seed release. When some guy says "I got this preview and it's slow," well, excuse me for not putting much faith in it. I don't mean to slam you personally, I just think there's a lot of crap floating around cyberspace and I'm not going to judge Apple's efforts by them.

--J

SkullMacPN · May 10, 2002, 07:05 PM

It seems that what's faster and slower depends largely on what applications are used to test the speed of the new system.

By my own accounts, OpenGL games see a significant boost in performance under 10.2. I've seen no dropoff in menu drawing, but I haven't tried OmniWeb (and my HUGE bookmarks menu

).

I have noticed some tasks are indeed slower, but these slow downs are in places where major changes in several separate pieces of code are taking place (i.e. finder + quartz as far as window resizing with lots of icons goes). However, the "lag" associated with this task is not the same lag we grew to hate in 10.0. Rather than the resizing window lagging behind the mouse, it flashes, jumps, and flickers with the mouse.

Some things are WAY faster for sure. For instance, dragging the selection box in the finder was hell on my 1280x1024 display in 10.1. Jaguar makes it smooth as silk.

Overall, however, I believe the OS is faster on a core level (OpenGL, POSIX, etc). Any slow downs we see now are a result of a work in progress. More importantly, Jaguar introduces some new features, restores old ones, and gives us a boatload more options. ^_^

KidRed · May 10, 2002, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by z0ne81:
Exactly, I'm sure there is better multitasking and such but the whole point of Quartz Extreme was to make the UI smooth as silk right? It's uhhh....not working.

I guess you haven't been playing with springloaded folders, minimizing and expanding windows and opening and closing folders on the desktop.

That's where the speed is. All the above use the scale effect and it is easily 50% faster on my dual gig. 10.1.4 is fine, no lags (cept IE) and an occasional beachball. In DP1 there's hardly any lag, and I've seen the aqua drop for a split second only a few times. Mont of the time it when mousing over an opening app's splash screen. The scale effect simply flies, it's nearly instant for me. That's the accecleration. There is a definate speed up, tho it may not be system wide as of this build.

juanvaldes · May 10, 2002, 07:13 PM

Remember this is for developers not for you. It's got lots of rough edges and problems that are to be ironed out over the final 3 months of development.

Peabo · May 10, 2002, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by KidRed:


I guess you haven't been playing with springloaded folders, minimizing and expanding windows and opening and closing folders on the desktop.

That's where the speed is. All the above use the scale effect and it is easily 50% faster on my dual gig. 10.1.4 is fine, no lags (cept IE) and an occasional beachball. In DP1 there's hardly any lag, and I've seen the aqua drop for a split second only a few times. Mont of the time it when mousing over an opening app's splash screen. The scale effect simply flies, it's nearly instant for me. That's the accecleration. There is a definate speed up, tho it may not be system wide as of this build.

Yeah, that is fast...but most of the regular UI elements are not too impressive.

Peabo · May 11, 2002, 06:06 AM

Ok, I've come to a conclusion. Since there are SO many people with super fast 10.2, I think my problem must be that there are no GeForece 3 drivers in this build...

Hornet · May 11, 2002, 07:27 AM

Looks that way zoney, or a geforce 3 driver without quartz extreme support...

Have any other graphics cards on hand?

thanatos · May 11, 2002, 08:19 AM

I think that zone is right.

I dont think that 10.2 will be much faster.

When you hear 50% of people say it's snappy and 50% say it's slow (like when 10.0 came out), then the first 50% procent are placebo and those who say it's slow are right.

If 98% procent say it's fast and 2% slow (like when 10.1 came out), then it's likely that it's faster.

This is a rule I learned browsing these forums over the past 2 years.

[ 05-11-2002: Message edited by: thanatos ]

iKevin · May 11, 2002, 08:54 AM

I don't mean this to be offensive, but why don't we let Apple do their job and deliver us a working/complete OS before we start picking it apart?

I work for a company that builds Virtual ISPs and one common thing that used to happen was when I showed a beta or template to someone, they would call the next day and say "it's great but XYZ isn't working".....hello....beta!

In Jaguar's case, this is ALPHA code you're slamming. No doubt the only things that are working well are what was intended to be previewed at WWDC.

Let's give Apple time....we can ***** if it's not working come final release. Till then lets offer any support we can.

Peabo · May 11, 2002, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by iKevin:
I don't mean this to be offensive, but why don't we let Apple do their job and deliver us a working/complete OS before we start picking it apart?

I work for a company that builds Virtual ISPs and one common thing that used to happen was when I showed a beta or template to someone, they would call the next day and say "it's great but XYZ isn't working".....hello....beta!

In Jaguar's case, this is ALPHA code you're slamming. No doubt the only things that are working well are what was intended to be previewed at WWDC.

Let's give Apple time....we can ***** if it's not working come final release. Till then lets offer any support we can.

I'm not saying '10.2 is going to be poor' because I'm sure it'll be aweseome when it's out. All I mean is that either people are over-exaggerating this build or there are no GF3 drivers (which is what I am hoping).

KidRed · May 11, 2002, 10:11 AM

As I've said in other threads. 10.2 is faster, not in every aspect, but in some it is faster. App launching is faster, scrolling is faster, opening/closing windows is faster, window resizing is a little faster. Menus are the same, and contextual menus are the same. IE is still a dog.

So there is a definate speed increase and in some areas it's very noticable. I'm on a dual gig so any speed increases I see are very apparent as 10.1.4 is already very fast.

Maybe it's your graphics card, maybe it's your install process, but the speed increase is real on 6C35.

BuonRotto · May 11, 2002, 10:16 AM

Let's not start a Chicken Little routine four months before it hits the streets legally. At this point, you can either be an optimist or a pessimist in your outlook. We were all wrong about 10.0 getting a major speed boost when it went final, and wrong that 10.1 wouldn't deliver big speed boosts.

Cooter · May 11, 2002, 11:32 AM

....I have it on my 867/Radeon 8500. I have noticed that Quartz Extreme *probably* isn't implimented, is only partially implimented, or doesn't fully support my 8500. There is no offloading to the GPU by watching top while dragging, minimizing, etc.

But, I will say it is MUCH faster in othe regards. IE is quite a bit faster. WIndow resizing, minimizing, opening and closing windows, using the finder, finding items in the finder, starting up Classic, and multiple others are indeed noticeably faster.

Mail.app rulez. Much nicer. All the Digital Hub panels are very nice additions. The address book is actually useful now and doesn't look like it was made by a 15 year old with RealBasic (not a knock against RealBasic). iChat works. Watson is the same old Watson. TextEdit is at version 1.2, Preview is at 2.0. CUPS works.

Pretty nifty stuff and pretty stable for "pre-Alpha." Some serious screen refresh issues. The little window application labels in the dock can become detached and hang around after you close the window. Some apps don't work. I can't get command-tab to switch the apps. The select screen grab now pops up a little camera icon and highlights the area to grab, which makes taking accurate selections easier.

All in all, a helluva effort. I defintely don't see a placebo effect here, this isn't the generic quicker feel, its full out Apple branded Snappier�.

Agasthya · May 11, 2002, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by z0ne81:
Ok, I've come to a conclusion. Since there are SO many people with super fast 10.2, I think my problem must be that there are no GeForece 3 drivers in this build...

I can assure you 100% that your conclusion is false. I have a GeForce 3 in my dual 450 and it flickers when there is any graphics overlay use. When I use 10.2 the entire OS causes the screen to flicker whenever I do *anything* (window resizing, highlighting, anything!) which is telling me that the graphics card is being used intensely!

oh yeah btw, 10.2 is amazingly fast.

CheesePuff · May 11, 2002, 12:42 PM

agasthya... build number please! Thanks in advance.

Adam Betts · May 11, 2002, 01:28 PM

Originally posted by z0ne81:
I'm not saying '10.2 is going to be poor' because I'm sure it'll be aweseome when it's out. All I mean is that either people are over-exaggerating this build or there are no GF3 drivers (which is what I am hoping).

I think you are the only ONE who are over-exaggerating this build.

It's still in Alpha and it's FAST for everyone, even on my old Apple II.

Grow up. You are whining on something that does not belong to you at all.

Peabo · May 11, 2002, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by Adam Betts:


I think you are the only ONE who are over-exaggerating this build.

It's still in Alpha and it's FAST for everyone, even on my old Apple II.

Grow up. You are whining on something that does not belong to you at all.

How many times must ai re-state this point: I'm not complaining about the build, I know it's alpha and I knopw the final will be good. what I am saying is that everyone had made a point that it is a dream come true and makes OS X as fast as 9 but I don't see this. I'm just saying that people are over-hyping the speed of this particular build.

CheesePuff · May 11, 2002, 01:57 PM

Originally posted by z0ne81:
How many times must ai re-state this point: I'm not complaining about the build, I know it's alpha and I knopw the final will be good. what I am saying is that everyone had made a point that it is a dream come true and makes OS X as fast as 9 but I don't see this. I'm just saying that people are over-hyping the speed of this particular build.

Or maybe when you downloaded it, you got a build that was before the keynote at WWDC.

piracy · May 11, 2002, 02:17 PM

I'm amazed at how much you people can sit here and talk about nothing.

First of all, this is an alpha-quality product that is 4 months from release, which, once again, you have illegally obtained.

Secondly, on slightly faster hardware (such as a G4/400 or faster), Jaguar Developer Preview *is* faster than 10.1.x. On slower hardware (probably all G3s), it is slower. To prove this to yourself, do a simple test: ask anyone who says Jaguar is {a lot, a little} faster than 10.1.x, see what hardware they're running. I didn't even have to read your post to know that you were on a G3 just from the title.

This is just like Windows Me vs. Windows 98 (not that I'd be interested in using either): above a certain threshold, around a P200-233 or so, Me will be faster than 98 on the same hardware. Once you go *below* this, Me will be slower.

[ 05-11-2002: Message edited by: piracy ]

piracy · May 11, 2002, 02:19 PM

Post removed.

[ 05-11-2002: Message edited by: piracy ]

Adam Betts · May 11, 2002, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by z0ne81:
How many times must ai re-state this point: I'm not complaining about the build, I know it's alpha and I knopw the final will be good. what I am saying is that everyone had made a point that it is a dream come true and makes OS X as fast as 9 but I don't see this. I'm just saying that people are over-hyping the speed of this particular build.

Like I said earlier, you are the ONLY one who are over-hyping the speed.

But I'm pretty surprised that anyone would think that G3 would be on par with G4 on speed-wise. No, MacOS X relied heavily on Alti-Vec.

I'm not sure if you are either trolling or using too much weeds.

Peabo · May 11, 2002, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by piracy:
I'm amazed at how much you people can sit here and talk about nothing.

First of all, this is an alpha-quality product that is 4 months from release, which, once again, you have illegally obtained.

Secondly, on slightly faster hardware (such as a G4/400 or faster), Jaguar Developer Preview *is* faster than 10.1.x. On slower hardware (probably all G3s), it is slower. To prove this to yourself, do a simple test: ask anyone who says Jaguar is {a lot, a little} faster than 10.1.x, see what hardware they're running. I didn't even have to read your post to know that you were on a G3 just from the title.

This is just like Windows Me vs. Windows 98 (not that I'd be interested in using either): above a certain threshold, around a P200-233 or so, Me will be faster than 98 on the same hardware. Once you go *below* this, Me will be slower.

[ 05-11-2002: Message edited by: piracy ]

Yeah well that's nice but I'm on a G4 733 with GeForce 3 :]

piracy · May 11, 2002, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by z0ne81:
 Yeah well that's nice but I'm on a G4 733 with GeForce 3 :]

Then you f*cked something up bad on your install, because even the Developer Preview is quite a bit faster than 10.1.x on G4 hardware.

Yet another example of why discussions about prerelease software you're not even entitled to are moot.

[ 05-11-2002: Message edited by: piracy ]

Agasthya · May 11, 2002, 03:56 PM

Originally posted by CheesePuff:
agasthya... build number please! Thanks in advance.

its the same build that was leaked. 6C35 I think. I'm not using it b/c the screen flickers like mad for all the QE usage and it drives me crazy

CheesePuff · May 11, 2002, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by agasthya:


its the same build that was leaked. 6C35 I think. I'm not using it b/c the screen flickers like mad for all the QE usage and it drives me crazy

Hmm... interesting. I have supported hardware (G4 733 with GeForce 2) and its just as slow as 10.1 and no flickering. Did you install it on its own blank parition or upgrade? What video card do you have? Thanks in advance!

Guy Incognito · May 11, 2002, 06:33 PM

Originally posted by z0ne81:
 Yeah well that's nice but I'm on a G4 733 with GeForce 3 :]

You got a GeForce 3 eh? If you've got a game that is supposed to support bump-mapping can you check out of it handles the bump-mapping? Two games off the top of my head that are supposed to support bump-mapping are Vendetta and Giants. Giants might have it disabled even if the GeForce drivers support bump-mapping.

Well actually...the easiest thing to do would be to tell me what the version of the GeForce 3 drivers you have.

piracy · May 11, 2002, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by walrusjb:
6C35 isn't the WDDC build. If you read around you'll find out about numerous differences.

Actually 6C35 is the WWDC build. No one outside of Apple has anything else. (All the 6C37 rumors started with one article, and are all inaccurate. 6C35 is all anyone has, and is the one and only WWDC build.)

Sorry.