Why is OS X slower than a frozen turd?

[mangoman]

I finally gotta vent (and I'll be brief, I promise). I'm running the latest version of OS X on a Quicksilver 933 with 1.25GB of RAM. I expect a lot more snap, crackle AND pop outta my OS, but I see this $%# beach ball WAY too much (iCal's a great example). Come ON, Apple!

[Dont Hurt Me]

OsX is a resource hog, and apple computers have been using g4's for to long. But look at it this way, the current base powermac is only a 1 giger so you are still current! We hope one day Apple will wake up and say to itself, gee we need faster hardware. When they get around to giving us that hardware i will buy a new machine. But this keeps us all current a lot longer.:eek:

[mangoman]

True, true...

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by mangoman
I finally gotta vent (and I'll be brief, I promise). I'm running the latest version of OS X on a Quicksilver 933 with 1.25GB of RAM. I expect a lot more snap, crackle AND pop outta my OS, but I see this $%# beach ball WAY too much (iCal's a great example). Come ON, Apple!

I've got a dual 867 and I rarely see the beachball in most apps (although I don't use iCal, which is notoriously slow). If you really feel like going to a lot of trouble for speed, back everything up, reformat, and reinstall (that will speed things up, although I don't know how much).

[mangoman]

Yeah, the reinstall has entered my mind. But without boring the crap outta you, trust me when I say I run a clean system. OS X on it's own partition, never use Classic, repair permissions on a regular basis (once or twice a week), run MacJanitor, etc, etc...

Sigh...

Looks like this 'old' 933 is gonna be my server tower once the new machines are released.

[MrMacMan]

Yeah really, I have 1 processor 800 MHZ iMac and I rarily get the beachball spinning inless I really want to see it, iTunes, folding, external CD burn and A game... :D

I was supprise how I didn't get it.

[alset]

I run on a dual MDD with no problems. Even my old Graphite 500 MHZ does reasonably well. I only have beach ball issues with my iBook.

Perhaps there is a way to cut some of the fat from OS X?

Dan

[zoetropeuk]

If you have OSX on one partition and your apps on another then this is your major problem. Unfortunately you have to have the apps on the same partition as the OS.
I know this was not the case with OS9 and I thought OSX should be set up the same way. When I reformatted and installed the OS and APPS on the main partition I realised a MAJOR speed increase.
I still have a separate partition for use as a scratch disk and another drive for my work files.

[mmoin]

I have an iBook 800 w/640MB Ram and I rarely see the beachball, so it sounds like whatever problem your having is fixable- your computer should run OS X blazingly fast, I'd think.

[beatle888]

when i first upgraded to jag, i was so dissapointed with my machine that i actually had it on ebay. but then, someone here told me to reformat and reinstall. after that my system was much better.

I made one partition of ten gigs for my system AND applications. and the rest was used for my second partition which holds all my documents. i dont use the home folder apple has set up for me. i would if i could put it on a seperate partition but i dont think i can.

oh and im on a 667 ti with 512 of ram. i see an occassional app take a bit longer to open, or a menu will need to render for half second, but for the most part, its fine. its solid. i would think with a better graphics card then me and with your faster hard drive plus processor you would be running fine.

if you havent already, i would seriously suggest reformating. and keep your apps in the apps folder. i dont even organize my apps folder. but i do make an Applications Alias folder thats organized.

i was told somewhere to leave your apps were the system puts them...so i do.

[mangoman]

Maybe it's some OS X voodoo. My OS AND all the Applications (unorganized by the way - left 'em where they landed) are ALL on the same fat partition. OS 9 stays lonely on its own partition. A third partition holds my graphic files.

Oh, and this reformat is fairly fresh. 'Bout five months old.

Am I missing something else?

[SilvorX]

Originally posted by mmoin
I have an iBook 800 w/640MB Ram and I rarely see the beachball, so it sounds like whatever problem your having is fixable- your computer should run OS X blazingly fast, I'd think.
its fast at times on my 800mhz ibook, but the beachball shows up a little too much for me, but its mainly due to m$ based appz...if only ppl knew that msn messenger was crud...
i cant believe how slow the boot up is for osx, i remember hearing "jaguar is fast for everything" and that the beachball very rarely shows up..but thats lies :P
hopefully 10.3 is a free upgrade and has lots of speed upgrades

[beatle888]

Originally posted by mangoman
Maybe it's some OS X voodoo. My OS AND all the Applications (unorganized by the way - left 'em where they landed) are ALL on the same fat partition. OS 9 stays lonely on its own partition. A third partition holds my graphic files.

Oh, and this reformat is fairly fresh. 'Bout five months old.

Am I missing something else?


so youve had this problem with multiple installs of jag? well then i dont know what to tell you. dont run norton and if you did you will have to reformat (at least i did) to recover performance.

maybe you and i have different ideas of what is too slow.

[cubist]

mangoman, you did mention iChat as being frozen-turd-slow and loaded with beachballs. That's a network thing, isn't it? Are you going to AIM servers with it? Is the machine acceptable for purely local apps?

I tried iChat once and said "high on cute but low on functionality" and never ran it again. Maybe the group's not beating on it enough.

[Vector]

I am also running a quicksilver 933, but i only have 512 megs of ram and rarely see the beach ball. I do a good deal of intensive work in photoshop, illustrator, indesign, and freehand and never have problems with speed. Sure some actions and filters take longer than i would like but i can wait a few seconds. The speed really is not that noticable on mine especially compared to the time it takes to print preliminary work (the actual printing not the computers part of it). I have not used iCal so maybe i would notice it there but otherwise i have no problems.

What type of work are you doing that you have such a speed problem with?

[crazzyeddie]

Ive got a PB Ti 1ghz and I dont see the ball unless its involving appletalk (which ive been having increasing problems with). Even when using 2 or 3 apps plus playing Quake3 in windowed mode, i dont see the ball.

[billyboy]

I dont use iCal amittedly, but I find myself shutting down at night and wondering how on earth I managed to do so much work without any beachballs. OSX doesnt seem to care what is open, the main reaction being the fan coming on rather than diminishing onscreen performance. Its not Windows snappy, but over the course of a day OSX is very fast.

I appreciate that there is a lot of trial and error getting the preferences set up right, but if you say you are all uptogether with software, have you looked into hardware problems. You may have a dodgy USB device causing a conflict. I would normally suggest pulling non factory installed RAM, but that wont necessarily help define your speed issue.

[anjaki]

The day I opened Flash under OS 10.2 to change a Font was the day it became clear to me why that damned spinning beachball popped up every time I wanted to do something.

OS 10.2 sucks in every font installed on the system (OS 10.2 and 9.2, I discovered through Flash that OS 10.2 had installed every font on all my drives: in my case 6000+) regardless as to where or how, although these fonts were not visible in the font utility (they were visible to Flash!). I removed particularly all but the 3 system fonts from OS 9.2 and run them now over Suitcase.

Result: Beachball gone

I don't know if this is of any help, but I couldn't find any mention of it at Apple, I had tried everything I had read on every forum, including a new install, to no avail, but I did find it strange that some users had the problem and some didn't, so I concluded that it didn't have anything to do directly with OS 10.2, but something I was doing with it.

[scem0]

hopefully the GUI speed issues will be fixed with 10.3.

[mangoman]

Originally posted by anjaki
I don't know if this is of any help, but I couldn't find any mention of it at Apple, I had tried everything I had read on every forum, including a new install, to no avail, but I did find it strange that some users had the problem and some didn't, so I concluded that it didn't have anything to do directly with OS 10.2, but something I was doing with it.

Good points. Thanks for mentioning that. I'm running the latest version of Suitcase. It's not perfect, but close enough.

Speaking of perfect, my hat is off to all who've contributed to this thread. I took the afternoon off from staring at my monitor -- a good call. I think I'm whining a bit too loudly about my speed issues. Instead, I oughta be thankful to have two RAM-fat G4's networked in one room.

So thanks for the feedback, all. I'm sure your input will benefit many (including dolts like me who need a change in perspective...)

Cheers.

[bousozoku]

Since I loaded the latest Java update (v1.4.1), I've seen many beachballs and seen my system slow to a crawl while running folding@home and a browser with Java applets on the page.

Recently, I changed a Java application from using the Aqua look-and-feel to the Java look-and-feel and the CPU usage dipped from 40+ percent to around 1 percent. It is just one example of eye candy gone bad. All those liquid effects cost dearly.

Still, on a busy system, Mac OS X is much faster than Mac OS 9 even though the user interface is slower. You've got to wonder that, if Mac OS X had a flattened GUI such as Java or Mac OS 9 or Windows or KDE or Gnome, would it be extremely quick?

I think the answer is yes.

[mangoman]

Another good point. I'd love to see a flattened version. Bet your very right about a potential speed increase.

[vniow]

But how much of the eye candy would you be willing to give up for speed?

XP has this feature where you can disable all the menu animations and other unnecessary resource hogging (but nice looking) widgets but the result is one fugly UI, worse than any 9x versions of Windows.

[physicsnerd]

One thing to check, is to see if Netinfo is on. Go to: Applications: Utilities: Directory Access: Services: and uncheck the netinfo box if it's selected. I had a similar problem, and this fixed it. The computer is just searching for the Netinfo server, and the service can make the system slow way down if it can't find it. Also, if you're not using apple talk shut it off too. Apple talk is not as much of a resource hog, but if you're not using it you don't need it running.

Hope this helps.

Physicsnerd.

[mangoman]

Thanks for the tip. The Net thing was already off, but I unchecked AppleTalk and Rendevous, too.

Besides, what the heck do I need Rendevous on for at this point? Am I wrong on this point?

[physicsnerd]

Besides, what the heck do I need Rendevous on for at this point? Am I wrong on this point?

Nope, you don't need Rendevous for only one machine. If you want to network printers then it's a different story.

[wuntrikpony]

I think it's pointless for people to say MY OS X IS FAST as a rebuttle to a post complaining about the speed of OS X. For many people, including me, the speed of the interface is just unacceptable. OS 9 is JUST FASTER when it comes to things like drop down menus. It infuriates me that the Final Cut Pro 3 isn't as fast as FCP2 or ever FCP1! Shuttling through DV clips in FCP3 is incredibly slow in OS X. If it wasn't for the great new tools I wouldn't even use FCP3. I am mostly a video/graphics guy and programs like After Effects and Photshop work slower in OS X than they were in 9. I just bought a new DP 1.42 to replace my SP 500 out of frustration. I cannot wait any longer for the performance I used to have with older programs.

Anyone else here pissed off at FCP? Heh. Later.

[Catfish_Man]

Originally posted by wuntrikpony
I think it's pointless for people to say MY OS X IS FAST as a rebuttle to a post complaining about the speed of OS X.

I think the point is that we're saying that either
1) We have different standards (not useful)
or
2) Something's wrong with the person's machine (which might be fixable)

Pinpointing a performance problem isn't pointless. Boasting about how fast your machine is is pointless.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by wuntrikpony
I think it's pointless for people to say MY OS X IS FAST as a rebuttle to a post complaining about the speed of OS X. For many people, including me, the speed of the interface is just unacceptable. OS 9 is JUST FASTER when it comes to things like drop down menus. It infuriates me that the Final Cut Pro 3 isn't as fast as FCP2 or ever FCP1! Shuttling through DV clips in FCP3 is incredibly slow in OS X. If it wasn't for the great new tools I wouldn't even use FCP3. I am mostly a video/graphics guy and programs like After Effects and Photshop work slower in OS X than they were in 9. I just bought a new DP 1.42 to replace my SP 500 out of frustration. I cannot wait any longer for the performance I used to have with older programs.

Anyone else here pissed off at FCP? Heh. Later.

dual gig here (quick silver) and FCP 3 responds great. And drop down menus well... I click they drop. If it happend any faster I'd swear my Mac had ESP. ;)


Lethal

[tjwett]

I started to have a lot of trouble with Jag recently on my 733/1.5 Gigs RAM and it got to the point where my only option was a Software Restore which brought me back to 9.2 and 10.1(I don't have my Jag disks anymore, long, sad story)and it's not so bad. OS 9 actually feels awesome. It's SUPER fast and is a nice change believe it or not. OS X has always given me trouble and like you(original poster), I run a very lean and clean system. I could never make X happy enough to run smoothly though. LOTS of beachballs and Force Quits and forced shutdowns. Jag also seemed to do some scary things like if I changed the audio volume the OS would instantly crash and I'd be back on the Log In screen. Just plain weird things like that. I'm loving OS 9 for certain things but I think I'll eventually need X again for PHP and server stuff. I'll probably buy Panther this summer and use this machine for a server. I definitely won't sell it since it still boots OS 9 and I always want to have a machine around that can do that.

[billyboy]

TJWett - the symptoms you describe about having troubles with OSX 10.2 then whizzy performance with OS9 is classic explanation of RAM conflict - not a Jaguar fault. The specs for Jaguar are incredibly tight and chips that function well before upgrades (or in your case downgrades) can cause all manner of problems in latest releases.

I had severe doubts about Jaguar until changing a faulty RAM chip, but now... Having been in both camps I believe OSX is as good as the Apple hype. I think therefore that as regards points made by other posters to this question, it is valid for people who have a fast OSX set up (perceived or real) to say so, obviously not to brag but to illustrate it is a kicking system when hardware and software are on form. It is too easy to blame all ills on OSX when faults could well lie elsewhere.

[bousozoku]

Originally posted by vniow
But how much of the eye candy would you be willing to give up for speed?

XP has this feature where you can disable all the menu animations and other unnecessary resource hogging (but nice looking) widgets but the result is one fugly UI, worse than any 9x versions of Windows.

A lot, actually. I think it's clever, but that doesn't help me when I need to get something done. It's more to draw a crowd in the Mac section of the store. :)

I recently worked using a WinXP machine with the classic Windows interface. The 1.8 GHz P4 was slow, so I turned off every fading and sliding visual element. After that, the machine was pleasantly usable and didn't look any worse.

If we could turn off the liquid effects, at least, copying and things that take a while would go more quickly as that process would have a higher percentage of the CPU.

[tjwett]

Originally posted by billyboy
TJWett - the symptoms you describe about having troubles with OSX 10.2 then whizzy performance with OS9 is classic explanation of RAM conflict - not a Jaguar fault....

I suspected this too. I use Viking RAM only and had it checked out twice with no problems showing. I also had the powerboard checked for shorts that could've caused the machine to crash when doing things like unplugging headphones from the jack. the machine has checked out 100% from 2 different very qualified authorised service centers in NYC. i was thinking maybe i have a ghost but it's more likely that there is some conflict happening between Apple hardware and software. Think of all that's gone on just since the Quicksilvers were released. 10.1, then 10.2, then DDR, then no OS 9 booting, etc. Who knows what this software is optimised for anymore? Apple is still in a mess with all these transitions, there's bound to be problems somewhere.

[Flickta]

I actually opened the thread because I have the same question. Why? Why is it so slow? Slower than 9, Slower than Windows (on PC's, decent Pc's, P III's for example) Of course, it is the most beautiful Os on the market, it is so powerful inside (Terminal is a plenty of joy, though I'm just beginning to learn the system) and so on...

But why the nice and rather modern Mac can't work without the spinning beach ball showing here or there? Well, the OS is good.
The speed isn't. That's it.

[billyboy]

OSX isnt snappy up front, there is no denying that, but there is a story about a hare and a tortoise, with the added twist that OSX is literally a brand new baby tortoise and can only get faster. Remember it runs on half the the Mhz of a PC. Hopefully Apple will not get caught up in relying on mega MHz for speed, but will develop its efficiency and build speed from the ground up.

As regards the spinning beach ball, despite properly organised software, suspect RAM. Hardware causes software style conflicts. The Apple Hardware checker CD is handy, but only a reliable checker for major errors. Unfortunately it is well nigh impossible to define a subtle RAM fault even with the sophisticated 3rd party equipment out there. Also in the age of cheap chip prices, the technicians' time for checking is more costly than the price of a replacement chip - so it makes more sense to pull 3rd party RAM yourself . It is clearly explained in the Mac handbook, and I didnt find it any more fiddly than resetting VRAM.

Run on factory installed RAM for a while with a few light apps open. Once you know it is stable then add the 3rd party RAM back one at a time. You should notice if you put a dodgy chip back in. And if there is no improvement, at least you have eliminated RAM from the hardware check.

[GeneR]

Originally posted by mangoman
I finally gotta vent (and I'll be brief, I promise). I'm running the latest version of OS X on a Quicksilver 933 with 1.25GB of RAM. I expect a lot more snap, crackle AND pop outta my OS, but I see this $%# beach ball WAY too much (iCal's a great example). Come ON, Apple!

I think you're suppose to turn on your computer in order for it to work.

:D

Just kidding! I dunno why it's taking so long for you. It's fine on my computers.

[mangoman]

Originally posted by GeneR
I think you're suppose to turn on your computer in order for it to work.

:D


(slaps forehead) THAT's IT!

Heh. Good one, smartass. (hey, better than being a dumbass, right?)

:D

[FelixDerKater]

How slow is a frozen turd?

[GeneR]

Originally posted by mangoman
(slaps forehead) THAT's IT!

Heh. Good one, smartass. (hey, better than being a dumbass, right?)

:D

Whether I am one or the other is debatable, right?

:D

Best of luck. :D

[GeneR]

Originally posted by FelixDerKater
How slow is a frozen turd?

You know, to some people that would constitute a philosophical debate...

:D

[kettle]

Originally posted by FelixDerKater
How slow is a frozen turd?
In my experience a frozen turd can be quite swift, especially when clocked through post domestic stretches of sewerage conduit. Would tis particular turd be in a large frozen section of waste water or frozen in the usual proportions of turds just more rigid? Either way perhaps we should be asking "How fast is a frozen turd?"

I thankyou.

[mangoman]

Man, I hear the BOOZE talkin' now!

:D

[GeneR]

Originally posted by mangoman
Man, I hear the BOOZE talkin' now!

:D

If only that was true. Sigh! :D

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by mangoman
Maybe it's some OS X voodoo. My OS AND all the Applications (unorganized by the way - left 'em where they landed) are ALL on the same fat partition. OS 9 stays lonely on its own partition. A third partition holds my graphic files.

Oh, and this reformat is fairly fresh. 'Bout five months old.

Am I missing something else?

5 months is anything but fresh. That means you've performed a couple of updates on the system in that time which seems to cause problems over time.

Do you run any Symantec Norton programs?

I recommend a fresh reinstall you should see a substantial boost. On my Dual/GHz/DDR PowerMac I saw a 15-20% boost after reinstalling after only 5 months. Though there were some system problems before the reinstall due to very poor programing on Symantecs part.

I know I have a very fast system but I basically never see a spinning ball cursor. I even run screen savers as my back ground. iCal is very prompt for me giving me nearly instantaneous changes on a click and never give a ball even on initial load.

[favedave]

How about a SPEED boost to OS X to actually make it useable??

OS X.2 is SLOWER than 9.2.2 on my dual gig machine. I have things to do so I don't waste my time with OS X.

They shouldn't release any upgrades until they figure out how to ACHIEVE THE SAME SPEED THEY HAD WITH THE OLD OPERATING SYSTEM.

Am I the only one who sees the emperor has no clothes? Who gives a crap about aqua interface and pretty windows. I have work to do, not stare at blue bubbles.

An upgraded operating system for more money that offers: slower speed, confusing file system, the annoying extra level of crap to deal with because now it's GUI shell over another operating system, being forced to use CLI to tweak things.

And for what? Where are the advantages? My friends who use it say "well, there's no crashes!" I got news for you tech boy, I have very few crashes now. If you added up all the crashes I get and subtract the lost time from my work time, I'd still be way ahead in productivity because OS 9 RUNS FASTER ALL THE TIME EVERY DAY.


OS X was a terrible idea and a step backward in functionality and productivity. BUt now we're stuck with it. THe least they could do is make it run as fast as the old OS. How embarrassing for them!

I love Macs, but why are people so hesitant to speak the truth, which is: OS X is not useable for anyone with reasonably quick computer skills who has work to do. Going from 9.2.2 to OS X is like going from a computer back to a manual typewriter.

Fortunately, I won't be forced to use X til at least mid 2004. BY then, maybe it will be useable.

I have always been an Apple champion, but not any more. Apple really blew it bu making the Mac more Windows-like. Blech.

[maradong]

please don t make any double posts. I replied in the new topic you started.

[beatle888]

if your using os9 and are happy about it the why are you compaining about osx? just continue not using it, im sure you'll be fine for a few years, and by that time osx should be up to your standards.:rolleyes:

[favedave]

Originally posted by beatle888
if your using os9 and are happy about it the why are you compaining about osx? just continue not using it, im sure you'll be fine for a few years, and by that time osx should be up to your standards.:rolleyes:


I sure hope so! But my point is that it should never have taken so many steps backwards in the first place.

[Taft]

Originally posted by favedave
How about a SPEED boost to OS X to actually make it useable??

OS X.2 is SLOWER than 9.2.2 on my dual gig machine. I have things to do so I don't waste my time with OS X.

They shouldn't release any upgrades until they figure out how to ACHIEVE THE SAME SPEED THEY HAD WITH THE OLD OPERATING SYSTEM.

Am I the only one who sees the emperor has no clothes? Who gives a crap about aqua interface and pretty windows. I have work to do, not stare at blue bubbles.

An upgraded operating system for more money that offers: slower speed, confusing file system, the annoying extra level of crap to deal with because now it's GUI shell over another operating system, being forced to use CLI to tweak things.

And for what? Where are the advantages? My friends who use it say "well, there's no crashes!" I got news for you tech boy, I have very few crashes now. If you added up all the crashes I get and subtract the lost time from my work time, I'd still be way ahead in productivity because OS 9 RUNS FASTER ALL THE TIME EVERY DAY.


OS X was a terrible idea and a step backward in functionality and productivity. BUt now we're stuck with it. THe least they could do is make it run as fast as the old OS. How embarrassing for them!

I love Macs, but why are people so hesitant to speak the truth, which is: OS X is not useable for anyone with reasonably quick computer skills who has work to do. Going from 9.2.2 to OS X is like going from a computer back to a manual typewriter.

Fortunately, I won't be forced to use X til at least mid 2004. BY then, maybe it will be useable.

I have always been an Apple champion, but not any more. Apple really blew it bu making the Mac more Windows-like. Blech.

What is slower, exactly?

I can think of two very general categories computer operations can take: gui operations, and actually computational work.

Lets examine those categories for a minute. In the first group, we have things like clicking on menus, resizing windows, minimizing windows, working with folders. These are operations that require direct and snappy feedback to user actions. In other words, "When I click, s*** happens...and fast."

In the second category, we have computational work, multi-tasking, services operating between applications, OS capabilities, etc. These are operations that happen when we aren't clicking. Rendering a web page, copying files, downloading files, running simulations, compiling code, rendering images, playing music...doing ll these things at one time.

The reason OS X IS useable--despite your best efforts in smearing its name--is because it handles operations in the second category so well. It does very well in the area of scalability in regards to the number of operations it can handle and the OS's ability to troop onwards despite heavy load. It has a robust and efficient back-end as well as very robust in regards to the features it supports. These are VERY important things for people like me. And notice that I didn't claim it was the fastest and most robust back-end out there (its not) but it is good, and FAR better than OS 9 on these items.

The gripes people generally have about OS X fall in the first category. The eye candy and highly object oriented nature of the system come at a cost. This cost is evident in operations such as the response-time menus. However, even on my 400MHz G4 w/ 800-ish Gig of RAM, the relative slowness of a the GUI does not seriously inhibit my ability to do work. I would venture a guess that usability studies would back me up when I say that the same is probably true of everyone else, as well.

And your comments about a more "confusing filesystem" and the "extra level of crap" is absurd. The filesystem is very clear and very well organized (far better than windows). The problem is that you are used to not having to care about where you put your files in OS 9. There are consequences for this sloppiness, especially in a multi-user environment. Just because something is different doesn't make it worse. That is something a lot of you people will never be able to understand.

This uncomprimising attitude really bothers me. There are distinct advantages to using OS X. If you can't admit that, then you are not looking at reality. Not everything is better, but there are distinct and serious advantages.

Taft

[atomwork]

For me, dual 867 with 512MB and DDR Ram, i have no problem with speed on OS X.
The only time the mac is slow is -that may sounds weird- if the dock is too full or the harddrive not optimized or the font app contains too many fonts activated.

Hope this helps,
D

[beatle888]

Originally posted by favedave
I sure hope so! But my point is that it should never have taken so many steps backwards in the first place.

do you normally work with a CD inserted? that can make the system hang since it has to wake the CD up and treat it as a volume. anyway OSX is fine with me and i work in a fast passed deadline orientated field, the advertising industry. i would much rather work in osx than 9. just my two cents. so you can see that its your perpective that osx has taken steps backwards...not mine. so for you to come here screaming that we should see things your way as truth will only get you into arguments. the thing that i really shook my head at was your statement that the ones that dont complain about osx are repressing the truth. your perspective isnt the ultimate reality. its your reality. in mine, osx rocks.

[XnavxeMiyyep]

favedave - So some of the GUI effects make OS X take about half a second more than OS 9. Oh no!:eek: This really only matters if you're using an old G3. What about the exceptionally bad redrawing rate of OS 9, when you see those white squares? That definitely helps a lot with your work, doesn't it? And multitasking is far superior in OS X than in OS 9. OS X is the future. OS 9 is the past.

[metrolotus]

From my experience once you start to tweak OS X you start to run into problems,

If you did a lot of tweaking or even a little do the reinstall and see what its response is


Good luck

[The Shadow]

Originally posted by vniow
XP has this feature where you can disable all the menu animations and other unnecessary resource hogging (but nice looking) widgets but the result is one fugly UI, worse than any 9x versions of Windows.

So is this the birth of a new acronym?
ie The Mac GUI verses the Windows FUI? (Should it be Fugly UI or ********ng Ugly Interface?):D

Either way, I like it.

[phrancpharmD]

600mHz iBook, no excessive spinning beachball, beats the tar out of my 5 year old 350mHz Gateway running WinME. I can't possibly imagine my machine should actually be faster than his. I'm new to Mac and newly registered at MacRumors (although I've been perusing for several weeks) and am perplexed by MacBandit's posts regarding reinstallation. Reinstallation of what? The OS? I thought you didn't need to do this with Macs. Also I see I might not should have "organized" my rambling Applications folder. Also, I often DO leave my iBook on overnight (sleeping and charging) and carry it back and forth to work with me in this state; will I need to use any of those disk utilities I hear about periodically? Sorry if this isn't the place for this post but I'm still learning; I'd be happy to direct it to a different forum. . .

[XnavxeMiyyep]

Originally posted by phrancpharmD
Reinstallation of what? The OS? I thought you didn't need to do this with Macs.

In the past 4 years, I have owned 3 used Macs, and one new Mac that I bought this year. The only one I ever had to reinstall the OS on was a clone, and it stopped working after 2 weeks anyway. So usually, you don't have to do this on a Mac.