OS X is LAME [Archive] - MacRumors Forums

Mlobo01

Aug 8, 2003, 09:50 PM

how much for the cube?anyway Im running Jaguar on my iMac 400 DV with 1G ram, since the last upgrade(10.2.6) the system was running sluggish, both connection speed and apps took too long. I went to Apple Support discussions and did the following recomendations;
In directory access i turned everything OFF, not if you are connecting to a windows network though.
In System preferences>Sharing I left only personal sharing and printer sharing on.
I turned off sharing in iTunes.
used Cocktail, used Jaguar Cache cleaner.
deleted cookies in Safari, emptied cache.
I deleted extra language folders using Delocator.
In terminal I did the following commands
sudo periodic daily
sudo periodic weekly
sudo periodic monthly
deleted mp3 Sushi application.
deleted apple.quicktime.plugin.plist
com.apple.finder.plist
in user>library>preferences
deleted cookies folder in user>library>preferences.
Firmware reset, zapped pram.
made sure ownerships in pictures library was set to correct user, I have observed that 10.2.6 does not take kindly to transferred files from different computers ,preferences and ownerships. also enabled root user. before this I had tried repairing
permissions, Norton's Utilities, restart etc
even creating a new user, went to OS X hints got good hints there aswell, went to discussions I got some more, I did all this
and it worked, now everything is fast no delay no sluggishness. although this might seem a little bit of work I feel like I have learned a lot, I have even repaired a sleep issue that was buggin my iMac, and I wouldnt trade my OS or my computer for any wintel out there not even under the pangs of torture. And please folks there has to be a better way of requesting help or expressing fustration other than proposing exodus of the use of these systems, many here are indifferent
to outcries of desperation, if you have an issue just post it, no one here is threaten
by someone going back to using the Wintel contraptions, the only person that would loose it the "back-switcher" we all know that! now if you wish to get rid of your equipment let us now, WE will be HAPPY to assist you in your ample departure. most generous M.L

Datazoid

Aug 8, 2003, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by krohde
. It takes about 1.5 seconds for me to bring to front Entourage and iTunes, and I don't even wanna talk about PhotoShop. At work I have a 1.8Ghz P4 with Win2000. The programs are instantly displayed and ready for action. In OS X that is clearly not the case.

Explain what you mean by "bring to front". Are we talking maximize/minimize, hide/show, app switching via command-Tab, or actually initially opening programs? Secondly, are you running any "haxies" such as WindowShade? (Yes, everybody asks this, because they do effect system performance) To respond, though, I have a 1 sec lag with maximizing/minimizing, but no lag with hide/show. On the other hand, I am using the Minimize In Place hack as well as WindowShade and a plethora of others, and my computer has been having some "issues" lately as well (one of them being that it seems to take FOREVER for the proper desktop to be displayed after the screen goes to sleep for an extended period of time. What happens is this: it flashes on, briefly showing the old desktop, then it turns to either (can't remember which) blue or gray, and the pinwheel spins. After a minute or two, the desktop/etc flashes up. ) So my computer, at this point in time, probably would not be the best benchmark...sorry.

KCK

Aug 8, 2003, 10:43 PM

15" TI book 667 MHZ with 768MB memory. When programs are already open I have no delay in switching between program windows. Now if you are opening a program from scratch then there is a couple of seconds delay but no delay when the programs are already running here.

Powerbook G5

Aug 8, 2003, 10:57 PM

Man, he has two of the most beautiful computers Apple has ever made and he wants to switch to a PC! Please, give me your Cube! Please! I swear, I have never seen such a drool-worthy computer in my life than that 8 inch cube suspended in clear plastic. It's amazing how such a simple design can be so beautiful yet so functional. But yes, there are simple maintainence things you can do to speed up your system, but if you'd like to part with your Cube, I can give it a good home...

G4scott

Aug 8, 2003, 11:07 PM

uh, my 12" PowerBook with 384mb of ram, running on battery power with reduced processor performance, with 8 apps running takes very little time to launch iTunes.

I've seen no PC that was fast or snappier enough to make me want to use it.

Although panther should help quite a bit...

And titling your post "Mac OS X is LAME" is no way to get help around here. It will just get you sarcastic responses and flames...

shadowfax

Aug 8, 2003, 11:23 PM

Originally posted by Sun Baked
:eek: - you're losing 1.5 seconds 20-100 times a day.

Obviously, you should have bought a PC...

If the 1.5 seconds you save in Window's GUI far outweighs the other abilities of OS X, please sell your Mac.

The way Unix handles memory, the programs will be spun back out to the hard drive if you don't have enough physical memory in the computer. It'll take a second or two to swap active applications. (Seen in page swap count)

But the Unix approach to memory also doesn't limit you to physical memory or the amount you've specific as VM -- like OS 9 did.

But it's also easier for you to buy a PC than find out why the GUI isn't always instantly responding, plus you may save a minute or two a day.

That's up to two extra minutes you can spend taking a dump, getting coffee, or wasting time.

Please sell the Mac, you'll be soo much happier with the PC it's always nice to hear the voice of reason in posts like this. thanks for that entertaining post, man.

gosh, i thought that we all knew better than to feed the trolls. can we take bets on how long it takes to wasteland this?

on a sidenote, i've never seen any computer on any platform load photoshop instantly. i don't think it's pentiumly possible.

iJon

Aug 8, 2003, 11:29 PM

looks like he lit the fuse and ran.

iJon

Powerbook G5

Aug 8, 2003, 11:38 PM

Boom. System bomb :D

applemacdude

Aug 8, 2003, 11:53 PM

I rather wait a second and a half to load photoshop than to load it instantly then it have it crashing in winblows...

patrick0brien

Aug 9, 2003, 12:01 AM

Originally posted by iJon
looks like he lit the fuse and ran.

iJon

-He's frustrated

krohde, how's your cube?

BTW- "Cheaper" is a good use of words.

SLJ

Aug 9, 2003, 12:43 AM

a complex argument... I have a 12" powerbook and I have a 1.9GHz P4 XP... but guess what, both are nice system... but I use the 12" more, not because is faster... is because is alot more stable... but I have to admit... I feel either the OSX or the 12"PB is not very good at control memory managment because sometimes my book is very SLOW and I mean it.. I see the busy disc instead of mouse pointer... and blieved me.. 640MB ram... not many applications open as well.. and dont tell me to take the book back to apple because I done that as well... something does not feel right...

Xero

Aug 9, 2003, 12:48 AM

wow thats interesting: the guy that started this thread hasn't made a single other appearance here.:rolleyes:

LFrascogna

Aug 9, 2003, 12:54 AM

My girlfriends P4 1.6GHz Dell, is a piece of crap. She absolutely detests running anything on it, not only does it decide to just cut a program when ever it wants in the middle of rendering, it is a pain in the ass to use, and it isn't any faster than my 800Mhz powerbook.

This guy can continue to use his pc. However, lets see. It takes you 1 hour to do something in photoshop, but 5 times before it works, that is what 4 hours lost a day compared to what, a minute or two in his calculation.

If you don't like stability, speed, and ease of use. Don't even waste your money, but a pc.

Give me the cube

Peter Kim

Aug 9, 2003, 01:38 AM

oops (see below)

Peter Kim

Aug 9, 2003, 01:39 AM

guys, jesus! it's no wonder he's not responding, you guys are totally ganging up on the poor soul. maybe it's because i am completely drunk but i completely empathize with him. (i really am drunk, despite my excellent command of the engilsh language at the moment). i'm a recent switcher coming from a three year old 1.2 ghz pentium with 256mb ram athalon to a 17" pb w/ 1gig ram. honestly, i love my powerbook. it is beautiful and the OS is the most beautiful thing i have ever had the pleasure to work with. BUT. it is slow. seriously, i am more than a little disappointed with its performance. for example, i was stitting in the Soho mac store today making some simple changes in dreamweaver mx and just took FOREVER! in my windows version it took a second. but in general, i find the mac os to be a little sluggish. sure, it's stable but come on. i spend close to $4000 on a machine i expect it to run at a pretty damn snappy pace. i think a lot of you guys are overly defensive and are too anti-windows to see that yes, the mac os is slow (at least on PB's). if course the os is better and more reliable, i don't think anyone is contesting that. are there any reliable pc>mac comparison tests that are online? i will never trade in my pb EVER but you know... i just wish it was friggin faster. seriously.

love,
Peter

p.s. - am i the only one that think shadowfax is completely amazingly beautiful? wow.

p.p.s. - so drunk right now.

QCassidy352

Aug 9, 2003, 02:00 AM

OS X *is* slow. Hopefully Panther will help with this. Hopefully a lot. OS 9 was crap in many ways, but it was darn snappy, even with much older machines.

Let's not be so defensive that we can't agree to that simple point.

Does the increased stability make it the best OS out there? Yes. Is it attractive? Yes. Is it easy to use, yet also very advanced due to its unix features like Terminal? Yes.

OS X is probably the best thing that ever happened to the Mac, but the original poster kinda has a point. It's not responsive enough, at least not with Jaguar.

Just pointing out Windows' flaws isn't really helpful, nor is mocking the guy. What is helpful is offering ways to make the system more responsive, as many people have done. But honestly, he has a point, and this is a valid topic, IMHO.

the future

Aug 9, 2003, 03:34 AM

From the few available reports of people experiencing the G5 'in person' it seems reasonable to conclude that Jaguar is not slow, just very very (RAM, bus speed, ...) hungry...

But I think it's a given that Panther will be even faster, and if some reports are to believe on older machines as well.

SLJ

Aug 9, 2003, 05:10 AM

I don't think we should use the G5 as a benchmark... because I am using a powerbook like many other switcher.. so, I do believe OSX is slow... but dam good and reliable and very stable. I agree some of the post.. but face it... Nothing is perfect in this world.. and Mac done the best at one end and Windows does something good in another end... what more can we ask.. just wish there is a PERFECT OS? keep dreaming

Taft

Aug 9, 2003, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by QCassidy352
OS X *is* slow. Hopefully Panther will help with this. Hopefully a lot. OS 9 was crap in many ways, but it was darn snappy, even with much older machines.

Let's not be so defensive that we can't agree to that simple point.

Does the increased stability make it the best OS out there? Yes. Is it attractive? Yes. Is it easy to use, yet also very advanced due to its unix features like Terminal? Yes.

OS X is probably the best thing that ever happened to the Mac, but the original poster kinda has a point. It's not responsive enough, at least not with Jaguar.

Just pointing out Windows' flaws isn't really helpful, nor is mocking the guy. What is helpful is offering ways to make the system more responsive, as many people have done. But honestly, he has a point, and this is a valid topic, IMHO.

This guy *does* deserve to be ridiculed. You make very rational and thought-out responses, but look at what the other guy said...

Alright, Apple better have a speedy response time ready for their Panther release.

Or what?? Is that a threat? Are you leaving the platform? Or is it that Apple can't compete with their current offerings? I hate this kind of statement; its meaningless.

This guy is obviously posting angry.

I'm using a 12" PB and under Jaguar the response time is redicolous. It takes about 1.5 seconds for me to bring to front Entourage and iTunes, and I don't even wanna talk about PhotoShop.

OK, everybody, why don't we try what the original poster said. Open up a bunch of apps and try switching between applications.

I just tried myself. I've got folding running, Safari, Mail, Terminal, Preview and iTunes playing a song from a network computer. Opening a new iTunes window takes well under a second. Switching from safari to iTunes takes FAR less than a second.

I'm on a 400 MHz G4 TiBook with 512 MB of RAM.

I can understand that OS X is slow at *some* things. Certain apps (Photoshop and MS Office, forinstance) can also be very slow. But who are you going to blame that on? Apple? Or how about the freakin' developer of the slow app?

Somehow Apple and *most* third party developers can make reasonable apps, but others can't. How can you blame that on Apple?

We have to be realistic in our expectations. We should expect speed and responsiveness, but must temper that with reason. My menus on my machine repond faster than I can traverse them. Do I need them to be faster? Not for productivity's sake.

At work I have a 1.8Ghz P4 with Win2000. The programs are instantly displayed and ready for action. In OS X that is clearly not the case.

Bull! Absolute bull! I've worked on Win 2000 for YEARS and can attest that is not true. It takes some applications a while to launch (office apps, Outlook, Outlook express, etc.) while others are more instant (IE, etc.). But that entirely depends on the applications. As far as switching apps is concerned, I see neither system clearly beating the other.

This is a perfect example of complete misconceptions about what fast really is annd the trade-offs associated. Like IE on Windows. It loads before you even start the app. That means its in memory waiting for you to use it. There is a trade-off there.

I've been a mac user for 3 years now, even managed to convert some friends. I have a cube, and my PB 12. I am going to give OS X one more chance, if it doesn't speed up, I'm going to switch the "wrong" way - it's going to be cheaper too.

If you are going to come to these sites spreading FUD and misconceptions, then by all means, go! You aren't doing the platform any good anyway.

I, however, wish that you could see through the FUD you are peddling and use some reason and practical criteria for judging a system's speed and responsiveness.

Also, does it *really* take more than a second and a half to switch apps or bring up a window? If so, something could be wrong with your system. Repair the disk and disk permissions. Try a reinstall. Get more RAM (if you only have 256 as some have suggested). You may be dealing with an unoptimal system configuration. There are many potential explanations for this type of behavior *if* it is actually happening.

Is your system slow too (I'm not referring to those of you with dual 1 or 1.42 ghz systems)?

No its not. There are some things that I think are slow(dock interaction, really big menus, some horrible applications, mozilla's GUI), there are others that I think are fast (copying files, networking, web page rendering). Overall, I think the speed is completely acceptable, and while there are pros and cons, I think that OS X is worth it.

And I'm on a system dramatically slower than yours.

All I'm asking for is less hyperbole and more practical analysis and facts. If you are coming here expecting a reasonable conversation about this, you went about it the completely wrong way. No-one will take you serious when you are using such irrational arguments (without a presentation of the fact in the case, might I add).

I'd change my strategy, if I were you.

Taft

e-coli

Aug 9, 2003, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by QCassidy352
OS X *is* slow. Hopefully Panther will help with this. Hopefully a lot. OS 9 was crap in many ways, but it was darn snappy

Everyone says this. It's always the same argument, but it simply doesn't hold water.

If you take all the time you spent sitting around, waiting for OS 9 to finish it's one-task-at-a-time so you could move onto something else, it would far outweigh any GUI lag in Jaguar. Multitasking makes up for any perceived slowness in OS X.

razorme

Aug 9, 2003, 11:17 AM

It has been an eternity since I tried this, but I recall that it was faster to use Navigator in Classic to browse than it was using an OS X browser.

I don't know how this was even possible - maybe they should have designed OS X to run multiple OS 9 sessions... hahaha

bousozoku

Aug 9, 2003, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by Peter Kim
...
i'm a recent switcher coming from a three year old 1.2 ghz pentium with 256mb ram athalon to a 17" pb w/ 1gig ram...

That's quite a machine you had there. Not only did it have a Pentium but it also had an Ath(a)lon? No wonder it was so much faster--the PowerBook only has one processor.

I find it hard to believe that Dreamweaver MX takes forever to do much of anything. I've used it on a dual 533 tower and it seemed fine. Adobe GoLive seems faster to me, but then, it started on the Mac anyway.

shadowfax

Aug 9, 2003, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by Peter Kim
p.s. - am i the only one that think shadowfax is completely amazingly beautiful? wow. heh, thanks, love, but if you saw a real picture of me, an 18-year-old male, you might change your mind. my, 'tar, however, is indisputably, completely, amazingly beautiful. that would be rena tanaka. and if i were her, i would be self-absorbed enough to make a tar with pictures of myself. but as ugly old me, i opted to use a personal idol as my 'tar. sorry if that confused you. or did you know, and you're just utterly drunk?

mj_1903

Aug 9, 2003, 12:29 PM

Well lets see what I have running on my PB 12".

- Finder
- Mail
- iChat
- iTunes (playing)
- Camino (with several open windows with mutliple tabs open)
- Project Builder (two projects open)
- Interface Builder
- Textedit
- Property List Editor
- Preview
- XJournal

I run this machine with 256mb of RAM (I know what fast is, my PowerMac Dual 867 has 1.25Gb of RAM) and yes, it certainly is slow to change windows sometimes, but not aggravatingly slow.

I was just playing with the latest Panther build the other day and doing some speed comparisons with Windows XP on a 3ghz P4 with 768mb of RAM. I must say I was pleasantly surprised to see my Mac running circles around the PC's in some aspects (this is my PowerBook) like Safari loading faster than IE 6 and rendering faster than IE 6 (even over airport). As for login times and boot time, the Mac was faster on the former and about 10s slower on the latter.

Panther is certainly faster and by far a much more advanced and more beautiful OS than Windows. It just screams out 'Use Me!' these days. I can't wait to use the GM.

shadowfax

Aug 9, 2003, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by mj_1903
like Safari loading faster than IE 6 and rendering faster than IE 6 (even over airport). "even over airport?" airport has more bandwidth than any residential broadband service i have ever heard of. what are you running, T3? i don't remember exactly the stats on that, but i would think that you would still be able to get the full rate over airport. point is, airport is not a technology that slows your internet down. LAN transfers from computer to computer, yes, but not internet.

vniow

Aug 9, 2003, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by Peter Kim

p.s. - am i the only one that think shadowfax is completely amazingly beautiful? wow.

Nope.

Back to the thread, this has got to be the fifth thread or so I've seen like this since I've been here, the origional poster starts a thread that will no doubt get him flamed and never returns to it, other posters proceed with the flaming while others sympathize but put out more rational, well-thought out arguments and attempt to cool down the conversation a bit but it starts to repeat itself and drifts from a flame-fest to a real discussion to....

mj_1903

Aug 9, 2003, 01:38 PM

Originally posted by Shadowfax
"even over airport?" airport has more bandwidth than any residential broadband service i have ever heard of. what are you running, T3? i don't remember exactly the stats on that, but i would think that you would still be able to get the full rate over airport. point is, airport is not a technology that slows your internet down. LAN transfers from computer to computer, yes, but not internet.

I disagree when our Linksys router manages to send data tremendously slower than over LAN.

Rememeber, all Airport has latency...your ping is generally double than over standard ethernet. Bandwidth is a different story though.

edesignuk

Aug 9, 2003, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by mj_1903
I disagree when our Linksys router manages to send data tremendously slower than over LAN.

Rememeber, all Airport has latency...your ping is generally double than over standard ethernet. Bandwidth is a different story though.
The point that shadowfax is making is that AirPort is 11Mbps, my impression from polls that have been done here is that the fastest internet connection anyone has is approx. 3Mbps, in which case there is no chance of a bottle neck when connected via AirPort as you still would have 8Mbps bandwidth left spare.

BigJayhawk

Aug 9, 2003, 02:17 PM

The issue though (as posted originally above) relates to RENDERING in Safari and IE. When a web browser is pulling in a bunch of SMALL FILES like web images, an Airport connection CAN affect the speed. Additionally, Airport performance depends upon the distance between the base and the antenna. So, NEVER do you have the FULL bandwidth of Airport and SELDOM do you have anywhere near the MAJORITY of it. Couple that with the LATENCY issues and there remains enough of a point not to criticize the statement "even with Airport."

As for this whole thread, I think the poster was more "momentarily frustrated" than he was just being a "troll."

He (or she) has been a registered MacRumors member since May 2002 with 29 posts on record to peruse. Anyone jumping out to FLAME this post could have saved some time reading before jumping to conclusions. If this poster was registered today that would be different. This poster has asked legitimate questions about the Cube and then the new Powerbook 12" both before and after the purchase.

Believe me, I have FLAMED many people (on occassion, I get testy and recommend trolls just switch back to Windows OR never switch to Mac in the first place), but this seems a legit frustration that was properly answered by the very helpful post listing system speed-ups.

As to why no return to post after asking the question -- legitimate question.

As to the relevance of threats to try to make a point -- legitimate gripe.

However, upon further investigation, these seem to be poor approach issues NOT issues that point out a Troll.

Hopefully, the few posts above have been very helpful (to the original poster as well as to others with optimization issues) and the original poster will return to thank those that spent their time to contribute.

GeeYouEye

Aug 9, 2003, 08:45 PM

The original poster may have a point: there are a few 12" PB's out there that are dog-slow compared even to my 500MHz iBook. Some of them have equivalent RAM (384 MB). I chalk it up to a manufacturing defect.

tjwett

Aug 9, 2003, 08:52 PM

Originally posted by GeeYouEye
The original poster may have a point: there are a few 12" PB's out there that are dog-slow compared even to my 500MHz iBook. Some of them have equivalent RAM (640 MB). I chalk it up to a manufacturing defect.

where have you seen these and what was the diagnosis? do you know what production run has these problems, like which serial numbers may be bad machines? i just ask because i have a 12" PowerBook and once in a while it acts sorta "funny".

GeeYouEye

Aug 9, 2003, 09:08 PM

Originally posted by tjwett
where have you seen these and what was the diagnosis? do you know what production run has these problems, like which serial numbers may be bad machines? i just ask because i have a 12" PowerBook and once in a while it acts sorta "funny".

A couple of notes: 1st, I was mistaken about the RAM in my (dad's actually) iBook, but I remember specifically thinking "that's got the same RAM as mine". My current iBook is the one with 640... just a minor note there.

2nd, it's not so much that they act "funny", but that they take forever to do the simplest tasks. "Connect to Server" (while connected to Ethernet or Airport or none) might beachball the system for 5-10 seconds. Opening a folder with a lot of items might take 5 seconds to display (though that could probably be attributed to their slow HD's). Changing system preferences takes an inordinate amount of time, as does loading them.

As to your actual questions: I've seen them in various places. School, the Apple Store in Walnut Creek (side note: :D :D :D :D ), the Apple Store in Emeryville, and a friend all have really slow 12" PB's. And not all of them are slow. At the Apple stores, one of the several display models might run slower.

I have no idea for a diagnosis though beyond the possibility of a manufacturing defect. Sorry, no info on serial numbers either. :o

mj_1903

Aug 9, 2003, 10:29 PM

Originally posted by edesignuk
The point that shadowfax is making is that AirPort is 11Mbps, my impression from polls that have been done here is that the fastest internet connection anyone has is approx. 3Mbps, in which case there is no chance of a bottle neck when connected via AirPort as you still would have 8Mbps bandwidth left spare.

Yeah I know what the point was, hence my "bandwidth is a different story though".

Thanks BigJayHawk for clarifying. I guess my rushed explanation was not enough.

solvs

Aug 9, 2003, 11:09 PM

Back on topic, even if you aren't a troll, you have some issues.

First off, 1.5 sec? Really. Let's count that out loud. 1... 2... nope, done. Believe me, I still have a 400 MHz PC with Win2000. I would kill for 1.5 sec for ANYTHING. Better than my Dad's 200 MHz, and even my Stepmom's 600 MHz notebook sometimes, but not as good as my old 1.3 GHz AMD. Of course, I sold that because it sucked.

Don't get me started on my Mom's Celeron Sony PC with XP.

I had a 1.6 GHz PC at my old job, and we had several muti-GHz Win2000 machines at a job I had a few months ago. Right now I'm forced to use a 1.8 GHz P4 WinXP (ugh) PC with loads of RAM at my new job. Let me tell you - they aren't fast, they aren't stable, we have a ton of problems, and I would love to take that G4 off your hands for you.

I could always use a new notebook.

Powerbook G5

Aug 9, 2003, 11:43 PM

I used to think my 400 MHz G3 was slow, but after spending a few days of maintainence here and there to fine tune my performance, I am absolutely screaming through most of my everyday activities online. I'd love to have a new PowerBook or Cube, I'd happily throw in some more RAM into those babies and enjoy the user experience with those two fine machines. Both are a lot faster and a lot nicer than my PowerBook. I remember when I was little and playing in MS Paint in Windows 3.1 on a 33 MHz Packard Bell 486 system with 4 megs RAM...if you want to know what slow is, try zooming in on an object in Paint on that system....makes even 1.5 seconds to switch between all those applications on a painfully unoptimized system seem like heaven. After a half hour of simple tweaks, I am sure you can make your 12" PowerBook run even nicer, just give it a try.

shadowfax

Aug 9, 2003, 11:54 PM

you know, as per the comments about sporadically slow albook 12's, i think it might be worth a try to reformat and install OS X fresh. it's kind of a fun idea, just to get used to the OS X platform. you get to install a lot of stuff, and spend hours figuring out how to configure all your apps... it's things like that that have made me a productive user. i'm sitting here on my GHz tibook (not much faster than the 12), switching apps... ichat to safari is a split second. i set up a 900 MHz iBook for my friend Joy (her first mac!) about 2 weeks ago, and even with 128 MB of RAM, that thing switched apps instantly... unless, of course, the CPU was busy. but that was a clear RAM issue that you expect from running the minimum specs for OS X.

for a reference, photoshop takes me 8 seconds to load... i don't think that's so bad at all. after it loads, it runs just as fast as safari or anything else.

tjwett

Aug 10, 2003, 12:36 AM

Originally posted by Shadowfax
you know, as per the comments about sporadically slow albook 12's, i think it might be worth a try to reformat and install OS X fresh....

yeah, this is really important. i have made it a rule that the first thing i do after i get a new Mac is drool on it, then i immediately do a fresh install of the OS. i've almost always had a problem with the factory install.

Nermal

Aug 10, 2003, 12:56 AM

I went from a 1.7(?) GHz Athlon to an 800 MHz iBook, both with 256 MB, and my iBook seems faster than the Athlon ever was, except when playing games. However, I must say that I did do a reinstall of the OS as soon as I got the machine. It's treated me quite well over the past 6 months, except for a sudden decision to die without warning last Thursday :( However I must say I was impressed with my first call to Apple - I didn't get put on hold, and I wasn't treated like an idiot. And the iBook's behaved itself all weekend, although it is going in to the local store for a checkup tomorrow.

beg_ne

Aug 10, 2003, 01:51 AM

Originally posted by krohde
I am going to give OS X one more chance, if it doesn't speed up, I'm going to switch the "wrong" way - it's going to be cheaper too.

That is such a lame troll in so many ways, but hey if you really want to, "switch the 'wrong' way" go ahead. You'll be wishing for those 1.5 second waits as you do your 5 hour reinstall of windows every six months.

Squire

Aug 10, 2003, 02:32 AM

Originally posted by QCassidy352
Just pointing out Windows' flaws isn't really helpful, nor is mocking the guy. What is helpful is offering ways to make the system more responsive, as many people have done. But honestly, he has a point, and this is a valid topic, IMHO.

My iMac got really slow all of a sudden one day. It was quite surprising because usually it's good. I have a 1.6 GHz P4 machine with 512 MB of RAM sitting next to it and the difference is usually very slight. Anyway, I searched in the Help section and found some way to speed things up. I can't remember exactly but it had to do with disk permissions. I followed the simple instructions and my machine worked okay after that

The only time I wish my Mac were faster is when I'm loading iPhoto. Sometimes the 8 or 900 pictures take a little while to load. ;)

Squire

BigJayhawk

Aug 10, 2003, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Squire
The only time I wish my Mac were faster is when I'm loading iPhoto. Sometimes the 8 or 900 pictures take a little while to load. ;)

The main reason for this is not related to the Mac's speed it is related to the way that iPhoto indexes photos. It is a simple way to program the indexing but it makes large photo files take very long to index upon start-up.

The bottom line is that iPhoto is a FREE program that is designed to do its task very well but not necessarily very efficiently. However, there is no such "free program" included with Windows so there is no competitive comparison anyway.

It's almost as if iPhoto, iTunes, iMovie, and iDVD have certain features that are purposefully limited to entice the purchase of the pro version of the software. (iDVD and iMovie have pro versions from Apple, iTunes has some "similar" pro apps from Apple, but iPhoto does not yet -- maybe on the way? <hint, hint> :)

Fukui

Aug 10, 2003, 10:24 AM

I think most of the slowness comes from apps that were ported from OS9, like photoshop, dreamweaver, powerpoint etc... the UI of these apps are also pretty horrible IMO, but their slowness compared to running even in classic is sometimes really bad...it may have something to do with parts of the carbon framework (toolbox), as they were re-written to run under OS X, they probably aren't optimized very well. Also, those apps weren't originally written for OS X, so I would guess that they need more optimization, because OS X, just as the OS by itself, isn't very slow.....just like people used to blame OS X for crappy internet, it was actually crappy IE that made OS X look bad...if anyone needs blaming its the people that put out these slow applications in the first place!!

Powerbook G5

Aug 10, 2003, 10:40 AM

That's very true, if I took the startup time of Netscape as an example on my G3 running OS 9, I may say that OS 9 is slow as hell. But that is just about the only thing that takes a while to startup, whereas every other program launches almost instantly as soon as I click on the icon. It's not the system that is slow in most cases, but the programs that are. If Adobe, Microsoft, and others took more time to optimize and work on their coding, then programs like Office and Photoshop may run that much faster. If you simply go clicking around OS X itself and use many different parts of the system, you'll quickly realize that it does many things quite well and with great speed.

shadowfax

Aug 10, 2003, 01:00 PM

oh, i don't know about blaming the apps so much. for one thing, OS X's greatness should shine through the apps you use on it. photoshop is the mac program. i don't think the real problem with it is that it is poorly done, but more that it's just a rather intensive program to load, a la mozilla. that doesn't mean it's not fast. it's darn fast for me. it likes a lot of RAM though. i wouldn't go blaming them for porting badly; i mean, come on, the guy that wrote in is bitching about safari and iTunes. it's not the apps. there's either something wrong with his computer that is not wrong with mine and most of the rest of ours, or he is being a fastidious jerk-troll.

pyrotoaster

Aug 10, 2003, 03:02 PM

On the subject of app switching, I don't know how you're switching apps, but I'd say that Exposé is the best way.

I'm using the Panther beta, and Exposé is really great for picking exactly the right window. What's even more amazing is the fact that Exposé has zero lag on my pokey 800 MHz G4. The movement is seamless, and it looks pretty darned cool.

Also, in Panther Cmd-Tab doesn't highlight the dock like it used to. Instead, icons for the open apps, sorted from most recently used to least recently used, appears in the front of the screen. You can switch apps by hitting tab again, using the left or right arrow keys, or by selecting it with the mouse. It's an improvement over the old way (in my opinion, at least).

Really, if you're that upset with your Macs you might as well sell them. At least half the posters in this thread would love to take that Cube off your hands (myself included).

BTW, nice new 'tar vniow (I've been gone for a month, so maybe it isn't new at all, but I haven't seen it before).

krohde

Aug 10, 2003, 06:09 PM

Sorry I havent responded earlier. I was away all day friday and saturday and have only had time to sit down now to check my email etc.

My powerbook is maxed out. By that I mean 640MB ram, 60gb, AP Xtreme, superdrive, everything you could add I did. I dont know what is wrong with this machine. It might be that the ram is broken. The only thing is I see 640mb as installed when I click About this mac in the apple menu.

When I said switch program etc. i meant getting the program to the forefront from hiding.

I also ran MacJanitor to do the cache cleaning. I don't know what to do to get this baby running any faster. When I see people with lower clock speeds and less ram I get even more confused.

How could I check to see if the Ram is broken?

Thanks and sorry for not responding any earlier.

KR

mymemory

Aug 10, 2003, 07:20 PM

Originally posted by krohde
Alright, Apple better have a speedy response time ready for their Panther release. I'm using a 12" PB and under Jaguar the response time is redicolous. It takes about 1.5 seconds for me to bring to front Entourage and iTunes, and I don't even wanna talk about PhotoShop. At work I have a 1.8Ghz P4 with Win2000. The programs are instantly displayed and ready for action. In OS X that is clearly not the case. I've been a mac user for 3 years now, even managed to convert some friends. I have a cube, and my PB 12. I am going to give OS X one more chance, if it doesn't speed up, I'm going to switch the "wrong" way - it's going to be cheaper too.

Is your system slow too (I'm not referring to those of you with dual 1 or 1.42 ghz systems)?

KR

I'm so agree with you, actually when I read the title the first time I though it was an old post of mine.

OSX is the best example of "the king has no clothes". Jobs made a terrible mistake and I feel pity for those that believe blandy this OS is superior to 9. OSX is not such big deal, 9.5 would be the same thing at the end, plus OSX added more problems like the lame, slow and stupid file managment.

Schiffi

Aug 10, 2003, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by krohde
Alright, Apple better have a speedy response time ready for their Panther release. I'm using a 12" PB and under Jaguar the response time is redicolous. It takes about 1.5 seconds for me to bring to front Entourage and iTunes, and I don't even wanna talk about PhotoShop. At work I have a 1.8Ghz P4 with Win2000. The programs are instantly displayed and ready for action. In OS X that is clearly not the case. I've been a mac user for 3 years now, even managed to convert some friends. I have a cube, and my PB 12. I am going to give OS X one more chance, if it doesn't speed up, I'm going to switch the "wrong" way - it's going to be cheaper too.

Is your system slow too (I'm not referring to those of you with dual 1 or 1.42 ghz systems)?

KR

I think it's the 12"er's lack of L3 cache that makes it appear slow. I win.

Powerbook G5

Aug 10, 2003, 07:41 PM

Perhaps if you do a fresh install of OS X and then go in and do what you want to do from there. That would give you a fresh start and give you the ability to systematically configure your computer and if it starts to slow down after that, you can easily peg what's to blame.

BigJayhawk

Aug 10, 2003, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by Schiffi
I think it's the 12"er's lack of L3 cache that makes it appear slow. I win.

That's right! Tell him what he wins Bob!

Daveman Deluxe

Aug 10, 2003, 07:42 PM

Originally posted by mymemory
I'm so agree with you, actually when I read the title the first time I though it was an old post of mine.

OSX is the best example of "the king has no clothes". Jobs made a terrible mistake and I feel pity for those that believe blandy this OS is superior to 9. OSX is not such big deal, 9.5 would be the same thing at the end, plus OSX added more problems like the lame, slow and stupid file managment.

So protected memory, dynamic memory management, symmetric multiprocessing, multithreading, preemptive multitasking, the stability of Unix, the ubiquity of Unix, efficient virtual memory, an efficient UI server, a lack of viruses, and strong security mean nothing to you?

They mean a lot to me.

What are you talking about with the "lame, slow, and stupid file management" anyway? HFS+ and UFS are about as good as they get. FAT32/NFTS certainly doesn't do much for me.

Still, Apple shoud have gone with NuKernel instead of NeXT's kernel.

Sun Baked

Aug 10, 2003, 08:16 PM

;P

Originally posted by mymemory
I'm so agree with you, actually when I read the title the first time I though it was an old post of mine. So did a lot of other people.OSX is the best example of "the king has no clothes".:eek:

Now I'd almost think you were talking about yourself with that comment.
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?postid=158571plus OSX added more problems like the lame, slow and stupid file managment.Considering OS X went with OS 9s file management system as the default, we finally have a winner on the Lame-o-meter.

And it's getting real close to needing a good facelift, since the RAID devices are getting too close to the old HFS+ limits.

rainman::|:|

Aug 10, 2003, 08:18 PM

On my iMac 400 Jag runs about .5 seconds for bringing a window forward, and that includes a window redraw to fill in missing content. You definitely have a problem that's not normal behavior. The only time I see lags pulling windows forward is if it's a Big app, like photoshop or VPC or something... then it might take a second or two along with a redraw. But that's acceptable for a 400 G3, not a new G4.

pnw

Fukui

Aug 11, 2003, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by krohde
When I said switch program etc. i meant getting the program to the forefront from hiding.

How could I check to see if the Ram is broken?
KR
If your ram is broken, then you couldn't use, um, use your computer. So its not that. You might want to check out if your computer has any background services/daemons running in the background sucking all your CPU/RAM cycles away. You can check the processes that are running by using the "Process Viewer" in the Utilities folder. Sort by "CPU Usage" and check if something isn't going to high. Also, leaving too many apps open (triangle under the icon in the dock) doesn't release the memory for that app, so try and close all your apps, then switch between only two and see how fast it is.

Try switching between mail and safari...its gotta be nothing but instant...if its between mozilla and word...then I totally understand...

And to the guy who said the emperor has no clothes: I wouldn't even own a mac if it wasn't for OS X....so somebody's doing something right...

DeadlyBreakfast

Aug 11, 2003, 12:11 PM

Sheesh you guys are hard on old Stevie. I also would never have switched if it wasent for X. I mean really..OS9 was looking kinda outdated.

As far as performance goes, my iBook hauls. I dont really notice any large gaps of nothingness. Even switching between Project Builder and VPC is almost instant. Maybe I just have never felt a PB before but it sure is quick enough for me..

Powerbook G5

Aug 11, 2003, 12:18 PM

Well 1.5 seconds is a lot longer than it should be, so there is something sucking up his system's resources.

patrick0brien

Aug 11, 2003, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by Fukui
If your ram is broken, then you couldn't use, um, use your computer.

-Fukui

Well (heh) that's an interesting choice of words. If the RAM was broken on a level like the slot, or the solders to the logic board, yes, the machine would, most likely, not even make the the startup 'bong'.

However, individual RAM chips can go bad at any given moment. And when one, or two do this, very strange things manifest. Slowdowns and general wackyness is not unusual.

krohde, I think you shousl indeed test it. As for the "King not having any clothes", I'd agree if it were 10.0. However, in 10.2, I've finally decided for myself, that it's truly better than 9.

My favorite feature? The manifestation of the premptive multitasking. Yes, some apps like Photoshop take a second to launch, sooo, Whil it's launching, I lauch other apps I know I'll be needing. Or while I'm performing a raytrace, I'll switch to another app and do something else. Couldn't do that in 9, and it's one-thing-at-a-time attitude.

krohde

Aug 11, 2003, 02:39 PM

Can someone please provide some information on how to test if your ram is broken. Is there a freeware program I can use or do I have to buy a program?

Thanks

MacsRgr8

Aug 11, 2003, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Fukui
You might want to check out if your computer has any background services/daemons running in the background sucking all your CPU/RAM cycles away. You can check the processes that are running by using the "Process Viewer" in the Utilities folder. Sort by "CPU Usage" and check if something isn't going to high...

Try that on OS 9.
I can understand that many people out there think OS 9 is faster than OS X 10.2 on the same machine. But it's only percieved speed while opening a folder, or moving windows around and so on in the Finder.
The real "machine" behind OS X is NOT the speed of the overloaded eye-candy Finder. It's about real multitasking (not the crappy way OS 9 did...), excellent memory management and protective memory. If an app crashes in X, no big deal. In OS 9 your were pretty sure you'd have to reboot the Mac.
I know that all this heavy eye-candy makes a single sub-1Ghz, non-Quartz Extreme, < 512 MB RAM - Mac "feel" slow in the Finder. Burn a DVD, play iTunes, surf the web in Safari, write your doc in Word all at the same time wthout being frightenend something bad will happen, all adds up to the speed of you using the OS.

So in short: Mac OS X lets you use your Mac efficiently, thus making it fast.
The ooohhs and aaahhs about Aqua's beauty comes with a penalty: Your processor and grfx card have to do quite alot. But, this OS is the future. And one thing is very clear: Macs are getting faster and faster....

Powerbook G5

Aug 11, 2003, 02:54 PM

TechTool Pro seems to be pretty involved with checking hardware, including RAM. That should be able to work, right?

MacsRgr8

Aug 11, 2003, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by krohde
Can someone please provide some information on how to test if your ram is broken. Is there a freeware program I can use or do I have to buy a program?

Thanks

Didn't you get the Apple Hardware Test CD with your Mac?
Try using that.

Fukui

Aug 11, 2003, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by MacsRgr8
Burn a DVD, play iTunes, surf the web in Safari, write your doc in Word all at the same time wthout being frightenend something bad will happen, all adds up to the speed of you using the OS.
Exactly. And on my 450 Cube, I can do all that (CD Burning anyway) without too much slow down. OS X really is already fast, and getting faster...some companies' apps though...need some work.

alexholden

Aug 12, 2003, 01:59 AM

something does not feel right... [/B][/QUOTE]

yeah i hear ya, im not NEARLY as happy w/ my new 12' PB as
i would have thought.

shadowfax

Aug 12, 2003, 02:21 AM

Originally posted by alexholden
yeah i hear ya, im not NEARLY as happy w/ my new 12' PB as
i would have thought. contentment is something that would definitely make you feel better about your computer. it's gone a long way for me.

and when it doesn't, i can always resort to "my computer is better than yours :p"

;)

alexholden

Aug 12, 2003, 08:46 PM

Originally posted by shadowfax
contentment is something that would definitely make you feel better about your computer. it's gone a long way for me.
and when it doesn't, i can always resort to "my computer is better than yours :p"
;)

what would make me feel better about my computer is if

imovie3 actually worked!! ive downloaded all of the updates
and it still doesnt work!!

im very disapointed in apple. ive been using imovie on os9 for
a year and had no problems! and now after a week imovie on
ox 10 is completley trashed?!?!?!?!

i cant beilve it....i would expect this from a pc but never apple.

Powerbook G5

Aug 12, 2003, 09:08 PM

Sounds like a possible software conflict to me.

alexholden

Aug 13, 2003, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by Powerbook G5
Sounds like a possible software conflict to me.

which software conflicting with what??

do you have any idea of how i would go about fixing it??

patrick0brien

Aug 13, 2003, 09:49 AM

Originally posted by alexholden
what would make me feel better about my computer is if

imovie3 actually worked!! ive downloaded all of the updates
and it still doesnt work!!

im very disapointed in apple. ive been using imovie on os9 for
a year and had no problems! and now after a week imovie on
ox 10 is completley trashed?!?!?!?!

i cant beilve it....i would expect this from a pc but never apple.

-alexholden

Hold on there. What you are experiencing is an exception to the norm - unfortunately, it seems to be you it is happening to.

Have you repaired permissions through Disk Utility?

Have you run fsck? ("s" at startup, "fsck -y" at the prompt, re-run until clean, then "reboot")

If that doesn't work, if you still have the Jaguar CD, do a "Software Restore" don't worry - it keeps your settings.

Run techtool?

Run Diskwarrior?

alexholden

Aug 15, 2003, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by patrick0brien
-alexholden

Have you repaired permissions through Disk Utility?

Have you run fsck? ("s" at startup, "fsck -y" at the prompt, re-run until clean, then "reboot")

If that doesn't work, if you still have the Jaguar CD, do a "Software Restore" don't worry - it keeps your settings.

yes i repaird permissions once....how often should you do that?

ok...what is 'fsck' ive seen that several times on this board and
i have know idea of what that is. could you explain that a little
more...im just barely computer literate :)

thanks for your help i really appreciate it.

after updating my imove, quicktime and os...imovie is working now
(knock on wood!!) although when i first updated these programs
imovie was still crashing like it was before i updated everything.

but then the next day it was working.....still waiting for the ball
to drop, a feeling i never thought i would have on an apple...
but oh well...begers can be choosers as my old pappy use to
say

thanks

alex

jayb2000

Aug 15, 2003, 07:00 PM

I have OS X 10.2 running on an old 400mhz iMac.
Works fine for me. I also have a brand new 2ghz P4 laptop.
Other than folding, I have not seen a lot of difference.
My iPhoto library has almost 3k pictures, and I have 38gig of mp3s.
I music opens pretty much instantly and iPhoto takes about 3 seconds.

On the other hand, as most people mentioned, I don't have to reboot the iMac everyday like I do with XP.

patrick0brien

Aug 15, 2003, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by alexholden yes i repaird permissions once....how often should you do that?
I tend to do it when my machine starts to aske flaky like forgetting my finderpreferences. Winds up being every 3 months or so.

Originally posted by alexholden
ok...what is 'fsck' ive seen that several times on this board and
i have know idea of what that is.
fsck is UNIX-ese for File Sysem Check. And you do it by one of two ways, forced restart by holding down the power key for five seconds (please don't do this), or as you hear the startup 'bong' press the 's' key on your keyboard (single user mode - command line interface). At the command line, type 'fsck -y' let it run. it should say file system ok (or somethingorother), if it says anything about repairing stuff, keep rerunning it until it says everything is ok. Then in the command line type 'reboot'.

Originally posted by alexholden
my old pappy use to say
We a Mark Twain fan?

alset

Aug 15, 2003, 08:37 PM

For what it's worth, you may not detect bad RAM with software. Might be a good idea to open up the machine and remove a chipe and see if things feel better or worse (keeping in mind that you just cut your memory back, I think you may be able to determine whether or not RAM is part of the equation).

Wow, look how quickly everyone jumps in to help. That's what I love about this site.

Wooha!
Dan

maccarone

Aug 16, 2003, 12:39 PM

I'm a recent switcher and after a year or so of using my ibook I have to complain on some points:
first of all I didnt believe it, but also OSX crashes sometimes.
second, there are some things that I really dont understand:
why is the dvd player in OSX so clumsy and lacking simple functions like a fast forward or a rewind button? (Windows Media Player is far better)
Why is Quicktime not able to play DVD?
Why is OSX not able to handle UDF CD-RW discs like floppys as Windows does? (I mean a simple drag-and drop utility like InCD by Nero).
I think Apple has still a lot to work in order to catch up the divide in some areas.

shadowfax

Aug 16, 2003, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by maccarone
I'm a recent switcher and after a year or so of using my ibook I have to complain on some points:
first of all I didnt believe it, but also OSX crashes sometimes.yes. this is not OS X's fault, you've done something wrong (installed bad software, put in bad RAM, or you have another hardware problem). or you may need to run routine maintenance like repairing permissions.second, there are some things that I really dont understand:
why is the dvd player in OSX so clumsy and lacking simple functions like a fast forward or a rewind button? (Windows Media Player is far better)don't ever suggest that WMP is better. you have no idea, man. uuugh! if you want to ff/rw in DVD player, all you have to do is hold down the (<<) or (>>) button on the little floating console. there are also "Fast forward" and "rewind" buttons on the control menu of the menubar.Why is Quicktime not able to play DVD?why do you care, when DVD player works fine? but for a legit reason, you can't fullscreen QT without paying for it. so if you could only play DVDs in QT, you would have to pay like $30 to watch them fullscreen.Why is OSX not able to handle UDF CD-RW discs like floppys as Windows does? (I mean a simple drag-and drop utility like InCD by Nero).yeah. they are definitely weak in the CD copying area. be patient!

BigJayhawk

Aug 16, 2003, 02:57 PM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is OSX not able to handle UDF CD-RW discs like floppys as Windows does? (I mean a simple drag-and drop utility like InCD by Nero).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

yeah. they are definitely weak in the CD copying area. be patient!

---> There are two ways to look at this:

1) Neither X nor XP actually treat CD-RW's like they are floppies (inCD is a third-party application). Therefore (although, I agree that OS X can expand on the CD-RW abilities), this is not an XP advantage over X.

2) Regardless of the source, with the proper software, XP is capable of treating CD-RW's like floppies and X is not. Is this truly a problem with the expandability of X -- OR -- just a function that no Software Producer has yet to work on for X??? Maybe we, as Mac users, should be emailing the Software manufacturers about this.

Anyway, making a comparison between XP and X in an area that neither Microsoft NOR Apple have addressed would be like stating that X cannot open a Microsoft Word document without first having Microsoft Word installed. After all, XP cannot open a Microsoft Word document without first having Microsoft Word installed. (In fact, Microsoft WORKS does not easily handle Word documents either!)

THE IRONY HERE: in Panther, X WILL OPEN Microsoft Word documents without the installation of Microsoft Word (i.e. FREE!) and Microsoft's own Windows XP will still not accomplish that feat!

F/reW/re

Aug 16, 2003, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by shadowfax
yes. this is not OS X's fault, you've done something wrong (installed bad software, put in bad RAM, or you have another hardware problem). or you may need to run routine maintenance like repairing permissions.

If it's the users fault that the Mac crashes, then the same should count for the PC! As OSX, XP is also extremly stabile when you use good HW!

My Mac has actually crashed more than my PC, because the Mac doesn't support my HW very well.

There is no doubt at all that XP is more snappie than OSX!

Apps like Photoshop 7, Illustrator 10, Dreamweaver MX and Flash MX works alot better on XP than OSX. This is not Apple's fault, but thats just the way it is. I guess these programs will get alot better in the next version when OS9 is out of the picture.

This place is loaded with Macheads who worship Mac. Open your eyes, OSX aint perfect, either is XP!

shadowfax

Aug 16, 2003, 03:47 PM

Originally posted by F/reW/re
If it's the users fault that the Mac crashes, then the same should count for the PC! As OSX, XP is also extremly stabile when you use good HW!

My Mac has actually crashed more than my PC, because the Mac doesn't support my HW very well.

There is no doubt at all that XP is more snappie than OSX!

Apps like Photoshop 7, Illustrator 10, Dreamweaver MX and Flash MX works alot better on XP than OSX. This is not Apple's fault, but thats just the way it is. I guess these programs will get alot better in the next version when OS9 is out of the picture.

This place is loaded with Macheads who worship Mac. Open your eyes, OSX aint perfect, either is XP! "the mac" supports your hardware just fine, unless it's broken (ram problem, bad mobo, etc). as for apps being better on XP, that's crap. photoshop 7 is fine on my mac, much better than on the PCs i've used it on.

i don't unconditionally worship apple, and there are few here who do. there are, however, a lot of newbies and jerks who come in here and accuse us of doing just that. it's a great way to get a warm welcome.

i wasn't talking about software like adobe, flash, etc; i was thinking more along the lines of bad antivirus software, small-name apps that haven't been tested enough and do quirky things to your system, and so on.

the basic principle behind this is simple. one man's computer runs unstably. he runs OS X. my computer runs OS X too, and it's rock solid. the logical conclusion is that it's not OS X per se that is the cause of the problem. it's the hardware. or something messing OS X up.

i don't know where you got the idea that i think XP is unstable by comparison. you will find, however, after running it for a month without restarting, that such is the case--compared to my OS X box, at any rate. but for a week's uptime, i was impressed with windows XP. it's very stable and usable. it's also ugly and overbearing (think activation here)

F/reW/re

Aug 16, 2003, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by shadowfax
"the mac" supports your hardware just fine, unless it's broken (ram problem, bad mobo, etc). as for apps being better on XP, that's crap. photoshop 7 is fine on my mac, much better than on the PCs i've used it on.
The Mac does not support my HW. I have feks tried to use one of my USB ISDN modems on my iBook. Everythime I plug it in I get the GreyScreen. This problem was suppose to be fixed in 10.2.5 or something, but still isn't.

i wasn't talking about software like adobe, flash, etc; i was thinking more along the lines of bad antivirus software, small-name apps that haven't been tested enough and do quirky things to your system, and so on.
This counts for XP as well!
the basic principle behind this is simple. one man's computer runs unstably. he runs OS X. my computer runs OS X too, and it's rock solid. the logical conclusion is that it's not OS X per se that is the cause of the problem. it's the hardware. or something messing OS X up.
My OSX is also rock solid exept for thoose small HW issues. On the other side my XP is also rock solid as long as I don't crash it on purpose.
i don't know where you got the idea that i think XP is unstable by comparison. The whole quote was not directly to you, sorry.you will find, however, after running it for a month without restarting, that such is the case--compared to my OS X box, at any rate. but for a week's uptime, i was impressed with windows XP. it's very stable and usable. it's also ugly and overbearing (think activation here) There is software that let you emty RAM etc. This can make your XP run many weeks without restarting. Knowledge is power, spes in XP. On OSX there aint that much you can or have to do to make it work.
Yes, XP is ugly ;)