Re: Why blame OS for slow applications?
Originally posted by Unregistered
Why does Mac OS X get blamed for the fact that Word doesn't perform? From what I've learnt about
computers, its usually the applications fault if it runs slowly. And on a Unix system, it is most of
the time quite simple to find out whether the OS is slow or the application.
Well, Aqua is a big part of the slowdown. There's simply more calculations to make if you're constantly alpha channel transitions and "eye candy" like that.
This doesn't mean all the applications included in Mac OS X are fully optimized. And it doesn't mean
that there is no potential for improvement in the OS kernel and libraries either. But my overall
impression is that the system itself isn't as bad as some people would like it to be. I guess the
problem is that not many programmers have learnt to write really good code for the new OS yet.
The system is different from most other systems, it needs to be programmed differently.
Well Apple should get going on optimizing the Finder! Finder is where you'll usually find me cursing Apple! They need to optimize the folder refreshing: opening a folder with 200 items can bring Finder to a halt for a minute! And they need to take advantage of multithreading for godsake! Accessing a network drive means I can't access the local drives.
From the looks of the Jaguar (10.2) videos, Apple's starting to address this. Did anybody notice the combined pointer/rainbow cursor in the finder_preview.mov file? I'd guess that should signify "I'm working but you can still click" to the user. Kinda like Windows' combined pointer/hourglass.
And maybe some users need to learn how to set up a performing Unix system. Don't be surprised if
these requirements turn out to be different from what worked for Mac OS 9.
Ok, I admit that Classic and Carbon are totally irrelevant for me, I'm only interested in Cocoa
applications, and don't run anything else. And I would like Apple to fix some known bugs:
Unix process priorities and two-way services to name just two.
The whole discussion reminds me of the Rolls Royce salesman who replied to a customer curious about
how fast the car would be: "As fast as you please, Sir." Is speed really that important? What do you
prefer: a sound design like the Mac OS X or the shabby foundation of the Windows family (or Mac
OS 9, for that matter)? I certainly prefer the Rolls Royce over the VW Golf GTI!
While there's something to be said for good design, if it takes you longer to do your work, it takes longer to do your work! Period! At this point, OS X on my machines (450MHz G4, 500 MHz iBook, 400 MHz Lombard) is this -> <- close to being able to keep up with me. There are quite a few times that I outpace OS X and have to wait for it. This is particularly true in Finder and viewing PDFs.
I've experimented with using OS X as my primary work OS but while it's been successful in proving to me that OS X has all the functionality I need to do my work, it's also shown me I still get things done faster in OS 9. And I'm not talking about just Finder speed too, I'm talking about the running of Applescripts on dozens or hundreds of network files and things like that.
Perhaps the most frustrating point in all this is that Apple's hardware hasn't been getting much faster the past year or two. I want an 800MHz iBook with a 100MHz system bus, just like this $900 Compaq laptop I ended up buying. The MHz myth may be a myth when you're comparing 733MHz G4 against 733MHz (or even 1GHz) P4. But the argument holds less weight when you compare a 867MHz G4 against a 2.2 GHz P4.