PDA

View Full Version : Faster OS X?


arn
Apr 20, 2002, 12:13 AM
Many of you may have seen Wired's article (http://www.wired.com/news/mac/0,2125,51926,00.html) entitled: Why Do New iMacs Surf So Slowly?

The article speculates that the slower Web Browsing reflects the fact that Apple's current OS implementation still has significant optimizations to go...

Jimmy Grewal, Microsoft's program manager for the Mac version of Internet Explorer, agreed that the problem lies with OS X, not the browser. In particular, he said hardware graphics acceleration was largely missing from OS X at this stage in its development. "The effort of drawing something to the screen (on Windows) can be offloaded to a graphics card, but in OS X the CPU is heavily involved," he said.

Grewal defended Apple's strategy of releasing a slow version of OS X now rather than a faster one later. "That was a conscious decision Apple made," he said. "They optimized for user experience rather than raw performance."

Other developers chime in their opinion but the opinion related in the article is that over the following months, OS X and new Apps that take advantage of OS X itself will run significantly faster on the same hardware:

Hazlett said that early test versions of Opera's future 6.0 release, which uses OS X native events, are already faster than their predecessors on MacOS 9.2,

rainman::|:|
Apr 20, 2002, 12:40 AM
Reminds me of that spoof "Hidden Control Panel" with "System speed, increase with each release"

:)

I'm not entirely surprised, it just doesn't feel as snappy as I think it could. I'm no software developer or anything, but the Aqua interface shouldn't be as CPU intensive as it is now... I don't like IE engineers blaming Apple for their woes, tho... I think they're at fault as well.

Does this mean that this old iMac (someone call Bob Vila) will run X faster before it runs it slower? Hope so... Perhaps 10.2 will be faster than we anticipated...

:)
pnw

foniks2020
Apr 20, 2002, 02:06 AM
I read on /.

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/04/19/1243248&mode=nested&tid=179 --also a great test for IE's slow render... try Opera! supafast!

"Second, up until very recently OS X relied on straight ANSI C for its math libraries (pilfered from one of the BSDs). That code was recently replaced with hand-tuned libraries written in assembler, which should provide a boost. I'm not sure if the new mathlibs have been released or not."

I believe they have not been released as yet and will be in 10.2...

"Since when does FP intensive code show the speed of an OS? Are you using math library calls? The math library that comes with Mac OS X is a straight C implementation taken from NetBSD while OS 9's is hand tuned PPC assembler. They're going to port it and ship it with Mac OS X one of these days (maybe it's in 10.1.4)."

This would improve OS X performance in ways that are hard to quantify. Certainly 2D rendering would show marked improvements.

conceptDawg
Apr 20, 2002, 03:40 AM
Here's a question that I've been wondering about for a while (and am a bit embarrassed to to admit not knowing):

As far as I know there is hardly any to no 2D graphics acceleration in OS X right now. All graphics cards for Mac OS 9 and before were accelerated for QuickDraw. OSX doesn't use QD, but PDF for it's rendering engine (although a developer can still use QuickDraw if they want to). Are there any graphics cards that are accelerating the Quartz engine right now???

This would explain a great deal about performance (and would mean that we can only SMILE about the future when these cards come along).

Also, it took many revisions (and years) for the graphics card manufacturers to get really fast QuickDraw cards...I would presume that even if Quartz is accelerated, it will get faster as the cards and drivers get better.

Again, I don't know how much, if any, acceleration is being done in 2D on the OS, but if someone knows, please do tell.

cD

mac15
Apr 20, 2002, 06:43 AM
Apple should get the GUI to depend on 80% GPU and 20% CPU
that would be good
and it would make everything superfast
Like when you scroll through the Dock with magnification on its use about 95% of the CPU
that sucks
it should depend on the GPU for stuff like that
but then again what will 10.2 bring

Geert
Apr 20, 2002, 07:03 AM
aaahh man,
there will always be critics.
OS X is just over 1 year old.
Apple on it's own has developed almost the entire interface, and when they released beta, some other dev saw that there was really a future for X so they went along.
Indeed Apple has chosen for a broad base, later when everything is in place speed will come.
I myself work on a peecee during the day, and when I'm home I see my mac, and X, I don't care that it isn't as swift yet as OS9 runs (it's swifter then my peecee at work!), it's rock solid! And that is what makes a great OS. And if it takes another year for X to get up to speed, so what, let them have that year, or even those 18 months, then we know they spend all that time for us users, to have that great User experience we became to get used too, and ask for!!!

Extra note I would like to add is this:
Apple does not have the same recources as M$ has, otherwise X would already have been mass adopted.
(heard about M$ public campaign for the xBox? in Europe alone they spent 500 Million € before and during it's release. 1.5 months after the release, they lowered the price from 495€ to 299 €, because of the weak sales.)
See what I mean, if Apple would have such budgets ready to PLAY with, X would certainly mark the spot, but then again, it would turn out to be another M$, not listening to it's all-time users, and be in it for the money.

Apple made the best choice, by opening up part of the OS they asked for our help to make X the best OS ever, and they did not want to run off with the honors, they want to share that with all of us.

Apple is counting on us guys. On all you users out there, either computer genius, computer geek, or just your plain user, give Apple the feedback they ask us for so we all get the world's greatest OS!

trilogic
Apr 20, 2002, 07:14 AM
flash plays back slower on mac than on pc - sad but true. it got better with the new flashplayer 6. I did some testing and got these fps (frames per second) results on my TiBook 677:

the flashmovie was set to 31 fps, this would be the maximum playbackrate.

IE 5.1.4: 28 fps
Netscape 6.2.2: 12 fps
Netscape 6.2.2: 30 fps (when mousebutton is pressed) strange !!!!
mozilla 1.0: 11 fps
mozille 1.0: 30 fps (when mousebutton is pressed)
opera 5.0.498: 8 fps (so much for the world's fastest browser)
omniweb 4.0: doesn't playback > flash 5 content

:confused:

all the non IE browser have problems displaying css content etc. etc. so the only browser one can really use for OSX is IE.

emdezet
Apr 20, 2002, 08:17 AM
What I've been wondering all along:
If that unix bastard of X takes some 50.000 files for a standard installation, aren't notebook users always going to be cursed with slower performance, 2,5" drives typically being slower than their 3,5" brethren?

I'm using 10.1.4 on my iBook500@384MB, and performance SUCKS ASS!

I hate dozens of friggin background tasks wasting my time, when all I want is stable and snappy audio application. I guess I still will be using OS9 for quite some time now :mad:
And I will get the New TiBook, of course :D

gelbin
Apr 20, 2002, 09:20 AM
It does need to be said. and in a way, it is good that wired is saying it. I mean, apple is still selling g3's. g3's, from my experience do not cut it with osX and any kind of graphics/video (and i would assume audio) work. Ibooks would be great machines running 9, but become barely consumer machines with X. Apple needs to act fast...but my fear is that they will rely on faster processors rather than a streamlined efficient system. They owe it though to everyone buying a lower end machine right now that runs X at a marginal rate when doing anything intensive. not to mention the slow draw rates on the internet. I pick up a crappy dell on our wireless and the page springs to life while i wait 10 seconds for the white background to get through its c-section.

Mr. Anderson
Apr 20, 2002, 09:57 AM
That totally sucks, and its not exactly good press for Apple. Its all a M$ conspiracy.

But an interesting side note in the article

'Several correspondents asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation by Mac zealots, who have been known to e-mail 1,000 or more harangues to the work addresses of those who criticize the huggable device.

This is crazy, no wonder we've got are own anti-zealot police force.
:D

bollman
Apr 20, 2002, 01:14 PM
Íīm a bit impressed about the large number of whiners. Why are you still using a mac?
A thing ībout IE. Ever noticed how "fast" it starts on a pc? Ever heard about legal problems with IE "built in" to Windows? This is what itīs all about! IE is loaded when Windows is. IE is a part of Windows, not a separate application. Thatīs why itīs fast.
They say IE is slow rendering. Have you tried OmniWeb? Thatīs pretty fast rendering and with full Quartz. IE 5.1.4 is a hack, it seems. It could be "half-carbonized" or something :-)
OK, X doesnīt fly on a G3, but XP donīt on a PIII either!
Iīd rather be slow than in a Windoze...

gelbin
Apr 20, 2002, 01:20 PM
I don't doubt XP is slow on a PIII, but i don't know of many people buying pIII's these days to run it. on the other hand, apple is selling g3's expecting people to adopt osX and it is a bit embarrassing. don't get me wrong, i am not pining for a pc, but apple needs to optimize the operating system. using xp as a benchmark for an optimized os or what an os should be is not something i would recommend.

bollman
Apr 20, 2002, 01:49 PM
But they actually sell new PIII:s with XP! I bought one! I got a Dell PIII-1000 (Inspiron - portable) and it do suck but I need a PC (bare with me here) in my work. G3:s are a bit outdated but they can still be used in lowend portables. Itīs just a few weeks (months?) that P4:s has been available to the portable PC market.
My fiancee uses an iBook Tangerine 300MHz running X and it doesnīt suck in my opinion. I got a PBG4 667 and a Quicksilver 866 at work. Surely the G4:s are faster but the iBook is a quite competent machine for day-to-day work.
Of course Apple could need faster stuff for the high-enders but to what use for "Joe User"? I think most people will be much happier with a computer you never have to worry about. I restart my PBG4 maybe once a month! Compare that to a PC with XP! Iīm writing this on my Athlon PC at home and I restarted it just a few days ago due to system failure. The key here is troublefree computing. When the computer becomes an instrument and you donīt have to be an engineer to use it, then, my friends, Nirvana is close :-)

Geert
Apr 20, 2002, 02:34 PM
that is very well covers it bollman!
Indeed the XP, even on P4 and athlon is not stable at all, and certainly not running faster (the OS I mean), the many times my father in law (AMD Athlon 1700+ 256 MB 32MBGeforce2)has to restart get my hair standing up, I restart perhaps once every update:D Or his surfin' speed is not equal to mine on a iMac 450DV+ 128MB 8MB ATI rage pro.
It was even faster before I updated to 5.1.4, M$ killed a swift browser. I have cable and my father in law has the same subscription, we live in the same area (just telling you this before we start a thread 'cable speeds depend from area to area';) ), if I type in an address and hit enter, BAM, BAM, BAM the page immediately shows up (no cached sites, and before the update), my FIL does the same thing, same address, hits enter and hop we're waiting sometimes 20 sec to half a minute before the browser even realizes that you ask it to do something, than it reacts and starts loading the page, and shows about 45 seconds to a minute after hitting return. (M$ could not take it that their own product runs faster on a mac, so they actually 'downgraded' IE for mac.)
Luckely after the upgrade, entering an address and hitting enter, it looks like the browser is doing the same thing as on my FIL peecee, but after 5-15 sec it suddenly says BAM and the shows the whole page immediatly.
(it almost equals the loading time as before, but still is a little slower, I'm not used to see the browser playing dead for a couple of seconds)

And else, perhaps in the Mhz race the G3 is outdated, but if Apple tweaks X some more, G3 has still a future, certainly for low-end users (if only the sales people would tell those low-end users the thruth of what specs they need for real when only surfin', mailing and perhaps running a spreadsheet once in a while. If the guy in the peecee shop would have listened to my FIL, he would have suggested a whole other peecee, for a lot $$$ less. But you know how it goes: 'you need at least ..... if you want to .....blahblahblah'.

Listen up guys, I have an iMac with above specs, it runs X smooth as heaven, OK it needs a bit more RAM which I notice when running a lot of apps and doing some Photoshop work, but it certainly is not a loser compared to the peeceeeees with above specs.

I was wondering though, isit hard to make a cocoa based browser?

gelbin
Apr 20, 2002, 03:16 PM
I have a powerbook g3 400, with 38something mb of ram and an upgraded 20gb hard drive. sure, it runs entourage, word, hotline and maybe one other thing fine. HOwever, open up illustrator or golive and it becomes painful. when, on the other hand, i fire up 9, it feels fast to me again.

I agreed it could do the everyday consumer tasks, but that it is not up to what it used to be able to do in 9. take for example, final cut 3....i can use the same file in 9/x and it drops frames in X and becomes a donkey. it does not work for higher end applications.

I also have a g4 450 and bought my brother a dual 800 and my parent's a new imac 700...

also bought my journal two 533s and a 733.

i know that x can be fast, and it is certainly stable, even on the powerbook g3, but it has made my once all around high end machine a bottom of the line low end piece with 2 fire wire ports. no audio/video and limited/slow graphics.

emdezet
Apr 20, 2002, 03:29 PM
I am not entirely sure if you have to be considered a whiner
when the OS officially launched two months before the notebook
effectively kills its performance.

What about that drive matter though? I'd like to know how dependent of constantly rechecking its thousands of files OSX really is.

Running the risk of being redundant here:
OS9 runs smooth most of the time, OSX creeps along all the time.

I know how terrible it must be for some people to accept,
that better overall performance to some other people outweighs can't-find-****-in-column-view and fully scaleable gui on a multiuser, multiflavor Col.Crap

bollman
Apr 20, 2002, 03:37 PM
The PBG3:s are a bit of a bummer. They do lack all the new good stuff that makes X snappy. I previously had a Lombard 333 and I realized that a switch to a newer īputer was needed when I started using X (DP3 that is).
I agree that X feels slow on the PBG3:s. actually the old iBooks are faster, donīt ask me why. I think there are design flaws in the Lombard/Pismos. Although it feels bad one has to "embrace change". Remeber 1994 and the switch to PowerPC. I bet the ones with a new Quadra840AV felt at least as let down as you do. My advise to you would be: donīt move to X yet. Stick with OS9 for now and try to get a PBG4 Gigabit after the summer (if Apple releases a new PB they will be cheap).

bollman
Apr 20, 2002, 03:49 PM
I think looking at an O/S potential is the key here. Sure OS9 flies when things are going smooth but I just hate when an app crashes and the only way out is a reboot with a disk check and all INITs take forever to load.
OS9 is at itīs last verse as it wonīt be any faster than this, it wonīt be any more stable than this, it wonīt get any better and the whole design is a dead end. OSX will get better every day and has the potential of being one of the best O/Ses ever.
Fire up a Plus form 1986 with MacOS 2 and you will find that it was hopelessly slow but as it turned out, it became pretty usefull :-)

gelbin
Apr 20, 2002, 03:49 PM
and yeah, i do remember the 840av/ppc crisis. i actually sat on that fence as well, eventually getting a 7100av...

i realize that technology changes like that, but i guess what i am afraid of is that if people buying new ibooks are having the same, or incrementally faster but still inadequate, experience as i am with my 100mhz slower computer, then there is a problem.

maybe you can't expect a low end portable to run photoshop at blazing speeds, but go live is one of the few web design programs out there and should be run without a hitch on new hardware.

maybe there is a flaw in the powerbook...but as i said, and you concede, it works fine in os9, which just makes you wonder...

bollman
Apr 20, 2002, 04:02 PM
One of my coworkers bought a new iBook 14" 600 maxed out with memory and disk (he switched from pc!) and he is very happy with his machine (heīs running X only). I tested the machine and I actually donīt think the differance in "general o/s-speed" is as much as you would expect when you compare it to my PBG4 667. GoLive, is that a true Cocoa app yet? Carbonized and Classic apps are having speed problems in X.
About being objective to this:
I have been a PC-user for as long as I can remeber and started using mac in 1994 when I bought my first mac (an LC ugh) as I thought "I think I have to learn a bit of mac" and Iīve been hooked ever since.
I use Windows, MacOS, MacOSX, Solaris, Linux, and more every day as I work with tech support at Lund university.

gopher
Apr 20, 2002, 05:27 PM
http://www.macmaps.com/Macosxspeed.html
gives you all the tips for speeding up Mac OS X in one place. My Powerbook G3/233 with 512k backside managed to be as fast as Mac OS 9 following the advice above. Some of the more important tips:

1. Update Prebinding
2. Keep your partitions within the range of RAM+1.5 GB free and 25 GB
3. Run Macjanitor.

Xapplimatic
Apr 20, 2002, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by gelbin
...i know that x can be fast, and it is certainly stable, even on the powerbook g3, but it has made my once all around high end machine a bottom of the line low end piece with 2 fire wire ports. no audio/video and limited/slow graphics.

I think a lot of people are exagerating about bad performance here just a tad... I'm running 10.1.4 on a g3 iBook 466 and there are no problems with no/limited/slow graphics. I'm getting full frame rate on divx movies that are windowed, and iTunes frame rates are comparable. OpenGL games run faster under X in most cases. DVD playback performance seems better under X even. Most of the complaining here is just 10.2-is-not-here-yet-itis. I would say the number one performance issue is beach balling pauses, not slow graphics. That is an issue I expect will be stomped by 10.2 (as it was specifically addressed in the dev forum).

Legitimate complaints about slow graphics can probably best be ascribed to the legacy Rage Pro 128 that comes with most of the G3s. It is not the best graphics engine to start with, although the recently updated drivers for X did help by enabling 2d acceleration. The fact that 2d acceleration wasn't supported was a driver issue which was to be fair ATI's fault, not Apple's. For some reason, those drivers weren't installed in the latest 10.1.4 update, but I expect them to be incorporated into 10.2, or you can go to ATI and download and install them yourself (although ATI is less than clear about which cards the drivers support, my iMacs and iBook definately received a boost in 2d performance terms). Now it is clear that lags in scrolling windows are post update clearly due to the OS and its drive-thrashing mid-scroll. Again an issue expected to be fixed by 10.2.

Much of what people equate with slow 'graphics' ie the resizing or scrolling of large directory windows in Finder etc is not truly a graphics issue, but is the slowness of the OS reading the directory and caching the icons to ready them for display.. Part of that is to blame because of the increased sizes and bit-depths of icons under X which requires more sorting and resizing gyrations on the part of the CPU to properly spit up the correct view. I believe there is much optimization ahead for the OS which will impact the perception of graphical things being slow.

G4scott
Apr 20, 2002, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by gelbin
I don't doubt XP is slow on a PIII, but i don't know of many people buying pIII's these days to run it. on the other hand, apple is selling g3's expecting people to adopt osX and it is a bit embarrassing. don't get me wrong, i am not pining for a pc, but apple needs to optimize the operating system. using xp as a benchmark for an optimized os or what an os should be is not something i would recommend.

They're still selling celerons, which are a lame excuse for a CPU. Once again, technology hindered by marketing...

Also, If Apple used XP as a benchmark, OS X would still be back at the public beta stage. Comparing XP to OS X is a very inacurate way to measure the performance of OS X.

If you always use a dual 1Ghz G4 with os X, and then go to an iBook 600, sure, OS X is going to feel slow. The same thing would be true if you used a 2.2Ghz P4, then went to use a celeron/PIII.

Foocha
Apr 21, 2002, 07:57 AM
IE for Windows XP is faster than IE on either OS 9 or OS X. Whilst I'm sure that OS X could be faster, (and will be in the future,) I suspect that this has a lot to do with the fact that substantially more time and effort has gone into optimising the code of Windows IE - naturally it's a much higher priority for Microsoft than the Mac version.

If OmniWeb had the resources invested into it the IE for XP does - who knows what it might be capable of.

It's worth noting that whilst OS 9 is in some respects faster than OS X, it's substantially less responsive. Try holding down the mouse button in OS 9, and see how the whole system freezes until you release the button. This is hardly adequate performance.

It's a similar situation for Windows users - Windows 2000 is slower than Windows 95, but who wants to stick with DOS?

People who want to stick with OS 9 should also stick with steam trains, prop planes and coal fires.

gopher
Apr 21, 2002, 08:18 AM
Check the latest Mozilla release candidate one...much faster than Omniweb, Opera, or Explorer. I suspect though those having trouble with Mozilla's speed in Mac OS X, are probably ones with dual processors as for some reason Mozilla didn't code their dual processor support correctly in the past, hence why Netscape for X is also slower on dual processors. But anyone with single processor G4s will be amazed. Oh and by the way, 10.1.4 update does optimize 56k modem speed on Mac OS X which should help web browsing somewhat. Nice thing about Mozilla and Omniweb is that both have built-in support for blocking popup and popunder advertisements in their preferences. That should improve web browsing speeds a lot!

Newborn77
Apr 21, 2002, 01:50 PM
You should really try Chimera. It's the FASTEST browser I've used to this date.
Mind you, it does not yet support plugins and other stuff but at version 0.2.2 it's pretty damn fast and stable to be considered a promising replacement for M$ IE as the "standard" browser for OS X (unless you have already replaced it of course ;))

Go to http://chimera.mozdev.org and check it out now!!!:D

gopher
Apr 21, 2002, 01:55 PM
plugin and Java support. But for basic browsing it can be good. Mozilla at least has most of the plugin and Java support you would need, though it isn't quite there when it comes to Java in all instances. Some places Mozilla is quite happy with Java, others it just has a spinning wheel. Chimera though is a nice start.

Newborn77
Apr 21, 2002, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by gopher
plugin and Java support. But for basic browsing it can be good. Mozilla at least has most of the plugin and Java support you would need, though it isn't quite there when it comes to Java in all instances. Some places Mozilla is quite happy with Java, others it just has a spinning wheel. Chimera though is a nice start.

You are right. Chimera is just starting and still lacks a lot of the needed features to make it a mainstream browser.
But the fact that it's just starting is what makes me think this browser is so amazing. It's so fast and stable (at least after 48 hours of testing it) that I can't believe it's a 0.x.x (prerelease) product.
I've used Mozilla and other "alternative" browsers but they all suffer the same lack of speed of IE (except perhaps for iCab).
I'm looking forward to the inclusion of the missing features!
This is going to be big! (I guess ;))

gopher
Apr 21, 2002, 03:31 PM
Mozilla only seems to lack speed on dual processor Macs because they still don't know how to take advantage of dual processors. If you are using a G4/800 iMac it flies. Turning off popup ads really speeds up Mozilla as well.

Baseline
Apr 21, 2002, 04:56 PM
From what I've heard, the current version of Opera for OS X is relatively slow.

All I have to say, is give them a chance. Once they get it running native, I guarantee it will be blazing.

I use Opera as my default browser under both Windows and Linux. In Windows, Opera BLOWS away IE in terms of speed. Startup, and page rendering.

Even better, my Opera speed in Linux is even faster that when I run it in Windows!

(Note: This is all on an old PII 450 with 128 megs RAM, and it's still incredibly fast)

What does this prove? It proves that the Opera people KNOW how to write fast code for *nix systems, and once a version is out that runs natively under OS X (I'm talking Cocoa, not Carbon), it should please everybody.

AmbitiousLemon
Apr 21, 2002, 05:20 PM
all these people calling people who mention speed whiners are completely kidding themselves. even apple understands that osx has serious performance problems so i think you apple zealots can stop pretending it doesnt exist.

my general advice to anyone thinking of switching to osx is "only use osx if it came installed on your machine as the startup disk" if it didnt then chances are apple knew it wouldnt be acceptable to the general public on that machine. the hardware has finally reached a point where osx is acceptable (though not good) on all amchines currently shipping. but if you think osx is good on a g3 (even a new ibook) then take a look at the speed tests of an ibook versus a powerbook (both at ~600mhz) at barefeats. OSX is a lame duck on a g3... but still i find the benefits of osx to be so great that i still run it on my lombard (while gritting teeth in agony if i need to resize a window).

even with a new iMac or new Powermac (dual g4) try resizing a browser window (any browser)... pretty disgusting huh? Even the cocoa browsers dont do it well. when i talk about slowness of OSX im not talking real speed (render speeds, frame rates, application launches) im talking GUI responsiveness. Many people refer to it as snappieness, and it is a problem with all machine not just machines that are a year or two old. This has never been a problem in the past.

If it was still 1999 none of us would be complaining about speed when os9 came out. this has never been an issue in the past. now im not saying os9 didnt run slow on old machiens but im saying it was always reasonable. if you machine was a few years old then yes the enw os could tax your ssytem but the new os was always good on a semi-modern os and certainly perfectly responsive and "snappy" on a new machine.

OSX had so many problems apple didnt even load it on machines for a good long while, and even after they started installing it on new machines they didnt have it selected as the default startup system.

Dont you find it odd that with every new update the first question peopel ask is "is it faster?" the first thing i do when updating osx is resize a window and open a folder with more than 50 items in it, just to test perfromance. I do the same thing when i visit a osx machine in a store or at work. OS9 when it came out was so responsive you couldnt tell the difference between system responsiveness between the lowliest iMac and most tweaked out powermac, and no one even noticed enough to ever ask "how fast is it?"

and a note about IE. dont use it as a comparison. ie is by far THE WORST app created for osx. it has never even been updated (besides a security update or two). ms is completely ignoring ie and it shows. the fact that it is slower than omniweb is a joke. omniweb is a joke of a browser and the fact that it is faster than msie is hilarious. my only use for ie is to download mozilla (mach-o or otherwise), after that its into the trash. download omniweb, icab, opera, mozilla, navigator, netscape, ANYTHING just dont keep using ie and dont use ie as a speed test of osx! there is no reason anyone should use ie on a mac more than once (to download another browser). every single other browser works better than ie, so just make your whole life a tiny bit better and get rid of the darn thing. the fact taht this article uses ie as its gauge for osx "speed" is an embarassment and apple should take that as a cue to drop ie and put a functional browser installed as default. we dont need microsoft support anymore so forget this ridiculous alliance. and in teh article where ms blames osx as the speed problem with their browser i just ask why is it that navigator a browser that has been in development for two months can beat ie in speed in every single test by at least 5 times the speed (and more like 7-10 times in most tests)? the problem with browsing in ie lies solely with ms NOT with osx.

[end of rant]

cleo
Apr 21, 2002, 05:57 PM
Originally posted by gopher

1. Update Prebinding
2. Keep your partitions within the range of RAM+1.5 GB free and 25 GB
3. Run Macjanitor.

Macjanitor only is supposed to take the place of the built-in optimization stuff built in to OS X, right? OK, here's my question: if you put your Mac to sleep every night, but it's still technically turned on, do those built-in tools run? Or should one then use Macjanitor?

gopher
Apr 21, 2002, 06:56 PM
As the hard disk isn't spinning when it is asleep. Though if you put a black screen saver up, it will run. So you could do a screen saver by night, and energy saver by day!
Or much easier, run Macjanitor while you watch TV at night or when you take your daily shower, and then let it sleep when you aren't using it.

bollman
Apr 22, 2002, 12:50 AM
I didnīt say OS X is slow. I just said that itīs not so bad that it makes you puke. OS X on Lombard, sure, that is s l o w. I know I had one. But I think the Lombards where a big mistake. The design of that computer is far from optimal. And yes, it still is slow on a faster machine, although on my G4 867 with 1,1GB RAM OS X is one of snappiest!
Alright IE isnīt "speed demon" but I donīt think itīs _that_ slow :-)
As I was saying in previous posts: MacOS 2 wasnīt fast on a Plus either! I think we have to wait a little bit more to get the right feeling for OS X.
I donīt think there has been such a great technology switch in any platform today. When NT was released, not many people used it because of itīs horrendous computer demands (like 486-33, 16MB RAM and a lot of patience) to run at least bearable. Today, XP is a direct descendant from that 1993 O/S!

bollman
Apr 22, 2002, 12:51 AM
The first sentence should read: I didnīt say OS X wasnīt slow, but


//sorry

Xapplimatic
Apr 22, 2002, 02:26 AM
On the subject of minimizing beach balling, driver chatter, and sluggishness in application loading or window content caching. . . and one that isn't really talked about by Apple. In addition to prebinding the apps, one should also optimize the drive layout. The blocks stored on the drive should be optimized. A fragmented drive definitely slows down OS X, yet there is little talk on this subject. No gui tools come with OS X to defrag the drives, and I can't be sure, but I don't think there is a shell command to defrag the drive either. OS 9 disk utilities will work to defrag a drive formatted under 10 as long as the drive was formatted HFS+ and not under the unix formatting..
Norton works, Tech Tools Pro works.. and you do get quite a reduction in the beach ball nonsense when you scroll icon windows having done it..

gopher
Apr 22, 2002, 06:15 AM
Norton Disk Doctor is Norton Kevorkian. Speed Tools may also crash your Mac. It has been a problem since Mac OS 8.1 since Norton can't understand blocks of the hard drive assigned to working with Extended Filing System (HFS+). Do use Disk Warrior 2.1.1 if you want to optimize or simply just reformat your hard drive after backing everything up. At least now Retrospect is available, and if you want to spend less you can get FWB Backup (which is also Tri-Edre backup).

OSXconvert
Apr 22, 2002, 08:14 AM
In terms of an application that runs better in OSX than in OS9, my vote would have to go with AOL's beta. Normally I don't think much of AOL, but I have to give them credit for really making an incredibly fast port of their software. The embedded browser is as fast as OmniWeb on my PBG4 667 (using DSL) and just a little slower than the latest Mozilla. The non-browser part of AOL's beta really flies, with every click gratifingly responsive. The only other application ported from OS9 which is this responsive for me is BBEdit and maybe Interarchy. Photoshop 7 is pretty good though, given the addition of features, but not snappy. WordX is terrible. If AOL's beta can be so responsive, it makes me believe that Apple is only partly to blame for lousy speed. Though I hope there are dramatic speedups with 10.2.

j763
Apr 22, 2002, 08:33 AM
OK, a couple of things:

1. Don't use Carbon apps as 'speed tests'. Carbon is a joke (mostly apple's fault, partly developers fault for not using cocoa although i can understand as a developer why they don't)... IE is carbon, Chimera Nav is Cocoa. Go figure.

2. I know I am going to get flamed for my opinion on this, but -- Mac OS 9 and below are ABSOLUTE CRAP excuses for an OS (as a ex-linux user -- yep, i converted to X :D my favorite part of using os 9 or classic is that you can only do one thing at once and you have to reboot every 5 minutes...).

3. Don't bag Mac OS X -- It's GUI speed is admittedly pretty crap, but it's by far the best OS i've seen (thankfully we don't have any win2k users here, i hate getting into some huge argument about m$ crappy bloatware). Assuming you're using OS X now, you've got the world's best OS at your fingertips and you're bitching about it.

4. Don't bitch about it, fix it... www.opensource.apple.com

5. OS 10.2 will probably have some speed improvements, but don't EXPECT it...

6. If you were using XP, you wouldn't get free updates (10.2 for instance), you only get security updates with win os's...


7. G3's are completely acceptable for every day consumer use... hey, if you want to use ps, buy a tibook already!!!


8. You can run those scheduled maintenece tasks by using this little applescript i made... or just go into terminal and type in "sudo sh /etc/daily;sudo sh /etc/monthly;sudo sh /etc/weekly"

Foocha
Apr 22, 2002, 08:48 AM
Well said j763 - you're making a lot of sense.

TechLarry
Apr 22, 2002, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Foocha
IE for Windows XP is faster than IE on either OS 9 or OS X. Whilst I'm sure that OS X could be faster, (and will be in the future,) I suspect that this has a lot to do with the fact that substantially more time and effort has gone into optimising the code of Windows IE - naturally it's a much higher priority for Microsoft than the Mac version.

If OmniWeb had the resources invested into it the IE for XP does - who knows what it might be capable of.

It's worth noting that whilst OS 9 is in some respects faster than OS X, it's substantially less responsive. Try holding down the mouse button in OS 9, and see how the whole system freezes until you release the button. This is hardly adequate performance.

It's a similar situation for Windows users - Windows 2000 is slower than Windows 95, but who wants to stick with DOS?

People who want to stick with OS 9 should also stick with steam trains, prop planes and coal fires.

I agree. MSIE is much, much faster on the PC than on MacOS X.

But we have to remember something here. A major portion of MSIE is loaded as part of the Operating System in Windows (especially Win2K and XP). I would _expect_ it to run more efficiently.

This is why I've never been one to complain about MS integrating IE into the system. It's a benifit whether some want to admit it or not.

I haven't tried it on my LCD iMac (SuperDrive) yet, but I'm going to try OmniWeb eventually since I understand Cocoa apps are inherently faster than Carbonized apps in MacOS X.

TL

Foocha
Apr 22, 2002, 11:48 AM
The problem with Microsoft's integration of IE & Windows is more in the way Microsoft did it - it could have been done in a modular, open form so that it could be removed without breaking the OS, and so that other developers like Netscape could integrated against the APIs. This way Windows OEMs could have the option of shipping with another browser.

The legal issue is one of commingling rather than integrating.

A bit more integration would be a good thing in OS X I think - integrating iPhoto & IE with the Finder... but that's a discussion for another thread.

Mike Ball
Apr 22, 2002, 01:15 PM
I can only describe it as a laid back OS at the moment. I'm no tecky so Iwas interested by the description of beach ball pauses. Absolutely. They are so annoying. Time for tea moments. But it doesn't crash and it does so many things at once. I can print and surf and open a word document. This is a revelation after years of waiting for things to print. I'm still impressed by the look of it. I am beginning to discover the delights of using the finder window to navigate and customising it with folders. The hard drive icons have finally disappeared from my desk top. The dock is in hideaway mode and all is clear!
My main gripe at the moment is even with the intellimouse drivers installed the dialogue boxes don't always respond to the scroll wheel. On this subject I do wish apple would make a decent mouse with a scroll wheel.
Seventh heaven at the moment.

mcrain
Apr 22, 2002, 02:27 PM
G4Scott, isn't McAllen located on the very bottom of texas, just a hop, skip and a jump from Mexico?

Moving to Texas this fall, and I'm beginning to get a feel for my new country, I mean state.

drastik
Apr 22, 2002, 03:06 PM
I have IE running 5.1.4 on boht my g3 firewire with 384 and my G4/400 with 512. IE (as well as X in general, is much faster on the G4, but that's to be expected. I can't say i really notice much difference on the machines seperately since updating. So I think I too have a once high-end machine that is lowend with two firewire ports. As far as this goes, does anyone know of a processor upgradde for the G3 Firewire? I wrote off to powerlogix, and they said it would take reimaging at the factory and they don't do that.

I would love to keep the Firebook and update it to even just a mid level G4, does anyone know if its possible?

drastik
Apr 22, 2002, 03:16 PM
PhotoShop is a pro app. Don't expect it run circles on a consumer machine. Onething Apple is doing by expanding into the pro market is setting the Machines apart.

Most of the time, discussion on this board is elegant and intelligent, but I have to take issue with complaining about non-pro performance on non-pro machines. If you want the best performance, you have to shell for the dual gig. I know its pricey, but so is Photoshop or Quark (or goLive or ProTools or Final Cut or etc.) If your complaint inperformance, spend money on the machine as well as the software, then you've got your set up.

Apple is going to come out with bigger and better products every few months (iHope), so those of us who have older G3 (like me) experience some bumbs in the road. But we can't really expect apple to try to keep current stas on a machine it hasn't made in years.

Do wish upgrades were more accessable, though:D

eric_n_dfw
Apr 22, 2002, 03:20 PM
Talk about an app' that needs work - Quicken 2002 is so slow, that I often wonder if the thing is about to crash!
They also lag well far behind the features of the Windows version.