Mac OS X 10.2

[MacRumors]

Appleinsider has a peak (http://appleinsider.com/articles/0112/jaguar/jag.phtml) at Mac OS X 10.2:


Jaguar has been planned to bring back several features from Mac OS 9 such as the heavily-requested "spring-loaded folders" option in the Finder which is now a setting in Finder Preferences.

...as well as Screenshots

[eyelikeart]

I can't wait to get my hands on this build. It seems to becoming more familiar and friendly...like the Mac OS most of us grew with...

[dantec]

Will 10.2 bring any speed improvements? I would prefer to see new features in 10.3 and a "SUPER" speed improvement in 10.2! I want my slower Macs (not my quicksilver, but my iBook & my dad's iMac) accelerated drastically! And also the promised 20% opengl increase would be appreciated!

[dantec]

Is I want Mac OS 10.2 to be as fast as 9 (if not faster). Window resizing in win 2000 is better than OS X (don't flame me, I realize quartz has to render shadows & tons more other stuff...).

[rice_web]

Apple just wants you to upgrade to one of their new Quicksilvers, that's all. If they made it faster, then fewer numbers would upgrade. However, OS X is becoming the standard, and fast. So, Apple wins no matter what happens.

[mischief]

Between Moore's law and planned obselescence, You're supposedly spending 1 to 4 thousand dollars every 3 years.

[rice_web]

Well, that's not too bad when you consider what a computer can do. It is almost as difficult to live without a computer as it is without a car, and a car costs a heck of a lot more (in most cases)

[speak 'n' spell]

This is the second time it's shown up on the main page.

peak
n.
1. A tapering, projecting point; a pointed extremity: the peak of a cap; the peak of a roof.
2. Abbr. Pk.
a. The pointed summit of a mountain.
b. The mountain itself.

peek
intr.v. peeked, peek·ing, peeks
1. To glance quickly.
2. To look or peer furtively, as from a place of concealment.
3. To be only partially visible, as if peering or emerging from hiding: Tiny crocuses peeked through the snow.

[dantec]

I HAVE A QUICKSILVER! (867 mhz, 384 ram, superdrive, GeForce 3). Mac OS 10 is still pretty slow on this machine comparing it to 9. Even win 2000 windows resize properly on a 800mhz celeron!

[Foocha]

Face facts - OS X will never be as fast as OS 9. Windows 2000 is a good comparision - it's much slower than NT or 98.

Truth is, a modern OS with features like multi tasking and memory protection will always be slower than something like OS 9, which is hardly an operating system at all.

As PC hardware got faster, everyone stopped worrying about Windows 2000's speed. Hopefully with G5, the same thing will happen for OS X.

[Ensign Paris]

I think that we all just have to bide our time, currently OS X.1 is a pleasure to use and I personally would not go back to using Mac OS 9.22. I find it to be as quick as OS 9 on my QuickSilver 867 - 1.5gb RAM - SCSI Backbone HDs - GeForce3 64mb DDRRam.

But on my older iMac it is not so good.

Guy

[amichalo]

Originally posted by Foocha
Face facts - OS X will never be as fast as OS 9. Windows 2000 is a good comparision - it's much slower than NT or 98.

Slow it down killer. How can you say it will never be as 'fast'? Just what are you using to compare the 'speed' of the OS? Would you not have to use a program with the exact same feature set to create an exact comparison of OS 'speed'? (Or are you just talking about the perceived 'speed' of the OS resizing a window?) I would recommend comparing an application that is the same across platforms, such as SETI@Home. I have not performed this comparison myself, but I would put 100 Simoleans and all my Monopoly Money on OS X being faster. 'Why' you ask?
Well it isn't because I am a blind fool who thinks the latest is the greatest. It is because of my experience with the underlying Linux OS (BSD). This OS requires less system resources to perform the same tasks as the market leading OS family. Isn't the 'speed' you are refering to really more along the lines of 'efficient use of system resources'? I would challenge that OS X makes far more efficient use of system resources than OS 9 was ever intended to. Mac OS < X filled the need in the community for many years but OS X is a 21st century OS that takes advantage of developments over the last decade that weren't even imagined when Mac OS < X were being developed.

[eyelikeart]

I think OS X has made major speed improvements with it's past couple updates! I know when I first jumped on the wagon it dragged significantly slower than 9 ever did. But now, it's pretty fast I feel. I don't think, though, that we can give it an acurate speed testing until we can see Photoshop and the likes run on it.

[Doraemon]

http://appleinsider.com/articles/0112/jaguar/Jaguar/OpenWith.jpg

Great! I was hoping for this feature! :)

[Foocha]

Hi amichalo,

OS X is based on Darwin, which in turn is based on Free BSD. This is nothing to do with Linux (except that they are both UNIX).

The speed advantage that OS 9 has over OS X is down to the fact that 9 is a lot simpler - there is no kernel, and an Application can do what it likes with processor cycles & memory when it is active. OS X allocates memory & processor cyles to apps.

Whilst OS X is a very good, highly robust operation system, and in every way superior to crude old OS 9, it does demand a lot more from the hardware running it. As a result, performance suffers slightly - the magnificent Aqua interface also uses a lot of processor time, further slowing down the overall performance.

I agree that Photoshop will offer an interesting opportunity to compare the relative performance of the old and new Mac OS. I think Photoshop will be slow on OS X, but it should be far more stable.

[dantec]

To make aqua use the 3d card? At least on G4 based macs the graphics cards aren't just listed as a spec, they actually do work and could take a large load of the processor?

Do any of you guys think this is possible?

[amichalo]

So are there any actual comparisons of the 'speed' of OS X vs. any other (Linux, Windows XP, OS 9)? As i stated before, I volunteer that only an application such as SETI@Home that has the same exact feature set across all platforms would be suitable. What about some Java applet as an alternative a la LimeWire?

Anyway, point is I am asking what makes an OS 'fast' and another OS 'slow'? And once that is defined, then what OS is faster?

I doubt anyone will ever answer this as we can't even agree on something as simple as which CAR is fastest. This one is faster in 0-60, this other one on the quarter mile, yet a third hold the top speed record.

[lazyrighteye]

I'd like to see an OS X update reinstate the "close the lid with the dongle in, and the iBook does NOT! sleep" feature (I believe that's referred to as "clam shell mode" - maybe). Anyway, loosing that feature really sucks. I read "why," and it still sucks.
It's nice to be able to shut your book while it remains functional, especially when in a situation where the screen/keyboard are at risk of damage.

"What kind of situation would that be," I hear you ask.

Among other things, I do a lot of live audio recording with my iBook/500, 640M RAM, OS 10.1/9.2. Most of the bands I catch allow audio taping from a designated "taper's section" directly behind the mix position out in the audience - a concept foriegn to most concert goers.
Ever try taking an iBook, mics, and a mic stand into a bar/venue? Believe me, you'll appreciate the "lid closed while opperational" feature while Joe Drunk-wads merrily sways over you, asking,"So, you get the internet on that thing?" as his beer sloshes around in his pint glass. That feature is essential.

And actually, I really enjoy and seek out situations to use a Mac under. It's been a wonderful experience travleing the country, recording shows, and exposing people to a different way of working, thinking, acting.

I'm out.

[DannyZR2]

Definately would be nice to have this feature. my Pismo500 at work is great, but when I'm listening to tunes only.. and am not in the mood for the visualizations.. i want to be able to just close the lid while the tunes play on..

also, download large files.. Linux distros... why should I have to keep my screen open? this is a portable.. not a desktop which is designed to sit and that's it.. a portable should work open or closed. this is one mistake of apple.

[DannyZR2]

Doraemon,
tell me about this DOS compatible Performa you've got.. is it a PC Card?

[bobartig]

<B> To make aqua use the 3d card? At least on G4 based macs the graphics cards aren't just listed as a spec, they actually do work and could take a large load of the processor? </B>

Dantec,

From what I understand, it is not possible to hardware accelerate quartz with current graphics accelerators, because Quartz is using completely different API's to perform all it's visual effects. Previous operating systems were based up on quickdraw API's, which apple and others developed like 20 years ago, and thats why the OS didn't visually change much since then. Also, all the graphics cards (and I mean <B> ALL </B> of them) currently on the market only support accelerating 2D quickdraw. Since Quartz is based on postscript and pdf formats, they cannot be hardware accelerated until graphics HW is revised to support the newer technologies. Ok, neither postscript nor Pdf's are "new" but noone's ever based a 2D graphics layer on these technologies. But having all this technology under our belt is like having the Big Box of Crayola's (including the alpha-blending crayon, the transparency crayon, etc..) while other OS's are still using the dinky 8-pack that comes free with the coloring books.

So Quartz is the visually stunning technology that allows us to impress the pants off Windows™ users with a truly next generation GUI (for those that understand what they're looking at), but it also damnes us to slow screen redraws and tremendous CPU overhead during regular operations (just open up ProcessViewer and watch your WindowManager's CPU time while resizing a window, moving a picture around, or twiddling with the dock.)

[Xapplimatic]

I'm not going to be really impressed with 10.2 until the power management features are put back in as under system 9. Don't get me wrong, I have no intention of going back to System 9, but 10 completely lacks power management for laptops. There's no controls for processor speed or cycling, which was a significant battery life savings for us iBook and Powerbook users. Ability to spin down the hard drive when it's not in use from energy controls would also be a nice add in if that could be done.

And oh ya, closing the lid without having to go into sleep mode is a great idea. Ever hook your laptop up with a TV at a friend's house so you can watch DVDs because they don't have a DVD player? Ever want to just use your iBook as a massive iPod capable of playing thousands of songs while you work merrily away in a coffee house on a term paper? In situations like that, you want the functionality of the computer, but you have no need to have the LCD or screen accessible and it should be optional to not put the computer into sleep when the lid is shut.. Oops! Watch out for that coffee!




[Edited by Xapplimatic on 12-24-2001 at 05:18 PM]

[GPTurismo]

My 400 iMac was running os x.1 fine. All I had to do is upgrade the memory for it to cache things more freely and to quit dumping apps to the HDD.

Two problems with OS X which need to be addressed. The main processor does a lot of the GUI effects. This can be partially blamed on ATI. ATI has known to make their Graphics cards with Aqua accelleration for a good while before OS X was released. As usual, ATI sat around and like most manufacturers blamed the os manufacturer. This is one of the big reasons Apple went with nVidia, mainly because they jump when you ask. Second, is that sound is still being managed by the main processor. I wish Creative or someone would release a good sound card, and/or apple to include a better built in sound processor on board their logic boards.

[macboy]

I hope OS X.2 will have easier security such as Multiple Users in OS 9 with the Panel accounts... OS X is no good in schools where you don't want students seeing what's on the hard drive... The Panels account work great to hide the HD. I know a lot of schools are not upgrading to OS X for that reason.

MacBoy

[jefhatfield]

os 10.1 ran more efficiently than os x and some claim it works better on the more mildly endowed g3 running macs

i wonder is os 10.2 will run more eficiently and require less ram than os x and os 10.1?

what about those imac 333s, ibook 300/366, and beige g3 desktops and towers?...will some version of 10 run on it smoothly?

[eyelikeart]

There have been some claims that it will work on some older 333 & up G3's...

Anything's possible....a good friend of mine has Windoze 2000 running on a Pentium 133.....not that it is relevant to this discussion board....but a bit interesting...

[imspace2]

Audio is important in the computer experience The iSub is sweet There is a whole list of things that need to be brought back as long as it's not mentally degrading to X

[Foocha]

My iSub & Sound Sticks work perfectly on OS X

[GPTurismo]

My test server for os x.1 is a beige g3 266. It runs os x.1 fine for services. It's a little stiff on the graphics at times, but it does excellent for a server and is pretty good for a workstation. The key thing is ram, which it's maxxed out to 384.

[eyelikeart]

Originally posted by GPTurismo
My test server for os x.1 is a beige g3 266. It runs os x.1 fine for services. It's a little stiff on the graphics at times, but it does excellent for a server and is pretty good for a workstation. The key thing is ram, which it's maxxed out to 384.

This is exactly what I was thinking. Processor power is only part of it. Lots of RAM would have to help it out...

[markseaton]

It seams to me that OS-X has the same problem as DOS did back in the days, when you wanted to play a game you could play the game fine but manny games had to be tweeked using the autoexec.bat and config.sys, thats all that has to hapen here with OX-X it needs to be configured right, have alook at this link:

http://www.ResExcellence.com/hack_html_01/06-01-01.shtml

This is a example of what i mean, incase i'm not making any sence...

I'm sure if more of us know unix we could realy increase the speed of are rigs. :)

[GPTurismo]

Well, that tweak is fine and dandy, but I have done it on multiple machines and the speed increase isn't significant enough for me to mess with it.

The big thing about OS X is it caches a lot of stuff. I mean A LOT of operations. At home I have a dual 800 with 1.1 gigs of ram, and it always uses a large portion up for caching operations. Thats just how Unix works, and I believe someone said earlier, just how the heftier and beefier OS's work.

[dantec]

And we need to give it time to mature. Games and stuff released in 2002 should have more stability than games like Alice or Tropico which quit almost nonstop (especially Tropico). Lets hope that Mac OS X will once be as fast as OS 9 was... But maybe at one point apple will launch a trade in program for all those iMac & iBook users (me included).

[dantec]

That swap drive thing is useless unless you use more than your ram (I have 192 + 80 mg) + 80 mg more. What I mean is my iBook has 192 mb of ram with a swap partition and it has never made a second swap file.

Just a note to all of you... NEVER optimize OS X will Norton Utilities!

[eyelikeart]

Unfortunately I do not have a disc utility for OS X yet, other than what came on the system CD...

[markseaton]

Your right about the swap file being a small and insubstatial tweek but it would help uses of G3's and earler G4's to get the most out of there OS..

But i'm sure there are other tweeks in the sub system that have yet to be made/descovered that could inprove performance to all area's, networking, video, disk, RAM management.

And one final thing to say, Apple seams to me to be doing all the work, lets give them some time, i have been a mac user since 1986 i was 6 years old. :) and i will never use a PC.

I have been waiting for this new OS for years i can wait alittle longer, hopefuly they wont take another 15 years.. :)

[amichalo]

Originally posted by dantec
Just a note to all of you... NEVER optimize OS X will Norton Utilities!

Would you mind telling us more? I am interested in buying some system optimization tools and Norton's are at the top of my list. Were you using utilities for 9.x on 10.x or did you use OS X versions of Norton?

[Classic]

Originally posted by Doraemon

Great! I was hoping for this feature! :)

Doraemon, You might be pleased to see the following:

http://www.brockerhoff.net/zingg/

Zingg is a contextual menu plugin that allows you to open files with application of your choice. I haven't tried it yet, but it looks interesting.

[rizzo]

Originally posted by speak 'n' spell
This is the second time it's shown up on the main page.

peak
n.
1. A tapering, projecting point; a pointed extremity: the peak of a cap; the peak of a roof.
2. Abbr. Pk.
a. The pointed summit of a mountain.
b. The mountain itself.

peek
intr.v. peeked, peek·ing, peeks
1. To glance quickly.
2. To look or peer furtively, as from a place of concealment.
3. To be only partially visible, as if peering or emerging from hiding: Tiny crocuses peeked through the snow.



Hey speak 'n' spell, where in the English dictionary is the word "Gotta"? You must be a college graduate to be able to copy/paste from your Micro$oft dictionary CD-ROM.

[Edited by rizzo on 12-31-2001 at 01:11 AM]

[dantec]

I have the most recent version of Norton Utilities... I think it is version 6 or 7. It was the first disk utility to repair OS 10 drives sucessfully (Techtool Pro doesn't seem to work very well). But now we have Drive 10, but I havn't tested that yet!

Norton does a great job of optimizing for OS 9. After you do that for OS 9 games run sooo much faster (Quake, Tropico, etc...) and load levels soo much faster.

But there is one problem... When you optimize an OS 10 drive with Norton Utilities, the app thinks that most of the system files are "other" files and places them at the bottom of the drive, and since none of them have anything in common it places them all over the end of your drive. The result of this is when you boot up Mac OS 10, everything becomes much slower...

So follow my advice and DO NOT! optimize a disk with OS 10 installed!

[Unregistered]

Im still waiting for my multiple desktops like all other down home UNIX and Linux systems, We need the Multiple Desktops in order to get some functionality out of it. I want my God Blessed Multiple Desktops or i go back to YDL....

[Unregistered]

Originally posted by dantec
I have the most recent version of Norton Utilities... I think it is version 6 or 7. It was the first disk utility to repair OS 10 drives sucessfully (Techtool Pro doesn't seem to work very well). But now we have Drive 10, but I havn't tested that yet!

Norton does a great job of optimizing for OS 9. After you do that for OS 9 games run sooo much faster (Quake, Tropico, etc...) and load levels soo much faster.

But there is one problem... When you optimize an OS 10 drive with Norton Utilities, the app thinks that most of the system files are "other" files and places them at the bottom of the drive, and since none of them have anything in common it places them all over the end of your drive. The result of this is when you boot up Mac OS 10, everything becomes much slower...

So follow my advice and DO NOT! optimize a disk with OS 10 installed!

I have used Norton on my 10 disks and have noticed a big speed increase it has never slowed me down

[maclamb]

I'm guessing that most of the "slowness" you are talking about is the GUI.

If ytou could run Darwiun w/o Aqua in command only I bet it would do things alot faster than 9., especially two things at once -

But, since most of wehat we do is graphical, this is probably a moot (and mute) point.

[chmorley]

I have the latest version of Norton Systemworks/Utilities, as well as Drive 10. I optimized my hard drive last week (booting and running Speedisk from my iPod). It may have been just a little slow for the first 5 minutes or so, but since then it seems to be running at least as fast as before, if not faster. Maybe OS X had to locate the files at first--I don't know. Also, even if the files are classified as "other" and placed at the end of the drive, the fact that they are contiguous should clearly make operations less disk intensive (reading from one contiguous disk area, rather than 40+). Also, NU found a number of error on my HD, when Drive 10 found none. I am sure this has to do with the difference between OS 9 (what NU needs to run) and OS X (where Drive 10 runs)--things that look like errors in one OS are not in the other. Nonetheless, I will probably go back to optimizing my HD once a month with NU.

Drive 10 seems useful, but it's hard to say since it has never found a problem on my HD. It's got a great UI, and runs important tests. With OS X being so stable, though, I wonder when it will fix my first problem...

CJM

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by dantec
I have the most recent version of Norton Utilities... I think it is version 6 or 7. It was the first disk utility to repair OS 10 drives sucessfully (Techtool Pro doesn't seem to work very well). But now we have Drive 10, but I havn't tested that yet!

Norton does a great job of optimizing for OS 9. After you do that for OS 9 games run sooo much faster (Quake, Tropico, etc...) and load levels soo much faster.

But there is one problem... When you optimize an OS 10 drive with Norton Utilities, the app thinks that most of the system files are "other" files and places them at the bottom of the drive, and since none of them have anything in common it places them all over the end of your drive. The result of this is when you boot up Mac OS 10, everything becomes much slower...

So follow my advice and DO NOT! optimize a disk with OS 10 installed!

I have Norton System Works, and use that on my TiBook, when I feel the need to, with OS X. That is actually the third utility that I run. I use (in the following order) Diskwarrior 2, TechTool Pro 3.01, and then Norton System Works. I don't let TTP optimize, since Speed Disk does a better job of it (as well as faster). Whenever I have run the trilogy of utilities on my TiBook, I don't have any slow-downs on it. I also haven't had to run any utilities on my TiBook in over two to three months now. It's just that stable. I booted into OS 9.2.2 last night, only to install Toast Titanium (didn't want to go through classic). I then booted back into OS X, and ran the 5.1.1 update. That installed an OS X native version, so that I can burn cd's without running either classic, or going into OS 9.

Of all the OS's that Apple has put out, X is by far the best, fastest, and most stable of the bunch. There are a few features that I would like to see in the next update, but nothing of any importance (very minor items).

All said and done, if you are running OS X, you probably don't need to optimize nearly as often as you did under 9.x, but don't be afraid to do it as needed. As always, boot off of the utility cd, NEVER install the utility onto your computer (main hard drive, or secondary). It runs 100x better off of the cd, then if you attempt to install it. Also, there are items that are installed with the utilities that can conflict with other software that you have installed. I have seen the 'crashguard' crash computers more often then not, and the stability returns once it has been removed.