Mac OS X 10.2

Seems more usable!

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...

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!

What I meant by DRASTIC speed improvements

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...).

Just get a new Mac

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.

pay now or pay later.

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

That's not bad

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)

Gotta do this...

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.

Re: Rice web

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!

OS X speed

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.

going up........

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

Re: OS X speed

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Speed

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.

Open with...



Great! I was hoping for this feature!

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.

Is it really that hard?

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?

OS X Speed comparison?

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.

Anyway...

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.

agreed

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.

DOS compatible??

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

To Dantec Re: hardware accelerated Quartz

<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.)

Power Management

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]

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.

improvements

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

more efficient?

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?