Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple to Launch OS X Mountain Lion on July 25th?

milo said:
No, benchmarks measure system performance which is a combination of hardware and software. If they only measured hardware, benchmarks would be identical over different OS versions which isn't the case at all.
Click to expand...

It is pretty much the case. Other than Cinebench, which may depend on the GPU drivers, but is a very bad benchmark to test GPU drivers, Geekbench pretty much gives the exact same result under all different OS's a machine supports. A difference of 100'ish doesn't mean anything, since it can happen between two runs of Geekbench under the same hardware. Hell I had times when I got 350 difference in two different Geekbench runs.

The only "benchmarks" which can make a difference from OS to OS are always related to GPU drivers, like games etc, quartz extreme etc.
 
iBug2 said:
Geekbench pretty much gives the exact same result under all different OS's a machine supports.
Click to expand...

Maybe that's what you've seen but that's not always the case. In general, OS updates don't make a huge difference in benchmark performance. But that doesn't mean that they can't make a difference, and when there is a difference the benchmark will measure the difference in OS performance, not just hardware performance.
 
milo said:
Maybe that's what you've seen but that's not always the case. In general, OS updates don't make a huge difference in benchmark performance. But that doesn't mean that they can't make a difference, and when there is a difference the benchmark will measure the difference in OS performance, not just hardware performance.
Click to expand...

The difference you see is not the OS difference. It's just random difference from running Geekbench more times than once. Just use Geekbench on the same OS multiple times and the results are never the same. And that's pretty much what you see when you run it on different OS's. You may run it 20 times on the one OS and 20 times on the other and compare the average results, but even then the difference will be abysmal. And that's not what people are asking here. To measure the responsiveness of a new OS you just have to use it. Geekbench doesn't measure such thing. Even if the Geekbench results are exactly the same under different OS's, one of them might feel a lot more sluggish and laggy compared to the other.
 
iBug2 said:
The difference you see is not the OS difference. It's just random difference from running Geekbench more times than once.
Click to expand...

Wrong. I'm not talking about minor differences, I'm talking about significant ones and ones that consistently show one OS version outperforming another over many runs of GB.

One of the betas of 10.8 cut performance in half compared to the versions before and after it. That proves that benchmarks depend on OS performance...or do you think that everyone running that beta had their hardware just magically get slower all at the same time?
 
milo said:
One of the betas of 10.8 cut performance in half compared to the versions before and after it. That proves that benchmarks depend on OS performance...or do you think that everyone running that beta had their hardware just magically get slower all at the same time?
Click to expand...

Beta systems are often slower than the GM, because the betas will usually have debugging and consistency checking code running that the GM does not.

If one beta was noticeably slower, it might have had debugging code running in some critical code path.

See checked build for one example.
 
AidenShaw said:
Beta systems are often slower than the GM, because the betas will usually have debugging and consistency checking code running that the GM does not.
Click to expand...

That's all true.

My point is that I'm disputing the claim that benchmarks only measure hardware and OS never has any effect on benchmark results. While recent released versions of OSX have been fairly consistent, it's certainly possible for OS to make a difference.
 
milo said:
That's all true.

My point is that I'm disputing the claim that benchmarks only measure hardware and OS never has any effect on benchmark results. While recent released versions of OSX have been fairly consistent, it's certainly possible for OS to make a difference.
Click to expand...

Certainly the OS makes a difference. I'm just saying there's not a benchmark that actually measures the differences of OS's. I don't think OS X's have been consistent in responsiveness. But their Geekbench results are more or less the same. So Geekbench really doesn't measure the stuff we want to know about when we discuss about differences between OS's. And I don't know any benchmark that actually does. Using the OS pretty much tells you if it's more or less responsive than the older one.
 
Fingers Crossed...

Well, I certainly hope they do a better job than they did with the initial Lion which was an absolute train wreck on my MacPro. Until they finally admitted to me the App Store download was a bit 'touchy' with some configured machines.

I've been using the Mac since 1984 and Lion has been the least stable OS upgrade I can remember. Hopefully, this one will actually work smoothly via the download.:cool:
 
iBug2 said:
I'm just saying there's not a benchmark that actually measures the differences of OS's.

...

So Geekbench really doesn't measure the stuff we want to know about when we discuss about differences between OS's.
Click to expand...

So which is it, GB doesn't measure the difference between OS versions, or it does measure the difference...but you're dismissing that because it's somehow not "the stuff we want to know about"?

For the record GB does actually measure the differences and most other benchmarks will too, just because you haven't seen much of a difference in results doesn't prove otherwise.
 
Digital Dude said:
Well, I certainly hope they do a better job than they did with the initial Lion which was an absolute train wreck on my MacPro. Until they finally admitted to me the App Store download was a bit 'touchy' with some configured machines.

I've been using the Mac since 1984 and Lion has been the least stable OS upgrade I can remember. Hopefully, this one will actually work smoothly via the download.:cool:
Click to expand...

You missed OS 9? That was as much of a train wreck as windows ME
 
I wish you could pre-order it on the App Store and have it download itself for you in the background while you're at work or sleeping or whatever. Since there's never any set date anymore, they could let you pre-order it, have it download when it is available, then alert you when it has appeared in your Applications folder. It would be brilliant. Maybe for 10.9.
 
If there was an announced date, and then there was a delay for unforseeable reasons; people who took days off from work like it was a new WoW expansion would be kicking and screaming about it until OS X Soft Kitty 10.10.
 
whats the word on the street with a release date for ML? the 25th??

will apple says in its whatever call on tuesday when it will come out?

i am getting tired of holding on to this $20 LOL...
 
Jasoco said:
I wish you could pre-order it on the App Store and have it download itself for you in the background while you're at work or sleeping or whatever. Since there's never any set date anymore, they could let you pre-order it, have it download when it is available, then alert you when it has appeared in your Applications folder. It would be brilliant. Maybe for 10.9.
Click to expand...

Nah, I want the excitement of clicking the purchase/download button on the day of launch. Besides, I think we can all agree it's gonna be released this week regardless. I'll be checking the app store daily. :p
 
Guomaobaobao said:
Will this vision be the superior than lion? Look forward to it.
Click to expand...
There's a subset of Developers & Testers than believe Apple is purposely releasing ML as fast as possible, to get Lion behind them. I've heard good things about ML from those I trust. Conversely it's these same people that didn't have many positive comments on Lion.

Therefore from my vantage point I'm very encouraged. I used Lion on just one of my MBA's that came with it. Yet I kept my other Macs & my network all centered on SL 10.6.8. It's been faster, smoother, and 100% reliable. Therefore I had no reason to change just because Lion was available.

Going forward I'm going to sit back & see what the reports on ML are like from real world users, before I make any moves.
 
Sorry , but I don`t feel like reading the entire thread.

Will there be a USB Flash Drive for ML ?

Any info is appreciated. :)

Later :D

G. 
 
Jedi said:
Sorry , but I don`t feel like reading the entire thread.

Will there be a USB Flash Drive for ML ?

Any info is appreciated. :)

Later :D

G. 
Click to expand...

There has been no word as of yet, but if apple does not do this alot of people will be pissed once again.
 
CarlHeanerd said:
MacRumors needs to return the downvote button. Clearly you haven't had a chance to get your hands on the new OS yet, but I can assure you that there are many more changes and refinements under the hood than the additional "iOS goodies" Apple has sprinkled on top. I have been using this as my primary OS for a few months now and my computer has gotten a breath of fresh life as far as speed and feeling lightweight. Don't expect any major overhauls for interface or core technologies until OS XI, if that ever exists.

And hey, if you don't want the new features, by all means don't use them. You have that option, unlike another company's competing operating system.
Click to expand...

Re: speed and feeling lightweight: This may be perception. "Safari feels snappier!"
Re: 'assure you that there are many more changes and ..': Can you enumerate any changes that are under the hood? The OSX page isn't really mentioning them
Re: 'Don't expect any major overhauls..': Why not? 'Point' i.e. 10.4 releases have incorporated Core Animation, Core Image, Core Data, etc.

I'm going to get ML on day one, and I haven't run the beta but considered it, but please refrain from making comments that have basically no basis in reality. If the downvote button had returned (will people quit asking for that to happen!) I would have downvoted your post for being deceiving and to counterbalance the people high fiving you with upvotes just because they are hyped for ML and you shot down naysayers
 
iRCL said:
Re: speed and feeling lightweight: This may be perception. "Safari feels snappier!"
Re: 'assure you that there are many more changes and ..': Can you enumerate any changes that are under the hood? The OSX page isn't really mentioning them
Re: 'Don't expect any major overhauls..': Why not? 'Point' i.e. 10.4 releases have incorporated Core Animation, Core Image, Core Data, etc.

I'm going to get ML on day one, and I haven't run the beta but considered it, but please refrain from making comments that have basically no basis in reality. If the downvote button had returned (will people quit asking for that to happen!) I would have downvoted your post for being deceiving and to counterbalance the people high fiving you with upvotes just because they are hyped for ML and you shot down naysayers
Click to expand...

Sure, I'll give you more quantified findings.

Major Changes:
-Now boots to 64 bit Kernel regardless of EFI type
-Updated graphics drivers
-Further implementation of Core Animation, leading to efficient scrolling and animations system-wide
-OpenGL updated
-Memory manager updated

Core changes generally aren't well documented for the end user.

Why not expect major overhauls? Previous releases have incorporated what I'd call "essential service APIs" to modernize OS X along the years. These APIs also made hardware more accessible to developers with less layers needed in an application's codebase. However, it seems Apple has its bases covered here. All processing hardware is now accessible through Core Image, Audio, Animation, essential user services have an API through Core Data, and apps are being written to these APIs every day through the Mac App Store. Considering that Apple has the bases covered, what more must be done?

Networking software is up-to-date in the system and Apple uses their own proprietary API for things like iCloud syncing. Seeing as the focus of Apple's future is less on the computer sitting on your desk and more about the things it does, I don't expect them to do much other than take away conventional computing workflow and mechanisms. Furthermore, the base of the OS, NeXTSTEP, is about two decades old now. The Kernel is still getting updated but again is nothing new. These are the kinds of things that prevent a total overhaul of an OS and cannot be changed without, again, a total overhaul. I'm talking about an overhaul down to the file system used (ZFS anyone?), how systems files are encoded, distribution models, core media decoding services, coding languages, catering to next-gen hardware, etc. Think OS 9 to OS X. Hence, why I say don't expect any major overhauls until OS XI, if it ever exists.

I hope this clarified my post for you. :cool:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back