G3 = Hammer

[Foocha]

Like for like!

You should compare like for like here. IE 5.1 for OS X performs live window resizing - a task which OS 9 is way too crude and slow to perform. Granted the performance is not what it should be (when compared with XP or 2000) put remember that it's performing a task that OS 9 has never been capable of. The same is true of resizing Finder windows.

A good demonstration of this is to check out a site which scales in X - like excite.com - the whole page is scaled on screen realtime as you drag the window.

So the issue is not that OS X is slow, but rather that the demands of its GUI slow it down comparative to the simpler GUI of OS 9. Offering a preference setting to turn off advanced GUI features like live window resizing would certainly help G3 users - (Microsoft does this in XP).

 

[Tommy!]

Re: G3 = Hammer

Originally posted by Rockridge
Any computer that does the job is fine... a G3... or whatever you've got... most of the posts i read on this site sound like they've been written by a bunch of spoiled brats... people who complain about cpu speed and spend most of their time playing with screen savers.

The computer industry has turned many of you into a bunch of insatiable baby's...

And to those of you who think they're tech's... my adive is ... grow up...and get your nose out of Steve Job's butt...

Before you critisize anyone, you should learn that OSX runs much better on a G4... You should also learn that apostrophies are not used to pluralize words, ya crazy mofo!

 

[krossfyter]

its not good to generalize. not everyone is so called complaining. some ask for more (justified often times) some are satisfied others are whatever...point is not everyone is the same.

 

[stoid]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon

im not saying osx wont run on your machine. you can install and run it on a 200mhz g3 and it will work fine. thats not the point. and the way apps run also isnt what anyone here is talking about. all we are saying is slow is the gui. the finder to be more specific. its slow. its jerky. and its unacceptable.

After Windows 98 came out, and it had outrageous speed demands (Pentium II was it?), someone showed that it could be loaded on a 386. It took 2 hours to start-up, but it did!

 

[DakotaGuy]

After I posted I came back to see what others have said, and well, yeah, duh, we all know a G4 is better then a G3. All I said is that the new iBooks run quite well for the price. I bought my computer with a budget in mind and I am quite happy with it. If Apple did not offer the iBook and only offered Powerbooks I would have been forced to look at Intel. A Thousand bucks is a little cash to me.

Someone mentioned that I had low standards...I bought an iBook because I had high standards and the iBook has lived up to the standards of a $1500 laptop in my eyes. I have friends here at my school and I have played a lot with their Compaq, Dell, Gateway, etc. laptops with everything from Celerons, Pentium II's and Pentium III's, and even in OSX my iBook runs quicker and smoother then any of their laptops and ESPECIALLY the ones running Windows XP. I have one buddy with a year old Celeron and he put XP on it and everyday it became slower and slower until he finally took it off and went back to 2000 because it would not even run it right anymore.

If you compare apples to apples...like comparing low budget laptops the iBook is an awesome little machine. If you try and compare apples to oranges, which you are doing by comparing a pro machine that cost much more to a low priced consumer model it is just not fair.

I think what all of you would like to see is Apple to just get rid of the iBook line competely and drop the price by a grand on the TiBook and call it good. Sure wishful thinking, but I don't think it would be a good idea, finacially for Apple to do that.

Finally, yes I agree it would be nice to see speed improvements in the next version of OSX. If they make speed improvements it would benefit all of us no matter what processor we are running.