Is OSX innovated for speed or power?

Discussion in 'macOS' started by AWallen90, May 6, 2011.

  1. AWallen90 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    #1
    Cheetah -> Puma -> Jaguar -> Panther -> Tiger -> Leopard -> Snow Leopard -> Lion

    I was wondering to myself why Apple decided to use the fastest cat to name the first version of OSX. It seems that the OS has been getting more powerful rather than faster, the feline names seem to correspond.

    Thoughts?
     
  2. miles01110 macrumors Core

    miles01110

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Location:
    The Ivory Tower (I'm not coming down)
    #2
    I think you're putting in a little too much effort on this matter.
     
  3. kalsta macrumors 68000

    kalsta

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Location:
    Australia
    #3
    Not at all. The first release of OS X was dog slow, and heavily criticised for it. I'm talking about unresponsiveness with basic things like resizing windows.

    That's not to be too hard on Apple. When you consider the enormity of the task they faced in transforming the NeXTSTEP OS into a successor to the classic Mac OS, it's a wonder they got it out when they did.

    With early successive releases Apple worked hard to optimise things. My memory was that the OS got quicker, and possibly even smaller. Nowadays it's hard to tell, because the hardware is a LOT faster than in the early days. Google it. There's bound to be someone benchmarking them on the same hardware.
     
  4. AWallen90 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    #4
    Steve Jobs said they had the iPad basically ready to go back in '07 but decided to use the technology for a phone instead and wait till it was right to release the iPad. You don't think countless hours of thought are put into naming their OS?

    I mention the iPad only as a reference on how much effort is put into marketing for Apple. Also I am currently pursuing my Master's in Business Administration with concentrations in Management and Marketing so I'm programmed to think about these things.
     
  5. miles01110 macrumors Core

    miles01110

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Location:
    The Ivory Tower (I'm not coming down)
    #5
    I'm trying to think of even the most remote link between sentence #1 and sentence #2. Still drawing a blank. For the record, "No," I don't think "countless hours" go into naming their OS.

    Oh, wow!!! :eek::eek: I guess that means we should automatically agree with you!
     
  6. AWallen90 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    #6
    Part of marketing is getting the publics opinion. I'm saying this is what I'm currently studying, just wanted some other opinions. I welcome opinions not sarcastic rebukes.
     
  7. miles01110 macrumors Core

    miles01110

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Location:
    The Ivory Tower (I'm not coming down)
    #7
    My original reply was not meant to be sarcastic. I really do think you are overthinking the situation. Marketing is certainly something Apple spends time and money on, but I don't know of any evidence scientifically suggesting that a "Lion" is stronger than a "Tiger."
     
  8. AWallen90 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    #8
    Another piece of information that went into spurred my thoughts on their OS was using a beefed up PowerMac G4. While using a Macbook Pro with 8x the ram a processor twice the speed and dual cores I was noticing that simple tasks like launching safari took slightly longer on the MBP than on the PowerMac G4.

    The Machines were:
    MBP 2.53ghz 8GB - Snow Leopard
    PowerMac 1.25ghz 1GB - Tiger
     
  9. G4DP macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    #9
    Well given that Tigers are bigger and more powerful than lions, you are clearly reading far to much into the naming convention used.
     
  10. AWallen90 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    #10
    I was basically combining two completely thoughts into one, my mind wonders too much. Let me pose this new question:

    Is OSX getting faster or more powerful? Or both?
     
  11. AWallen90 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    #11
    Wikipedia just taught me that a Siberian Tiger would destroy a Lion. Good call sir.
     
  12. plinden macrumors 68040

    plinden

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2004
    #12
  13. AWallen90 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    #13
  14. shenfrey macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    #14
    I don't t think they are slow. Snow Leopard runs fast even on older hardware.

    What problems are you having with your mac to mention this?
     
  15. karl878 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2005
    Location:
    CA
    #15
    I would say the mantra which Steve Jobs follows is not pursuit of speed or power, but pursuit of holistic. As in his sayings: "So we can set our own priorities and look at things in a more holistic way from the point of view of the customer." or "We just want to make great products."
     
  16. AWallen90 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2009
    #16
    I'm not having any problems I have just seen older macs performing faster. Mine is nothing to shake a stick at but it seems weird that if you wanted to do something basic like open word and create a document it would be exponentially faster on a new machine. I love all the new features but it seems speed has decreased on the basic apps.
     
  17. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #17
    I think cat names were decided with marketing the OS. So yes, the first few iterations of OSX have fast cat names. That helped shake off the idea that apple's OS is slow. Perhaps Lion being the king of the animal kingdom is to help evoke OSX's superiority.

    Of course that leads to the next question where can apple go once they selected the royal cat for 10.7?
     
  18. karl878 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2005
    Location:
    CA
  19. MisterMe macrumors G4

    MisterMe

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    USA
    #19
    What is the source of your information? I'm betting that it is not personal experience. To the contrary, my experience with MacOS X 10.0 was almost universally positive. Owing to its Unix virtual memory system, I found that MacOS X 10.0 was faster than MacOS X 9.1 on the same hardware.

    The OS for the original iPhone was named "OS X." Apple must have spent billion$ over the better part of a decade to come up with the name.
     
  20. displaced macrumors 65816

    displaced

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    Gravesend, United Kingdom
    #20
    Wow. What hardware were you running on? I've used OS X from 10.0.1 (bundled as an optional install disc with my 600MHz G3) and can hand-on-heart say 10.0.x was an absolute dog. The UI was laggy, scrolling was absolutely abysmal and god forbid you should drag a window....

    10.0.x used little (if any?) graphics hardware acceleration. The Quartz 2D drawing system was entirely software-based -- all window compositing (overlays, translucency, z-order/buffering) was unaccelerated. It wasn't until 10.4 that Quartz finally outperformed OS 9's QuickDraw APIs (this is mentioned on the Wikipedia page for OS X, but I remember it clearly!).

    Scrolling through web pages back then (bless ya, iCab and Camino!) was an exercise in patience :)

    [by the way - none of this stopped me using 10.0.x as my main OS. I was a recent Mac switcher and OS X was clearly the future. *gets misty-eyed at the memories of waiting for Classic to start up!*]
     
  21. Hastings101 macrumors 68010

    Hastings101

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Location:
    K
    #21
    but Lions are fuzzy and adorabuhlllllllllllllll<3<3, so of course 10.7 > 10.4
     
  22. GFLPraxis macrumors 604

    GFLPraxis

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    #22
    They could have called it OS 10. The X represents Unix.
     
  23. QuarterSwede macrumors G3

    QuarterSwede

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2005
    Location:
    Colorado Springs, CO
    #23
    It was called "iPhone OS." Though Apple, never hesitated to mentioned it was OS X.
     
  24. kalsta macrumors 68000

    kalsta

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Location:
    Australia
    #24
    'Owing to its Unix virtual memory system…'? That's something you've read in a book. I thought you were claiming personal experience here? Like Displaced, I'd like to know what hardware you were running. It must have been a damn site faster than everyone else's.

    As for me, I was a fairly early adopter of OS X — certainly given the fact that I switched my whole business over to it, something a lot of people were hesitant to do at the time. Having said that, it may have been up to 10.1 by the time I actually made the switch (which wasn't that long after 10.0). But I can tell you that it was in no way faster than OS 9. And my experiences of slow scrolling, window resizing, etc, matched the reviews I was reading.

    Where it shone however was in stability. When the Classic Mac OS crashed, it really crashed. Mind you, I've had a bit of that kind of thing since 10.6.5 on my older MacBook Pro too. That's a memory of the Classic Mac OS I could do without!
     
  25. kalsta macrumors 68000

    kalsta

    Joined:
    May 17, 2010
    Location:
    Australia
    #25
    BTW, I don't even remember Apple talking up the cat names until Jaguar… I clearly remember Steve up on stage saying 'Jag-wire' :) but I don't remember him ever saying 'Cheetah' or 'Puma'.

    Okay, just checked and Wikipedia confirms this:

    'Prior to its release, version 10.0 was code named "Cheetah" internally at Apple, and version 10.1 was code named internally as "Puma". After the immense buzz surrounding version 10.2, codenamed "Jaguar", Apple's product marketing began openly using the code names to promote the operating system.' (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Os_x)​

    That's probably a useful piece of information regarding your hypothesis. Doesn't sound like Apple had this all worked out from day one.
     

Share This Page