Leopard system resource usage compared to Tiger

Discussion in 'macOS' started by hrcs, Sep 1, 2007.

  1. hrcs macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2007
    #1
    Will Leopard be a huge leap in terms of system resource usage (CPU, memory, graphics card, hard drive space, etc.) from Tiger as Windows Vista was from Windows XP? What do you guys think and have experienced?
     
  2. kolax macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2007
    #2
    Nah.

    MS aren't very good at writing efficent operating systems and Vista is a prime example of that. Proper memory hogg.

    Leopard will run very smoothly and not hogg your system. Although to get all the nice graphical effects you'll need an alright GPU.
     
  3. Luigi239 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2007
    #3
    That's not true, I believe that all you need for the eye candy is a Quartz Extreme graphics card. (They are in every Mac purchased in the past 3-4 years. The integrated graphics in the mini and Macbook will also work fine.)

    You should also notice a big speed increase, especially in an intel Mac. Things are being reported to be way faster then in Tiger.
     
  4. clevin macrumors G3

    clevin

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2006
    #4
    thats such an uninformed statement.

    Leopard has a minimum memory requirement of 512MB, and most probably you won't be able to run it smooth enough with less than 1G memory, thats exactly same amount needed in windows vista.

    PS. most apps run faster under windows, after the slow booting process, due to the fact that they can access system core and hardware more directly than unix based system like OSX. You sure can dispute the security risk tho.

    Memory hog is a ridiculous accusation. Since when you working under windows, you will find out apple's windows version apps are the kings of memory hogs.
     
  5. kolax macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2007
    #5
    Um, I'm saying Vista as an OS is a memory hogg. How can you compare that to applications running on OSX being memory hoggs?

    This is an OS debate, not how certain applications can be memory hoggs.
     
  6. MK2007 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    #6
    The balance between additional features (aka more demands on the system) and improvements in speed will balance out to no better performance than Tiger.

    Ignore the pro-Mac, fanboy posts. Since the days of Windows 95 and Mac OS 7 there has always been a group of uninformed users who claim the next coming version of the operating system will be faster than the present one. History has shown us time and time again that their view is completely false.

    Bottom line: start thinking about adding more memory and/or upgrading to a new machine.
     
  7. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #7
    That's not exactly true... I think you are trying to say that all you need is a CoreImage compatible video card. There are already visual effects in Tiger that do not work on cards that support QE but not all of CoreImage (i.e. the "ripple.") That just moves the caret back from about 3-4 years ago to about 2 years ago (the iBook and the Mac Mini were the last to get compliant cards, as far as I know, midcycle in both G4 product cycles).
     
  8. iJawn108 macrumors 65816

    iJawn108

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2006
    #8
    Get a bigger HD

    leopard used 30 gb or virtual memory space and tiger used 8 gb on my macbook... unless there is something that will change that before release. Other than that leopard felt quicker and I rarely beach balled at all.
     
  9. Soulstorm macrumors 68000

    Soulstorm

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    #9
    Sorry, but I disagree, since for Macs, history has proven you wrong. As far as Apple is concerned, each OS is way faster than the previews one. Remember OS X 10.0? It brought even the fastest machines of the time to their knees. OS X 10.1 was way faster, and for that was praised. Also, 10.3 received a significant speed bump over 10.2, in terms of graphics, window resize, opening folders, and it generally became snappier.

    As for Tiger take a look in this article to see the speed bumps over 10.3. And this is only for version 10.4.0, and since then, OS X has seen many improvements.

    Leopard will be faster than Tiger, because the Finder is now written in Cocoa, as I recall a developer saying, meaning that every aspect of the Finder is now multithreaded. Let alone the OpenGL optimizations (multithreaded OpenGL) that will have as a result more smoothness into the feel of the OS, since OS X uses OpenGL for graphics.
     
  10. Sbrocket macrumors 65816

    Sbrocket

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Location:
    /dev/null
    #10
    I find it hard to believe that someone trying to pass off this point of view has actually used Leopard to any extent, much less at all. Given that new builds are made daily now (internally, you wouldn't see them on ADC) with bug fixes, optimizations, and speed improvements introduced in each one, there's no way you can gauge Leopard's performance until you have the GM available to test (won't be long now).

    I'm not sure what exactly you think is going to take up these significant amounts of system resources to the point that all performance gains from Tiger to Leopard are negated...it certainly sounds like a whole lot of ridiculousness to me. Its not as if simple graphical effects like the Dock reflection or the menubar are going to bring anyone's computers to a standstill unless they're using the G2 hardware, and I really can't see what else you could be referring to other than those.

    And, by the way, your assertion goes both ways. There will always be people who say that the next upcoming version of an operating system will be better and faster, but the very fact that they say this does not automagically invalidate their point of view. Sometimes they are right. Of course, sometimes the people who say it won't be better are right. You can't neglect the viewpoints of the supporters of such-and-such operating system just because you don't agree with what they say.
     
  11. MK2007 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    #11
    One person writes a blog on how he feels Tiger is better due to factors like student pricing, so that makes Tiger faster?

    C'mon already. That article is pure PR hype, not a technical analysis.

    Add new features like Stacks, Time Machine, and many others to an operating system upgrade and you've got a slightly slower running machine.

    New parent and child processes don't get executed for free.
     
  12. gnasher729 macrumors P6

    gnasher729

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    #12
    Let me make this very, very clear: What you are claiming is either completely made up, or you are using pirated software, or you are under breach of an NDA, or any combination of these three.

    Tell us: Which one is it?
     
  13. tdhurst macrumors 68040

    tdhurst

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #13
    Wtf?

    What's with all the haters out there?

    Every single version of OS X has run faster than the version before it.

    I have a 400mhz iMac that I purchased in 1999 and during it's time I have installed each version of OS X on it. Now, I have upped the ram to 512 and bought a new hard drive for it (larger capacity, but same specs) in that time, but I've needed to do nothing else.

    Sure, I don't have the eye candy but it runs better than it did eight years ago.

    In short...buy more ram.
     
  14. TBi macrumors 68030

    TBi

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #14
    The reason it runs better is because originally OSX was written so badly.

    Even if you look at Leopard, the new "multithreaded" networking system* had been out on Unix for a good long time before apple chose to use it above the older slower version they've been using for years.

    *This is a bit generic because i don't remember the name of the updated parts but i do know they were updated.
     
  15. tdhurst macrumors 68040

    tdhurst

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #15
    huh?

    What's the point you're trying to make here?

    I do agree that 10.0 and 10.1 were pretty useless, but .2,.3 and .4 were all great operating systems that were each faster than their predecessors.
     
  16. TBi macrumors 68030

    TBi

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #16
    And each version was better optimised than the last leading to better performance.

    Although each version has demanded more base memory than the last. Leopard has a bigger memory footprint than Tiger which has a bigger footprint than panther.

    For your information, XP without all the extra's that make it better than 2000 runs at the same speed as 2000, and windows 2000 was as fast as 98 on most hardware available at the time. It just needed more memory, the same as OSX.
     
  17. Sbrocket macrumors 65816

    Sbrocket

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Location:
    /dev/null
    #17
    And that's because all of them are based on essentially the same core with minimal changes tacked on here and there as Microsoft releases ExpensiveNewRevisionOfNT_#x. Its all just extras and cool features tacked on the same core OS. On the other hand, each major update to OSX has made worthwhile changes to the underlying system. Sure, new features added on either OS are going to need more memory...that's just how it works. But OSX updates include improvements to what really matters more than the flashy stuff.
     
  18. TBi macrumors 68030

    TBi

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #18
    You are right there. They take out the badly coded parts of the last version and replace them with well written parts, which makes the newer version faster.

    :)
     
  19. Sbrocket macrumors 65816

    Sbrocket

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2007
    Location:
    /dev/null
    #19
    Yep, you're right. There's always room for improvement in coding, and any software company that didn't update their major software product in a significant way as new improvements in computer and software technology were made would be down right Microsoftian.

    :)
     
  20. Quicksilver867 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Location:
    Columbus
    #20
    Well, do features such as Stacks, etc. use Quartz Extreme or Core Image? I'm running a flashed Radeon 9200 (AGP) in my Quicksilver, and it doesn't support Core Image. And I just bought it too, so will I be screwed over when it comes to the animations in Leopard?
     
  21. tdhurst macrumors 68040

    tdhurst

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2003
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #21
    Yeah...

    I wouldn't consider yourself SCREWED exactly. You are running a fairly old machine with an outdated video card.
     
  22. Quicksilver867 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Location:
    Columbus
    #22
    Haha, I realize, but I'm just curious as to whether or not it's capable of running the little things like Stacks animations within Leopard.
     
  23. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #23
    It may not animate at all, or it may be very clunky (lots of dropped frames), but it will likely work. Usually OS X is pretty good about automatically adjusting frame rate on these animations to keep the system running smoothly.
     
  24. Quicksilver867 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2007
    Location:
    Columbus
    #24
    Hmm...I hope it's somewhat decent. I mean, at least the card will run the Halo Demo at 1024x768 with high settings at roughly 30fps...haha except when I switch on antialiasing...:rolleyes:
     
  25. MK2007 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2007
    #25
    Actually, Microsoft is very good at writing highly efficient tools and operating systems. The difference is they have to deal with hardware and software products from thousands of vendors. Making allowances for all those products leads to bloated code.

    In contrast, Apple Computer controls their hardware design. Although they don't have huge staffing like Microsoft, the smaller amount of hardware models allows Apple to make incremental changes to their UNIX-based OS.
     

Share This Page