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

Mac OS X 10.3 Panther Details

Re: Re: Re: Re: Translation

Originally posted by rDLr
There is a Quartz Extreme hack? Are you saying that this hack will enable Quartz Extreme on an unqualified system? I would love to try that out. Do you have any more info?
Click to expand...

You have to have a ATI Radeon graphics card or better. At least that was the last specs I remember.

Here is the link to a GUI for the hack PCI Exteme.
 
Re: Re: Re: Translation

Originally posted by beatle888
WHAT:eek: oh man. you should try to add statements like "in my opinion" to posts like that. its absolutely false. unless you dont care about being factual.

have you ever used photoshop? screen redraw in photoshop is increased DRAMATICALY with quartz extreme. before when you bought a 3D graphics card, it woudnt even help photoshop at all (from my experience). but now with quartz extreme...i can scroll around large photoshop files with ease.
Click to expand...

Photoshop, iMovie, and a bunch of other things. QE helps in a number of specific cases but doesn't help in the general case. Even on the specific cases I found more benefit from going to a faster processor than from going to QE.

As to the "in my opinion" that would be the "that I could discern". I had a 400 Mhz G4 desktop and a 500 Mhz iBook. 896 and 640 MB of RAM, respectively. The iBook felt no faster, the G4 maybe a little faster. The only thing I definitely noticed was fewer SBODs ("spinning beachball of doom" - the 30 second sit-and-wait cycles you'd see on 10.1 fairly frequently). I have since upgraded the G4 to 800 Mhz, and its video to a GeForce 4 MX.

Don't get me wrong - I like Jaguar, I prefer it to 10.1, but I didn't find speed to be one of its benefits. OS X needs at least another leap on the level of 10.0 -> 10.1 to get in the range of 9.x speed. My 550 Mhz Pentium at work is generally more responsive than the 1 Ghz G4s I've played with.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Translation

Originally posted by faisal
My 550 Mhz Pentium at work is generally more responsive than the 1 Ghz G4s I've played with.
Click to expand...

This statement is unfounded to say the least. i have a GHz Tibook, and it SCREAMS by comparison to my 933 MHz P3 running XP, even with most of the eye candy turned off (on the P3). what are you running on your P3? windows 95? that's not a valid comparison, unless you turn off the eye candy in OS X till it's dumbed down to the level of an 8 (or 5 if you have 98) year old OS, which you would have to do with haxies. OS X will probably never be as fast as OS 9 on the same machine. why? it does more, graphically! that's one reason i really like it. if you don't approve of that, OS X is not the OS for you, and i don't know why you'd be a mac user at all :p, as they tend to care about such things.

i think one thing that makes QE worth it, though, is that it alleviates your CPU--it's not really suppposed to speed things up per se, but it is most definitely intended to alleviate CPU cycles so they can do "real" work. i notice a huge difference when i turn quartz extreme on and off on my mac--not so much in interface speed (except when i start like an itunes visualization, then you REALLY see a difference), but in CPU usage while dragging/resizing a window or what have you. it's still "in your opinion," methinks.
 
Re: Two things

Originally posted by Hawthorne

2. Is it just me, or do OS X upgrades bring better performance to existing machines, while upgrades to Windows mean upgrading your machine to wade through the resulting bloatware? Think different, indeed... :)
Click to expand...

Hmmm....good point. I've noticed some improvement from 10.0 to 10.1 and a slight speed increase with 10.2, but I won't hear anyone say: "Well, OS 9 has been running a little slow on my 604, so I'm going to upgrade to OS X." The OS X point releases have been speed improvements, but it still seems sluggish in comparison to OS 9, probably because of the graphics.
 
The new FS in longhorn is also not Journaling, its a databased system. It was supposed to be in XP but because of the complexity of coding it, it was pushed into longhorn.
 
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/J/journaled_file_system.html

A file system in which the hard disk maintains data integrity in the event of a system crash or if the system is otherwise halted abnormally. The journaled file system (JFS) maintains a log, or journal, of what activity has taken place in the main data areas of the disk; if a crash occurs, any lost data can be recreated because updates to the metadata in directories and bit maps have been written to a serial log. The JFS not only returns the data to the pre-crash configuration but also recovers unsaved data and stores it in the location it would have been stored in if the system had not been unexpectedly interrupted.
Click to expand...

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/N/NTFS.html

Short for NT File System, one of the file system for the Windows NT operating system (Windows NT also supports the FAT file system). NTFS has features to improve reliability, such as transaction logs to help recover from disk failures. To control access to files, you can set permissions for directories and/or individual files. NTFS files are not accessible from other operating systems such as DOS.
Click to expand...
 
Hope you have forwarded your suggestions to apple. I went through your site and the suggestions look very good.

Originally posted by backdraft
Hopefully it will be a huge improvement. Though, doesn't Unix have a database?

Just go to the terminal and type 'man locate', last time I checked the locate command uses a database to search for files, I wonder if the find command uses the located database.

As for journaling, (correct me if I'm wrong) its not a database. All journaling does is sort of like autosave but for the entire hard drive, that's why its slower the files contents(or last actions taken) are continually being written into a log file, so in case of a power outage the OS reads the log file and repeats the last actions/processes.

I really like how Apple is combining the best of both worlds Unix and Beos. OS X is going to be one hell of an OS. The only thing that it needs is work on the GUI here's some ideas: http://www.geocities.com/juan_m007
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by jmonteiro
Are you on crack? NTFS is not a journaling file system.
Click to expand...

Depends on which definition of "journaling" you take. NTFS journals file table modifications, which is, last I heard, as much as HFS+/Journaling does. Correct, it does not journal specific file content modifications, but I believe HFS+ doesn't do this either (someone with a bit more specific knowledge on Jaguar's joournaling can correct me her).

In other words, if NTFS is not a journaling file system by your standards, then it is likely that HFS+ has no journalling option by the same standards. "ext3" is a more pure although not in the strictest sense "fully journaling" file system. Note of course that a proper academic will always find a way that a real world implementation doesn't fit some arbitrary academic definition, and so the fact that none of the available JFS's is "perfect" is really inconsequential.

From the horse's mouth:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/community/centers/fileservices/fileservices_faq.asp

Discussion of NTFS JFS problems (vs ext3):
http://www.zepa.net/hypermail/elug/2001/01/0136.html

Description of journaling and consumer implementations of JFS:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journaling_filesystem
 
Originally posted by jettredmont
Depends on which definition of "journaling" you take. NTFS journals file table modifications, which is, last I heard, as much as HFS+/Journaling does. Correct, it does not journal specific file content modifications, but I believe HFS+ doesn't do this either (someone with a bit more specific knowledge on Jaguar's joournaling can correct me her).

In other words, if NTFS is not a journaling file system by your standards, then it is likely that HFS+ has no journalling option by the same standards. "ext3" is a more pure although not in the strictest sense "fully journaling" file system. Note of course that a proper academic will always find a way that a real world implementation doesn't fit some arbitrary academic definition, and so the fact that none of the available JFS's is "perfect" is really inconsequential.

From the horse's mouth:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/community/centers/fileservices/fileservices_faq.asp

Discussion of NTFS JFS problems (vs ext3):
http://www.zepa.net/hypermail/elug/2001/01/0136.html

Description of journaling and consumer implementations of JFS:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journaling_filesystem
Click to expand...

The HFS+ journaling add-on only logs changes to the directory structure. It does not track file changes.

NTFS, which is merely IBM's HPFS, has very light journaling available/enabled, but often requires a disk-checking utility to fix things. It is restricted by what IBM deemed performance problems, though Microsoft has gone further to "enhance" performance.
 
Re: Was Be's OS good? Please don't flame me, I really don't know.

Originally posted by GeneR
I just don't know much about Be's OS. Is the addition of Be's system a good thing? I don't know.

:D
Click to expand...

Oh yes yes yes. Be is such a good thing.

I really would love to know how Be runs so well. I have an old Dell Celeron 500 in my office runing BeOS 4.5 on it.

I can't describe how fluidly and beautifully the box runs digital media. Videos flow like water. They are fluid and smooth. When you watch a video clip, and begin to drag the clip around on the screen, it is unlike any other OS I have ever used. There is no break between the video and the window as it moves. There is no stutter in the video as it moves. It is a solid object of flowing video sliding smoothly across a background. This is with a 4MB STB video card built onto the motherboard. Quartz Extreme produces a result something like this, but not as smooth. Sad huh? There are things wrong in Mac OS X. Very low level things that make powerful processors (compared to the Celeron 500 in the Dell anyway) drag and choke. The more of Be Apple recycles the better.

If you get a shot, go use a machine running BeOS. Buy a copy of the intel version (4.5) on eBay so you can get even more angry at the total waste Microsoft has made of the intel hardware platform. Intel CPUs are really nice to work with if the right OS is in charge.

I have NeXTStep 3.3 for Intel on the same box, and I can flat out say that NeXTStep didn't and doesn't multi-task as well as BeOS. I haven't used it, but I am guessing that OPENSTEP 4 didn't match Be either. Mac OS X doesn't even come close. Windows has never been fluid or smooth in any incarnation.
 
BeOS v.4.5 on Macintosh hardware was even more appealing. It showed how 15 years of piling it on to get to Mac OS 8.x worked against the latest machines of that time.

What's more, it was like seeing the Commodore Amiga for the very first time--astonishing! :)
 
Originally posted by jettredmont
Depends on which definition of "journaling" you take. NTFS journals file table modifications, which is, last I heard, as much as HFS+/Journaling does. Correct, it does not journal specific file content modifications, but I believe HFS+ doesn't do this either (someone with a bit more specific knowledge on Jaguar's joournaling can correct me her).

In other words, if NTFS is not a journaling file system by your standards, then it is likely that HFS+ has no journalling option by the same standards. "ext3" is a more pure although not in the strictest sense "fully journaling" file system. Note of course that a proper academic will always find a way that a real world implementation doesn't fit some arbitrary academic definition, and so the fact that none of the available JFS's is "perfect" is really inconsequential.

From the horse's mouth:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/community/centers/fileservices/fileservices_faq.asp

Discussion of NTFS JFS problems (vs ext3):
http://www.zepa.net/hypermail/elug/2001/01/0136.html

Description of journaling and consumer implementations of JFS:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journaling_filesystem
Click to expand...

NTFS is not full-flegde journaling as you said but HFS+/Journaling is. But I guess you are right... NTFS can be considered a journaling FS. The problem is that it never works. I've had my NT partitions go broke a few times and I think is because NTFS tries to rollback the uncommited transactions instead of forward play to a consistent state...

Here is an article where HFS+ is presented as being better (more features) than NTFS
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,634711,00.asp
 
Re: Huh?

Originally posted by serpicolugnut
MacBidouille? I'd love to know how a french based Mac rumors site get's it's info...

The answer is easy. Speculation....
Click to expand...

mate, ur on a rumour site, this is all speculation......duh!! doesnt matter if they are french or rednecks!!
 
Originally posted by ColoJohnBoy


One thing I've been wondering - Has Apple thought of reducing the dock down to a single icon on the desktop? One Click and it would open? Just a thought, I'm not sure if it's even feasible.
Click to expand...

I sure wouldn't want it. For instance, it would make a drag and drop operation one of blooming nested folders. That is so OS 9.

I like the dock. It stays hidden until I need it, and I no longer have to keep the desktop littered with aliases of frequently used applications.

If only they could make the default for window placement be offset so that the dock (I wear mine on the left side) would not pop up when reaching for the candy buttons.
 
Originally posted by Wry Cooter
I sure wouldn't want it. For instance, it would make a drag and drop operation one of blooming nested folders. That is so OS 9.

I like the dock. It stays hidden until I need it, and I no longer have to keep the desktop littered with aliases of frequently used applications.

If only they could make the default for window placement be offset so that the dock (I wear mine on the left side) would not pop up when reaching for the candy buttons.
Click to expand...

Just be sure your windows are aways offset a couple pixels. That's what I do. Your windows will always reopen where you put them last.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Translation

Originally posted by Shadowfax
OS X will probably never be as fast as OS 9 on the same machine. why? it does more, graphically! that's one reason i really like it. if you don't approve of that, OS X is not the OS for you, and i don't know why you'd be a mac user at all :p, as they tend to care about such things.
Click to expand...

This is bull. I have been an Apple user for a decade and a half, and I can't stand OS X. I do *NOT* approve of crippling the OS for eye candy that really makes things HARDER to read, like smoothed fonts. It's a pity that Apple won't even include the option to turn things off, especially when they entail a performance hit on machines that, processor-wise, are already quite slow to begin with.
 
john123-

Actually I think OSX will eventually be as fast if not faster with Gui functions but it will probably a year or two. Every OS has a Window Server and OSX's Server throughputs an ungodly amount of data compared to OS9 and even Windows.

I agree with this approach because eventually the Hardware will catch up and Apple's approach leads to stable window drawing because each window is buffered.

Anti Aliasing. It does seem to be a preference. I'd like to see Apple make it optional as well.

OSX has alot of components of the architecture that will consistently get better. I look forward to it.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Translation

Originally posted by john123
This is bull. I have been an Apple user for a decade and a half, and I can't stand OS X. I do *NOT* approve of crippling the OS for eye candy that really makes things HARDER to read, like smoothed fonts. It's a pity that Apple won't even include the option to turn things off, especially when they entail a performance hit on machines that, processor-wise, are already quite slow to begin with.
Click to expand...

It's not bull. i don't think it matters what you approve of, apple didn't write OS X for 200 MHz G3s. it's designed to make people NEED to upgrade. i'm sorry they don't let you turn off the eye candy like MICROSOFT does, but they don't have the market share not to make you feel like you need to upgrade. i'll say there's a 99% chance that's why they don't.

if you want to blow the eye candy, it's not hard for a resourceful person to do. you just need shadowkiller, or another 3rd party app that kills shadows and antialiasing and so on. check out versiontracker.com
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Translation

Originally posted by Shadowfax
It's not bull. i don't think it matters what you approve of, apple didn't write OS X for 200 MHz G3s. it's designed to make people NEED to upgrade. i'm sorry they don't let you turn off the eye candy like MICROSOFT does, but they don't have the market share not to make you feel like you need to upgrade. i'll say there's a 99% chance that's why they don't.

if you want to blow the eye candy, it's not hard for a resourceful person to do. you just need shadowkiller, or another 3rd party app that kills shadows and antialiasing and so on. check out versiontracker.com
Click to expand...

First of all, I have a 1Ghz PowerBook G4.

I've tried the third-party hacks -- like Silk and so forth. They all have pretty fundamental compatibility issues precisely because they are system add-ons as opposed to system integrated. I am so much more productive in OS 9 -- and so much happier with the expanded real estate -- and I don't see that changing until PowerBooks become much faster or the OS becomes significantly more optimized -- or both.
 
Originally posted by Flynnstone
This thread is getting off topic!

I thought this thread was about what's in 10.3 Panther:confused:

So ... what is in Panther ?
Click to expand...

Let's hope it has a little Preference Pane called Appearance that includes a checkbox for "OS 9 Mode" -- that makes the OS look exactly like it did in OS 9!
 
Originally posted by john123
Let's hope it has a little Preference Pane called Appearance that includes a checkbox for "OS 9 Mode" -- that makes the OS look exactly like it did in OS 9!
Click to expand...

Ugh! Perish the thought! Although I will let you have your built in Shadow Killer and 'Turn off all useless animation' checkboxes, although I know I'll never use them :D
 
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