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

Minor Mac OS X Update Available

noted...

...and corrected.

thanks,
arn
 
Why the constant SSH updates?

That's great, but I wish they would tackle something a bit more important to the traditional Mac Internet users....

JAVA.. Their implementation sucks. Java 2 or not..it isn't even fully compatible with Java 1.1. It has two serious bugs (missing code) and tons of websites don't work under any browser because of them on both 9 and 10.. I sincerely hope 10.1 has major Java updates..

Just try to run the email application at www.Hushmail.com !

Looks like we're gonna have to keep Connectix VPC around a little while longer still until that stuff is worked out.
 
OpenGL Upgrade...

I'm quite pleased about the 20% increase in OpenGL performance under 10.1 spoken of on Apple's page, as well as the tighter integration/feature support of the GeForce 3. Should be pretty fine!


blakespot
 
...and more

...in fact, if there really is about a 20% (or even 15%) increase in general OpenGL performance, that should take care of any instances where an OpenGL game is faster under OS 9 than OS X. (Well...if you've got enough RAM in your OS X box.)



blakespot
 
You will be waiting a long time. OS X, sporting its extremely robust memory management system handled by the Mach microkernel, will always use almost all of the system memory, as it should. It's a foreign concept given that there are only lesser schemes to compare it to. Performance overall is improved this way. This is a carryover from the NeXT days.

Interesting story that nostalgically came into my mind... I recall when I ran NeXTSTEP for Intel v3.2 on my 486-66 back in '94. I had an ISA-based SCSI board (particularly high performance, back then, the DPT-2021), and you did better performance-wise to go ahead and toggle one bit flag in a settings file, turning on basic compression of the swapfile. It was a simple 2:1 compression. But it took less time for the CPU to take that compressed chunk of swapfile and decompress it (had a 486-66, as I said) than for the SCSI board to move twice the amount of data across the 8MHz, 8-bit ISA bus to memory, uncompressed. Great stuff, details like that. Ahhh...



blakespot
 
Please...

Originally posted by MrMacman
takes up less memory. The thing uses it all.
Click to expand...

Go to http://www.coastmemory.com/ and get 256 megs for $27. It's even sold under the label "Apple/Mac Memory". Really...at this stage in the game, it's a little silly to be complaining about RAM.

Originally posted by blakespot
But it took less time for the CPU to take that compressed chunk of swapfile and decompress it (had a 486-66, as I said) than for the SCSI board to move twice the amount of data across the 8MHz, 8-bit ISA bus to memory, uncompressed.
Click to expand...

Quite interesting. I remember my roomate's NeXT pizza box...amazingly fluid UI for a 68040 with, what, a whole 16 MB of RAM? Can't wait for Apple to get OSX optimized to that level.
 
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