Minor Mac OS X Update Available

arn

macrumors god
Staff member
Apr 9, 2001
14,506
1,789
noted...

...and corrected.

thanks,
arn
 

Xistor

macrumors member
May 1, 2001
42
0
California
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.
 

blakespot

Administrator
Jun 4, 2000
1,316
49
Alexandria, VA
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
 

blakespot

Administrator
Jun 4, 2000
1,316
49
Alexandria, VA
...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
 

blakespot

Administrator
Jun 4, 2000
1,316
49
Alexandria, VA
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
 
G

Guest

Guest
Please...

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