OS X Shipping... When?

serpicolugnut

macrumors member
Jun 13, 2001
47
0
Atlanta, GA
Barefeats did a speed test of OS X v. OS 9 when it first was released. The Photoshop in 9 v. OS X (Classic) had OS 9 win by about 10 seconds. That was with OS X 10.0.0. Under 10.0.4, it's a wash Photoshop averages out to be just as fast on OS X running on my G4's.

Other applications that have Carbon equivelants run much faster for me in X than in 9. iTunes imports much faster, and Quake III, with the Radeon AGP card smokes the OS 9 version.

I'll be doing some more benchmarking over at my site when my dual 800 arrives (hopefully with 10.1 on it) in the next month...

http://www.macosxcentric.com

Cheers,

http://www.barefeats.com/osx.html
 

blakespot

Administrator
Jun 4, 2000
1,316
50
Alexandria, VA
Norm1985: You are incorrect--Windows 95 uses multithreaded, preemptive multitasking. This is not an opinion, it's an easily researchable fact. Windows 3.11 was the last version of Windows to use cooperative multitasking. In being a beta tester for Win95 months out from release, I received a many-hundred-page techincal manual along with the OS and it goes into extreme detail about the kernel structure, etc. You can keep saying that it uses cooperative multitasking--but that will not make it true.

I do find it odd that Outlook brought down your entire 2000 OS instance. But then, I've had a few kernel panics under OS X (10.0, really), so... Windows 2000 and the coming XP is, as you say, a modern OS foundation, and moreso than Win95/98/ME, true. Certainly true--they are not particularly stable OS's. Nor did I ever say they were. What I did say, and I said it becuase it is fact, is that most components of Win95/98/ME are modern OS components, while the system as a whole is not rock solid.

Windows 95/98/ME has more modern OS components than MacOS 9 does. That is also fact.

Yes, there's speed issues, even on DP 533's for OS 10.0.4, but that will be addressed under OS 10.1. These are issues w/ the GUI layers--the core of the OS, the kernel, is solid and very, very fast. Look at Darwin--OS X sans the interface layers. Fast, fast.

Me a Windows zealot? Now I have to laugh. I was dissatisfied with the speed of OS X on my B&W G3 400 so I sold it and almost built a 1.4GHz Athlon + GeForce 3 for $1,400. Fast system. But in the end I just could not bring myself to leave OS X and to run Windows as my OS. I do not want to run Windows day to day. So I ended up shelling out $3,300 on a dual-800 G4 that is on it's way soon (I hope). Not the act of a Windows zealot. And I'm married--making it a whole other world of difficulty in more than doubling the cost of my new system.




blakespot

[Edited by Macrumors on 07-30-2001 at 03:01 PM]
 

serpicolugnut

macrumors member
Jun 13, 2001
47
0
Atlanta, GA
blakespot -

ha! you got your dual 800 for $3300. I'm guessing you probably configured it the same as I did, with the min. amount of RAM and HD from Apple, and going for the GF3 card instead of the GF2.

Let me know when you get yours...

I'm ANXIOUSLY awaiting mine!

Cheers,
http://www.macosxcentric.com
 

blakespot

Administrator
Jun 4, 2000
1,316
50
Alexandria, VA
serpicolugnut:

Yea, I snagged the dual-800, 128MB, 40GB, Combo DVD/CD-RW, but did opt for the Zip 250 as it's via Zip disk that I get files from the my Mac to my Amiga. (Of course, the Amiga has a CD-ROM, so if I'd actually thought about it I could've just done a CD-RW burn from the Mac, leaving the Zip out of it...but alas...). I've got a Rage 128 PCI, a 512MB CL2 DIMM, and a IBM Deskstar 60GXP 60GB 7,200 RPM drive waiting to add to the unit when it arrives.

I hope Apple's shipping CL2 (2-2-2) DIMM's in the G4's...otherwise I'd discard the 128MB CL3 DIMM in there upon arrival, as I'd not want that slowing memory down 7% or so. 640MB's not that much better than 512MB anyway...

I orderde it moments after the Apple Store went on-line updated, so I should be getting it early in the queue. (Sprung for the FedEx as well.)

Will be glad to get off this i-opener (Win98 hacked) for net access. Well, I do have OmniWeb v2 on my NeXTstation...but I must say...it's a touch slow. :)


blakespot
 
W

Will

Guest
I think OSX is fantastic. I can not wait until I do not have to go into OS9 or load up the OS9 system in OSX. For me, comming from a wintel background, I would rather just use OSX and forget that OS9 existed. Kind of like back in the Win 3.1 to Win 95 days.
 
G

guest

Guest
Originally posted by blakespot

I hope Apple's shipping CL2 (2-2-2) DIMM's in the G4's...otherwise I'd discard the 128MB CL3 DIMM in there upon arrival, as I'd not want that slowing memory down 7% or so. 640MB's not that much better than 512MB anyway...
How do you tell if the RAM is CL3 or CL2? Does it say on the chip, or do you use a hardware profiling utility?
 

arn

macrumors god
Staff member
Apr 9, 2001
14,534
1,817
The Apple System Profiler will tell you if it's CL2 or CL3 ram... however, there's been some recent debate over whether or not that is 100% accurate.

arn
 

blakespot

Administrator
Jun 4, 2000
1,316
50
Alexandria, VA
I've heard doubt cast at Apple System Profiler's ability to tell, as well, though I don't know how well-founded that is. If there is ny CL3 memory in there, the memory bus handling hardware will set the overall system timing to 3-2-2 (or in the worst case 3-2-3 if you've gotten hold of the rare, slowest type of memory--I'm not sure it even exists in PC133 form)--so there should be some way to read that setting. My guess is it works fine (ASP).

Arn and I were both in the Apple Store @ Tysons and saw that under OS 9 (ASP under OS X had no idea what was going on with the hardware...obviously it's not been tuned to the QS machines) there were reported two 128MB DIMM's, and a speed of CL2.

Also of note, I did some digging in Apple's TIL library and found a TIL where Apple encourages the user to use 2-2-2 memory rather than 3-2-2 or 3-2-3 in the interest of speed. While I know Apple used to ship 3-2-2 in their systems, I can't imagine they're currently doing that while laying down TIL's like that.

In digging (can't find the article I'm talking about), I did find this:

The RAM expansion slots accept 168-pin SDRAM DIMMs that are 3.3 V, unbuffered, 8-byte, nonparity, and PC-133 compliant. The DIMMs can be implemented with either SDRAM or ESDRAM devices. ESDRAM devices provide higher performance for random read and write operations, but SDRAM devices are generally available in larger sizes.

ESDRAM? That's a new one to me... ??


blakespot
 

jefhatfield

Retired
Jul 9, 2000
8,803
0
our aqua is better than theirs

i see this difficult transition happening with many Mac users primarily because the major apps are not out yet on osx but when they are out for awhile, people will eventually forget the old days of OS 9.1

the windows world made the change to windows me and my pc repair clients didn't scream that much since my pc clients are more used to change and tolerate it better...maybe they don't think microsoft will listen anyways and just seem to accept whatever microsoft pushes their way...as a general rule, my pc clients have not expected anything exceptional from their computers...there isn't the personal connection happening

my mac repair clients are very into their machines (in an almost cult like way) and the thought of apple going to os x without the full support of the apps running os x first makes them nervous...some see os x as the first betrayal steve jobs brought upon apple, as if the operating system was some sort of failure or some sort of way to bring the operating system into the realm of the pc dominated world of unix or something...do you know who owns the language the classic mac os' were written on...hint, he owns more than 13 languages at last count and he lives in washington state...yikes!!!)

os x and windows xp will be closer in code than dos was to the classic mac os' of the past...that, in my opinion doesn't make apple sound like they are selling out...if anything, it will might open up more pc users to the mac...visually, windows xp will be more mac like than ever thus making windows users more friendly to the aqua interface (that microsoft seems to have borrowed from apple, some say)

in the near future, it may not be comparing apples to oranges, but the microsoft and mac machines will be on the same page and people will be able to judge better what will work for them...os x is the gamble of apple's entire future, but it will prove favorable in the end even though steve jobs' has lost the respect of many a mac user...hey, i would rather have many mac users mad at steve jobs for pushing os x more than hardware development than lose potential converts to mac...i know in the short run apple seems to be abandoning their users by ditching OS 9.x and going to os 10.x but doing that is not the betrayal that so many have complained about, it is apple being a business like it should be

remember, your mac computer is just a machine and not a member of your family...as a mac user myself for 20 years, let us get over the fear of os x and compete against windows on the same aqua page...apple is a business and needs to grow to survive in silicon valley and only constant forward change will give apple that chance
 
G

guest

Guest
Originally posted by blakespot
Also of note, I did some digging in Apple's TIL library and found a TIL where Apple encourages the user to use 2-2-2 memory rather than 3-2-2 or 3-2-3 in the interest of speed. While I know Apple used to ship 3-2-2 in their systems, I can't imagine they're currently doing that while laying down TIL's like that.
True, but Apple sometimes moves in mysterious ways. I think I am going to spend the ten bucks and test a 64 MB CL3 module, and see what ASP says.
 
G

guest

Guest
CL2 and CL3

I know this is kind of the wrong thread, but just to bring some closure to the RAM discussion...

I called coastmemory.com (they happened to be one listed at the top at pricewatch.com), and talked to one of their tech guys, who sounded confident and seemed to know what he was about. He said all PC133 Mac memory they sell is definitely CL2. The advantage of this place is that they are cheap ($60 for 512MB), but despite that it is placed in a separate section called "Mac memory". So you can still make a statement about the platform you own/support/adore/buy-things-for. :) I'm going to buy some soon and give it a try, will report back on whether the CL2 claim is true or not AFAICT through ASP. If this thread is still around...
 

blakespot

Administrator
Jun 4, 2000
1,316
50
Alexandria, VA
It's covered in xlr8yourmac's forum thread:

http://bbs.xlr8yourmac.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/001068.html

...that it seems there is _no_ 512MB PC133 2-2-2 memory out there. And all PC133 memory is definitely not 2-2-2 --- look what Apple is shipping in their 867's (quote from thread above):

• Memory :
? RAM Size = 402,653,184 Bytes (384.0 MB)
[size,type,cur CAS,min CAS,max CAS,dimm refresh,volts,
pins,width,mfg,part#,mfg date,ser#]

+ Module 1 = 128MB, PC133-333-520 SDRAM, CAS-3
@133MHz|7.5ns, CAS-3 @133MHz|7.5ns, CAS-3
@133MHz|7.5ns, 15.625us, 3.3v, 168, 128, Samsung,
M3 66S1723CTS-C75 , 0/28, -1937047297


+ Module 2 = 256MB, PC133-222-520 SDRAM, CAS-3
@133MHz|7.5ns, CAS-2 @133MHz|7.5ns, CAS-3
@143MHz|7.0ns, 15.625us, 3.3v, 168, 128, ?,
PRINCETON, 15/FF, -256
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My brand new G4 867 shipped with 3-3-3 memory in it. How sad.
...that's from TattleTech, an app that does a better job at identifying true memory speed. (Apple System Profiler does a botch job of reporting the truth...) The boldfaced module is the one from Apple...



blakespot

 
G

guest

Guest
Originally posted by blakespot
It's covered in xlr8yourmac's forum thread:

http://bbs.xlr8yourmac.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/001068.html

...that it seems there is _no_ 512MB PC133 2-2-2 memory out there. And all PC133 memory is definitely not 2-2-2 --- look what Apple is shipping in their 867's (quote from thread above):
Hmm, I read that thread. Pretty discouraging. :( OTOH, I gave the coast memory guys another call. It turns out the $60 stuff (512 MB) advertised on the website is claimed as 233, which is still technically CL2 I guess. But they also said they sell a $70 512MB PC133 dimm (which is not on the website) which they claim is 222. I asked him about the other comments like "no manufacturers of 222 512's" etc, but he said he has it in stock and it is real. We will see. I just ordered the $70 222 512MB, and as soon as the 867 arrives I'll check ASP/TattleTech/DIMMcheck and hopefully get the real scoop. Even if it's not 222, I guess it isn't that big a deal. $70 is still a good price.