Not really, you tell me a better way to measure your system performance.
XBench is pretty good and when it becomes DP aware we will have an excellent benching program.
XBench gets more accurate with each release. Yay for XBench
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
OSX - why the heck is it so slow?
- Thread starter Ben Sheehan
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not really, you tell me a better way to measure your system performance.
XBench is pretty good and when it becomes DP aware we will have an excellent benching program.
XBench gets more accurate with each release. Yay for XBench
jayscheuerle
macrumors 68020
Personal satisfaction with it. Is it fast enough for what you need it to do? Do you have frustrating delays?
I can see how such a tool might help with diagnosing a weakness within a machine, but it all seems like weiner-show to me. The subjective experience is far more important than the objective one. I hear people talking about how OSX feels as snappy as OS9 and I wonder what they're smoking, but truth is, if they see it that way and it makes them happy- more power to them. All the bragging about how fast your Dual 1.25gHz machines are does nothing to make them respond faster once I'm behind the keyboard.
Satisfaction is the only thing that matters. - j
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Personal satisfaction with it. Is it fast enough for what you need it to do? Do you have frustrating delays?
I can see how such a tool might help with diagnosing a weakness within a machine, but it all seems like weiner-show to me. The subjective experience is far more important than the objective one. I hear people talking about how OSX feels as snappy as OS9 and I wonder what they're smoking, but truth is, if they see it that way and it makes them happy- more power to them. All the bragging about how fast your Dual 1.25gHz machines are does nothing to make them respond faster once I'm behind the keyboard.
Satisfaction is the only thing that matters. - j
I think that in general the people that are complaining about speed are using outdated hardware. That is hardware that was released before 10.1. Anything after meets all the requirements for Quartz Extreme and runs OSX just fine. No in some cases it may not be as fast as OS9 but it doesn't lag. There is no way anyone on this earth could type fast enough on my Dual/GHz/DDR with 10.2 to make it lag. I type in excess of 80WPM when I get into it and I have never seen it lag.
I agree though that satisfaction is the only true measurement and if you are unhappy with 10.2 it is probably due to having older hardware and you should be using 0S9. If this is the case please quit complaining I'm sick of unfounded whinning.
a friend of mine complains endlessly about how slow his 600 MHz iBook is.
i finally played around w/ it and found that the only complaint is that, sometimes while typing in Word for X, there'll be a one to three second pause while he's typing.
i suggested he turn off all the auto stuff: spell check, caps, saving, whatever there is.
did you do these things? or is Word X so bloated that it needs a supercomputer to keep up w/ a human typing? (what a sad state of affairs _that_ would be)
Ditch IE
Definitely get into Chimera as your main browser, although IE seems to have sped up dramatically due to the 10.2.3 update. Window resizing seems quicker too for IE. Still, if webbrowsing is a large part of you OS experience I think chimera is a godsend. Also, Ram Ram Ram, as you did do. But also a clean install of Jag on a clean disk. I also here a good disk optimize can help as jag is messy with files. But on my system things are slow.... without QE. I missed that boat on my ibook. I was checking out xp machines the other day, and yes they are pretty speedy, but they still look kind of shoddy. Window resizing and menu responsiveness still loom as the number one offenders of X's seemingly slugginess. I guess I can understand the menus, as the finder now is sharing the processor actions and playing nice with the other apps... but window resizing, if xp can do it there has to be a way..... Mail is a superdog... as is ical in that deptment. I have found that using the maximize has taken over as my way of focusing on a window, but for those times where it would be great to have ichat and mail or explorer side by side, wish those windows would wake up.
Definitely get into Chimera as your main browser, although IE seems to have sped up dramatically due to the 10.2.3 update. Window resizing seems quicker too for IE. Still, if webbrowsing is a large part of you OS experience I think chimera is a godsend. Also, Ram Ram Ram, as you did do. But also a clean install of Jag on a clean disk. I also here a good disk optimize can help as jag is messy with files. But on my system things are slow.... without QE. I missed that boat on my ibook. I was checking out xp machines the other day, and yes they are pretty speedy, but they still look kind of shoddy. Window resizing and menu responsiveness still loom as the number one offenders of X's seemingly slugginess. I guess I can understand the menus, as the finder now is sharing the processor actions and playing nice with the other apps... but window resizing, if xp can do it there has to be a way..... Mail is a superdog... as is ical in that deptment. I have found that using the maximize has taken over as my way of focusing on a window, but for those times where it would be great to have ichat and mail or explorer side by side, wish those windows would wake up.
Ok, I opened a blank file in Word, it didnt lagged or anything while having iTunes+viz opened.
Then I opened some catalog and hold some key in the middle of text..it goes very slow, about 1 fps.
It is not problem with Word X, paste lots of text to any non-m$ application and I guarantee you it will be slow as hell on all oldish macs.
It takes lots of CPU power to paste text on OS X, must be because of crappy PDF GUI system.
PDF was always slowest thing on macs, and now they make whole GUI based on PDF...lol
Too much delays in interface.
We should send our prayers to Cupertino, ehh.
They want us to buy new macs..
Does anyone know how would 667 MHz DVI Ti compare to 1 GHz or 867 MHz ones? In architecture they aren't so different.
Then I opened some catalog and hold some key in the middle of text..it goes very slow, about 1 fps.
It is not problem with Word X, paste lots of text to any non-m$ application and I guarantee you it will be slow as hell on all oldish macs.
It takes lots of CPU power to paste text on OS X, must be because of crappy PDF GUI system.
PDF was always slowest thing on macs, and now they make whole GUI based on PDF...lol
Too much delays in interface.
We should send our prayers to Cupertino, ehh.
They want us to buy new macs..
Does anyone know how would 667 MHz DVI Ti compare to 1 GHz or 867 MHz ones? In architecture they aren't so different.
jayscheuerle
macrumors 68020
Outdated hardware is that which was released before 10.1? Outdated for what? Running an OS? I don't think an OS should be the most resource demanding program on a machine.
Is it not possible to note the insufficiencies of OSX without it being called whining? Perhaps I like OSX and use it on "outdated hardware" and get more work done with it because of its multi-tasking abilities and stability. That doesn't mean that I have to ignore that it takes a fraction of a second longer to create a new folder, change the name of a folder or file, scroll, etc. I'm not perfect either, but my wife still loves me!
Those who defend OSX as being the epitome of perfection in an OS, those who refuse to acknowledge where it falls short, those who valiantly defend every accusation of mediocrity (no matter how valid)... ought to examine exactly whom they think their blinded praise is benefitting. Certainly not Apple or OSX's users who can only benefit from such criticism. Apple needs to know what needs improving- even (and especially) from fans.
OSX- nice, but there's room for improvement.
I used to use OS 9. Then i got OS X.
Now i am running Finder, iTunes 3, Mail, World Clock, Christmas Tree, CPU Monitor, MSN Messenger (its pop in aus) and chimera + a whole load of menu bar extras as well as having nortons crap in the background.
Try all that in 9. no way.
So X takes 1/16 sec. longer to make a folder or browse a big folder. SO!!! i can do 100 other things at the same time.
Lots of +, few -.
I know what i boot.
Now i am running Finder, iTunes 3, Mail, World Clock, Christmas Tree, CPU Monitor, MSN Messenger (its pop in aus) and chimera + a whole load of menu bar extras as well as having nortons crap in the background.
Try all that in 9. no way.
So X takes 1/16 sec. longer to make a folder or browse a big folder. SO!!! i can do 100 other things at the same time.
Lots of +, few -.
I know what i boot.
jayscheuerle
macrumors 68020
You're missing the point. When focusing on a single creative endeavor, minute pauses interrupt one's rythem. ID2 is the worst offender, with Ill10 not far behind. PS7 is the best of the Adobe apps, but adding new layers, renaming them, adding type - ANYTHING you do in an OSX native Adobe app takes longer than it does in OS9. You could blame this on Adobe, but the same kind of pauses exist in OSX's Finder, they're just not as important to one's flow as they are when designing or illustrating.
Yes, yes, yes.... We all get the idea that you can have 500 things going on at once in OSX, but that can't excuse the lags when you need to do 1 thing well. This deficiency is not enough to send me back to OS9, but that doesn't mean I need to "drink the Kool-Aid". Repeat after me- "OSX still needs some work".
Feel better? Great! Now we can all get back to our multitasking lives...
Must be all that RAM
We have 30 new Dual 1Ghz machines, 2GB RAM. All are identical hardware but only one is running 10.2. Everyone in the department keeps asking me why the OS X box is FASTER! Weird huh? Too bad we're getting screwed by Quark or they would all be running OS X.
We have 30 new Dual 1Ghz machines, 2GB RAM. All are identical hardware but only one is running 10.2. Everyone in the department keeps asking me why the OS X box is FASTER! Weird huh? Too bad we're getting screwed by Quark or they would all be running OS X.
Re: Must be all that RAM
.
Also, I have never updated my permissions in all the time that I have been using OSX (since OSX.1.2). I do get the spinning balls sometime, but not frequently. Should I bother?
You should get those computers running folding for us
.Also, I have never updated my permissions in all the time that I have been using OSX (since OSX.1.2). I do get the spinning balls sometime, but not frequently. Should I bother?
the high tech field will always move forward in a way that the software techies will make increasingly ram hungry software so that the hardware side techies will have to make more ram, better ram, better video cards, and faster processors
the consumer who hangs onto his machine over two years becomes the loser, so we are forced to buy a new desktop or laptop every 24 months to keep up if we want to effectively run the latest os and apps in a timely fashion
i could put os x on my three year old ibook, but it just would not work fast enough for me to want to go thru the experience...the machine tops out at 160 mb of ram
i would not do osx on anything less than half a gig if i had to also run photoshop or a decent game
the consumer who hangs onto his machine over two years becomes the loser, so we are forced to buy a new desktop or laptop every 24 months to keep up if we want to effectively run the latest os and apps in a timely fashion
i could put os x on my three year old ibook, but it just would not work fast enough for me to want to go thru the experience...the machine tops out at 160 mb of ram
i would not do osx on anything less than half a gig if i had to also run photoshop or a decent game
the only time i feel that OS X is really lagging me behind is when i have to connect to the internet with dial-up (obviously)...but it's the only time i really see the beachball...for some reason mail and ichat don't start up as fast and then it takes forever to connect ARG...oh yah...and i would really like better AVI and DIVX support for OSX...i see the beachball when i click on a DIVX movie if i am in the directory view with previews...the previews seem to take forever to load
Sherlock
... is absolutely unbearable for me on a g4 500 with 192 ram. I am going to stick a 512 stick in there after xmas. I recently added a 40gb hdd, but I am using it as a secondary drive, to run OS9, and to store mp3s/photos etc. Would it be better to run OSX from this drive? it is a 7200, but I think the stock drive was as well.
... is absolutely unbearable for me on a g4 500 with 192 ram. I am going to stick a 512 stick in there after xmas. I recently added a 40gb hdd, but I am using it as a secondary drive, to run OS9, and to store mp3s/photos etc. Would it be better to run OSX from this drive? it is a 7200, but I think the stock drive was as well.
Re: Sherlock
It is better to run OSX on a large hard drive with lots of room. Also the extra RAM should help a lot.
It is better to run OSX on a large hard drive with lots of room. Also the extra RAM should help a lot.
No I did not turn anything off. How much RAM does he have?
I personally avoid all Microsoft products so my personal experience for Word is somewhat old. The only time I ever used it was the Demo version.
Originally posted by jayscheuerle
Outdated hardware is that which was released before 10.1? Outdated for what? Running an OS? I don't think an OS should be the most resource demanding program on a machine.
Is it not possible to note the insufficiencies of OSX without it being called whining? Perhaps I like OSX and use it on "outdated hardware" and get more work done with it because of its multi-tasking abilities and stability. That doesn't mean that I have to ignore that it takes a fraction of a second longer to create a new folder, change the name of a folder or file, scroll, etc. I'm not perfect either, but my wife still loves me!
Those who defend OSX as being the epitome of perfection in an OS, those who refuse to acknowledge where it falls short, those who valiantly defend every accusation of mediocrity (no matter how valid)... ought to examine exactly whom they think their blinded praise is benefitting. Certainly not Apple or OSX's users who can only benefit from such criticism. Apple needs to know what needs improving- even (and especially) from fans.
OSX- nice, but there's room for improvement.
What I consider whinning is when someone a) is using new software system or otherwise on an old computer and they complain about how slow it is. This is not the programs fault. They want all the new features and cool stuff but they don't want to upgrade to use it. B) As in your case you're knowingly using OSX on an older machine and complaining about how slow it is. I agree that OSX has a long way to go and yes it could be a lot faster even on my machine but it is very useable on anything produced in the last 1 1/2 years. I don't feel you have anythign to complaing about if you know that you are running it on a system that really can't support it but you do anyway.
Personally I do believe there are a lot of honest complaints. For example iPhoto plain sucks for handling 10s of thousands of photos. This I feel is a big error on Apples part. The program is designed pretty much specifically for digital cameras and anyone who has a digital camera knows that it takes a very short while to have tons and tons of photos.
Also OSX does a very poor job of sharring photos and music between multiple users on the same system.
Yes there are a lot of things to complain about but if you go into it knowing you are running a system that is not really supported on your hardware I don't feel you have any grounds for complaint when you it runs slow for you.
jayscheuerle
macrumors 68020
Mac OS X Version 10.2 requires a Power Mac G3, G4, G4 Cube; iMac; PowerBook G3, G4; iBook; or eMac computer; at least 128MB of physical RAM and a built-in display or a display connected to an Apple-supplied video card. Mac OS X does not support the original PowerBook G3 or processor upgrade cards. Verify your hardware is supported from the list below.
Supported Machines
On a personal note:
A) Discussing shortcomings is neither complaining or whining by default. I use OSX on my home machine by choice (I like it), thereby compromising my right to complain, but not to discuss or debate.
B) You've made the assumption that my total experience is based on using my G3 at home. Not only do I have a G4 at work, but I have 2 independant Apple dealers within walking distance and an Apple store 20 mins. away. Yes, the new machines are faster, but not enough for me to buy one yet.
We all want the same thing here: Great Macs and a great OS. Merry Christmas!!
I'm not trying to fight about this but I do know what Apple states as supported hardware but then there is what we know is really supported hardware. Apple is covering there butts because of past statments and to keep the masses from hanging them.
I was not making an assumption that the only machine you had was G3 I was simply going by the information you provided me. I too do not feel it is improper to discuss any shortcomings of OSX but I do feel it is annoying for someone not necessarily you (for some reason you have taken this personal) to complain about how sluggish it is if they are running old hardware.
I guess it's one thing if someone has real complaints and another if they are just plain being stupid.
I am no way was ever pointing you out or trying to attack you personally for some reason you have treated it that way though. I was just trying to make a point with my original post that there are a lot of people whinning about speed that have no real basis in reality because the problem is not with OSX but there machine.
Instead of whining about how 10.2 lags with various programs (such as Word) why not complain bout Quark? The only reason why I'm using classic is because Quark hasn't come out with an OS X version.
Thanks a lot Quark!
Thanks a lot Quark!
lets not confuse the speed of the OS 9 GUI and OS X GUI, with the speed of the OS.... OS X, especially on a Duel Processor machine smokes OS 9.
I think Apple fully expected to be going to dual processor machines. In my oppinion dual processor machines make since even with higher speed processors. Since each processor can basically on take on one task at a time by adding a second processor you can in effect run two tasks simultaneously. This in some ways can show speed advantages that even a double or higher speed processor can not. I know two processors don't equal one of double speed but that mainly applies to a single task. How many people perform a single taks anymore? The answer is none. Even when you have no applications open the system is still running more then one task at a time.