sherlock in OS X

gernb

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jun 6, 2002
102
0
I loaded X on my TiBook about 3 months ago. Still getting used to it and hating most of it, so I'm still running 9.1 on my G4 tower.

One of the things that drives me the most crazy is how SLOW sherlock is in OS X. If I search for .doc, for example to find word files, it take about 3 minutes for them to be found.

What gives? Is it supposed to be that slow or am I missing something?
 

irmongoose

macrumors 68030
well, I can't tell you why, but Sherlock IS that slow. I guess Apple couldn't fix it, so in 10.2 they abandoned Sherlock as the file searcher, and made it a search engine. Instead, they integrated the file searcher into the window.

Hey, what's bugging you about OS X!?




irmongoose
 

iGav

macrumors G3
Mar 9, 2002
9,025
1
Can't say I've noticed that Sherlock is much slower in OSX....... and that's considering the fact that I have 100Gb of storage........ of which 85GB is currently filled and it seems okay to me.....

I know everyones experiences are different, but I have to say..... I'm well impressed with OSX now that I'm using it all the time, had to boot into OS9 today to sort out a printing issue with regards to Indesign 2, and only when I was back in OS9 did I realise how much better OSX is for productivity and stability.......

Can't please everyone I suppose....... :p
 

gernb

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jun 6, 2002
102
0
<<Hey, what's bugging you about OS X!?>>

I am an apple die-hard, so since this is the future, I'll learn to live with it.
Visually, it's a stunning OS. Technically, there's a lot of powerful stuff that I'm sure will get better with time.

But what I don't like is that its not as transparent of an operating system as was the original. One of the great things about a mac used to be that if something went wrong, you didn't have to be a programmer to have a fairly good shot at figuring out how to fix it. That had a lot to do with the fact that the OS didn't write all sorts of files on your hard drive with cryptic names that give you no real sense of what they do. And perhaps also that the system file structure was incredibly simple. That's what sold me on the mac in the first place.

With X, I just don't feel like the experience is as organic and fluid as it used to be. There's just to much "gobbedlyguk" "mucking up" the system.

How are those for technical terms?
 

irmongoose

macrumors 68030
hehe. well, yeah I feel the same way too. That's the price you have to pay to get some true UNIX power into the OS.... but that doesn't make me hate the OS as a whole. I love OS X, Aqua, Quartz, and UNIX. And, you see, OS X is still young. It isn't fully developed yet, (like OS 9 has been overall the same since the days of OS 7.0.1) so it needs some time. I'm sure Apple will sort things out.





irmongoose
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.