I've yet to figure out why desktop Macs have Processor speed options in the system preferences in Energy Saver (Mine doesn't, for some reason.) It's not like a desktop computer has a battery to be saved...
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.
Why is OS X not 'Zippy' or fast?
- Thread starter Dane D.
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
One thing to remember, I'm sure I read it here, but am too lazy to look it up again.
OS X does not draw the window until you can use it, which is exactly the opposite of how Windows does it. For this reason it may seem that OS X is not as "zippy" as Windows at times, but it bothers me more when the window appears and I'm stuck with that hourglass waiting to be able to use what I launched, where on my PB when the window opens I can immediately use it. The net effect seems to make things pretty much equal, but OS X is much less annoying.
OS X does not draw the window until you can use it, which is exactly the opposite of how Windows does it. For this reason it may seem that OS X is not as "zippy" as Windows at times, but it bothers me more when the window appears and I'm stuck with that hourglass waiting to be able to use what I launched, where on my PB when the window opens I can immediately use it. The net effect seems to make things pretty much equal, but OS X is much less annoying.
Dane D. said:
because 1.25GHz is not "Fast". It's not slow, but... it's not fast. Also check to make sure your processor is on highest performance. You do that under system preferences and energy saver
Dane D. said:
saying mindless stuff like that is just wrong. you have no clue. mac lives in the unix world now and things are done this way for a reason.
if you cannot notice a system speed bump after a 300% ram uprade then you didn't need the extra ram. ram only makes your computer faster if you use it.. if its just sitting there harly being used its useless to you.
fiercetiger224 said:
What the H does "windows zippy" mean? I use a 2.4 Ghz Dell tower at work, and its certainly not zippier (Win2000) than my 733Mhz G4 at home. (Discounting Internet Explorer, of course...)
Two words: Get Tiger
IMO, one of the most overlooked aspects of Tiger was a marked performance improvement in the OS (kind of got drowned out by Spotlight and Dashboard hoopla), and it's noticeable. I have a eMac as well, the 1 ghz flavor that came with Panther installed. One of the first things I noticed after upgrading to Tiger was how much quicker windows open, jpg thumbnails in file folders draw about twice as fast as they did in Panther, get info windows appear faster than they did in Panther, resizing icon-heavy windows has almost no lag, and everything in the OS X GUI updates instantly now, so changes (like dragging icons off the desktop and into the trash) occur with real time feedback without the slight GUI lag that was present in Panther.
If you want more OS X zip than what Panther gave you, get Tiger 10.4.2. You have more than enough memory now and you should notice the difference. I doubt if you'll miss OS 9 speediness afterwards.
IMO, one of the most overlooked aspects of Tiger was a marked performance improvement in the OS (kind of got drowned out by Spotlight and Dashboard hoopla), and it's noticeable. I have a eMac as well, the 1 ghz flavor that came with Panther installed. One of the first things I noticed after upgrading to Tiger was how much quicker windows open, jpg thumbnails in file folders draw about twice as fast as they did in Panther, get info windows appear faster than they did in Panther, resizing icon-heavy windows has almost no lag, and everything in the OS X GUI updates instantly now, so changes (like dragging icons off the desktop and into the trash) occur with real time feedback without the slight GUI lag that was present in Panther.
If you want more OS X zip than what Panther gave you, get Tiger 10.4.2. You have more than enough memory now and you should notice the difference. I doubt if you'll miss OS 9 speediness afterwards.
mgargan1 said:
It's more than enough to handle OS X. It might take a beating on a few apps (like final cut pro) that have heavy resource demands, but it should be smooth sailing with the majority of "regular" apps that are out there today.
savar said:
It's more in reference to the UI and all its plethora of visual effects that contribute to not as a responsive feel as a newly installed copy of Windows on a new PC
Dashboard for one is not zippy, as is Spotlight. They are not nearly as instantaneous as Steve wants us to think. Maybe on a Dual 2.7 G5 with 2GB RAM they are, but on my 12"PB they both are slow as hell.
Another thing that has taken a beating speedwise is the dialog that pops up when you search sth., open sth., etc. It takes forever to get the simplified finder up.
I for one would appreciate it if Apple would focus on making the EXISTING features in OS X work better and faster than on introducing even more features...
Another thing that has taken a beating speedwise is the dialog that pops up when you search sth., open sth., etc. It takes forever to get the simplified finder up.
I for one would appreciate it if Apple would focus on making the EXISTING features in OS X work better and faster than on introducing even more features...
Diatribe said:
Don't know about that, but on a dual 2.5 G5 with 1.5GB RAM, I can confirm that they are....
That's a good idea regardless. It would be a shame if Apple became too Microsoft-ish.
neoelectronaut said:
Since it started being BELOW the minimum required specs on a few of the newest games?
--Eric
Eric5h5 said:
Lol. Thanks for validating my argument
I guess you really need a G5 with a 7200rpm HD and 1GB+ for Dashboard and Spotlight to be zippy. Oh well... hopefully those Intel cpus are going to be able to handle it better.
Sun Baked said:
even with OS X, when I batch a bunch of raw photos, I still go out for a smoke or coffee. If only because I need an excuse to go out!
Cut me some slack
You're right I don't have a clue. I just notice that the user interface isn't as zippy. By the way, I never use Windows computers so I don't know what the user experiences in terms of interface speed or zip. One last thing, I notice alot of members here have newer Macs than me. I for one don't buy computers everytime there's a new release. My buying cycle is every 4-5 yrs., so you might consider me behind the times if you will. Even where I work are computers are old (circa 2000/2002) and we still haven't made the leap to OS X.
You're right I don't have a clue. I just notice that the user interface isn't as zippy. By the way, I never use Windows computers so I don't know what the user experiences in terms of interface speed or zip. One last thing, I notice alot of members here have newer Macs than me. I for one don't buy computers everytime there's a new release. My buying cycle is every 4-5 yrs., so you might consider me behind the times if you will. Even where I work are computers are old (circa 2000/2002) and we still haven't made the leap to OS X.
Actually, what really annoys me is the lag that occasionally occurs (my guess is that it's because of the drive spinning up), such as when I hit the volume buttons for the first time and it takes up to 5 seconds for the icon to appear onscreen and the volume to change - ditto with Expose etc.
The next time you do it, it works instantly.
The next time you do it, it works instantly.