I need the speed!

[PoweMACuser]

hi, everyone
I have delete my Mac OS X for a long time, but now the version I want is out and I want to go out to Mac OS X. I need the speed. That I keep using OS 9 is because the speed of X is too slow. I am impatient, but I have to. Now it is 10.0.4, what about the speed now? anyone can give more information?

I also want to know if I upgrade my RAM for 256 to 512, do the speed increase very much? I upgraded my RAM for 64 to 128 and found that OS 9 speed increases very fast, about twice.

------------------
PowerMac G4 400
256MB
20GB

[ScottW]

Power,

Just installed 10.0.4... I like you, find it hard to run Mac OS X full-time, in fact, I am disappointed I don't (heck I run this site). I have been using Linux for 6 years now... and prefer my Mac for a workstation, but a Linux server is my favorite for a server. Having both of these combined into one is my dream machine.

The more I use OS X, the more I find myself liking the interface, and hating it at the same time. On one hand... I am totally comfortable with a TELNET session using Linux/Unix.... and on the other hand... I love the speed, and the GUI of Mac OS. For some reason, combining these together, I am very frustrated... WHY?

The reason is simple... the GUI of Mac OS X, doesn't perform to my expectations of what a Mac should be, and the Linux side of OS X doesn't really perform to my expectations of a Unix box. I love the Mac, been a mac user for 12+ years... before that Apple II.

It isn't at full speed yet... 10.0.4 is not that great of an upgrade... although I was the one boasting of speed improvements over an install of DevTools, it still is lacking... in a big way.

I HOPE Apple is able to address these issues... but when I find it more comforting to restart into OS 9.1... and telnet into my Linux servers... there is something wrong with that picture... a problem only Apple can fix. They must gain the confidence of both die hard Mac users... and then work on the Unix folks.

Admin

[ezra]

Originally posted by PoweMACuser
hi, everyone
I have delete my Mac OS X for a long time, but now the version I want is out and I want to go out to Mac OS X. I need the speed. That I keep using OS 9 is because the speed of X is too slow. I am impatient, but I have to. Now it is 10.0.4, what about the speed now? anyone can give more information?
I also want to know if I upgrade my RAM for 256 to 512, do the speed increase very much? I upgraded my RAM for 64 to 128 and found that OS 9 speed increases very fast, about twice.
------------------
PowerMac G4 400
256MB
20GB

If you need speed, you have to make sure your system is up to spec for OsX. You have a G4, which will run better thant a G3 because of optimization on the chip for interface elements. You don't say if it is a upgrade or a built in G4 though, and upgrades can cause problems with cache, so there is a big difference in speed between the two. More RAM will speed things up a lot if you use something like Xoptimize and tell OsX to use more memory. Also you have to make sure you have a good install, and no hardware conflicts. Hadware conflicts seem to be sneaky, and work, but slow things down. Also, if your HD is slow, that will slow you down, and how you have OsX installed can also slow your down. I find installing OsX on a UFS formatted drive with only one partiician for OsX works best on my machine. Make sure you have a supported graphic card, or your redraws will be slow. You should have at least a Rage 128, or even better a Radeon. Different machines act differently. Speed wise, OsX is a pretty good contender for Os9 on my machine.

[theed]

I have 2 procassors, and I feel like X runs about 75% the speed of 9 on most tasks, with the gigantic exception that I can do 2 (or more) of thene things at the same time. I do my video capture in 9 (until ATI or Apple lets me do otherwise) but than I run back to X to do my compression and stuff. Although classic is consumed by QT export, my machine is not, and I can do other stuff. Since i have 1 largely free processor, I don't even feel the speed drop of a busy process. It's actually like having 2 computers in 1.

I agree the video can be sluggish, and resizing is a whore. But I can actually do a lot of stuff that I couldn't before without waiting. OS X for me is different, but not worse certainly. It's the best OS I have. I think both the hardware and the users are so used to 9's quirks, that they are waiting on things they don't have to any more. Much of the slowness is not the OS at all. For me, the parallelism more than makes up for the apparent speed drop.

[ezra]

Originally posted by theed
I have 2 procassors, and I feel like X runs about 75% the speed of 9 on most tasks, with the gigantic exception that I can do 2 (or more) of thene things at the same time. I do my video capture in 9 (until ATI or Apple lets me do otherwise) but than I run back to X to do my compression and stuff. Although classic is consumed by QT export, my machine is not, and I can do other stuff. Since i have 1 largely free processor, I don't even feel the speed drop of a busy process. It's actually like having 2 computers in 1.

I agree the video can be sluggish, and resizing is a whore. But I can actually do a lot of stuff that I couldn't before without waiting. OS X for me is different, but not worse certainly. It's the best OS I have. I think both the hardware and the users are so used to 9's quirks, that they are waiting on things they don't have to any more. Much of the slowness is not the OS at all. For me, the parallelism more than makes up for the apparent speed drop.

I'm curious if both of your proccessors are actually working? From what I've read only one proccessor is supported right now, but that might just be for third party cards. My machine is every bit as fast as my Os9 setup for some reason, so I have no complaints. I just read all the forums and do everything that anyone mentions that speeds things up. My video card is not even supported and it's not that slow, seems as fast as Os9 for basic everyday use. I don't do much gaming, but I'm sure I would notice speed problems if I did.

[phantomradio]

Under MacOS X dual processor machines are supported. I'm on a Dual G4-500 and processor load is divided up by the two processors. I love OS X, but will admit that the gui is slow. I will not go back to 9, OS X is stable, and extremly usable, so the gui's speed is a small price to pay. Hopefully with the release of 10.1, there will be a big change in speed. If you can't handle the gui;s speed then wait for 10.1

[Untitled]

I have heard quite a few compliants about speed with OS X however I know there are many things which people claim help. A few of of these suggestions are installing the Developer Tools and enabling the root user(which personally scares me for some reason) plus much much more.

Perhaps a list should be setup so everyone can get OS X into top working condition?

[PoweMACuser]

Other guys say that it is slow because of the finder and the kernel is carbon, not cocoa. It is not true. Others think that cocoa is running faster than carbon, but the test says that cocoa is just faster than java. How can it run faster than carbon? carbon is written in C. C is faster than C++>#C>objective-C. I think all system code must be written in assembly or C. Objective-C is supported by C.

To make it clear, I open the process viewer and found that there are two applications which will consume up to 75% of CPU time. One is the finder, one is the CFM loader. I think the Preemtive Multitask in OS X has technical problem. Even if it is not a bug, it must be an algorithm problem. Actually all the memory consumed by the application is very low, normally not up to 15%. Memory is not the problem. I think it is the multitasking switcher can't distribute the CPU time reasonably according to the type and the resources consumption of the application.

OS X speed is a PURELY TECHNICAL PROBLEM.
Am I right?