10.1 Speed Not Acceptable

[buggs1a]

mindbend, no chance in hell you will see dual 1ghz macs by xmas. i don't think so at all. not till Jan macworld at earliest. only opinion.

10.1 opens apps faster then 9 in IE and QT for me. But just barely. simple text and text edit are same that i can tell.

finder resize window yes is still bad. IE is the worst. only cus MS didn't change the code at all, it is same code to run carbon only. MS sucks in IE.
QT is horrible when playing local mpeg files. moving the window around, using the file menues etc is pathetic. build in SMB networking fucking sucks. i copy a 700mb file from pc to mac and it;s few hundred k/sec and moving the progress window is jerky as hell. copy a 10mb file is it waaaay smoother and faster. using dave in os 9 is no problem for anything.
games? uh, true, yeah right apple. i say that too.

I don't think os 10 will be really really usefull for me till the apps i want are on it and it's performance is as good as 9 or better in 100% of all areas. now keep in mind mac os 10 is only 7 months old or so. os 9 took 15 years to get there. give mac os 10 2 full years and i bet it will blow everything away. thats when i would start using it maybe, by next summer, 10.3 or so.

also keep in mind apple is in the middle of re writing the finder entirely into cocoa. this will help MAJOR!!! this will be in 10.2 or 10.3/summer release next year.

[Shibby]

Mindbend

i am not sure why u are having so many problems but i have to say that 10.1 is FAST compareable to 9.2.1 apple should be proud of what they have accomplished. i agree with some of the other members have you tried a clean install?

[Dradts]

I don't really wanna say this, but windoze 2000 is way faster than any mac wit mac os x on it!
I really don't like windoze, n i hate working wit it every day. But mac os x just cannot catch up the speed of windoze (yet). Even on a "slow" pentium III 500 windoze 2000 runs smoother than mac os x on a g3 600. I hope this will be fixed soon by apple.

I am developer in a software firm, and i can't get it y it is so hard for apples developers to write a fast window resizing routine.
Cause window resizing is the thing that sucks most wit mac os x.

[serpicolugnut]

Windows 2000 is not faster than OS X when it comes to Window resizing. With 10.1, my Finder window resize is real time, and it is as smooth as can be on a dual800, a G4/400, and a TiBook G4/500. On my P3/800 running Win2000, Window resizes are choppy - and Windows doesn't have nearly as much computation to do when you resize a window. Remember, in the Finder, when you resize a Window, the computer is also computing the drop shadow, which is quite a bit of added information...

Also, Apple is NOT reworking the Finder in Cocoa. That is the biggest myth out there. A Carbon application is not any slower than a Cocoa application. Both are frameworks, and Carbon apps can be just as fast as Cocoa applications. Both frameworks offer advantages over the other. For instance, Cocoa apps integrate Services easier than Carbon apps can (but it's not impossible to implement these in Carbon now with Mach-O Carbon applications). Carbon apps, on the other hand, have the benefit of having their Window resize routines either use live resizing (like IE 5.1.2), or outline resizing (as in Classic resizing). IE 5.1.2's anemic Window resizing is a result of inefficient coding on the applications part, not the OS.

And finally, if you upgraded to 10.1 from 10.0.4, and saw no speed boost, then you should do a clean install and a reformat. Every machine I've installed 10.1 on has seen a dramatic speed increase, and I've installed on everything from a Rev. B iMac with 128MB of RAM to a dual800G4/800 with 1GB of RAM. Obviously the dual800 is going to be faster than the iMac, but both saw significant improvements in the overall performance.

[Ghoser777]

I'm no expert on this, but the comment that Classic "takes up" 1 gig of ram is wrong. It is "allowed" to take up that much ram, it's not actually allocated. That means if you have a gig and a half of ram, then Classic can take up as much as a gig. VM is allocated on the fly, so Classic will only take up as much RAM as it needs (as long as it under a gig).

On a side note, I think a lot of people need to remember a couple of things:
1) OS X 10.1 is still not being advertised. Why? Because apple knows OS X is not polished enough for mass use. Apple fanatics who want to test out the OS will be okay, but maybe not your grandma. So if it's too slow, your just going to have to put up with it.

2) How much freakin time are you spending in the finder resizing windows? I d that like every couple of days. I only have 500mhz G3 icebook wth 256 MB of ram, and everything flies in 10.1. Opening folders is amazingly fast, playing DVDs and doing stuff at the otehr time is possible, compiling code is faster, etc. Login and bootup is so much faster and smoother, and menus come down almost instantly. If the only issue you have with 10.1 is finder resizing, I think we're okay.

3) If it's too slow, just use 9.2.1. If it's such a big deal to resize windows quickly, it will serve your purposes well.

F-bacher

[mindbend]

I’ve officially decided to withhold further comment regarding speed(OK, after all the stuff below this I officially decide to withhold comment) until true native OS X applications are available for comparison. Until then, there can be no proper comparison other than Finder level stuff.

I’m a very analytical person. My speed comments were not based on opinion, but on fact. Speed is not up for debate. Granted, speed is relative, but it is also quantitative. I began an exhaustive spreadsheet comparing OS 9 and OS X Finder and application speeds (launching, opening files, window redraws, etc.), but came to the conclusion that I just don’t have enough evidence to go on. I’ve only go the following for X:

IE, which we all agree is sluggish.
Painter 7, which in prelim tests was comparable to OS 9
System apps (which I have come to realize do load/operate quite quickly, a sign of good things to come)
“Prerelease” Illustrator 10 (quite slow, but hey, it’s unofficial, so again, not comparable)

Everything else worthy of testing I only have in Classic.

FWIW—I did a “clean” install of X on a G4 450 to its own partition. This quickened application launch speed, but still left me wanting more in the Finder. For example: in column view (my favorite), those little resize sliders at the bottom are poky. Window resize for the most part is acceptable. I can live with the speed I’m showing now. Plus, as others have pointed out, the new navigation options render resizing much less necessary. But still….argh! It’s like having a Ferrari with a sticky gear shift or something (fill in better analogy here).

Again, I reiterate, I have a very low tolerance for the slightest delay in anything in an OS. By God, when I hit a button I want action, and now! Here’s what it boils down to. I can walk over to my Windows 2000 Server box and get ridiculously smooth desktop level redraws. I know it’s nowhere near as pretty or smartly designed as OS X, but damn is it smooth. How is Apple supposed to convert customers with anything less?

I would probably stay right inside X al the time except for the following reasons:

1. OS X sees our Win2K server with a six hour time difference, which screws my synchronization software. Unacceptable. (OS 9 reads the server properly).
2. Final Cut Pro will not run in X. This is Apple’s flagship software (even more than QuickTime in terms of importance). Once they carbonize, dare I say, Cocoa-ize this, I will piss my pants.
3. Critical apps non-native (what else is new).
4. No USB printer sharing (actually I’m not sure about this, couldn’t find this in X, am I wrong?) This is crucial for my office network.

Finally, don’t get me wrong. Some take this speed criticism as Apple-bashing or some such nonsense. Apple’s biggest fans are also their biggest critics, because we are the most demanding as well as the most loyal. I’ve read virtually every Apple historical book and Steve Jobs biography as well as tirelessly converted a handful of PC users to Macs. I love Apple. Apple changed my life. All I ask is a slightly faster Finder level redraw (oh, and some more apps—hello, Adobe? Hello? Anyone listening?). J

[serpicolugnut]

Final Cut Pro for OS X is due out before the end of the year from what I've heard. Not sure if this is right or not, but I would expect the latest it would arrive would be MWSF '02.

USB Printer Sharing is missing. Hopefully this will be on tap for 10.2, which will either be out at MWSF in January '02, or in March.

[beef]

Just wondering...

have you done clean install? (I think many people are suggesting you do this, but we don't know if you've done this before your comment, or you did this after the suggestion) I didn't bother to upgrade, I just did clean install, so I can't say from my own experience, but I hear a lot of people notice significance difference.

and, have you done stuffs like put swap on another hard drive, and/or defrag the partition your system is on? When I first got OS X, I had my system and swap on same volume... and by the time I decided to defrag it, the volume was pretty messed up...

I'm not into making comparisons and finding if there was any difference and stuff... but I heard increasing the size of dynamic pager benefits you as well... I'm not graphic guy and I don't deal with things that require large memory at once, so I don't really know.

well, there's more than a good chance you know how to run the system better than I do... and maybe you've done everything to increase the speed of X... but with my G4 400, I don't have any complaints...... I really dunno what to say... maybe you just have different stardards/expectations from X