# 10.1 Speed Not Acceptable



## mindbend (Oct 6, 2001)

Note: Keep in mind that I am an ardent Mac fanatic, which is why it pains to me write the following:

Just got 10.1 installed on a G4 450 and a 400 iMac Rev B. To me, the finder speed is still unacceptable. There is simply no excuse for how pathetically sloth-like window resizing is. I hate to promote Windows, but it runs circles around 10.1 for desktop level operations. It is truly a joke and an embarassment. 

I spend my day behind my Mac, I find it really irritating to have to negotiate windows coated with syrup. Internet Explorer is a travesty. I can take a coffee break before the window catches up. The fact that Apple even uses the word "fast" on its OS X hype pages should be illegal. "Fast" relative to what? A turtle? C'mon.

Is it functional? Of course, it's functional, but just barely. It is faster than 10.0.4, but so what. 10.0.4 didn't even register as motion on a speed scale. My charts indicate it as "frozen stiff". 

There is only one thing that's truly faster in my tests and day to day uses of X, and that is network performance. That is nice indeed, but it ain't enough. Also, network volumes/directories still display slowly through apps like Photoshop. Also, I'm getting a six hour time differential when reading time/date stamps on a Windows 2000 server (this is not the case when the same machine is running OS 9). What a joke. And they call this a network machine...

This is unreal to me. We are actually moving backward! And this whole thing about apps launching faster. Where? I haven't seen it. Faster than 10.0.4, yes, but still nowhere near as fast as OS 9 for me. 

On paper, OS X is fabulous. Even in practice, it's interface, look, stability and features are great. Too bad every single app I have runs better under 9!!! InDesign is glacially slow under Classic. Pressready is now useless. Synchronize is broken under Classic and Qdea is still spinning their heels on an X release. Illustrator is slow, so is everything else.

Games? Yeah right, who are you kidding? I'll believe it when I see it.

And where the hell is Final Cut Pro for X? I only make my living using it. And I actually fell for their "Summer" release BS. Why do I keep drinking the Koolaid?

OK, OK. My rant is fading. I told myself I would wait one full year and until Photoshop, Final Cut Pro, AI, GoLive and a few others go native. That day has not yet come, so I won't give up. But, for this customer to stick around, I want to see native apps and dual gig processors by Christmas. Until then, it's OS 9 for me.


----------



## Aussie John (Oct 6, 2001)

Well I have to say i dont know really what you are talking about.
The finder speed on my G4 450 is doesnt really seem any different to OS 9.


----------



## Jadey (Oct 6, 2001)

It's strange I've read a number of posts from people complaining about the speed of X with greater specs for macs than I have, yet despite a few minor glitches, X runs very smoothly on my mac. I'm still only running 10.0.4 too! I wonder what the difference is... are they running classic constantly? (although after a RAM upgrade that runs well too here) do they not defrag their drives? There must be some apple TIL's on this.


----------



## mindbend (Oct 6, 2001)

Jadey,

With all due respect, seriuosly, I've tried and seen 10.0.4 on several machines, none of which even come close to being describable as "smooth". Are you serious? I'm not trying to be a smart-ass.

Some things are indeed glass-smooth, such as moving windows around. That's wonderful. But resizing them is a total joke. Are we comparing Apples to Apples (no pun intended)? Also, window nav drop-downs are slow, and so is almost everything else. I'm currently creating an Excel spreadsheet documenting application launch times, file open speed, in-app speed and other info. Suffice it say that OS X has not beaten OS 9 in one single category.

I've heard talk of people getting better speed doing fresh clean installs, perhaps I should do the same. I'm not holding my breath though. It seems clear to me that OS X users do not have the same critical standards that I have. If I move a mouse cursor around the screen and the graphic/window/icon/whatever can't keep up, that equals slow. Period. This is 2001 for crying out loud.


----------



## Aussie John (Oct 6, 2001)

I think you should seriously consider doing  a clean install as i have no problem moving icons or windows around the screen


----------



## pooch (Oct 6, 2001)

How much ram are you running OSX.1 with?  I have a 266 G3 that I just stuck an additional 256mb or ram in and OSX.1 works nicely.  My tibook on the other hand has no problem runing x.1; in fact, it is the nicest OS I have ever used hands down!  You might want to do what Aussie John suggested and re-do the system cause X.1 is not slow at all!


----------



## Jorace (Oct 6, 2001)

I to think that you should try a clean install. I have heard many people say that 10.1 was slow as a dog when they upgraded, but if they do a clean install it was very fast.

I am running 10.1 on an iBook, and window resizing is as fast as 9, and Very smooth


----------



## whitesaint (Oct 7, 2001)

I think your mind is bent.  I'm not being a smart ass.  I mean 10.1 may be slow in a few tasks, but it is alot faster than 10.0.4.  There is no excuse for what you're on.  You are exaggerating way too much beyond belief.  Bended mind, with all due respect, shut the hell up.  If you dont like OS X switch to Windows.  Have fun see ya later.

     In 10.1, I get things accomplished when i need to.  Sure it's not as fast as 9.2.1 or whatever your using, but i would very gladly switch the speed over for a crash-resistant OS itself.  OS X is the best OS there will be for a while, and it has evolved to much.  I can't believe an "ardent mac fanatic" would say such things.  Especially, when it has come this far, there are thousands of Apps for it (or at least it seems like it), and its got the best graphics, stability, of any OS.  I'm not saying it is the fastest, we all have that thought in the back of our head.  But it's fast enough to blow Winblows out the window.


----------



## mindbend (Oct 7, 2001)

I'm glad that everyone is happy with X. I really am. One day, I will also be excited about it. But, you see, I make a living off of the efficiency at which I can work. OS X simply doesn't cut it, yet.

My own suspicions are that Apple is purposely keeping X in the hefty requirements arena so they can sell more boxes. They are in the hardware biz after all. I have no evidence of this.

I will refrain from further comment until I reinstall it (clean install if you will) tomorrow. At that point I will either admit I was wrong or I will challenge people to provide examples of how OS X is faster than 9. (Faster, not more stable. I've got OS 9 running rock solid, so stability isn't issue. I need speed, dudes.)


----------



## Abakadoosh (Oct 7, 2001)

ok, ill give ya speed, but i dont know if this applies to all.  I have an old sawtooth, g4 400 single, ya know, the old g4.  anyways, ive added some memory over time and now have 704 megs of ram.  im thinkin, "this 'll do me".  well, i was running os 9 at the time.  now, im not agreeing with mindbend over here, but! it almost seems as if 704 wont be suffient.  my dad just told me, i think it was yesterday, that he read somewhere that classic, when booted, is automatically given a gig of ram! all on its own.  well, 704 just isnt enough for a system that requires 128 min, then adds a gig for Classic.  so if your running classic mindben, bendming, or whatever the hell your name is, then JUST RUN OS 9!!! if all of your apps work better in it, THEN JUST RUN IT! not like its ganna kill you! after all, all the major apps are mostly still beta's any ways.  

hmm... i seem to have taken several turns in this post.... anyways, what i was originally ganna talk about, is that many of my apps start and work faster than os 9 ever did! internet explorer, dont even try comparing it to the os 9 version, the os x one will shred it! most of the time it doesnt even take me one freaken bounce to start IE.  sure some things are slow, and window resizing still isnt really worth it, but take a look at your memory and cpu usage sometime, and you'll see why your counting bounces.


----------



## username (Oct 7, 2001)

> _Originally posted by whitesaint _
> * But it's fast enough to blow Winblows out the window. *



That was funny, but not true.


----------



## jabhome (Oct 7, 2001)

The speed difference I experienced on my icebook was phenomenal after I did a clean install.  The upgrad just did not cut it.  The one thing I will agree with that Mind Bend mentioned was resizeing windows.  Finder resizing is smooth as silk for me, but IE it a bitch.  I too can grab a bite to eat before IE catches up. In fact all of my browsers are a little slow when it comes to window resizing.  The rest of my apps and especially the finder resizing is a joy, comparable to Windows and OS9.


----------



## ezra (Oct 7, 2001)

> _Originally posted by mindbend _
> *Jadey,
> 
> With all due respect, seriuosly, I've tried and seen 10.0.4 on several machines, none of which even come close to being describable as "smooth". Are you serious? I'm not trying to be a smart-ass.
> ...



I highly recommend you do the clean install, it's sounds like that is your problem. I've done many different installs on several machines, and you do get bad installs sometimes. I've had a G4 733 running slower than a G3 333, so it does happen, probably more that it should. A stock 450MHz machine with OpenGL support should be redrawing just as fast as your OS9.


----------



## Aussie John (Oct 7, 2001)

let us know if that fixes it


----------



## legacyb4 (Oct 7, 2001)

Not too sure why you are having so many problems, but I did a clean install on a G4/400 AGP with (now) 512MB RAM and so far, the system feels pretty happy.

Sure, there is a Finder-level slowdown compared to OS 9 or a Windows box (I've got a Windows 2000 server sitting under my desk as well), but guess what? The minute I got my hands on this used G4, I feel no urge to flick my monitor switcher to the PC unless I have to adjust some server setting!

I'm the system admin for a 8 server, 35 client Windows startup and I still am happiest sitting in front of a Mac; call me a die-hard, but OS X is a real joy to use and I only hope it gets better.

Cheers.


----------



## chris v (Oct 7, 2001)

Happy with speed here, too.

I'm running most of my main apps (Adobe) in classic, still, and it's running just the same as OS 9 did, with one major ecxeption-- NO CRASHES! I booted into OS X on Wednesday afternoon, launched classic, (G4 450 AGP) and my machine's been up since then, without even any apps locking up, much less the whole system.

When you factor in 2 to 4 cold restarts a day, at five minutes each, I can tolerate the occasional slow finder window. It's not like I sit around and resize windows all day, anyway. Column view is about instant for me, and apps launch as fast as they did under 9.

 But then, I also did a complete low-level reformat before installing 9.2.1 & X. I also ran disk warrior and rebuilt the directories after I installed 9.2, but before I installed X. I think this may have significantly sped up Classic launch time, as Classic mode starts up in just over 30 seconds, now.

My one big complaint? Bring back the Users and Groups control panel!

CV (MacNN refugee)


----------



## buggs1a (Oct 7, 2001)

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 (Oct 7, 2001)

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 (Oct 7, 2001)

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 (Oct 7, 2001)

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 (Oct 7, 2001)

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 (Oct 7, 2001)

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 (Oct 7, 2001)

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 (Oct 7, 2001)

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


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Oct 8, 2001)

To whomever said that Apple is in the process of cocoa-fying the finder, I'd love to know where this bit of information came from... can you provide links or some sort of quote?

I'm not doubting you at all, I would just like to read whatever you've read!  I'm a fanatic with keeping up with rumors and late-breaking news, so I'd love to know where you found this out!


----------



## billbaloney (Oct 8, 2001)

The very fact that you need to clean-install this "upgrade" in order to see any benefits (instead of obvious degradations in performance, as I've seen after 10.0.4 -> 10.1 upgrades) is plenty of evidence that X is not ready for prime time.

People love to post to this server admonitions in the form of "If Apple wants to [goal], than they better [requirement]."  So here's another one: if Apple wants to convert OS 9 users to OS X, they better make the upgrade process feasible.

Do you have any idea how much I tweak X after I install it?  Jesus, the LAST thing I want to do is do a clean install.  I'm actually using this OS!  It's a dev server, and file server...why the Bejesus should I have to wipe this completely, do a clean install of what's supposed to be an UPGRADE, and then reinstate all my apps and tweaks?  That is just incredibly annoying.

I ditched X once before, because it was hampering my days with poor performance.  I might have to do that again soon.  Sad, very sad....


----------



## aled (Oct 8, 2001)

I've installed OS X 10.1 and updated 10.0.4 on my PowerBook G3 500 with 640MB RAM and I am really pleased with all the speed improvements. I have a messed up computer (4 Gig of Apps) - I do everything on it and I do NOT want to re-install. So I didn't - and it is still fab! I've had it running for 3 days now. Classic and all for Photoshop and OE and I've been using the network in college (all Win PCs - bummer!). Anyway... speed is not an issue. No crashes. No restarts. Nothing wrong. Ok, IE 5 for X is really slow even on the fast network - Classic IE is much faster! I think, no, I know, the battery is being drained about 1.5x as fast in OS X compared to 9. But sleep doesn't seem to drain any, I had heard that it would compared to OS 9. I did get some 2hrs out of a battery today - I'd get way over that in OS 9. I did give it a pounding though. (That's far better than my mates Sony laptop - he gets 45 mins MAX!!).


----------



## aled (Oct 8, 2001)

I've also just updated 10.1 on a 7300/200/96MB - works great too as a PHP web server over EtherNet. Finder speed is ok. I'm just dead chuffed that old beast is still useful. It's faster too after 10.1. I'd had it on 10.0.4 previously and 10.1 even kept my PHP / MySQL intact when updating - nice touch!

I've also installed Win XP Pro on a 450P3 320MB. Boy, they've swiped some stuff from Apple! However, the general public are not ever going to know about OS X and because XP "works" and they're just going to use it. It's got quite a lot going for it I have to admit - I think MS have finally got level. Apple are going to need every one of us to shout very loud about X if they're going to get any of that 90% that's left!

I have to say that MS did a fab job with Word for X - it loads really quickly on my 'Book. It has to be one of the best apps on X at the moment.

Just roll on these Apps - I want to kill classic forever ASAP!

Oh, someone was moaning that InDesign was slow in classic - wrong! I've found it to be the same as it is in 9 - pretty good. Not Quark 3.3 but very usable. And with InDesign 2 soon and some thing 17 times faster - I can't wait!


----------



## ScottW (Oct 8, 2001)

I have to agree with Mindbend in response to his first post of this thread...

Being the biggest Mac fan their is... being surrounded by my friends who all use other OSs... and being a loner in the world of Mac use... I have always stood proud and glad I used something that is better than the rest.

I tried to use 10.1... and I used it for at least 4 days... before I rebooted back in to OS 9 to use PressReady... and well, I haven't booted back into 10.1. 

Sure, it sucks when IE crashes my entire machine and I have to reboot... and how much I enjoy that NOT happening in OS X... but when I switch over to Windows XP to run "one" application that I don't have for Mac... and I lust for the day that my windows would open as fast as it does... my IE to blow chunks out Windows, and for pages to load zippy fast.

I will NEVER convert to Windows... this isn't a message of... Apple is loosing its luster... simply not true. Steve says 10.1 is at 6pm clock wise... so he is saying that its half-way to what it should be, 50% complete... I hope that when it comes noon... that it can be something I am truely proud of... and not stutter around my Windows friends who talk about how slow 10.1 is... and how fast XP is.

Speed comparisons:

Windows XP box: Compaq PIII-650mhz 256mb RAM
Mac OS X box: PowerMac G4-500mhz 256mb RAM

According to the Megahertz Myth, that Mac box should blow chunks over that 650... and yet... that system rocks when it comes to performance.

Admin


----------



## wadesworld (Oct 9, 2001)

> 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?



Well, since you indicated your preference for OS 9, I highly suggest that you NEVER, EVER attempt to do anything with multitasking.

If you do, you'll see slow....when compared to either OS X or Win2K.

Wade


----------



## bradleysmith (Oct 9, 2001)

will not make the finder any faster. Programs written in the Cocoa API are not inherently faster than Carbon or any other API come to that. OmniWeb is pure Cocoa and its window sizing is just as crap as the finder. The core window sizing routines are to blame. Optimize them and everything will get quicker. Just take a look at window moving: Fastest thing on the planet man! MUCH faster than MS Windows. Windows 2000 window sizing is faster than Mac OS X 10.1. I've used 3 different Macs running 10.1 and we have a whole rack of Win 2k machines and Win 2k window sizing is faster. Nothing anyone can say will change that. That's not opinion it's a fact. I see the difference every single day.

Mac OS X 10.1 launches programs faster than Windows now though, not that I gave a toss about that. I'd swap the speedier program launches for a fast window resize.

Rant over  (for now)


----------



## robp (Oct 9, 2001)

It is not so much the overall performance of the finder that is the problem IMHO.

The finder is at least as fast as any windows machine I have seen (once the windows machine has been used for two weeks and has got slow - another discussion!!).

The problem that MUST BE FIXED is that the finder, and other applications appear to 'go out to lunch' far to often. This would suggest that on a "fully pre-emptive multitasking" operation system that there is something wrong with the finder thread model and event handling.

I would expect that even if one window in the finder is having difficulty (and is displaying a wait indicator) that I should be able to switch to another window and continue working. This is not the case, one window unhappy - the whole machine unhappy.

Before anyone says that this is paging or other resource problems, top and vmstat report that I have plenty of available resources.

I have observed this on a variety of platforms, and all releases of X including X.1

Hardware G4/500MHz 512M


----------



## jiblet (Oct 9, 2001)

For me personally, the practical benefits (for a web designer and programmer) of OS X are so great that any minor sluggishness does little to disappoint me.  There is something I find humorous in all this though...

The constant comparisons between OS X, OS 9 and Windows performance are meaningless.  THat's not to say that OS X performance is all good... I think Apple laid on the Aqua a little thick to force computer upgrades.  Oh well, what are you gonna do, they make their money from hardware.  My POINT however, is that u have to expect performance trade-offs for some benefits.  Pre-emptive multi-tasking makes your computer do more things at once, but it doesn't make it faster, so therefore things are gonna take longer.  

Of course, maybe some of you who find the performance unacceptable have mitigating issues in your systems that are actually making the performance much worse than mine.  Still, it's hard to believe that even the naysayers aren't benefitting from being able to write a shell script as a scene renders in the background, or burn a CD while reading news, or even playing a game while compiling a program.  For me, productivity has to do with being able to continue working, not resizing a window faster.  I probably resize 10 windows in an 8 hour day.  So if it takes 5 seconds to resize instead of the .5 seconds people expect, I am losing a whopping 1 minute of productivity per day.  Whereas if I boot into OS 9 I spend AT LEAST 2 minutes for all my apps to boot where the system is essentially locked.  Not to mention the various tasks that commandeer the system even during routine tasks (rendering 500 slashdot comments for instance).

OS X is still far from where it needs to be, but I'm already hooked.  When I think about moving back to OS 9 or WinXP/2000 I see a solid 20% loss in productivity, and a 50% loss in compatibility/testing (PHP/MySQL/Apache/BBEdit/Photoshop/Dreamweaver).  I'm still glad people are bitching though, because Apple seems to be listening.....


----------



## billbaloney (Oct 9, 2001)

As a server, my little PowerBook running 10.1 is doing just fine.  sshd, Apache, PHP, MySQL, ProFTPD they're all running along...much better than if I were developing to a Windows server right now.

In my calmer moments, I realize anew that the fact that I can run all of these processes under Mac applications, that this PowerBook is also a portable development server, is argument enough for OS X for me -- especially after much time spent (= wasted) configuring (= crying over) MoL in LinuxPPC.

I just hope that subsequent "updates" to the OS don't render the desktop interface even more sluggish than it has now become for me in 10.1.


----------



## SCrossman (Oct 9, 2001)

I cannot understand how OS X can be so slow for some people. I find with 10.1 that I can even use OS X on a Wallstreet 266 PowerBook.  Those who say it is like molasses must be in some kind of time-warped space continuum or something is really wrong with their install.  I have installed it on approximately 8 macs so far and find the speed certainly acceptable.  Window resizing does not keep up with the cursor if you move it fast, but I don't spend a lot of time resizing windows. It surely is not like Windows 2000, but I will be thankful for the many other reasons it is not like  W2k. To the person commenting that classic takes a Gig of RAM, that is nonsense. It might be allocated that much in virtual memory space, but I am running it on a new 733 G4 with only 128mb of RAM (I will be adding a 512mb DIMM) and classic still loads and is certainly acceptable for our use in commercial desktop publishing.  I find the speed on my two cubes to be more than acceptable except for some networking issues.  The one thing that is slower than OS 9 is opening and closing windows, they don't just snap onto the screen like in OS 9, but kind of fade in slower.  No big deal.  I can accept the slower windows for the greater stability and being able to do many things at once.  Don't use your iDisk while trying to manipulate anything in the Finder.  iDisk is one of the banes of OS X.
I didn't do a clean install on anything but the Wallstreet and 733 G4. Every other Mac I have running X came from 10.0.0 on March 24th without a clean install with nary a problem in the upgrade.


----------



## billbaloney (Oct 9, 2001)

Don't assume that the enormous amount of very capable people having problems with speed on OS X are fools or on acid -- that won't help anyone who is actually trying to deal with these issues.  I am a developer who, as you can see, has been contributing to and learning from these boards on macosx.com since October of last year, and I have gone through many installs and upgrades on many machines.

Two Apple beta testers in this company upgraded their identical TiBooks last week from 10.0.4 to 10.1; while one ran into problems and had to run the upgrade twice, the other made it through the upgrade fine.  Their end performance is similar, but not identical.  This Lombard 400MHz PowerBook, with 512 MB of good RAM and a new, fast 20 GB disk drive, is experiencing major performance problems.  The 10.0.4 install was made to this drive after a total reformat, and the 10.1 upgrade was the only major change to the system after that.  The upgrade finished without a hitch, but I immediately noticed some of the problems that many have been referring to here.

The point is that with a software deployment this huge for what is essentially still a beta OS every well-considered viewpoint, and every well-measured datum, must be taken into account.


----------



## GadgetLover (Oct 9, 2001)

Apparently, if you quit the LaunchCFM process, X 10.1's speed vastly improves!


----------



## kcmac (Oct 9, 2001)

What is Launch CFM? How is it removed?


----------



## ezra (Oct 9, 2001)

> _Originally posted by kcmac _
> *What is Launch CFM? How is it removed? *



The Process Viewer in Utilities.

[Just quit it]
[Doing some tasks now]
[Back]

Wow, and nice little pick me up.

Verified on my Biege G3 333 MT.


----------



## kcmac (Oct 10, 2001)

Interesting. I will wait to see if this effects anything before I try it. Should it?


----------



## Rhino_G3 (Oct 10, 2001)

Exactly what does the launch CFM app do?


----------



## PoweMACuser (Oct 10, 2001)

I have to say that it is true that the speed is not acceptable. The speed still can't let us feel comfirt. The resize of window is speeded up doesn't mean that the speed is acceptable. The windows switching is still very slow and in previous version the mouse tracking is very fine but now I always feel that the mouse is jumping. 

In a word, the speed of the application lauching is based on the lag of other like mouse, windows switching and other things.

It still can satisfies the speed we need.


----------



## Rhino_G3 (Oct 10, 2001)

I did end up killing the numerous Launch CFM app that I saw...  I think there's something that a lot of people aren't telling 

It did speed up window scrolling tremendously though!


----------



## kcmac (Oct 10, 2001)

How do you kill it?


----------



## ezra (Oct 10, 2001)

> _Originally posted by kcmac _
> *How do you kill it? *



By reading your replies.


----------



## ezra (Oct 10, 2001)

> _Originally posted by GadgetLover _
> *Apparently, if you quit the LaunchCFM process, X 10.1's speed vastly improves! *



Where did you get this info?


----------



## Rhino_G3 (Oct 10, 2001)

> _Originally posted by kcmac _
> *How do you kill it? *



Like stated above...  process viewer.  click on process hit shift, command, q or kill process from menu.


----------



## beef (Oct 10, 2001)

I know that some processes come up as "LaunchCFMApp" in ProcessViewer...

get the Process ID by clicking on "More Info"

go to terminal, and

ps "process id" (the number)

and... uh... like.. that's an app you were running...

duh... if you kill the apps, you're Finder will run faster, I gues...

I'm not sure, but I think most carbon apps will show up as "LaunchCFMApps"


----------



## beef (Oct 10, 2001)

This "Kill LaunchCFMApp" to speed up OSX reminds me of the time I used to play WarCraft II on PC...

at the beginning of the game, me and my friends will type "Hold Ctrl-Alt-Del for turbo mode!".  It doesn't work every time, but sometimes, you see "whoever has left the game"

that was a great one GadgetLover.. LOL


----------



## dcantrel (Oct 10, 2001)

The fact f the matter is that X.1 is faster than 10.0.4 in almost every aspect. However one thing most people tend to forget is that you are never going to see the performance of 9 in X for resizing and certain other tasks. You are going from a system that devotes 100% of its time to one task to a system that is doling out information to a 1000 tasks now. If you take away the multitasking then the X finder would blow the doors off the 9 finder anytime anywhere. Until we get machines that run either dual processors in the 800-1000 range or all processors are 1ghz you will notice slight differences in speed between X and 9. The main thing you can do to alleviate these speed differences is upgrade to a minimum of 512mb ram preferably a gig, run a VERY fast hard drive and a very fast video card. Also keep in mind the OS is young, further optimizations may make the speed differences negligable in day to day operations on hardware that is capable.


----------



## billbaloney (Oct 10, 2001)

So essentially, dcantrel, you're saying, "OK, calm down -- it's really just that Apple has designed an OS to make 80-90% of their user base's machines obsolete."

Really, though, perhaps we can take a quick look at GNOME running on Linux PPC, examine the app launch times, screen redraw times, and other general visible indicators of speed, and wonder anew why this is such a problem for OS X -- and, in a more depressing vein, why the OS X project started with the mach kernel....

And claims of 10.1's improved speed are moot, of course, in situations where an upgrade to 10.1 from 10.0.4 has VISIBLY SLOWED a machine.


----------



## jiblet (Oct 10, 2001)

Sad as it is, Apple makes money off hardware, so a marketing scheme like that is not unexpected.  What's new?  Apple has always played the hardware marketing game.  That's not to say we shouldn't call them on it though...

dcantrel brings up a very good point though.  In a bleeding-edge GUI environment (particularly with processor intensive dynamic scaling effects), there is a big performance trade-off for Pre-emptive multi-tasking.  I support this trade-off because it places more power in the user's hand.  Want to start up an app fast?  Don't move the mouse back and forth over the dock fast... In OS 9 the cooperative multi-tasking prevents users from sucking CPU when something is happening.  

What Apple really needs to do to serve the customer base properly is to create a low CPU-usage mode of Aqua to speed things up on lower-end machines.  I'm not holding my breath for this, however, due to fundamental flaws in our capitalist economic system.  Fortunately for me personally OS X is running great (I was even using 10.0.4 as my every day OS) and so I'll leave the complaints to those with serious usability problems.


----------



## paulboy (Oct 10, 2001)

I think what the fuss is over is windows resizing. I did a clean instal on my G4 400 AGP. ( by that you mean in the update cd, click erase contents of the drive?) Anyways I did do that and for the most part apps launch quickly and windows drag fine. The problem is resizing the windows. There is a lag. In Windows, the place you click on the windows as you resize stays put exactly where you click on to. In 10.1 it moves around. It has improved much over 10.04 where there was a huge lage but I think this should improve.

Some one reply to this thread if they have a G4 400 and there is no lag at all in windows resizing. Maybe my install is bad?


----------



## Rhino_G3 (Oct 10, 2001)

> _Originally posted by beef _
> *This "Kill LaunchCFMApp" to speed up OSX reminds me of the time I used to play WarCraft II on PC...
> 
> at the beginning of the game, me and my friends will type "Hold Ctrl-Alt-Del for turbo mode!".  It doesn't work every time, but sometimes, you see "whoever has left the game"
> ...



Oh yea, I remember that. We tried that quite a bit.  It's hillarious when it does work!


----------



## mindbend (Oct 10, 2001)

I can't find this Launch CFM thing in the process viewer. Does it only show up under certain conditions?


----------



## beef (Oct 10, 2001)

I think GadgetLover posted that "kill LaunchCFMAPp to speed up OSX" as a joke...

if you must see it in the process viewer... just run a few apps, like iTunes, IE, and whatever you know to be carbon (a few things I know to be cocoa show up with their name... so I'm guessing this is carbon thing)  you can narrow it down to "User Process" only, too...

and if you want to speed up OSX, kill these bastards.


----------



## GadgetLover (Oct 10, 2001)

> _Originally posted by ezra _
> *
> 
> Where did you get this info? *



Just messin' around one day and wala! Presto speedo!


----------



## GadgetLover (Oct 10, 2001)

> _Originally posted by beef _
> *I think GadgetLover posted that "kill LaunchCFMAPp to speed up OSX" as a joke...
> 
> if you must see it in the process viewer... just run a few apps, like iTunes, IE, and whatever you know to be carbon (a few things I know to be cocoa show up with their name... so I'm guessing this is carbon thing)  you can narrow it down to "User Process" only, too...
> ...



No, it REALLY does work.  However, when you run a Carbonized app, it will relaunch.  So, yes, you are correct in that it is a "carbon thing".  But it is no joke.


----------



## ezra (Oct 10, 2001)

> _Originally posted by GadgetLover _
> *
> 
> Just messin' around one day and wala! Presto speedo! *



You got to love those happy accidents.


----------



## beef (Oct 10, 2001)

so you run around killing processes without knowing what they are?

Do you realize that there's no single instance of "LaunchCFMApp" if you run top in terminal? or just do 'ps -ax |grep LaunchCFMApp'.  You won't find anything but itself... all the LaunchCFMApp show up with their names in top...

logout/login (quit whatever carbon apps you run with startup script), run process viewer, and see how many of these "LaunchCFMApp" shows up... then run a carbon app... update the list... hey, there's one... kill it.. hey.. what happened to the app?

they are just carbon apps that don't show up with their names.

IF you have a REAL explanation on how this works, please let me know.

Maybe you killed an app that was giving you a spinning beachball.. then you did yourself a favor, but there's alot easier way to kill an app that's stuck...


----------



## GadgetLover (Oct 10, 2001)

Beef ("bum", "drunk", whatever you call yourself), what's your freakin' problem?  I just posted something that I discovered seemed to speed up my -- and many others systems (I'm not the only one who figured this out (and this is NOT the only vBulletin board -- try MacRumors.com) -- and thought I'd let people know so they can DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES if it is something that works (or causes problems).  If you don't want to do it or read about it THEN DON'T!  Figures that your name is "beef" because you don't seem to have anything better to do than to have a 'beef' with others.   Pathetic (of course you'll respond to this post too ... watch everybody ...)


----------



## beef (Oct 10, 2001)

just do this...  find the process ID of the LaunchCFMApp from Process Viewer.  Go to therminal and do 'ps NumberYouJustFound'

are you trying to tell me that while the carbon app and LaunchCFMAPP share same process ID, they're 2 different thing?  If so, tell me how I kill just LaunchCFMAPP.

IF IT'S AN APP YOU STARTED, WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO KILL IT?

I RESPOND BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO CLARIFY THIS THING.  IF I WANT THINGS LEFT CONFUSING, I WOULDN'T BOTHER READING ANYTHING.  What is frustrating is that you dont' give me any clear explanation on how this thing works, you just keep saying "it works".

IF this is actually something that improves the performance of OSX AND let me run my carbon apps, then I'll gladly accept I'm wrong and I'll use this.  I'd even write a script that'll kill all LaunchCFMApps as soon as they're run (imagine how productive that will be... ) But all this seems to me is killing carbon apps.
and I want you to respond... but besides telling me that I have problems, and making Miss Cleo like prediction (that I will respond), please give us something more useful.


----------



## beef (Oct 10, 2001)

I don't care who it is...

if someone can kill LaunchCFMAPP without killing an App you started, please let me know.


----------



## GadgetLover (Oct 10, 2001)

> _Originally posted by beef _
> *I don't care who it is...
> 
> if someone can kill LaunchCFMAPP without killing an App you started, please let me know. *



Beef, I don't think you're getting it... I'm not saying that it won't launch when you launch a carbon app or that its not related to a carbon app.  What I'm saying is that if you quit your carbon apps, this little bugger seems to still stay active (sometimes) and that it takes more more processor cycles, etc. than other apps.  So, if you then quit it's process (and let it be so until the next time you run a carbon app) it seems to speed up the performance of OS X 10.1.  Now, I don't claim (and never have) to say that I know this information for a fact, blah blah, just that it SEEMED to work for me (and others).  And I, too, am trying to figure out if and (if so) why/how it works.  I don't really have any more answers than you do, ok?  I just posted the info because I discovered it and thought others might like to try it for themselves.

Nuff said.  

Cheers.


----------



## beef (Oct 10, 2001)

ah.. actually, 2...

first of all, did you actually go to terminal and find out that the carbon app and launchCFMApp have the same process ID?

and question number 2

by default, I think process viewer will UPDATE ONLY EVERY 20 SECS...  If you haven't changed this, then, yea... LaunchCFMApp will stay there till the list is updated... in 20 secs.

CHANGE IT TO 1, then launch a carbon app (and do you realize that the name of the app don't show up...?)

then just QUIT the app.  wait for the list to update.

Is LaunchCFMApp still there?

they all go away here.

If you actually have a LaunchCFMApp that stays active after you quit the app, please let us know.


----------



## ezra (Oct 10, 2001)

> _Originally posted by beef _
> *I don't care who it is...
> 
> if someone can kill LaunchCFMAPP without killing an App you started, please let me know. *



Actually what we killed was LaunchCFM, not LaunchCFMApp. LaunchCFMApp is a carbon framework application. I believe what we killed was some sort of carbon/classic monitor. If most people tried to kill launchCFMApp when they read this thread it would kill Internet Explorer, if that is what you were using to view MacOsX.com. Since I've killed it, LaunchCFM hasn't restarted, I haven't tried a cold boot yet though. I have experienced problems since then with Classic applications and Carbon applications, so it appears it was doing something important. My belief is that it handels passing information back and forth from classic to X such as copy/paste, drag-n-drop, and video. Which is kind of refreshing, but bad for now, because that means that it's only older apps, and support for them that is slowing X down. If you look into you CFM support folder in System/Library/CFM Suport you can see it has lib's for OpenGL, Disk Recording, C, Bridge, and few others. My machines is still running much quicker, and I did confirm this with my bench for Text Edit that was 6 bounces in 10.04, 3 in 10.1 stock, and now 1 since I killed LaunchCFM. The question is will it start back up again?


----------



## beef (Oct 10, 2001)

just ran Classic, Classic Apps (some adobe, macromedia) then some carbon apps.

I'm yet to see LaunchCFM (without Apps) in process viewer.  Is there such a process?

All along I thought GadgetLover meant LaunchCFMApp since I've never seen LaunchCFM.  I went to Macrumors.com (where GadgetLover pointed) and searched for the thread, and the guy who started the thread is talking about LaunchCFMApp.

So now I'm confused again. 

GadgetLover: did you mean LaunchCFMApp or LaunchCFM...

if it's LaunchCFM, how do you get it to run?


----------



## ezra (Oct 10, 2001)

> _Originally posted by beef _
> *just ran Classic, Classic Apps (some adobe, macromedia) then some carbon apps.
> 
> I'm yet to see LaunchCFM (without Apps) in process viewer.  Is there such a process?
> ...



Hmm, I beleive 85% sure that what I quit was the Code Fragment Manager, not a Code Fragment Manager App, but I did do this very fast, and no LaunchCFM has returned after booting, yet their is still obvious speed increases, and problems with carbon, and classic apps that were not their prior. With a little more knowledge on CFM now, it seams that CFM sould speed things up, but theoretically if it's passing more fragments between OS9 and OS 10 with classic and carbon apps, it could slow things down. I'm not sure what just happened, but my machine is definately much faster, and now the stability has returned after rebooting.


----------



## beef (Oct 10, 2001)

I still can't find out how to get LaunchCFM.  It doesn't seem to be running at startup, not when carbon apps run, and not when classic's running... and not when cocoa apps are running either.

And since I haven't killed it, there really isn't a reason why it shouldn't be there...  it's almost like listeting to a UFO story.

...if LaunchCFM is actually out there, I think you're talking about somethin else though.  GadgetLover didn't point out the fact that I don't read well, and the site he mentioned had something about LaunchCFMApp, but not LaunchCFMApp... so my guess is he was actually talking about LaunchCFMApp... but we wouldn't know about this one until he tells us...

"Obvious speed increase"?  I'm interested to know more...  I don't care how you describe it... (like how many bounces to launch what, etc).  Problem with carbon/classic?  since I can't find LaunchCFM, can't really help there, but what kinda problems anyway?  I think you should ask others who killed LaunchCFM (assuming they weren't killing LaunchCFM) to see if they have similar problems.  I managed to turn classic to crap in 10.0.4 without doing much, so I'm not sure if this is a direct result of killing LaunchCFM.  Now I have 2 OS9, so I'll have OS9 to go back to even if I turn classic to crap again.
One thing I noticed is that when my network goes crap (cable... during the peak hour, their server is just shitty), the system seems to slow down.  I'm not looking at the cable modem all the time, but when I feel something slowed down and look at the modem, the light's usually off.  And modifying Netinfo database, and restarting netinfo with mistake in it, will result in... long wait.

So there're things that can slow down the system... and naturally, when the cable modem's light's on again, the system's speed goes back to normal...

so if you're making modifications to improve the performance...  I think you shouldn't be doing anything else...  and maybe go offline, too...

haha, I can finally get the hell out.  so I'm done annoying you all


----------



## PoweMACuser (Oct 11, 2001)

If it work, I would rather to remove it from startup. Launch CFM is stupid process. But I think some programme will not run if launch CFM is not load.

I don't like other programme lik IE to launch without any process name. It just give us another Launch CFM. Don't know why.


----------



## karavite (Oct 15, 2001)

Please don't flame me for contributing an unverifiable rumor, but this is what I heard, and I am passing it along for what it is worth. 

My friend's cousin is a developer at Apple and told him that OS X is slow mainly because the kernal they built OS X on was chosen primarily because it was the topic of some big shot at Apple's phd thesis. Of course, development was not happy with the choice and made numerous solid arguments against it, but this wouldn't be the first time a top executive caused havoc by sticking to a bad ego-based decision. He went on to tell me that 10.1 involved a major rewrite of the kernal and this is where the root of the performance problems come from.

I'm no developer, but from a managerial perspective this makes a lot of sense to me.


----------



## djohnson (Oct 15, 2001)

On th RAM question with OS X, Apple recommends 128 Meg, which is probably conservative; so anything over 128 should run well. I know that Classic doesn't take a gig of ram for itself. I have a gig in my machine and I have been booted in X and have run Photoshop in Classic with a 200 meg app size as well as having other apps open in both Classic and X without problems.

Some (all) the suggestions mentioned should help with slow situation. My windows resize rapidly. I haven't noticed any slow downs.

I have a son who will break almost any machine or application if he can and he hasn't had any problems on a G3400 with 768 megs.


----------



## bossa nova (Mar 31, 2002)

Hey gang everyone keeps talking about clean installs. Are we still doing that routine with OS X.1? I thought we were done with that?

And as long as i am asking questions...Does the 10.1 disk actually give you the option of doing a clean install? AND...if so does it leave all the nifty stuff you have installed or wipe all the stuff off?

I installed on a separate hard disk thinking I would fool around with it and try some different things (like re-installing) and got so involved in how cool it was that I never did any of the tech stuff. Now I have built up a significant number of programs and such that I don't want to go back to square one.

I am not seeing the slowness either. But then again I am lucky enough to be using an 867 Mhz/256MB ram. Wish I had more ram though.

So anyway what about those clean installs...Anyone?

Thanks in advance ...jon


----------



## djohnson (Apr 27, 2002)

I guess speed is relative. I was doing some housekeeping in OS 9 earlier this week and while the finder and web browser did seem a little faster, I soon went back to OS X.

I have had few problems with X. The biggest problem I have had has been with permissions set by the OS to keep we UNIX newbies from trashing our machines. I do think Apple does need to modify the permissions scheme in future releases.

Guess my point is that I am happy with the speed of the OS. I also run it as the primary system on my Powerbook G4/500.


----------



## billbaloney (Apr 28, 2002)

Interesting...what permissions limitations do you find frustrating?  Are you referring to all the operations that require an administrator password?


----------



## ieldib (Apr 28, 2002)

i like the permissions set by the os , keeps things nice and secure , as far as speed goes , ive found os 10.1 very very nice , its fast and rock solid   , its unix based ,  what more can  i ask of a OS i honestly do not know , i love the development tools  , i just love everything about this OS


----------



## djohnson (Apr 28, 2002)

Emptying trash of system items. I had a back-up on an external drive and I could not delete the old data. The drive is also formatted with a bastard driver and the Apple Drive formatter will not recognize it as a drive (firewire).

I had another problem with permissions trying to install Stuffit Deluxe. Someone else on this forum helped me with that.

I finally resolved the trash on the Firewire drive by going into OS 9 and deleting everything. I need to back up again but just haven't done so.


----------



## billbaloney (Apr 28, 2002)

Hmm, yes, I've run into problems deleting trashed items like that.  It's a pain.  There were some instances where files were locked from OS 9 and there was absolutely no way to delete them in X.

I wouldn't call these problems with OS X's permissions scheme, however.  These situations are just bugs in the OS, and fall out of any premeditated scheme.  Almost every aspect of X's permissions scheme is consistent with that of other *nix-based systems.  I'm glad, for instance, that Apple decided to use the sudo scheme for install permissions and for distinguishing normal-level users from administrative-level users (i.e., users on the sudoers list).  That made me happy.

The main areas where I see permissions getting really messy in X are (1) in that case I described above with OS 9-locked items, and (2) Apple file sharing "share points" (ugh) in OS X Server.  That stuff drives me bonkers.  I've seen some really buggy behavior in Server when, for instance, you mount a new drive and make it available to a group that has a particular kind of access to other AFP-side share spaces.  Drives will start showing up all over the place.

But these are bugs, not schemes.  The scheme is sound; the bugs are bugs.


----------



## J5 (Jul 8, 2002)

Reading through this post, I'm wondering one thing:

How does one do a clean install of 10.1.5, if the cd you purchased is 10.0.x? I've installed since the 10.1.5 update, and ran through the software update stuff to do all the updates. But how would I do a clean install of 10.1.5, would I have to go buy another copy of OS X?? 

By clean install, are you all referring to a 10.1.5 cd, or merely whiping the drive, installing 10.0 and then installing the updates?

Just wanted to clear that  up for my own benefit, and hopefully the benefit of anyone else who reads this thread!

J5


----------



## mindbend (Jul 8, 2002)

Search for BATCHMOD at versiontracker.com. It's a nice app that will reset permissions and unlock files for trash deletion. It's still a silly way to do it, but it works a lot easier than other solutions unless you're really familiar with the terminal.


----------



## jmr6809 (Jul 8, 2002)

I am currently running OSX on three machines.  I have an iMac DV 400 and an iMac Blueberry 500, each with 256 MB RAM.  I also have a Dual G4 533 DA with 1.25 GB RAM.  OSX runs quite well on all three machines.

The are only two situations in which I have any performance issues at all with any of these machines running OSX.

I use IB for testing different interface designs while building Cocoa apps.  Sometimes, as I sit with a client reviewing and trying different live interface arrangements on an app, I will duplicate a given window or panel and its children many, many times.  This can generate some very large .NIB files.  IB will "pause" for just under one second on my iMac DV 400 when saving .NIB files with more than 250 windows and their contents, and also when opening a given window from within the .NIB file.  I have solved this by moving common "groups" of components in the windows into custom views and creating palettes containing these groups.  I then populate the windows and panels with instances of the common views.  This gives me a great performance improvement while testing interfaces.  I have also found that if I create multiple nib files, one for each primary window and its related panels, all tied together using a project and each sharing the palette of common views, I again experience a speed increase.  This is an obvious "best practices" design process anyway, but I have found it very helpful.  Please note, my compiled applications which access these large nib files do not have any performance problems.  I have had no performance issues with these large .NIB files on my other macs.

The second performance problem I have is related directly to Internet Explorer.  I frequently open thirty or more browser windows at a time, and if there is a runtime error in one of the browser windows, all of the IE windows stop responding for a while, sometimes resulting in a crash in the application.

Neither of these issues ever impact the performance of other applications on the machine.


----------



## evildan (Jul 8, 2002)

[moderator's note]

Sorry mindbend, I had to move your thread.

It belongs in the "Opinions" forum not the "Mac OSX System and Software" Forum.

I realize this is a close one, but the distinction lies in the fact that your not looking for technical support, rather you're seeking opinion of others.

On a side note, I agree with you 100%. OSx is slow. I run a dual G4 533Mhz and this machine has never run slower since I put OSx on it. Connecting to the Web server at work used to be a simple process, now it takes at least twice as long.

I've found a few work-arounds that keep my happy, but I am expecting a lot out of Jaguar.

To me, it's the cost of working in the OS. And you're right we have taken a step backwords in speed, but the other advancements more then make up for it im my book.


----------

