# Mac faster than PC?



## robmcq (Jul 30, 2003)

On other dicussion board we had an argue about Mac is faster than PC or PC is faster than Mac.

I think that Mac is faster than PC. But what's makes Mac faster than PC?

I mean the numbers of MHz may appears that Mac is slower than PC.
I think this is just other stupid myth.

So I would like to ask you, what makes Mac faster than PC?


----------



## Randman (Jul 30, 2003)

Some Macs are faster than some PCs, some PCs are faster than some Macs. 
  The argument shouldn't be about speed, because a half second here and there aren't going to matter one way or another. The argument should be about wich is better, which is stronger, which is more flexible and which is more stable. 
   The speed argument is silly. Maybe it mattered at one time, but that time has passed.


----------



## robmcq (Jul 30, 2003)

...Yeah. I got it from PCtoMac.com

Here's a link I read:

http://www.pctomac.com/why/myths.php

If you don't want to read all of it or just want to know where I got it, I copy and pasted from there:

Myth: Macs are too slow.
 Fact: Number-for-number Megahertz-wise, a Macintosh's processor may appear "slower," but in many cases this is simply not true. Megahertz is only one processor measure, and does not always accurately portray the overall "speed" of a processor. The PowerPC processors Apple users are generally more efficient than their Intel or AMD counterparts, allowing them to hold their own for most tasks. Also, it's important to note that many Windows programs install extra "background" and system-tray applications which are usually invisible to the user, but always running. This, and things like fragmentation and "registry" corruption tend to slow your PC down as time goes on, giving you the false illusion that your computer has become too outdated and requires an upgrade. Apple has made Mac OS X very efficient so unnecessary background applications are not very common, and so your machine doesn't slow down as time goes on and you install more applications.

Yes, it's silly, after this topic in other discussion board, I realized that it is silly.


----------



## Randman (Jul 30, 2003)

I think speed has become more of a marketing term for computer these days rather than a benchmark of performance. It's the new "extra-strength".
   Computers are used for so many different reasons and ways these days, it seems that "speed" is lobbed as the only way to tell one from the other. And stability isn't as sexy as speed.
  The G5s are going to be great computers, but truth be told, I spent some time a few weekends ago on my old graphite iBook (366 mhz, 6-gig hard drive, extra ram, AirPort card) and it did most of the things I wanted to do just fine (and that included using Photoshop and QuarkXpress at the same time.


----------



## Jason (Aug 4, 2003)

a new pentium 4 3.0 will run circles around the fastest g4 plain and simple...

this all changes once the g5 comes out though

point is, apple has been behind on hardware speeds/power for the last couple years IMHO


----------



## Randman (Aug 4, 2003)

> point is, apple has been behind on hardware speeds/power for the last couple years


 Yeah, but look at what Apple has been ahead of over those same few years: iLife? iTunes? ITunes Music Store? Final Cut? iPod? Jaguar? Panther? Safari?
  Numbers are just a marketing ploy because you can cook any number to show whatever you want.
  But what do most people want? I'd say E-mail, Internet access, music, gaming, photo and video, watching dvds, text, simplicity of use, reliability. Other than gaming, you could argue that Apple is the leader or near the top of every other category.
  And don't forget things such as iSync and how big a jump Apple has made recently in increasing and simplifying connectivity with mobile devices such as pdas and smartphones. 
  You're always going to have some Macs faster than PCs, some PCs faster than Macs.


----------



## Jason (Aug 4, 2003)

i didnt say anything about software, i was talking pure hardware here (this is where most mac users get offended and start up with the app excuse )

all im saying is that the hardware (currently) is behind, thats all. now software? alot of it is nicer/more intuitive and thus increases the users speed... but wouldnt it be even nicer with equal or better hardware than the competition? 

(buys g5.... NO!... but i want it, please?... NO JASON YOU CANNOT.. but i can, see i have money... NO, IF YOU DO YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO EAT OR GO TO SCHOOL... hmmm might be worth it though....)


----------



## Arden (Aug 5, 2003)

Ok, exactly which hardware on the Mac is inferior to the same on a PC?

Another point is value.  PC's may cost less to begin with, but they have far fewer features than even the tomorrow-morning-dregs Mac.  Macs simply have a higher initial value, and they keep their value as they age.  I am typing this on a 233 Mhz G3 that I could probably sell for at least $300.  My friend's 300 Mhz P3 would probably go for $100-150.


----------



## chevy (Aug 5, 2003)

What do you mean by speed ?

If this is the time you need to write a complete and complex report on a PC or on a Mac... try and see !

If this is the fps in Quake, is this the reason why you bought a computer ? The look at a PS2 or Xbox, it's cheaper and better suited for most games.

Is it the time needed to process an image or a movie, try and see...


----------



## robmcq (Aug 5, 2003)

I have PlayStation 2 games and Mac games.

The reason I want Mac games instead of PC, because I hate Windows. To me, it is not "Plug-and-play", it is "Plug-and-get mad" or "Plug-and-Pray".

I am not really computer gaming fan. I am really video game fan.

But sometime only computer have games, PlayStation 2 does not. Like Maesty, or Diablo.

Yes, PS 2 can play PS 1 games and PS 1 have Diablo, but when I bought computer version and on that time, I never heard of PS version of Diablo.

I am not going to waste money.


----------



## contoursvt (Aug 8, 2003)

How come everyone always twists things around when it comes to hardware. Ok for the past few years Apple computers have been slower than PCs due to lower overall processor power (dont talk to me about per Mhz). Lower memory bandwidth etc.

Power IS important and all of you who say its not will be changing your tune and claiming how important speed is when the G5 comes around. You say its not right now because the hardware is behind thats all. Nobody likes to admit it but its true.

I have a G3 B&W at home as well as two PCs. At work we have multiple dual G4s and many PCs as well. The PCs are faster overall by quite a good margin. I'm not talking about user productivity faster. I dont care if it takes the same time to type a word document on both and I'm not just talking about games being faster either. 

Photoshop runs faster on the 2.4Ghz P4 (533 bus) than the Dual 1Ghz machine. Maybe the odd filter will be faster on the mac but overall, most filters run faster in photoshop 7 with the P4. Compressing huge files as in stuffit / winzip is faster on the PC. Internet surfing in general. Heavy flash pages run smoother on PC....

The point is that everyone gets all upset if someone says a PC is faster which is the truth right now but you'll quickly change your tune 180 degree in a month or so. I even recall pre-osx days when I would tell mac users how multitasking was such a great thing and they would tell me that its not that useful and that all you need is to run the app you're using one at a time and who wants to run more than one thing at a time anyway. Now that OSX is here you talk like you invented multitasking  

Anyway thats my rant for now.


PS. Believe it or not I'm in a good mood right now because I just got the UW SCSI controller working right on my B&W G3. Putting in a 9.1 gig 10K SCSI drive to make it move a bit


----------



## Arden (Aug 9, 2003)

Why do you come along and burst our bubble? 

You're right, in some respects PC's are faster than Macs.  But Macs have the advantage of being much more stable and user friendly.  At work, which computers do you prefer to use?  Which do you have to troubleshoot more because of hardware or software failures?


----------



## Lycander (Aug 9, 2003)

Um... just by looking at this forum I see that Macs have just as many issues (dare I say problems?) as PCs. From hardware to software failures. In reality, they're all still machines and machines have problems every now and then.

OSX is more stable than OS9, just like how Windows 2000 and XP are more stable than Win 95/98. When Win2000 first came out it had poor hardware support and was a lousy OS for playing games on. Same deal with OSX - some hardware still don't have drivers, and I hear people saying they boot into OS9 to play game XYZ and it performs better.


----------



## contoursvt (Aug 9, 2003)

Sorry. Didnt mean to burst any bubbles. I'm not sure if I can say that Macs are more stable.  I'm up for debate on that too. User friendly... well maybe OS9 but I dont think OSX is user friendly at all. In fact I think Win2k / XP is more friendly.

Now for my work place... my workstation is an AMD XP2500 system with an older Geforce2 GTS video card. It does have the advantage of having an 18gig 10K SCSI drive as a startup drive so I'm sure it makes a difference for how it feels too but overall I enjoy using it and win2k more.

The rest of the office has lots of macs. The dual processor macs in the office run OSX and our older singles run OS 9.2. All the PCs run Win2k Pro except for 2 which are running XP. In order of things I have to fix or troubleshoot...it goes like this from most trouble to least trouble. 

OS9.2 --> OSX -->WinXP -->Win2k. 


I'm being honest too. The network is about 50% mac and 50% PC. The majority of OS9 problems seem to be print issues and general instability and bombs...type2 's etc.  Frequent dumping of preferences and rebuilding desktops, zapping prams.

The majority of OSX problems just seem to be buggy programs and quiry things the OS seems to do. There are also some file permission issues that seem to get strange. 

Majority of WinXP issues seem to be quirky network issues. Slow downs for no reason etc. 

Majority of win2k issues seem to be ... well I cant tell you what it is. It behaves well. Users are the problem. 

BTW I'm the network admin at my company. We do have a systems guy just for the macs and he's getting tired of fixing things. They hired me because we started getting more PCs in the office. We also needed to deploy some inhouse webservers and an Exchange and SQL box. 

At home my main machine is a P4 2.4B with 1gig ram, 15,000RPM SCSI drive for boot and two 10K drives for storage.  Second machine is an Athlon XP 2100 system.  I also have the G3 which I play around with.  



Anyway I'm glad to see the G5 get some heavy power so dont get me wrong. I'm not anti mac. Just stating what I felt was true. All I want is better support of some legacy SCSI controllers under OSX but I dont think thats going to happen. Many feel SCSI is dying but trust me its not. As fast as firewire is, its nowhere the speed of 10K and 15K SCSI for high end workstation tasks.


----------



## fryke (Aug 9, 2003)

me work faster in mac than in win. me choose mac. end of argument? no.

Then a simpler truth: Buy a PC and it's old next week. Buy a Mac and it's 'old' in half a year. But, and this is really important: Macs have a longer lifespan.


----------



## MikeXpop (Aug 9, 2003)

> _Originally posted by contoursvt _
> *Power IS important and all of you who say its not will be changing your tune and claiming how important speed is when the G5 comes around. You say its not right now because the hardware is behind thats all. Nobody likes to admit it but its true.
> 
> I have a G3 B&W at home as well as two PCs. At work we have multiple dual G4s and many PCs as well. The PCs are faster overall by quite a good margin. I'm not talking about user productivity faster. I dont care if it takes the same time to type a word document on both and I'm not just talking about games being faster either.
> ...



First I would like to take a disclaimer that I edit digital video on a 600mhz G3. Not the occasional iMovie, but school projects shot in DV with Final Cut Express. So I'm fully aware of how important speed is.

Contour, I do agree with most of what you said. Speed does matter. If it didn't, we wouldn't see the push for speed processor manufacturers were making. In truth, I don't think a mac will be as fast as a PC in the near future like you said. However, speed is not as important as the issue that Computer A is an Apple and Computer B is a Dell (or what have you). You sound as though you're comfortable on Win2k, winxp, os 9 and os X. Well that's great. Because there aren't that many of you. When a company is buying computers, there's a lot more to consider than pure speed. I sincerely doubt the G5 would sell more than, say, a couple hundred units because it was the fastest computer (if it was). I do think however, it will sell many more units because it's the fastest Apple.


----------



## contoursvt (Aug 9, 2003)

Hey Fryke,

I disagree with your statement. Pentium 200 vs PowerPC 200Mhz. They both came out around the same time right? Yes they did. I just installed Windows XP on a Pentium 200 with 128mb RAM, 4 gig drive for a friend. Its not idea but runs and gets the job done. She can use her office 97 that she had purchased as well as her photoshop 5.0

Try the above with the 200Mhz PPC. First of all you wont be installing OSX on it because its not going to happen. I dont even think OSX will install unless it sees a G3 cpu. Second, if you even could install OSX, it would absolutely crawl at 128mb RAM on a 200Mhz machine. Thats the OS itself. Then if you had to use classic to startup your previously bought software like Photoshop 5 and office98, it would just die.

Looking at this, I'd say that the PPC 200Mhz is the one thats outdated and has the shorter lifespan. Wonder when 10.3 comes out if apple will drop all support for the Beige G3 systems. I think they will...  Looks like thats going to get outdated faster than a Pentium II 266 as well

The only issue with being outdated in the PC world is if you want to keep up to your neighbor. If you dont and just want to use the computer, then what is shortening its life span?


----------



## contoursvt (Aug 9, 2003)

Mike, I agree with your statment. I dont think Apples G5 sales will soar just because its the fastest computer (when it comes out) but yes it surely will because its the fastest MAC. 

Its also one very sexy machine! I know some may not like the way it looks but I love it


----------



## Scott_Bernard (Aug 10, 2003)

In my opinion, Mac is a feeling... isn't just a computer...
PC are faster, yes, but windows suks!!!
I was PC user for years... then I bought a mac and my idea of what a computer is changed forever...
Forget OSX, that in my opinion is what whindows should be... let's talk about OS 9...  just switching between photoshop and illustrator with no delay, and drag and drop between them is wonderfull...
Forget pc's... think different...


----------



## Arden (Aug 10, 2003)

Don't you love how the menu bar stays at the top of the screen, no matter what you're doing, on a Mac, instead of being tied to each application?  Or how programs don't hide your entire desktop if you have no windows open?  Or Exposé?


----------



## Lycander (Aug 10, 2003)

arden,

Hide your entire desktop if you have no windows open? Just minimize the main window to the task bar.

Personally I dislike how most all windows in OSX are seperate floating windows. I'll admit I'm clumsy and often click outside the window by accident and lose focus on the current app. 

Expose isn't even out yet.


----------



## robmcq (Aug 10, 2003)

Lycander, Arden meant that in Windows there is Parent buttons (outside of window) and Child buttons (inside of window. 

In Word, if you close child button, you'll see gray background.

Mac don't have parent or child buttons. So when you close Word window, but the program running at full screen, you can see the desktop.

I like the Mac's way of doing that.


----------



## Arden (Aug 10, 2003)

Right.  I really don't see the use of having a big gray nothingness whenever I close all the windows of an application.  On Mac, I close all the windows and I can click on the desktop to do something else.  On PC, I close all the windows and I have to minimize the application to get to anything else.

I like how quickly IE starts up on Windows (since it's kind of a part of the OS), but I don't like how each browser window is basically a separate application.


----------



## contoursvt (Aug 10, 2003)

Actually I myself cant stand that when you close an application window, that you can see the dekstop because it looks like the application is closed at a glance when it really is open.  This is more of an issue if someone else is also using the computer. Also the taskbar in windows works better than what OS9 has for showing you whats running at a glance...instead of going to the finder to get the list. 

As for IE. I think its kind of good that each is a separate task. If lets say you go to a site that keeps issuing popup windows, you can just kill the process for that website without having to kill IE for all the other open pages.

I dont know I guess its what ever people are familiar with.


----------



## Arden (Aug 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by contoursvt _
> *Also the taskbar in windows works better than what OS9 has for showing you whats running at a glance...instead of going to the finder to get the list.*


Yeah, but OS 9 is slowly fading into the background.  Besides, you don't need to switch to the Finder to access the Applications Menu.  I wish OS X had an equivalent menu because I'm so used to it.

I actually like not having some thing spanning the length of my screen sitting at the bottom of the page.  Even if they're hidden, the Dock and the Taskbar still pop up when you move the cursor to the bottom of the screen.  It's nice having the extra screen space.


----------



## Scott_Bernard (Aug 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by robmcq _
> *
> 
> In Word, if you close child button, you'll see gray background.
> ...




Robmcq is right!!! I hate that gray background!!!


----------



## Lycander (Aug 10, 2003)

Ok in Word it might be annoying but lets look at another example: Photoshop. In Windows there's that ugly grey background you guys seem to dislike. I find it helpful because it makes me feel like my workspace is all encompassed in this one app. I am not distracted by whatever else I have going on in the background nor do I get distracted by my desktop bg image. Sure, I can resize the document I'm working on to fill the screen. But then when I use COMMAND +/- to zoom, it auto resizes the window. This does not happen in the Windows version of Photoshop.

I apologize if I led this conversation astray. Obviously different people like things done differently. Someone once explained to me that drag and drop is a big conveinence feature in MacOS, hence seperate windows for everything, and that I can agree on, except I dislike drag and drop


----------



## Arden (Aug 10, 2003)

Well, you can enable or disable automatic window resizing in Photoshop's preferences, if it gets to you.  Or use the magnifier tool.  Or the navigation palette.

How do you dislike drag and drop?  You can save a JPEG in Photoshop, then drop it on your Explorerexcuse me, Safariicon and it will open right up.  You don't need to open up the browser, then use the Open command or drag the icon into the browser window, if you don't want to.  I'm not sure how "separate windows" relates to drag and drop, though.  Explain?


----------



## Lycander (Aug 11, 2003)

"Seperate windows" relates to drag and drop in the sense that content is in a seperate container and this allows the user to see the desktop or other windows (even from other apps) below this container and be able to drag and drop to and from windows even for different running apps. I dislike drag and drop because I dislike using the mouse. Obviously I have to use the mouse once in a while but at least in other OSes I have the option to do all UI navigation via keyboard.

A few years ago, I had a computer desk with a metal rim around the edge. When I went to sit down and grab the mouse, my elbow touched the metal rim and I discharged static onto the mouse. The mouse became very hot and when Windows finished booting my mouse no longer worked. So I went a whole day using keyboard only. Was able to do every I needed to do, email, surf the web, etc.


----------



## Arden (Aug 11, 2003)

Cmd-Tab to switch programs...
Cmd-Tilde to switch windows...
Arrows to go to different icons...
Cmd-Left to disclose triangles, Cmd-Rt to close them...
Cmd-O to open, Cmd-W to close, Cmd-Q to quit...
12-15 programmable function keys for executing common functions...
Cmd-F to search...
Cmd-I for Info, Cmd-Opt-I for Inspector, to change settings...

I'd say the Mac is very navigable via keyboard, though some menu commands don't have shortcuts.

If you dislike using mice, maybe you should get a trackball.


----------



## Lycander (Aug 12, 2003)

Actually I did get a track ball but that's not what I meant. What I mean is, the act of having to move a cursor and click in a particular area. With keyboard navigation there's no need for any precision.

And some of those keyboard shortcuts you listed are inconsistent in some apps. For example: sometimes COMMAND + arrow key will be the equivalent of Home and End, other times I have to use the Fn key on my iBook, on a full size Apple keyboard same deal. It gets difficult when I want to select an entire line of text, on the iBook sometimes COMMAND + right arrow will select the whole line, sometimes I have to use Fn+Right arrow to activate the End key. There are other little nuisances like that. But I just installed YellowDogLinux on my iBook so that should do me good for a while


----------



## Arden (Aug 12, 2003)

Or, you could get a touchscreen... for your iBook... um, a portable one.....

Never mind.


----------



## Lycander (Aug 12, 2003)

You know what it is? I'm a damned picky person and a big whiner (thank god I spelled that right ). I whine a lot in these forums, hope you all realize I'm not doing it to pick on the Mac.


----------



## hulkaros (Aug 12, 2003)

PCs are faster than Macs in about everything...


----------



## Arden (Aug 12, 2003)

Well go to Herve's, and you can have some wine with your whine.


----------



## Lycander (Aug 12, 2003)

I prefer sparkling Apple cider


----------



## hulkaros (Aug 13, 2003)

At least you prefer something Apple based...


----------



## Lycander (Aug 13, 2003)

I like a lot of Apple based things:

- Christina *Apple*gate
- Apple pie
- Apple cider
- Apple scented shampoo
- Candy apple
- Apple sauce
- Dried apples

Oh you mean the company

- Apple notebooks are the best in their class even if they're not the fastest.

- iTunes music store. They have stuff I couldn't find on other similar services.

- Apple Pro speakers, lotsa power in something that small!

- iPod, I love it to death and it doubles as a portable hard drive.

Would love to see titanium wrist watches with the Apple style!!!


----------



## Arden (Aug 13, 2003)

But Apple notebooks often are the fastest.  No dispute on the quality, though.  Naturally.


----------



## contoursvt (Aug 15, 2003)

Of course apple laptops are the fastest. I'm sure that a 3.0Ghz P4 laptop with a 533Mhz bus and integrated Radeon 9000 is just too slow to compete. Ya that must be it or did we not think a 3Ghz laptop existed?

Oh wait, Mhz myth right.... clock for clock its considerably slower. Too bad its 3x the clockspeed so it more than makes up for its inefficient design


----------



## Lycander (Aug 15, 2003)

The Pentium M (Centrino) at 1.6 GHz actually smokes 2+ GHz P4s and even Athlon XPs. There was an article on The Register and/or The Inquirer that points to a news group thread in which people posted times for SETI work units. Indeed, the Pentium M beated all the desktop CPUs (most impressive is it beat an Athlon XP 3000+) and SETI is very FPU/memory bus intensive.

But why is it so powerful? 1 MB on-die L2 cache


----------



## contoursvt (Aug 15, 2003)

I dont know. I saw some test of the Centrino vs faster P4's and yes it was very impressive but I dont recall it being as fast as the 2.8 and 3ghz P4's but non the less very very impressive. I think that Intel is using the Laptops as a testbed before ramping up the speed maybe on a slightly altered desktop version? Just my speculation of course.


----------



## hulkaros (Aug 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by contoursvt _
> *Of course apple laptops are the fastest. I'm sure that a 3.0Ghz P4 laptop with a 533Mhz bus and integrated Radeon 9000 is just too slow to compete. Ya that must be it or did we not think a 3Ghz laptop existed?
> 
> Oh wait, Mhz myth right.... clock for clock its considerably slower. Too bad its 3x the clockspeed so it more than makes up for its inefficient design  *



You surely are confused if you think that such a computer is actually portable/laptop... Of course it is in the looks area... But what about battery? Can it last for more than 2 hours with that mighty 3GHz performance?  Or even 1&1/2 hours? 

My bet on the Wintel/Amd side would be Centrino or Athlon...

Then again my TiBook 1GHz/DVD-R is fast enough and lasts long enough too!


----------



## Arden (Aug 16, 2003)

G5 laptops will smoke.

Hopefully not literally.


----------



## contoursvt (Aug 16, 2003)

Last time I checked, a laptop had a power supply so when the battery icon looks a little low, I wouldnt have much trouble reaching over and plugging it in. Also while it may not last much over 2 hours under heavy use, what do you expect for 2x the performance?

If I judge a laptop on battery life alone, then I'll go for a Transmeta based one. Sure it will crawl but damn I can get almost 10 hours on some brands. (Fujitsu with its extended battery).


----------



## Lycander (Aug 16, 2003)

Intel won't turn Pentium M into a desktop CPU, that would mean they are admitting that their were wrong about the P4 core, because Pentium M is just a P3 core with the larger cache and SSE2. What would make sense is Intel putting Pentium M in blade servers. I think it was Sun who was planning on using mobile Athlon chips in their blades.


----------



## 033 (Aug 19, 2003)

I'm a 11 year PC user.. and 8 month mac user... 

Mac navigateable by keyboard? NO... You can't hit Y or N for yes, no prompts, or tab between choices. Yes there's full keyboard access, but it's not the same as dropping menus quick in Windows. I believe Apple's reason is to simplify the OS for idiots. Because Advanced users are only a small portion. Windows is FULLY keyboard navigatable.

Speed isn't an issue? Mac OS X UI is SLOW... Even on my top of the line Powerbook it's still not snappily responsive as my P4 1.8Ghz running Windows XP. Usually a slow UI has to do w/ not having enough ram.. but both machines have 512mb. 

It all depends on what choices you want your UI to have. I like my powerbook because of the design considerations. The fact that I have UNIX apps at my fingertips. The battery life sucks ass though. It's practically unusable. (2 1/2 hours?... dwindles when you do anything intensive). I'm use to it because I use to have a decked out Inspiron 8000 (1600x1200 15" screen p3 800 cdr, dvd, 512 30gig) that was pretty bad. Much heavier though.

The TWO biggest reasons Mac OS X rules is Adium X and Safari. Being the primary applications I use, they are by superior than anything on both systems because of their tabbing and keyboard navigation. Plus with Mac I don't have to see 15 flashes AIM windows at the bottom of my screen. (Do you know how annoying that is?)

IPhoto, Address Book, Ical, Itunes, etc are also great. Mail.app pisses me off so much though. Outlook Express is better.

Anyways, there's pluses and minus on both sides.

The best site i've ever seen to compare Windows XP and Mac OS X is http://www.xvsxp.com

It even has a animated gif with the speed of the scrollbar (way slower on Mac OS X). What a great site.

I think Apple's current direction is a software developer. Font Book looks so much easier and simpler to use than anything I've seen. I believe they're moving in the direction of Microsoft.


----------



## Scott_Bernard (Aug 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by 033 _
> *I believe they're moving in the direction of Microsoft. *



PLEASE APPLE DON'T DO THAT!!!!


----------



## Arden (Aug 19, 2003)

Some of Apple's policies and OS changes seem microscopically soft (shorten it and you'll understand ).  And rightfully so:  at times, Microsoft does get something right.  But much more frequently, Apple innovates a wonderful product that has lasting repercussions throughout the computer industry, sending imitators scrambling to, well, imitate.

A 1600x1200 pixel resolution on a 15" screen?  Was that at all hard to read?

I believe Apple has addressed a number of the speed issues with Panther.  Upgrading may make you happier.


----------



## Lycander (Aug 19, 2003)

You know, I've never had a game developed by Microsoft crash. I'm talking Motocross Madness, Age of Empires series, etc. Perhaps their game development team should switch places with their Windows development team.

Hey arden do you work for Apple? I always hear you telling people to wait and buy Panther, or Buy a G5, and such 

Regarding UI speed and smoothness, I've bitched about OSX UI ever since 10.1 to 10.2.6. The UI in Windows XP is faster sure, but OSX is "clean". By that I mean when under heavy load, you can actually see windows and widgets being redrawn in WinXP. Also when under high load and trying to move windows you might see trails it leaves behind when in the middle of drawing. That garbage never happens in OSX's UI. It's nice and clean.... but just too slow.


----------



## 033 (Aug 19, 2003)

mmm AOE...   one of my favorite games



> A 1600x1200 pixel resolution on a 15" screen?  Was that at all hard to read?



Nope... it was very nice.. it's IBM's UXGA screen... Dell still ships it. I have good eye sight.. it might be worse for someone else. Gave me a LOT of room on the desktop


----------



## Arden (Aug 19, 2003)

Lycander, I wish I worked for Apple.  Those are merely suggestions of how to get more performance if one is willing to pay the price for it.

There are certainly things you can do to speed up OS X's UI, though better hardware is usually the best.  You can enable window buffering, use a theme besides Aqua, disable clock cycle-consuming tasks, disable certain effects, um, overclock your computer... but these usually take more technical know-how than the average user possesses.


----------



## Lycander (Aug 20, 2003)

Except for overclocking, I've already done everything you suggested and I posted a screenshot in that "yet another desktop" thread.

I finally accepted the fact that the OSX UI is slow, but like I said, it's very clean which compensates.


----------



## contoursvt (Aug 20, 2003)

I believe that under XP or 2000, the slowdown in the UI is due to lack of RAM and hard drive swapping. As long as you're not swapping, there is no reason for the UI to be slow.

Also, the number one thing that makes any system feel slow is the hard disk. So if you're going to end up swapping to a hard drive, you'd better make it a 10 to 15K SCSI drive. 

Also, the user interface in OSX (10.2) is noticably slower than XP. I'm talking 3-4x slower. That may or may not bother some but I personally like a responsive system which is why I went all SCSI. I like immediate feedback without delay so for someone like me, OSX will be a little annoying at times. It does look better but I'm not willing to go that much slower for a pretty face.

Also stability of Win2k and XP is very good. Just as good as OSX in fact - as long as you're keeping the system in check. Make sure you have antivirus running and make sure you have the latest security update. Once thats done, then the system cannot really be comprimised.


----------



## MDLarson (Aug 20, 2003)

> _Originally posted by contoursvt _
> *Also, the user interface in OSX (10.2) is noticably slower than XP. I'm talking 3-4x slower. That may or may not bother some but I personally like a responsive system which is why I went all SCSI. I like immediate feedback without delay so for someone like me, OSX will be a little annoying at times. It does look better but I'm not willing to go that much slower for a pretty face.*


I'm the same way.  I like the snappy GUI.  To me, that = how fast the computer is.

I recently stuck a Radeon 8500 in my G4 450, and didn't notice any huge improvement gains in this area.  What is the MHz (or GHz) rating for the Mac OS X interface to appear snappy?  Like, at least comparable to Windows or Mac OS 9.


----------



## contoursvt (Aug 20, 2003)

Its funny but I actually disable the 'themes' service so that XP starts to look more like win2k. It speeds up just a tad after that. 

I have used OSX on a 1Ghz G4 with a GF4 MX and it was not bad. I mean slower than a 1Ghz PC but kinda OK to use in terms of GUI speed. I dont know if the Geforce line is better or worse for desktop speed but this computer was fine.  Felt more like a PIII 600 with a 1/2 decent video card running XP. I'm sure the 1Ghz G4 overall is a way faster system but the GUI speed felt the same.

As I said before, the thing I've noticed that speed up the system the most is a really fast hard drive. I'd easily give up my faster CPU for a slower one before losing my 10K and 15K scsi drives.


----------



## hulkaros (Aug 21, 2003)

The iWhining seems to never stop...

Bah! Get over it people and buy new Macs like at least a Dual G4 or even better even a single G5  Then wait a bit for Panther and we will have this discussion again 

It is no secret that in order for OS X to perform better needs optimization... Damn, why no one is complaining with the speed of OS 9 compared to ANY Windows versions? They are actually the same GUI technologies therefore they produce almost the same results in responsiveness, that's why! I want to hear from you iWhiners when LongHorn will be out... Oh, wait! This is at least 1-2 years down the line 

OS X GUI is slow my behind!


----------



## Arden (Aug 21, 2003)

Hulk, are you going to fund these new G4's and G5's?  I sure could use one...

One thing I can't stand in Windows is its mouse tracking.  It's just so inaccurate, it's hard to pinpoint something on the screen.  Every Mac I have ever used has had much better mouse tracking than every Windows machine I have ever used.  I don't know why, either.

I also like how the Mac hides the cursor when you type.


----------



## MDLarson (Aug 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by hulkaros _
> *The iWhining seems to never stop...
> 
> Bah! Get over it people and buy new Macs like at least a Dual G4 or even better even a single G5  Then wait a bit for Panther and we will have this discussion again
> ...


Maybe you could post some *helpful* information, like what I asked for in my original post.  What do *you* think is the minimum Mac for great GUI performance?  Because a 450 MHz G4 Sawtooth with a Radeon 8500 still is sluggish when I'm resizing windows.  And I don't *whine* about it - I acknowledge the problem, however.


----------



## Jason (Aug 21, 2003)

hulk, try to keep with the serious discussion here, less rhetoric please 

im glad to see some open mindedness happening in here, doesnt happen very often in these discussions 

some osx gui tips to help make things a tad snappier and/or get rid of unnecessary graphics effects... although they come with their own minuses, having to install 3rd party software

-change minimize mode to scale, the sucking is just too slow to handle

-get a dock manipulation program, i like to get rid of the transparent block, and the arrows. Also turn off the bouncing icon. I have literally no icons in my dock, until an application is launched and running.

-get launch bar, for fast launching of apps, its a great app, once you get used to it, you will never use anything else (its all keyboard nav )

-windowshade x and fruit menu both have a couple options i like. 

-in fruit menu, i disable all their bull and only disable animated menus... this gives menus a much needed pop, instead of fading into view

-window shade is more of a subjective thing, if you like the old windowshade effect in classic, which i do, because sometimes, minimized or hiding windows are hard to find  also you can disable shadows with either this, or shadow killer, this gets rid of window shadow. (less alpha blending for you old mac users i believe)

- change themes to a theme that has opaque windows and menus, once again, less alpha blending

- maximize ram, plain and simple 

- change swap to another hard drive if possible.

i'm sure there is stuff i forgot. will this make the GUI as snappy as an optimized windows GUI? probably not, but it might help out a bit. if there are any alternatives to the APE apps i suggested, i would love to hear about them.


----------



## hulkaros (Aug 21, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MDLarson _
> *Maybe you could post some helpful information, like what I asked for in my original post.  What do you think is the minimum Mac for great GUI performance?  Because a 450 MHz G4 Sawtooth with a Radeon 8500 still is sluggish when I'm resizing windows.  And I don't whine about it - I acknowledge the problem, however. *



I think we have beaten to death the discussion of why Resizing in OS X is slower compared to other OSes out there... Other than that, SERIOUSLY, can you find something slow? Keep in mind that the resize problem is application depended: Word or Preview.app for example resize FAST! 

For me ANY Mac above G3/400 with >=8MB VRAM running 10.2.6 is fast enough for all OS X GUI stuff... Damn! I can have a transparent DVD Player window playing just fine in a G3/400 iMac while iTunes playing music with NO skipping bits! I dare ANYONE to do the same thing on a Wintel running ANY Windows version even with 1GHz Intel/Athlon CPUs...

What about user switching? Even in WWDC build of Panther a G3/500 iMac smokes a P4/2GHz running XP+SP1 EASILY while using User Switching... 

Basically I prefer quality over speed: Run a high resolution movie in a G3/400 and move the window while the movie plays around... No redraw problems! Repeat the same thing in a Wintel/Amd Windows XP even with 1GHz CPU only to see that the movie cannot keep up with the way the user moves the window around!

Slow OS X GUI? Nah! Only iWhiners!

Basically, in another thread I posted a picture and details of what I did in my hamble 1GHz TiBook: I was running 3 transparent high quality videos, transparent DVD movie, transparent windows like Safari, Mail, etc. and the TiBook GUI was responsive with NO redraw problems whatsoever! Running Jaguar of course... In another thread I posted pics of OS X running all installed apps of my TiBook (85 total) and the TiBook was still functioning just fine with NO redraw problems or the music skipping a bit! (one other Mac fella run more than 100 apps!) 

And the fun part is that with Panther all the above (and not only) will be even faster with more quality in! I don't know about you people, but I prefer the Apple way of doing things in OS X! 

And if one isn't enjoying the OS X GUI he/she should really use OS 9 or switch to the Dark Side where things are Fast As Lighting or so people like to tell around! 

Finally, I will repeat this once more:
"Damn, why no one is complaining with the speed of OS 9 compared to ANY Windows versions? They are actually the same GUI technologies therefore they produce almost the same results in responsiveness, that's why!"


----------



## Arden (Aug 21, 2003)

RAM always helps.  So does processor speed, but that's another matter.

Turn window buffering on, this will add to your performance a little.


----------



## MDLarson (Aug 21, 2003)

Geez, Hulk!  You're making it sound like I am constantly complaining about OS X, which I'm not.  In truth, I *overwhelmingly* prefer it to any flavor of Windows.  So stop calling me an "iWhiner" and stop polarizing the issue.

The specific issue I have in mind is this:
When I resize a window in Windows, like in Internet Explorer, the window contents redraw real-time.  For example, see the "Responsiveness" section on this page.  It has a good illustration about what I'm talking about.

Of course I know that actual productivity does not equal window resizing, but it is easy to feel like Windows is "faster" than Mac OS X.

Anyway, thanks for the tips.  I obviously wasn't in on the other discussions hulkaros alluded to.


----------



## 033 (Aug 21, 2003)

How do I turn window buffering on?


----------



## Arden (Aug 22, 2003)

It's in the Mac Addict October 2002 issue... let me find it...

My mistake, it's in the _April_ 2002 issue.  Sorry.  Anyway...

Duplicate the file *com.apple.windowserver.plist*, found at Library > Preferences, so you have a backup.
Use TextEdit to open the original file you backed up, not the backup.
Enter the following code under the first <dict> tag:

```
<key>BackingCompression</key>
<dict>
  <key>compressionScanTime</key>
  <real>5.000000000000000e+00</real>
  <key>minCompressableSize</key>
  <integer>8193</integer>
  <key>minCompressionRatio</key>
  <real>1.100000023841858e+00</real>
</dict>
```
  Be sure to replace the "  " (2 spaces) with a single tab character, which isn't supported on a forum like this.
Save, log out and in, and you're done.
Another trick is to increase the speed of your bandwidth.  There are two ways to enable this, one temporary and one permanent.

In the Terminal, enter *sudo -s* and your password.
Type (or copy/paste ) the following 3 lines, following each with the return key:
*sysct1 -w net.inet.tcp.recvspace=65536*
*sysct1 -w net.inet.tcp.sendspace=65536*
*sysct1 -w net.inet.tcp.delayed_ack=0*
Log out of root by entering *logout* twice, or press Ctrl-D twice.
To make this permanent, and not restart when your system restarts, enter *sudo pico /etc/rc* and append these 3 lines at the very bottom, above the line "exit 0".


----------

