# OS X 10.1 complaints... STRAIGHT FROM APPLE



## solrac (Sep 27, 2001)

Two big things
*1) Complete version of Internet Explorer was promised*
-- ok, it has a new startup screen that actually doesn't look like complete ass. But, it doesn't even support Java? Lots of java sites (such as java chat sites) don't even load in Explorer, but in the Classic version of Explorer 5, they work fine! (Well, shittier than on a PC. OS 9 Java was always shittier.) Mac OS X Java is supposed to be as good or better than PC, but it doesn't even load in OS X Explorer???

Also, The new explorer crashes a lot.

*2) Applications launch in 1 bounce (or 2) was promised*
-- Granted, the big apps such as Freehand, Illustrator, even Explorer, should take longer... but

System Prefs takes 5 bounces! Text Edit takes 4! Explorer takes 6! (Funny though, when explorer crashes (see above) and you open it again, it only takes 2 bounces, which is AWESOME....

Finder relaunch does rock though... (1 or 2 bounces)

-solrac-


----------



## solrac (Sep 27, 2001)

I'm watching the 90 minute seybold Mac OS X 10.1 keynote streaming from Apple's web site... and this guy is demonstrating os 10.1....

and ALL HIS APPS LAUNCH IN ONE BOUNCE!!! Text Edit, Quicktime, Explorer, Everything!!! One Bounce!!!!!!!!!

His window resizing and menus are lightning fast!!!!!!!

The 5G64 I downloaded is not this fast!!!!!! My OS X is faster, sure, but not nearly as fast as this demo!!!!!!!

What's up?? Help, please! Any similar results???????????

-solrac-


----------



## Zarembo (Sep 27, 2001)

Are you using a dual processor G4? I'd think that Apple would be showing us their top of the line machine and how it works with the new OS. 

I, if I ever lay my hands on OS 10.1, suspect that I'll be satisfied with its speed improvements in any case; at least until I can get the aforementioned setup.


----------



## besson3c (Sep 27, 2001)

Why is this post "straight from Apple"??

Why is everybody so Gung-Ho about application bouncing? Sure it's nice to have fast application launches, but just leave the app open and you'll only have to launch it once!


----------



## apb3 (Sep 27, 2001)

Good point and i think it illustrates a change in the way we as Apple users interact with the system. I suspect some of us will love it and do already love it. I leave all my frequently used apps open. They open on startup/reboot/login. I never even see a bouncing icon.

Others, as I have seen on other boards, will not accept these changes and will want X to work "just like 9 only better." Well, this isn't 9. It will take some adjustment and I suspect the vast majority of mac users being bright, creative people will eventually make these adjustments. I am equally as certain that some will fight these changes every step of the way and, unfortunately, Apple will cave on some of these issues. One example: The dock AND the menu bar. I only need one. If I need to see the time or date I'll look at a watch or open the clock app. If I need to see how much battery is left or if I want to adjust the volume, let me put those things in the dock or not as I choose.

Small example but it's indicative of the problem.


----------



## solrac (Sep 27, 2001)

I have a Titanium Powerbook G4
But you don't need a dual processor set up to launch TextEdit in One Bounce for god's sake!!! It's improvement is supposed to apply across the entire Apple product line. This is software improvement, it has nothing to do with your hardware, or minimally with hardware.

Now, I know all about Unix protected memory and dynamic memory handling, and I know I can keep ALL my apps open and NEVER shut down my computer with the Unix core and it will never slow down, and only running apps will use whatever memory they need while background apps only take what they can get and still run smoothly due to pre-emptive multitasking.

BUT SCREW THAT... I'm used to quitting apps when I'm done with them. I just like it. And the Apple demo has all the apps launching in one bounce and that's what they promised and this 10.1 build 5G64 I downloaded is not doing it. Now MAYBE the final CD is 5G68??? I sure hope so. Because text edit in 4 bounces is just shit when the apple demo can open every damn application before the first bounce is even finished! I want that!!!

And I'm also used to shutting down my computer. Especially a laptop. Sure Unix can run for 30 to infinity days without crashing or needing a reboot, but I think my laptop gets too hot or I just feel like shutting it down at night. So there. If that wasn't the case, system boot time wouldn't ever be an issue! You could just say "you only have to turn on your computer once, and never see the boot process again!"

All I want to know is why my Finder speed is more than twice as slow as the apple demo... hopefully someone can answer? (Still faster than 10.0.4 by far though...) I'm on a TiBook G4

Thanks...
-solrac-


----------



## besson3c (Sep 27, 2001)

Solrac:

re: machine getting too hot... put it to sleep. Thousands of people around the world never shut off their desktops and laptops.

re: whining about TextEdit not opening in 1 bounce... I'm sorry you don't feel productive waiting another second to get to TextEdit. You must have a lot of things to type. Maybe you should switch to Windows, you can open and quit WordPad all day long there and then you'll feel like you're getting a lot done...


----------



## solrac (Sep 27, 2001)

dude, it's not about opening text edit in one bounce

It's about the guy doing the apple demo clicking on EVERY app in the dock and they all launched in one bounce. Big difference.


*** THE 10.1 THAT WAS DEMO'D WAS FASTER IN EVERY SINGLE WAY THAN THE 10.1 I HAVE INSTALLED HERE***

Any ideas why my TiBook G4 with 10.1 5g64 doesn't do it???

-solrac-


----------



## ulrik (Sep 27, 2001)

on my 5G64, I have only a few apps (OmniWeb for example) which take more than three bounces. IE is there in a half bounce. Same goes for SysPrefs.
Well...the important thing is to move your swap file to another physical disc! I just plugged an old 4 gig SCSI drive into my Quicksilver (which reminds me that my sig is not uptodate  and moved the swap file their...you won't believe how this speeds up app launches! And I always update my prebindings, at least once a day. And every evening, I run Drive 10 on all of my drives. Sure, when you fire up the system and you log in, apps take a bit longer, but my Mac runs 24/7 and when it runs for some hours, the apps start with two or one bounce...at least here. I live 5G64...can't wait to get the final 10.1 with iDVD 2!!!


----------



## besson3c (Sep 27, 2001)

Solrac:

I honestly don't understand your point... would you want Apple to demonstrate on their slowest hardware?

I just don't understand why you are upset.


----------



## ulrik (Sep 27, 2001)

BTW: I haven't seen one TiBook which is as fast as it's non-portable brother.


----------



## cybergoober (Sep 27, 2001)

Hate to sound like a dick but...
You're pirated copy of an unfinished developers release of 10.1 doesn't perform like the (probably) release version they were using at the Expo? What an outrage! (j/k, kinda) 

BTW- Almost all apps open in 1-2 bounces on my TiBook 500. That is, of course, *after* they have been launched once. Most take  between 2 and 4 the first time. I didn't see the demo, but if the machine was already running when he began, the apps had probably already been launched once. 

And I would think it would make a _hell_ of a difference performance wise if it were being demo'ed on a dually compared to your single proc. Just my $0.02


----------



## apb3 (Sep 27, 2001)

OK, since you seem stuck to the way you want to do things and not open to simple suggestions... What is your config? Might be useful to know your RAM at least. I have NO problem with speedy launches even on my laptop (Wallstreet). But I have never used anything less than 256MB RAM (laptop) and 512MB RAM (my slowest G4). 

Also, the swap file on a separate partition does work wonders...


----------



## ulrik (Sep 27, 2001)

it's easy...once you launch an app, the system searches the prebindings for the needed libraries it has to load. Once the application gets the quit signal, it removes itself and the needed libraries from the memory, the located prebindings however stay there, so the next time you launch the app, the system doesn't have to look through the prebindings to see which libraries are needed. That's why the first launch always take a bit longer...and I know no operating system where it is different.

We have the shortest launch times from all modern operatings systems (when you compare the same apps of course) and people are still complaining...


----------



## Neo.cmg (Sep 27, 2001)

My God, solrac you are such a whiner....I've never seen anyone complain so much.  First of all, a PowerBook's performance doesn't even come close to the performance of a desktop machine.  If you haven't learned that by now, you are never going to.  I have a Quicksilver desktop machine, and my launch application, window resizing, and menu redrawing is identical to that shown on Apple's Seybold Demo.  Applications take 1 to1/2 a bounce regardless of what I'm opening.  Internet Explorer has always sucked, and this version is no different.  Surprise...a Microsoft application isn't the premiere application on a computing platform.  Welcome to Macintosh you dumbass.  Do us all a favor--sell your PowerBook, buy a Windows machine (it shouldn't cost you anything since the Windows hardware is sooo much cheaper especially compared to what you paid for your  PowerBook), and get on with your life.  The last 2 threads I've read have been nothing but complaints from you, and you're by yourself in your opinions in both.  You seem to think Windows will do you better, so you're an idiot to stay with the Mac...well actually you're an idiot anyway in these superficial complaints.


----------



## vikingstad (Sep 27, 2001)

> _Originally posted by solrac _
> *dude, it's not about opening text edit in one bounce
> 
> It's about the guy doing the apple demo clicking on EVERY app in the dock and they all launched in one bounce. Big difference. *



Well, get over it. 10.1 is a HUGE improvement over 10.0.x however you twist it, and just because not every app you have opens in a bounce, doesn't mean 10.1 is not better.

Apple showed this on their fastest hardware, and you happen to have a single CPU PowerBook G4. You just can't expect the same speed!

Also, you need to get a little realistic. All the apps Apple showed had of course been started earlier, and when you reload an app it goes much faster.

And as a sidenote: I have a dual usb iBook with 5g64 and it's just incredible. Since I installed it I've been running it 6 straight days, with heavy use, and it'll be funny to see when it'll crash.

BTW, 10.1 is awesome   Apple has done great improvements during the last 6 months. So just imagine what will happen in the next 6


----------



## apb3 (Sep 27, 2001)

Speaking of a "big difference," I just installed WinBlows XP on a PC Laptop I have from work...

It sucks.

I'm sure others would put it more eloquently than that and if I cared, I could too. But I don't care and it does suck.

Have fun with this peice of crap rentware you'll have to use once you realize you'll never get your tiBook to go as fast as Apple's top of the line desktops. You could get close to that performance though, if you'd keep an open mind and change - just a little bit - the way you work with your mac... But you don't seem to be interested in making your life easier, just making us listen to your complaints.


----------



## tismey (Sep 27, 2001)

Why this thread is 'straight from Apple'....


----------



## vic (Sep 27, 2001)

heres the news boys and girls. 

ADC 5g64 - crappy
RELESE 5g64 -good

it sais that ina document released to aedc members that their version is a prerelease version, and not to be installe don aany mission critical computers. 

so stop complaining go to the store buy/upgrade to 10.1 adn THEN come and bitch. but you probably would not have to.


----------



## xphile (Sep 27, 2001)

1. Explorer does support Java, it must be turned on...

2. Of course the 5GXX versions don't perform as well as release, they probably haven't even had debug code removed...

----
Thing's I've heard that sadden me...

- DVD Player support in 10.1 only works on newer machines. 

Anyone else hear that?


----------



## Kinniken (Sep 27, 2001)

what is that swap file, what is it used for, and what must  do to speed my system up by putting it on a separate partition?
Oh, and to whoever wrote that Win2k suck, I'm writting this on a comp running it, and I'm pleased to report the mouse cursor now has a shadow. Apart from that, cant find any other diff.

Kinniken


----------



## colddiver (Sep 27, 2001)

Solrac said:

*** THE 10.1 THAT WAS DEMO'D WAS FASTER IN EVERY SINGLE WAY THAN THE 10.1 I HAVE INSTALLED HERE***

2 words: FASTER MACHINE

How can you possibly think that the release version of an OS (any OS) can make your single 400 or 500 MHz processor machine faster than a dual 800+ Mhz machine (even running a demo version of the OS)?!???

You should learn how to compare Apples with Apples (!).

Colddiver


----------



## besson3c (Sep 27, 2001)

vic: where have you gotten this information?


----------



## Straylight23 (Sep 27, 2001)

> _Originally posted by vic _
> *it sais that ina document released to aedc members that their version is a prerelease version, and not to be installe don aany mission critical computers.
> *



Sorry vic, it doesn't. Not a word about things yet to do or anythings about "Don't install on production machines" like they did with the earlier builds. It  looks very very final.
Still, where is the WOOOWWW-speed, where is the smb-client?

cu:Stray


----------



## besson3c (Sep 27, 2001)

Stray:

The SMB client is present and has worked for me... I have heard reports saying that it hasn't worked well (or at all) for some people, but I just thought I'd point out in response to "where is smb support" that it *is* there.

As far as your speed complaints, anything specific?


----------



## Straylight23 (Sep 27, 2001)

Hi,

i know that smbfs finally made it's way into the kernel and there is a mount_smbfs command. Oh well, it even works from the CLI, but this is not at all what i'd expect from Apple. Where is a GUI-Tool (Browsing, mounting etc...)?

As far a speed is concerned MacOSX still feels slower then MacOS9 and i doubt it will ever do.

I run 5G64 which i d'loaded from ADC-Site. Even though there is no word about unfinished things, I do not think, that this is the final release. Maybe Apple is in for some surprises.

cu:Stray


----------



## weric (Sep 27, 2001)

*** THE 10.1 THAT WAS DEMO'D WAS FASTER IN EVERY SINGLE WAY THAN THE 10.1 I HAVE INSTALLED HERE*** 

not only faster machines, but dual processors, and RAM.  you want to see X fly, beef up the RAM.  stop you're complaining about a canned demo


----------



## besson3c (Sep 27, 2001)

Stray:

SMB is built into the "connect to server" component of the Mac OS X GUI (if that makes sense). Were you not aware of this?


----------



## vic (Sep 27, 2001)

read and weep! you pirates! 

http://www.macosx.com/showthread.php?postid=29320&t=5121#post29320

and the thing with the faster machines is a lie, ie 1 second simple text, and other apps also on bounce or 1-2 seconds. not big apps but big apps very close 5 seconds maybe. 

this just proves that no two peopel here have the same 64! and look at my config, not the fastest snal on the leaf am i!


----------



## sukram (Sep 27, 2001)

where did you here about this, and does anyone know what older dvd players this will not work with?

please, not me not me

dp 450 G4


----------



## LordOphidian (Sep 27, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Kinniken _
> *what is that swap file, what is it used for, and what must  do to speed my system up by putting it on a separate partition?
> Oh, and to whoever wrote that Win2k suck, I'm writting this on a comp running it, and I'm pleased to report the mouse cursor now has a shadow. Apart from that, cant find any other diff.
> 
> Kinniken *



A swap file is the file in which currently unused memory is swaped out of RAM into.  Im not sure how you would move it for OS X but I know that many people have done it.

Also, Did you notice that the drop shadow on the cursor is from a diffrent light source than the rest of the drop shadows on the UI elements (atleast as far as I could tell).  Looks positivily horrible (never understood why you would want your cursor to have a drop shadow as its not realy suppost to be in front of the light source, its just suppost to be you pointing at the UI elements).


----------



## simX (Sep 27, 2001)

DVD Playback IS in OS X, but, sadly, as of yet, it will not work on some older machines.

The key is that OS X only supports SOFTWARE decoding, so older machines that only have hardware decoding built-in will not be able to use the DVD player -- it won't even be installed.

Hopefully Apple will fix this in a later release of OS X... but from what I've heard, OS X 10.1 seems to be fantastic!


----------



## apb3 (Sep 27, 2001)

Correct. X.1 only supports software DVD decoding. If you happen to have an older machine that uses hardware decoding (like my laptop with its little slide in DVD card...) you're SOL. For now, at least...

Kinniken:

Never said WIN2K sucks. Said I installed XP last night and It truly does SUCK. I'll send you a CD with the key if you want to verify that it SUCKS. At least it fits my definition of SUCKS.


----------



## tie (Sep 27, 2001)

Why is everyone flaming this guy?  Sure, he pirated a build,
but except for that.. *his complaints are perfectly reasonable*.
Don't tell him he has to buy Drive X and optimize his disk
every day, don't tell him he needs to update all the prebindings
every day (there are bugs in the way prebindings are updated
so if he has applications outside of the apps folder this
could be hard for him).  And don't tell him he needs a dual
processor million-gigahertz machine just to open textedit!

His complaints are perfectly reasonable.  We should be helping
him instead of telling him to leave the Mac.  If we want to
help Apple we should make it an attractive platform and not
drive away anybody with the least complaints.

mho


----------



## kilowatt (Sep 27, 2001)

> _Originally posted by solrac _
> *and ALL HIS APPS LAUNCH IN ONE BOUNCE!!! Text Edit, Quicktime, Explorer, Everything!!! One Bounce!!!!!!!!!
> -solrac- *



I think all they had to do was put these programs into a ram disk and give the poor computer +1gig of ram. And the menu's can be pre-loaded into the memory (in gnome you can configure this).

For all we know, Jobs sits in fount of the computer, and a tape is played back on the lcd and the big screen. 

gota remember, that build he uses probably can't even rename files. All it does is look fast ;-) its like a consept car - nobody notices the lack of cup holders or the ford taurus engine. If the car looks like it can fly, it sells initially.

Honestly, though, I used 10.0.4 on my Beige 292mhz G3, with 128megs of ram, and it wasn't so bad (and thats why I think my quick silver is so fast, now yall know!). 

Just wait until they make the finder multi-threaded (Cocoa anybody?)


----------



## tie (Sep 27, 2001)

> _Originally posted by apb3 _
> *Correct. X.1 only supports software DVD decoding. If you happen to have an older machine that uses hardware decoding (like my laptop with its little slide in DVD card...) you're SOL. For now, at least...
> 
> Kinniken:
> ...



Aah!  I just got my DVD settlement offer in the mail last week.
I guess it would be too much to hope that we'll get another
settlement because of this.  What -- Apple advertised a working
DVD player but never said it would work out of the box (first
settlement), nor that it would work for more than two years
(MacOS X, hopefully another class-action suit).


----------



## vic (Sep 27, 2001)

kilowat ... your being silly...

i can conferm those speeds on my g4 466. yes i can 


ohh ...........look.........one bounce...

see!


kiding aside, yes it is much faster the version this guy has is shity, let him ge the store or seybold one and his mind will change just like all your's "early adopters -of pirate builds-"


----------



## MacCheetah3 (Sep 27, 2001)

Hi
A small comment on the demo vs. release.  Of course the developer releases are different from the public ones.  And well Apple probably ran the demo on the Apple Power Mac G4 dual 800MHz.  Which has so much processing speed it could kill.  But not only processor speed but bus and hard drive speed.  Now yes the Ti's are nice as hell but the newer Power Macs have a 133MHz bus and for a long time Power Macs have had ATA100 or 66 with a 7200RPM spindle speed.  Now that compares to the 100MHz bus with less than a GB or maybe a GB of throughput and a 4200RPM (or if you are rich and lucky a 5400RPM) drive.  Now that does make a difference.  So just so you know the "rest of the story" - Paul Harvey.


----------



## brodie (Sep 27, 2001)

one thing they haven't worked on is the damn checkboxes, for me they require a sustained mouseclick and take half a second to respond, that sucks. yet another thing to slow you down on the net.


----------



## swizcore (Sep 27, 2001)

> _Originally posted by ulrik _
> *on my 5G64, I have only a few apps (OmniWeb for example) which take more than three bounces. IE is there in a half bounce. Same goes for SysPrefs.
> Well...the important thing is to move your swap file to another physical disc! I just plugged an old 4 gig SCSI drive into my Quicksilver (which reminds me that my sig is not uptodate  and moved the swap file their...you won't believe how this speeds up app launches! And I always update my prebindings, at least once a day. And every evening, I run Drive 10 on all of my drives. Sure, when you fire up the system and you log in, apps take a bit longer, but my Mac runs 24/7 and when it runs for some hours, the apps start with two or one bounce...at least here. I live 5G64...can't wait to get the final 10.1 with iDVD 2!!! *



Ulrik,
you did do the swap partition thing and you DID notice a speed improvement?
I read on xlr8yourmac.com that it only create an improvement on machines lacking in a good amouunt of physical ram yet i see you have 1.5g just like me.
So, my question to you. I have a dual G4 500 with 1.5g ram, is your increase fro mthe swap setup enough that you would suggest i do it? I have 110g of HD space so it wouldnt put me out any necessary space.
Thanks.


----------



## Matrix Agent (Sep 27, 2001)

Thois guy isn't geting flamed for installing pre-release builds, he's getting flamed for complaining about them. This is the type of stuff that really hurts Apple. They dont need the bad press, especially when the real thing comes out in two days. This isn't even worth talking about.


----------



## buggs1a (Sep 27, 2001)

the seybold speech, 10.1 is FAST!!!! running on their dual 800 with a lot fo ram i am sure. that's why 10.1 in the speech is so fast.

i have the 5g27 10.1 on my single G4/450 with 512mb ram. everything opens in one bounce after the first time it's opened. 
IE takes 2 bounces first time you open it, one after. QT is 2 bounce, 1 after. etc etc.


----------



## swizcore (Sep 27, 2001)

all my apps open in at most two bounces except for BBEdit, it takes like 6. Ridiculous for a text app. But my retail version of OSX gets installed tomorrow. Not that it matters anyway since i keep all apps open from first use till restart.


----------



## Straylight23 (Sep 28, 2001)

Hi,



> _Originally posted by besson3c _
> *SMB is built into the "connect to server" component of the Mac OS X GUI (if that makes sense). Were you not aware of this? *



No, actually not. And, this doesn't work for me. All i see is "Local Network" and "Apple Talk". Nothing like "Windows Network"... Giving smb://some.ip.add.ress doesn't do it either 
Am i missing something? This should be in some sort of control panel. Choosing the workgroup, the netbios name etc. Do you have this?

cu:Stray


----------



## ezra (Sep 28, 2001)

> _Originally posted by kilowatt _
> *
> 
> I think all they had to do was put these programs into a ram disk and give the poor computer +1gig of ram. And the menu's can be pre-loaded into the memory (in gnome you can configure this).
> *




That's going a bit over board, you just need to launch the app once and it will stay in memory to cache the next time. For those of you that don't know, caching is a standard practice in software demoing. It's obvious that what your seeing with Job's demo is relaunches, not launches. We do this all the time, with product demos, and web designs. Load it into memory, and it will seem like it's much faster than it really is initially. It's not very misleading, because it can load that fast.



> *
> For all we know, Jobs sits in fount of the computer, and a tape is played back on the lcd and the big screen.
> *



I've never known any developer to do this, it's just to risky and stupid to bother with.


----------



## ulrik (Sep 28, 2001)

swizcore:

I also thought that a swapdisk should only be needed when you're low on ram...but allthough I can't understand it, believe me, app launch times where reduced when I set up the swapdisk. I can't back that up, but I think the swapdisk is used even if you have much RAM. And if you read the benchmark results on ResExcellence.com, the guy also had some RAM in his machine and it speeded it up.

I can't explain it, but I tried turning it back to the physical disk where OS X resides on, and when I restarted, app launch times where longer!

Try it, it's not a big deal! Set up a second PHYSICAL disk (another partition on the same disk won't help), write down it's device name under which it is mounted (just enter df in the terminal) and edit two config files, the /etc/fstab and the /etc/rm...it  takes about five minutes to do this. If you can't feel an improvement, change it back.


----------



## apb3 (Sep 28, 2001)

Tie:

What did you get in the original settlement...


----------



## Ricky (Sep 28, 2001)

Whine whine whine whine whine!!!

You all didn't realise that (1)  The version Jobs was using WAS NOT a final release, (2)  He was using a top of the line G4, and (3) his machine was probably started up fresh with OS 10.1!  They probably reformatted the HD.  If that doesn't explain why his 10.1 is faster than yours I don't know what will.  Remember, they were trying to increase speed over ALL platforms, not just YOUR machine.  You get it now?


----------



## Olu (Sep 28, 2001)

I've been using the VMometer dockling to see when my computer writes to VM.  I've got 768MB of RAM and I was curious to see if I ever pageout.  In 10.04 the only time that OSX writes something to VM is when launching applications and when I'm printing very large files in Classic.  So it's feasible that you would see an increase in application launch times.  When I moved my VM onto my 2nd HD I didn't notice any difference (that was in 10.03).

10.1 was supposed to improve the speed of VM so moving the swapfile will make less improvements.


----------



## besson3c (Sep 28, 2001)

I'd still like to know what "straight from Apple" is supposed to mean.. =)


----------



## apb3 (Sep 28, 2001)

Have had the same experience as Ulrik... I cannot explain this either. But it's true and I did it on my main desktop (G4/733 w/ superdrive, 3 60gig HDs, 768MB RAM). Can someone w/ more hardcore tech knowledge elaborate/explain??? I really am curious as to WHY this works.

Ulrik:
nice explanation of the HOW-TO of it. I actually had forgotten how I did it and was going back through old posts to find it so I could do it on my other machines. Thanks for saving me the time.


And, yeah, why is this STRAIGHT FROM APPLE?!


----------



## ezra (Sep 28, 2001)

> _Originally posted by apb3 _
> *Have had the same experience as Ulrik... I cannot explain this either. But it's true and I did it on my main desktop (G4/733 w/ superdrive, 3 60gig HDs, 768MB RAM). Can someone w/ more hardcore tech knowledge elaborate/explain??? I really am curious as to WHY this works.
> *




It's simple math, two heads are better than one, think RAID. When you dedicate a drive for your swap file there is no fragmentation to deal with, and the OS can launch the app on one HD and access the swap file on the other at the same time. When it is on the same drive, one head has to do both, and most likely deal with fragmentation causing the head to jump around. HD's have a lot to do with your computer speed, a lot of people are not aware of this. This is why RAID was invented, HD's are not fast enough with one head to keep up with the bus and cpu speeds today. A Raid setup with three or four drives is going to smoke a non RAID setup. I installed 4 IBM 18Gig drives in a stripped array in my machine in OS9 using SoftRaid2.2,  my machine was twice as fast, at least. Most people don't realize how often the disk is accessed in a work session, or in a game, but it adds up. I was little bummed when I found out that OSX didn't support SoftRAID. It does support hardware RAID though: http://www.fantomdrives.com/macosx/

BTW, Most apps loaded instantaneously in OS9 with this setup. Needless to say, I plan on switching back to RAID ASAP. 

NOTE:My machine also has two very good UW SCSI cards each controlling two of the drives. This makes it even faster, but you can use one UW SCSI card, but you tend to max out your speed at two HD's with SoftRaid.


----------



## apb3 (Sep 28, 2001)

Thanks.

I knew about the two heads are better than one thing but was just surprised at the improvement just moving the swap file gave the system. Even with a lot of RAM... 

I meant more along the lines of - even with a ton of ram, why would moving the swap file make that big a difference? Why would the sys need to access the swap file with all that ram? Stuff like that.

But, thanks anyway.


----------



## Jorace (Sep 28, 2001)

Just for the record, most apps on my iBook (2usb) launch in 2-3 bounces at most. This of corse is not the first time I have launched the apps, as I have not rebooted my laptop in days  

(I love the way it just works moving between my Office Lan, and my home DSL connection WITHOUT EVER changing my network settings.. I am still using the defaults from the install. It has just always worked as is)

Any how, 2-3 bounces/seconds is more than good enought for me, as I see it, this as an OS built for tomorow.

Think about it, how well would a IIci run OS9? (if at all) the OS is built to match the capabilities of the existing systems. 

Rightfully so, systems shiped 1 - 2 years ago SHOULD be the bottom line of what OSX runs well on. I would be disapointed in Apple if they where to limmit the capabilities of my NEXT mac so as to maintain compatability with old systems. 

In 2-3 years from now, ALL apps wil launch in a micro bounce (up and running befor your finger is off the mouse) So this will all be mute. 

Microsoft has always handicaped itself (untill XP that is) by maintainig backward compatibility with legacy hardware. When Jobs came back to Apple, he made it clear Apple would not do the same. Apple abandoned compatability with legacy devices such as serial and ADB in favor of enbracing the future with USB and FireWire. Apple was first computer maker to use 100 megabit ethernet, and then out did themselves with gigabit, (befor others had even got up to 100)

I for one praise Apple for having the corage to take the FUTURE head on! With OSX as the base to build the next 15 years on, and Apple moving forward as fast as it can, whe rest of the computer industry will be hard pressed to keep up.

CHANGE IS GOOD.


----------



## solrac (Sep 28, 2001)

So I come back to this thread I started a couple days later, and there's over 50 replies, and I'm being flamed up the ass so hard it's shooting out my eyeballs.

What the hell is this shit?

To all who told me I'm a whiner, a complainer, you can go screw yourselves. How dare you even think about saying that. You don't know where I'm from!! I was about to ABANDON macintosh, before 0S X beta came out. I was tired of OS 9 constantly crashing. Windows was stable. And it had tons of little time saving subtleties, more apps, and flash animations are not slow as molasses on Windows. And I've been with mac since 1989, a damn 10 year old kid.

But I stuck with mac for OS X. And it was slow. And buggy. And I needed to use Classic 95% of the time. But I saw the pre-emptive multitasking, the protected memory, the NON-CRASHING. While everyone was flaming the public beta I was on these boards telling people my machine hadn't crashed for over a month and that is pretty damn good for a freakin' BETA!

I'm a graphic designer and web developer. I use Photoshop, Flash, Dreamweaver, etc. etc.... and I've put up with the quirks of adopting OS X. I never even booted back into 9. I stuck with apple because they updated their product (the OS). I only boot into OS 9 to run Flash 5 because in Classic it crashes Classic every 2 minutes for some reason.

While most of the other early adopters complained and booted into 9 constantly and just used X as a toy, I STAYED in X, almost ALL THE TIME, and DID MY WORK in X. I gave up outlook / entourage, spring loaded folders, faster photoshop, quick finder, and much more.... instead I put up with Apple Mail, quirky column view (although I saw this was 100000000000x better than any thing OS 9 ever had), slow photoshop and a quirky classic environment..... all for one thing. A stable machine that doesn't crash, and works more like Windows. (Like being able to click on the desktop while another app is launching.)

Now here I am finally getting OS X 10.1, with all the promised improvements. And I notice my version is slower than the demo version. HELL YEAH I'M GONNA ASK WHY!!!!! Who said I was complaining?????

First of all, some people are telling me here that I have a pirated build. Go screw yourself. 5G64 is the GM. There is no 5G68, there is no NOTHING else. This "pirated" version is the GM. I have the release version. It's not pirated either you morons. I paid $30 and received my beta on March 24, 6 months ago. Then I got the $100 special price on the release version. So I paid my full $130. And I'm STILL going to pay another $20 to get the new disks, just to have the official copies, cuz I'm down with the Apple. So toss my salad, yeah?

Second, people are telling me here that the apple demo at Seybold is a quadruple Xeon processor Beta-Apple (Orange Pear Hybrid) with 18 TB of RAM, a 55 GB Bus, and has ten 999 Yottabyte GigaQuad Hard drives on a ULTRA-SUPER-HYPER 999999 SCSI RAID array running 999999999999999999999999 RPM, and all the apps were launched 100 times in a RAM disk with the pre-bindings hard coded into custom RAM chips, and the SWAP file was moved into a temporal vortex so that the electrons only have to move one chronometer to be read. Well screw off. You don't need that kind of setup to launch text edit in one bounce. Are you freakin' insane??? These are SOFTWARE IMPROVEMENTS... the hardware is irrelevant. The Apple VP guy at Seybold said these improvements are benefit across the ENTIRE product line.

Oh, and by the way my TiBook G4 is 400 Mhz with 384 MB RAM. An Apple tech said that it is WAY faster than a similar Cube (400 Mhz). There's NO reason this 3000 dollar laptop shouldn't be able to open TextEdit in One MOTHER of a bounce!!!!!!!!!!

So let me summarize this, and shoot down all the moron-flamers one more time (and thanks, Tie, for sticking up for me).

1. I have the GM. The final 10.1 is Build 5G64, which is what I have, and there's only one version of it. And it's free to update. And I paid for 10.0. So I am not pirating jack shit. When I get the official CD, there will be NO differences. So I'm not giving Apple a bad name either. I wouldn't "complain" if I knew this was NOT the GM!!!!!!!!

2. I have stuck with Mac during the hardest of times. I have stuck with Mac while all my partners use Windows and deride Macs every damn day, and I was ready to switch to Windows, and ONLY OS X kept me. Screw anyone that tells me to move to windows for "complaining".

3. ANY and EVERY G4 computer should see nearly the same improvements in the OS, in terms of window resizing and app launching. Anyone who thinks that to make TextEdit launch one bounce faster needs two 866 Mhz Chips and double the Bus and gigs of RAM is an idiot, or blinded by hardware sales hype. The DP 866 is good for Rendering a 3D scene quicker, I'll say that much. Not launching TextEdit one bounce faster.

4. STRAIGHT FROM APPLE MEANS GODDAMN WHAT IT SAYS BIIIAAAAAAAAAAAATCCHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! The VP demo'd these improvements and promised them himself, and showed a mac doing them, and these promises are also all over the Apple Site.

So this thread is titled "OS 10.1 Complaints ... Straight from Apple"

the ellipses in the middle blocks out the phrase "based on promises". So the full thread name is:

"OS 10.1 Complaints based on promises straight from Apple."

Now that 10.1 is officially out, yes... I've just expanded the damn column for you so you can see it. Alright whores?

Thank you,
-solrac-

P.S.  I ain't mad at you...........


----------



## besson3c (Sep 28, 2001)

Solrac:

Why don't you stop and really think about what you are saying before you write? I mean that in a completely unflamatory way (although I guess it doesn't sound it.. better words escape me). There *are* improvements across the entire product line, and dual 800's *will* do things faster because.... they are faster computers.

As far as Textedit opening in 2 bounces on your computer, I never heard any Apple rep promise us that Textedit would launch in one bounce... is this worth getting worked up over? Just leave Textedit open and you'll thank me for increasing your productivity 10-fold. Now, when you need Textedit open for all your mission critical projects, it will open in *0* bounces instead of 2!!! Then you'll have a really big dick.

What *is* the issue here?

What version of Windows do you have where you can have applications open in the background and not yak (not that it really matters)? Surely not 98...

And yes, technically you have a pirated copy of the GM unless you are a developer that has been seeded this. It doesn't matter if you plan to buy it or have paid for OSes in the past.. it may make it morally viable to you, and I can understand your point, but it is still pirated. In other words, if you were arrested for this hypothetically (not that this is a realistic possibility), the judge wouldn't care about your justifications - the law is pretty black and white, and the definition of "software pirate" is based around these laws. This isn't a lecture, just a correction since this seemed to really set you off half-cocked, and you managed to scare us all.


----------



## solrac (Sep 28, 2001)

I guess you speak for everybody when you say I managed to scare you all... lol... I think most people would have a laugh at my reply.

Anyway... I am not a robot. I do not quit every app after I use them. Perhaps I will leave them open longer and longer as time goes on.

There really is no reason to quit them in OS X. It's just an OS 9 habit, I know.

But I still really wanna see all the small-to-mid sized apps open in one bounce, seriously. I just do, OK???????

-solrac-


----------



## besson3c (Sep 28, 2001)

okay, I understand...

I would just like to be able to type backwards.... I just would... okay?


----------



## LordOphidian (Sep 28, 2001)

Solrac: Who was the crack addict that told you that software improvements have nothing to do with hardware? From your statments it sounds like my biege g3 333 tower should match the 866 g4 tower in app launching speed! 

HW has *quite a bit* to do with how fast your OS seems, its not all of it, but I can tell you its a large part.


----------



## solrac (Sep 28, 2001)

I'm talking about G4 only

My TiBook G4 is slower than a Dual 866 of course, but they should both open text edit in one bounce but ------

Screw off besson

------ a G3 is way different hardware. No altivec, for the most part.

The hardware, like I said, is very important.

Just not for the difference of one bounce. Unless someone PROVES me wrong on that I won't believe it.

Look at it this way: Flash movies on a 300 Mhz Pentium 2 run MUCH MUCH FASTER WAYYYYY Smoother than on any Mac there is, period.

Mac is screwed for flash. Flash movie playback suffers SO bad on mac. It's really sad.

It doesn't matter what you have. G3, G4, Dual G4, Quad G4 with infinity RAM. No difference. It's all in the software. Macromedia just can't program Flash to work with mac. It's sad. But Macromedia sucks. Their software is shoddy while Adobe software is solid. And it shows, time and time again, on both Mac and PC. Even in beta software. Macromedia Freehand 10 beta crashed nonstop, yet Illustrator 10 beta works fine for the most part.

The app launching improvements in OS X are SO software based. It's the software that was totally revamped.

hardware will help in an overall sense or in hardware specific problems (like number crunching).

-solrac-


----------



## besson3c (Sep 28, 2001)

Maybe the PC in which you were running Flash had a faster video card? Maybe browser plug-ins in general worked better on the browser you had on the PC?

Flash came from Director if I'm not mistaken, and I believe Director was originally a Mac program. I don't buy your statements.


If Textedit opens in one bounce on a dual 800 (I'll take your word for it), then maybe while there have been software optimizations, those same optimizations will run faster on faster hardware?


----------



## apb3 (Sep 29, 2001)

> _Originally posted by solrac _
> *I'm talking about G4 only
> 
> My TiBook G4 is slower than a Dual 866 of course, but they should both open text edit in one bounce but ------
> ...



I tried it last night. I got my tiBook back from my wife and launched textedit... 2 bounces. Maybe 2.2 bounces tops. Opened textedit on my top G4... 1 bounce, maybe 1.5. Both have the EXACT SAME software config. Same software, OS version, everything - except Hardware. So I guess I've proven there can be a (roughly) 1 bounce difference based only on HW? Happy now? Can you grow up and stop insulting people now?

edit - I should have added that this is all with 10.0.4 - not 10.1. I have 10.1 on an extra machine but that was just to play... I wait for REAL releases of software before I install on anything I need.

Re: the 2nd paragraph quoted above, and I paraphrase what another poster said, do you actually think about what you are writing before you type it out and hit submit? "G3, G4...No difference," huh? There is a big difference. I have all those systems mentioned except the quad G4 w/ infinity RAM and running the exact same SW config on each of those machines is different. Very different. Yes the update and improvements in X.1 are "SO software based," but what does that software run on? Last I checked it ran on the specific hardware. Chip speed, bus speed, cache speed and size, RAM, VRAM, graphics card, etc... all, obviously, have a bearing on what the user perceives as the overall speed of the system. 

I asked you before to post your specific config in order that someone might be able to suggest something to help you. I suggested some small changes you could make in the WAY you use OS X that would alleviate your speed concerns. You chose to ignore those suggestions/requests so that leads me to believe you are only interested in the attention that complaining seems to have gotten you. Squeaky wheel and all...

So do us a favor and keep your personal attacks to yourself (and that goes for everyone, but I cannot remember anyone attacking you personally - I know I didn't). People were honestly trying to help you until it became obvious you were just venting or whining or whatever. As soon as you ignored honest efforts at helping you, people gave up (I know I did). This board, overall and with all its assorted characters, is one of the most tolerant and helpful boards I've come across. If you want help in the future, you may want to rethink your attitude and actions in this thread.

My experiment above proves that, yes, textedit CAN launch in one bounce and that a tiBook and a desktop G4 CAN have differences in speed not related to the software. Frankly, I'd be surprised if that was not the case. I'd invite you over to see this difference first hand but I wouldn't want you to go into one of your tantrums and scar my dogs for life... Why don't you give it a shot at your nearest Apple Store.


----------



## Olu (Sep 29, 2001)

Solrac,
1st of all nice ride!

2nd Application launch speed has a lot to do with hardrive speed, RAM, and bus speed.  A Dual 800 with1.5gb of Ram and a 133mhz bus is going to smoke your TiBook with slower HD and slower bus speed.  It will probably be significantly different on my Dual 500 with its 100mhz bux.  However I agree that something like Text edit should launch instantly on *any* G3 or G4

As for Flash.  I agree.  It plain sucks on any Mac.  The only decent Flash plug in I've seen (as far as speed) is the one for Omniweb (for the few sites it works on).  Unfortunately with the 4.1 release they will use the stock Flash plug in.

One suggestion however.  If you installed 5g64 over an already existing install and if you made any significant mods (Metamorph X, Mac Janitor, Xoptimize, Tinker Tools) I'd suggest a clean install of OS 10.0x and then upgrading.  Think of it as an opportunity to back up everything you have for security sake


----------



## AxsDeny (Sep 29, 2001)

everything loading in less than 1 bounce, max was 3 for explorer. Are guys running older machines or what?


----------



## ezra (Sep 29, 2001)

> _Originally posted by AxsDeny _
> *everything loading in less than 1 bounce, max was 3 for explorer. Are guys running older machines or what? *



For reference purposes, my G3 333 loads text edit in 3 bounces, both initial and relaunch using 10.04. I'm picking up 10.1 later today, we'll see if there is any improvement. Not that I think it's even a big deal, three bounces is something like two seconds. I would imagine when I reinstall a SoftRaid soluion it will be one bounce. SoftRaid in OS9 allowed my machine to smoke most new machines in launch times. Hadware does matter, especially drive speeds, drive quantity, drivers,  and the difference between the G4, and G3 when it comes to streaming data. Altivec on the G4 boost any streaming data, and guess what, launching apps is streaming data into RAM. G4's are faster at this, not to mention the faster bus speed to travel on.  This guys seems to be very inexperienced with computers,  I'm guessing this is his first computer purchase, and he doesn't realize that his computer was obsolete before he bought it. Who cares about all this anyways if you can get your work done that's all that matters. One or two bounces per app launch is going to make a one ot two second difference daily. Not a major problem that I think Apple should focus on. Who the hell even used text edit anyways, I think I've used it once. Lets stick the real problems, like making sure all the hardware is supported, and getting applications ported. If he wants faster launches, which can be a problem for some other apps, then he needs to take the steps to do that by first attain the information about how computers work, and then upgrading his.


----------



## swizcore (Sep 29, 2001)

> _Originally posted by apb3 _
> *
> 
> I wait for REAL releases of software before I install on anything I need.
> *



Peter, was this referring to third party "real software" or the OS?
I feel with 10.1 the only thing holding me back is the X versions of my graphics/web/interactive/DV software from third parties.
I can honestly say that X is heads and shoulders above any classic OS Ive used before. I'm not just hyping up but X is not the slightest bit slower than classic on my machine. Even in X my classic apps such as Photoshop, GoLive etc... launch in not 1/100th of a second longer than when booted in classic. And the bonus to this is I can launch the classic apps and go back to working with other processes while it loads. I am enamoured with this release. Think of how far back Apples OS would be without X. Can you imagine any excitement AT ALL with another classic update?

Anyway, I dont want to sound like i am berading you- im not. Just want to clarify my thoughts on "real software" releases and what that means to me.


----------



## apb3 (Sep 29, 2001)

I was refering to the OS release and the seeds and the pirated stuff from wherever. I have a dev seed but I haven't installed even that on any machine that I need to do real work. It's for play and testing. When I have the official commercial release of X.1, then I'll install that on a spare machine, test it for a day or so (as long as I can verify it will work with everything I need it to work with), and only then put it on a machine I need to do work. I do this with any OS.

But now that you mention it, I guess it applies to all software - or should. I don't always make back-up copies or follow every little instruction when  installing software. But, I should. I guess  I've never really been badly burned by an app install trashing my system... Not the way past OSs have. Maybe if some app install someday makes me spend a few days figuring out what went wrong or recovering lost data, then I'll change the way I do things. Just like to live dangerously - or just lazy, one of those two...

I agree with evrything you said about OS X. Maybe I misunderstood your question, but I found it in no way berating. I am lucky enough to never have to boot into 9 again (once I have DVD playing/burning in X). I still have to use classic on occassion and I resent it more and more each time. 9.2, 9.3, 9.9 - who cares? You're right. However, until evryone's essential apps are X native, classic will still be necessary, and in that way, updates to the classic OS will be important to those using those specific apps. I hope I'll be able to do away with classic the same as OS9 - sooner rather than later.

My point in using "real software" was that people are complaining about what is essentially a brand new system and gauging it's ability by pre-release, pirated versions of it's first major update.


----------



## swizcore (Sep 29, 2001)

> _Originally posted by apb3 _
> *I was refering to the OS release and the seeds and the pirated stuff from wherever. I have a dev seed but I haven't installed even that on any machine that I need to do real work. It's for play and testing. When I have the official commercial release of X.1, then I'll install that on a spare machine, test it for a day or so (as long as I can verify it will work with everything I need it to work with), and only then put it on a machine I need to do work. I do this with any OS.
> 
> But now that you mention it, I guess it applies to all software - or should. I don't always make back-up copies or follow every little instruction when  installing software. But, I should. I guess  I've never really been badly burned by an app install trashing my system... Not the way past OSs have. Maybe if some app install someday makes me spend a few days figuring out what went wrong or recovering lost data, then I'll change the way I do things. Just like to live dangerously - or just lazy, one of those two...
> ...



gotcha. We are in agreeance; I Just wanted to make sure i understood your points.


----------



## ezra (Sep 29, 2001)

I just got back from the Apple Store, and installed MacOS 10.1, and here is the comparison from earlier. Text Edit launches in 2 bounces on the initial launch, and 1 on a relaunch. This is on a G3 333 beige machine. In 10.04 it was 3 bounces for both launch and relaunch. On a Silver 733, it was 1.5 bounces.  Some bad news for Tia book users is that I did a lot of test at the store, and the Tia books running 10.1 were at least three times as slow as the desktop stations at similar speeds. Text Edit was 3 bounces on average for Ti-Book. Not just at launching was slow on the T-Book, but Quicktime playback, and most other functions were lagging. There was actually a bunch of T-book users gatherd at the G-Bar discussing this very topic, so it is a obvious problem for these buyers. The tech guy had one working on it, but I have no idea what he was doing to it, it may not have been releated. My initial experience  was that the drive speed seemed very slow but I didn't have that much time to test or check the hardware configs of each unit. All versions of the OS were 5G64. All the guys behind the G-Bar, were not really G-Men BTW. They couldn't answer any of the questions I asked them.




> _Originally posted by ezra _
> *
> 
> For reference purposes, my G3 333 loads text edit in 3 bounces, both initial and relaunch using 10.04. I'm picking up 10.1 later today, we'll see if there is any improvement. Not that I think it's even a big deal, three bounces is something like two seconds. I would imagine when I reinstall a SoftRaid soluion it will be one bounce. SoftRaid in OS9 allowed my machine to smoke most new machines in launch times. Hadware does matter, especially drive speeds, drive quantity, drivers,  and the difference between the G4, and G3 when it comes to streaming data. Altivec on the G4 boost any streaming data, and guess what, launching apps is streaming data into RAM. G4's are faster at this, not to mention the faster bus speed to travel on.  This guys seems to be very inexperienced with computers,  I'm guessing this is his first computer purchase, and he doesn't realize that his computer was obsolete before he bought it. Who cares about all this anyways if you can get your work done that's all that matters. One or two bounces per app launch is going to make a one ot two second difference daily. Not a major problem that I think Apple should focus on. Who the hell even used text edit anyways, I think I've used it once. Lets stick the real problems, like making sure all the hardware is supported, and getting applications ported. If he wants faster launches, which can be a problem for some other apps, then he needs to take the steps to do that by first attain the information about how computers work, and then upgrading his. *


----------



## slur (Sep 30, 2001)

So y'all, I'm running the following command, and you should too:

*update_prebinding -root /*

After a reboot I'll see if OmniWeb still takes 6 bounces on first launch and 3 on re-launch.  10.1 is a joy no matter how you cut it, but I'll do this just for the sake of posterity and see if there isn't something to be gained from this little command.

Once the command has been run, by the way, the next time it will only prebind those libraries and apps that have been updated or installed later, unless you add the *-force* flag, which might be useful afteer you've defragged your drive or restored a backup.

----

First results are interesting:

*Number of non-prebound files:    0
Number of files that may need to be re-prebound :  1160
Number of files re-prebound:     3
Number of files unsuccessfully prebound:    40*

Hmm, just for kicks I'll throw in the *-force* flag and run it once more....

*Number of non-prebound files:    0
Number of files that may need to be re-prebound :  1160
Number of files re-prebound:   975
Number of files unsuccessfully prebound:   185*

Very interesting....

Oh well, see you after I reboot!


----------



## slur (Sep 30, 2001)

Okay then,

Nothing changed, but then all my prebindings were in the same condition before and after I used *update_prebinding*.  Still I can't complain.  It beats the hell out of 10.0.4.

For reference, this is a 450MHz G4 AGP with 768MB of RAM.  Hmm, maybe if I defrag my drive....


----------



## jcart12 (Sep 30, 2001)

I think the speed problems you saw with those Ti books must have been memory. On my 500 with 512mb, fresh install of 10.1 everything is tight.
textedit 1.5 bounces.
systems prefs 2 bounces.

The sloweset app is probably Omniweb with 5-6 bounces, but I expect that to change in 4.1

ta ra


----------



## solrac (Sep 30, 2001)

Olu, thanks for the compliments on the ride. Best all around car ever made, period.

Apb3, I'm only insulting people because I got insulted first.
And when I said G3, G4 no difference I WAS TALKING ABOUT FLASH PLAYBACK!!!

Flash sucks on a mac, no matter what.

Besson, please listen. The PCs I've used have no better video cards. Flash plays back better on any PC, from a 200 mhz pentium 2 up to a 2 Ghz Pentium 4. It makes no difference. The Mac plays back flash slower than all recent PCs, period. (Unless you get a messed up PC, or a PC that is SUPER obsolete. In that case Mac flash is only a little faster, or equal.)

This is SOFTWARE. It has NO bearing on hardware. Yes, faster hardware can play back flash faster, if the slowdown is caused by slow hardware. Like an alpha fade. But Mac flash is slow in general, because of the software.

Try it. I dare you to try it on any PC vs. any Mac. The mac looks like shit. And flash is so important. It's the future of the web.

And, like another poster said... Text Edit should launch in one bounce on a G3 or G4. It doesn't matter. That aspect of it is software. This guy just did a test! His G3 launches text edit in 2 bounces! The post is just above mine somewhere. My TiBook takes 3 bounces! That's a G4 vs G3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe it is a hardware problem with the TiBook and not just software..... I might be wrong about that, I admit. I just don't think so.

But about Flash. It's software. Mac is screwed for flash at present.

Absolutely right: OmniWeb's flash plugin is SUPER fast, fast as any PC. Open a simple flash page in Explorer, then omniweb (OmniWeb can only play simple flash sites.) OmniWeb SMOKES explorer. This is on the SAME computer. So are you gonna tell me it's hardware? NO! You're on the same computer! Just two different web browsers, two different flash plug ins. SORRY. It's a software issue. (Try my site: www.flashgods.com/portfolio/games/tetris.swf and check out the spinning logo. Slow on Mac, fast on PC or mac omniweb. The tetris blocks fall slower on mac, too. But you can't play the game in omniweb....)

OmniWeb Flash is comparable to the best PCs playing Flash. What a shame it is not a complete Flash 5 plugin.

And no, I don't care about text edit opening in one bounce. I'm not "hung up on that". That's so stupid. It's just an example of a larger picture. I'm looking at the forest, some of you are only looking at the trees. If I figure out how to make my apps launch in less bounces, I know my whole system is faster, and on par with the best and most properly configured macs, or at least in part. That's my goal. Not to "have text edit launch in one bounce". Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.

ok thanks,
-solrac-


----------



## solrac (Sep 30, 2001)

> _Originally posted by jcart12 _
> *I think the speed problems you saw with those Ti books must have been memory. On my 500 with 512mb, fresh install of 10.1 everything is tight.
> textedit 1.5 bounces.
> systems prefs 2 bounces.
> ...



Oh, and apb3, I already posted my configuration! You just didn't see it. So don't say I'm not accepting anybody's help, please.

My TiBook is a 400 mhz, with 384 MB of RAM.
System Prefs takes 6 bounces. 5 on a relaunch. Then 3 on subsequent relaunches. TextEdit takes 3 bounces, 2 on relaunches. I'm sure that's slower than ANYBODY else's new mac with 10.1


----------



## ezra (Sep 30, 2001)

> _Originally posted by jcart12 _
> *I think the speed problems you saw with those Ti books must have been memory. On my 500 with 512mb, fresh install of 10.1 everything is tight.
> textedit 1.5 bounces.
> systems prefs 2 bounces.
> ...



Nope, they all had 512MB as well. There were a group of Ti bbok owners their complaining when I was their, so it obviously not just this guy. It may just be the way it is installed. I know on my machine I installed many different ways and each seemed to have benefits and drawbacks. I went through at least ten different installs before I found the one that worked best.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Sep 30, 2001)

What do you guys think:

How fast will Mac OS X 10.1 run at an iMac DV SE 400 MHz and 384 MB RAM?

Thankx,

AppleWatcher


----------



## bigbambo (Sep 30, 2001)

> _Originally posted by besson3c _
> *Solrac:
> 
> Maybe you should switch to Windows, you can open and quit WordPad all day long there and then you'll feel like you're getting a lot done... *




Or better yet, switch to either linux or netbsd and launch vi over and over again. Then ya dont have to worry about bouncing pictures, or any pictures at all for that matter...


----------



## elvisripley (Sep 30, 2001)

10.1 on my Dual 800 is exactly as fast as on the demo.


----------



## ezra (Sep 30, 2001)

> _Originally posted by elvisripley _
> *10.1 on my Dual 800 is exactly as fast as on the demo. *



The silver 733 machine was equally as fast that I tested at the Apple sore.


----------



## isaac_ho (Oct 6, 2001)

solrac:

M$ will never support Java natively. What will happen in I.E.?
Try Omni Web!


----------



## AppleWatcher (Oct 7, 2001)

I know for sure that when IE 6 for Mac is unveiled that Java isn't supported!

Windows XP doesn't support Java, either 

AW


----------



## oldmac (Oct 7, 2001)

This is amazing! We're sitting here talking about how many bounces it takes to open an application! Is this going to be the new standard terminology? I can just see it now; "My AppleWorks opens in one Megabounce, how about yours?" Your reply will be, "Gee, thanks for letting me know that. I thought mine was running kind of slow, as it was taking 1.25 Megabounces! What do you think the problem might be?" "Well, you might want to make an adjustment on the kanootin valve, and see what happens, although I wouldn't adjust it more than 1 Megameter." ;-)

This is only the first major release of this OS, and it's going to take a while to sort things out and I'm sure  there will be updates, etc., as we go along. It took seventeen years to get this far, so we can't expect everything to be perfect immediately. Besides, we all have wildly different configurations of machines, RAM, hard drive size and speed, etc. Let's let the dust settle awhile.

Peace and Love


----------



## theolein (Oct 7, 2001)

I haven't installed  10.1 yet but Java is the 1.3.1 version and most Java Applets on the web were written for 1.1.4 or earlier. It shouldn't be a problem theoretically but I have seen quite a few problems using the Java 1.3.1 plug-in in Mozilla on a PC i.e. that the Applets don't run. 1.3.1 should be backwards compatible but as of Java 1.2 there are security managers implemented which weren't there in earlier versions and I could imagine the VM of the plug-in having a fairly strict default setting which would cause problems with Applets having no security manager.

Also if the Applets are embedded in the HTML using MS's proprietry CAB code base thingy then it will not work and there isn't much you can do.


----------



## cybersect (Oct 24, 2001)

For those who are complaining about the g4 powerbook (450,500), the speed etc..., I have noticed a difference between the desktop and the powerbook.
SO FYI

The Data Path on a powerbook is 64-bit, where as its desktop equivelent is 128bit.

Would this account for much change in speed

cybersect


----------

