# Jaguar fast enough to kill Mac OS 9?



## AppleWatcher (Sep 14, 2002)

What's your experience? Does Jaguar run as fast as OS 9 did?
I can tell you Mac OS X 10.2 isn't as fast as OS 9 was on an iMac DV SE 400 MHz...   

AppleWatcher


----------



## davidbrit2 (Sep 14, 2002)

I wouldn't say the speed kills OS 9, but in my experience, the functionality sure does. Quality, not quantity.


----------



## fryke (Sep 14, 2002)

Whether Jaguar's speed can kill OS 9 is not the question. Whether Steve Jobs can kill OS 9 is the question. And YES is the answer. January 2003. 

No, but really, I don't think there's much left to hang on to OS 9. Speed? The difference isn't enough, and my productiveness has risen from OS 9 to 10.1 to 10.2. People waiting for ProTools (and other Audio software) or XPress (which runs in Classic) are the reasons not to kill OS 9 just yet.

But come January, it's dead.

By the way: I haven't got Classic installed.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Sep 14, 2002)

No guys I didn't mean functionality (because I agree Jaguar is better) but just _speed_.
I think you guys agree with me OS 9 was (much?) faster than Jaguar now is (especially shutting down).

BTW; I haven't Classic installed, either 

AppleWatcher


----------



## Total Konfuzion (Sep 14, 2002)

It's not as snappy as OS9...and i'm not sure when it will be, but regardless it is a lot more functional and usable than OS9.


----------



## fryke (Sep 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by AppleWatcher _
> *I think you guys agree with me OS 9 was (much?) faster than Jaguar now is (especially shutting down).*



Much? Nope. Shutting down? Why? And how does the 'speed' of shutting down even matter? 

This may depend a bit on how you're using your computer, also. There are people who constantly open and close applications (or so it seems, as they're lamenting about app-start speeds), but I don't do that. OS X has great memory management. Photoshop, for example, while I haven't used it in the past two hours, is just open. And OmniWeb doesn't slow down because of it. Also Illustrator and InDesign are open, I notice now that I watch the Dock. And QT Player. Oh and iTunes is playing my favourite music. BBEdit is awaiting files to edit from Fetch, iCal is always open, Mail, of course, iChat and Extensis Suitcase. LaunchBar, too. TextEdit, of course, as I'm a writer. And sometimes I forget to close Microsoft Word, when one of my authors sends me his/her texts in .doc format. But does my computing experience slow down because of it? Nope. 

Shutting down MY computer is slow, mainly because of all the open applications. That's why I DON'T. Yeah, it's a PowerBook. But even an iMac doesn't use that much power when put to sleep. And wakeup from sleep time just rocks.


----------



## sjb2016 (Sep 14, 2002)

Jaguar is just about as fast/snappy on a top of the end Machine than OS 9 is on my G4 533.  It's a lot like how my dad's SE seemed faster under OS 6.8 than 7.1.  All new OS need to have the hardware to take advantage and make them as fast as possible. Soon enough everything will make Jaguar seem snappy as todays high-end is tomorrows low-end.  I'm sorry, that probably makes no sense but I don't think it's off the wall enough to have Ed kick me out or worse, banish me to Harve's Lounge.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Sep 14, 2002)

Okay there we gow!

-Mail is open
-MSN is open
-IE is open
-iTunes is open
-Word is (often) open
-Googolator is open (calculating... )
-Sherlock is open for translating weird words 

BUT it takes minutes to start them all, en when I start other programs, system performance isn't that great....   Maybe it's because of the Finder? Is it cocoanized?? 

But, MSN and IE are very slow and especially MSN is kinda buggy. 

I think Jaguar needs a Panther


----------



## glbronze (Sep 14, 2002)

The only things I'm upset about are application load time (which is not that bad actually) and the scroll bar lagging.


----------



## mrfluffy (Sep 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by AppleWatcher _
> *
> -MSN is open
> -IE is open
> ...


ever thought what these 2 have in common, MSN is especially horrible use fire.


----------



## toast (Sep 14, 2002)

I prefer Proteus to Fire.

Proteus: http://www.indigofield.com

Even though Proteus doesn't work well with the MSN network for the moment (since Aug. there has been BIG problems with MSN) -- which means I have to use Fire for the moment


----------



## AppleWatcher (Sep 14, 2002)

Thankx, I'll try Fire!

AW


----------



## fryke (Sep 14, 2002)

The Finder oughta be Apple's posterchild Carbon application. It's still laggy in some areas, but it's coming along well. It doesn't have to do anything with app launching. It's just that apps tend to take longer launching in a UNIX environment. Don't know why that is, but it IS like that. But just leave them open and you won't have to launch them again. And yeh, try to avoid MS software. Or, as I said, leave them open so you don't have to wait for them. And that was System 6.0.8 on the SE, there was on 6.8


----------



## plastic (Sep 14, 2002)

Jaguar is good enough for my everyday creative needs. Macromedia, Adobe and FCP3 runs like a dream. 

Chimera solved most of my pain when browsing, and the tab function is a dream to use. Especially when you are on the forums.

I am stuck with OS9 on my G4/867 because some dudes in Digidesign is not agreeing with EMagic on the release of ProTools X. Gee... corporate bull making my life miserable. 

I am not sure if they can figure out how they can port the plugz to OS X without having to re-purchase everything all over again and I have a big plugz library...

Damn.

I am happy with Jaguar though I will need Panther to speed things up. LOL.

Hell, gimmer Cheetah! ha ha ha.... that should really speed things up.


----------



## fetlock (Sep 14, 2002)

I don't think "speed" is the question, at least not for me.  Having "switched" last year, with the intro of OS X, I am having to learn a new set of user habits.  In Winland, it was necessary to do a lot of opening and closing, to prevent the blue screen blues, and if I opened a couple of big apps at the same time, I could count on slooooowwwwww work.  So, I closed a lot, so I could open another app.  And, win apps, with a decent processor and enough ram, do open with more snap than in OS X.  (And I have a really good win machine--IBM 300XL, with all the goodies--and it still crashed.)

However, and this is the big one for me, with OS X (10.2), I can open as many of my big apps as I want, experience no slow down in performance, and run no risk of system crash.  

All I have to do is learn a new set of work habits--i.e., open my apps and leave them open, as long as I want.  Switching among open apps is as snappy as anyone could want.  

This is one "switcher" who is as happy as a clam in Macworld!


----------



## AppleWatcher (Sep 15, 2002)

I think the performance of 10.2 _does_ go back when you open a lot of apps and when you're networking.
But OK, now I've Fire and it's much faster than MSN. What about IE?

AppleWatcher


----------



## hazmat (Sep 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by AppleWatcher _
> *I think the performance of 10.2 does go back when you open a lot of apps and when you're networking.
> But OK, now I've Fire and it's much faster than MSN. What about IE?
> *



Chimera: chimera.mozdev.org


----------



## AppleWatcher (Sep 15, 2002)

This is really blowing away 

Chimera RULEZ! GREAT work!


AppleWatcher


----------



## Jason (Sep 15, 2002)

quick as a hiccup eh?


----------



## AppleWatcher (Sep 15, 2002)

I hope the Chimera TurboChargeDevelopers can hold the speed Chimera has now... or improve it 


AppleWatcher


----------



## doemel (Sep 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by AppleWatcher _
> *Okay there we gow!
> 
> -Mail is open
> ...



I have pretty much the same config here (same iMac, just  a wee bit more memory - 576MB). I just installed Jaguar 2 days ago and I am surprised by its speed! Apps open in a snap, window dragging is aceptably fast (8MB AGP), Finder performs as it should. Only networking can be annoying at times (Finder not responding until time-out is reached). The only thing I'm going back to OS9 for is gaming (WarCraft III, playable under X, considerably faster under 9). But then again, this iMac is not exacly the latest generation (introduced nearly 3 years ago). If you want decent gaming performance you need a better machine anyway.

doemel

BTW, I still have the display pincushion (display distorted and picushioned to 1/2 display width) problem with this unit. I am running it with an externat display but what's the point of having an iMac then? Has anyone got a (not too expensive, I bought the machine off a friend for about 450 US$ and I'm not intending to invest too much anymore into it) solution for that problem. Consider me as take-apart savvy and basically able to solder stuff - I'm not an electronics expert though!


----------



## scope (Sep 15, 2002)

Notice how there have been no OS X releases called "Chetah."  Once that happens, we'll know its fast..


----------



## AppleWatcher (Sep 15, 2002)

10.0 Cheetah (!)
10.1 Puma
10.2 Jaguar
10.3 Panther

AppleWatcher


----------



## scope (Sep 15, 2002)

Was it?  I didn't recall it having a name...that's odd seeing as it was the slowest non-beta release there was.  Looking further, it was also called "Cyan" as well as "Cheetah."  Interesting...


----------



## fryke (Sep 15, 2002)

So, can we say that Jaguar is fast enough to kill Mac OS 9 now? 

I'm glad you've found replacements for your slowest applications.

Now if only the features of .mac were good enough to kill the thoughts I have about the price. I'm tempted to pay those 49$ now, but I really wouldn't pay 99$ for a year of this service. And maybe I'm just not the right person for it, as I'm maintaining web services myself. But those published iCals (as html) just look gorgeous. If I had a reason to publish my calendars, I'd love that feature about .mac. But as of now, I can publish them via WebDav (why not FTP, why not FTP?!) or by hand (shuffling the .ics files to a webserver via FTP).

Okay, enough ranting.

Jaguar is fast enough to kill Mac OS 9. The developers who won't publish their carbonized upgrades in time will lose some market share, Apple might lose some customers to Windows because of it, too. But basically, Jobs is right. OS 9 is dead. Let it rest in peace and move on. You're allowed to mourn for a while, but do it quietly so OS 9 can go to OS heaven. (And so we Mac OS X users don't have to hear your whining all the time.)


----------



## AppleWatcher (Sep 15, 2002)

Jaguar is fast enough to kill Mac OS 9 >> I mean with this: do you think Jaguar is as fast as OS 9 (or faster)!

AppleWatcher


----------



## hazmat (Sep 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by AppleWatcher _
> *Jaguar is fast enough to kill Mac OS 9 >> I mean with this: do you think Jaguar is as fast as OS 9 (or faster)!
> *



With current hardware, I don't think it can be.  OS 9 simply requires a lot less overhead.  Pretty much everything about it.  But OS X is a lot more efficient in its way of handling things.  It's like the arguments of Win95/98 vs. NT.  NT always could use more memory, but it used it a lot more efficiently.  Something like that.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Sep 15, 2002)

Hmm I don't get that!

If it's that more efficient; why isn't OS X faster than OS 9?

AW


----------



## hazmat (Sep 15, 2002)

I was thinking more of the GUI.  Think of how much more there is to it than to OS 9's.


----------



## AppleWatcher (Sep 15, 2002)

hmm dunno
the dock is quite graphic
and now in 10.2 the zoomin' windows...

But it's no 3D GUI so... I think OS X can be faster 

AppleWatcher


----------

