# WHY is window resizing so slow still in macos x and so fast in Windows 2000?



## PD (Nov 30, 2001)

I was using windows 2000 today and noticed how EXTREMELY smooth window resizing is in explorer and other applications. There is no lag whatsoever on a machine that is at least a year old.  Then I went back to osx 10.1 running on my powerbook G4 with 384mb ram and was a little depressed. It's so slow compared to windows. People say it's all the eye candy but there isn't that much of it on a window.

What I would like to know is the reasons Apple hasn't been able to speed up window resizing. Does anybody know what the problem is??? I mean technically there must be some problem....what is it?

Thanks!

PD


----------



## Dradts (Nov 30, 2001)

It has a lot to do with all the eye candy, believe me! Just think of antialiased fonts (they have to be re-antialiased on every window redraw), or what about semi-transparent Finder Icons.... etc.

Windows doesn't need to do all this stuff when resizing a window. There are no antialiased fonts, no windows shadows,...

Besides, M$ Windows windows redraw routines are somewhat better than OS X' ones. 
Windows gives the highest priority to the window resizing itself. U can still continue resizing a window, even if the window content redraw is not finished at this point.
On Mac OS X, its turned around. U can't continue resizing a window, until its content has been completely redrawn. Thats also y OS X window resizing is so slow and unresponsible.

Its the same thing with Linux alternative GUIs such as KDE or Gnome. They have kinda same resizing routines like OS X, so they are pretty slow too.


----------



## Biff (Nov 30, 2001)

If you use Windows XP you will notice that live window resizing is just about as bad or worse than OS X 10.1.


----------



## PD (Nov 30, 2001)

Am I to understand that we can send people to the moon and transplant their hearts, but we can't get smooth window resizing in the year 2001???? I;m happy at least that windows xp has bad resizing too. At least we don't have to hear the bs from xp users that our windows are slow...

Not a big deal. I'm just surprised that it seems so dificult. On the other hand, I really know nothing about programming so...

PD


----------



## Dradts (Nov 30, 2001)

Its the year 2003; OS X 11.2 Preview in a Mac magazine...
---------------------------------------------------------

[...]
The current update for Mac OS is X 11.2, available through Internet software update.

As Apple CEO Steve Jobs states, the newest System update includes several major improvements and should be installed on all Mac OS computers and users currently using OS X 11.1 and below.

Our magazine's chief editor took a brief look on the new update.
Here is his comment:

"Yeey, I've just installed OS X 11.2 on my AppleMegaPowerBook G6 quadruple [20.3 GHz, 2000 GB RAM], und I must say that its definately worth the download! Since Apple removed the window resizing feature, every little App on my system runs lots faster than it did before, because it must no longer have the fear to get its windows resized! Unfortunately, OS X 11.2's window-drag-manager is incredible slow, compared to the old window-drag-manager of OS X <11.2, and its almost impossible, to move a window around without becoming depressive. Hopefully, Apple will remove the window-drag ability in the next OS X update, maybe X 11.3? [...] to be continued?


----------



## kenny (Nov 30, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Biff _
> *If you use Windows XP you will notice that live window resizing is just about as bad or worse than OS X 10.1. *



Uhh.... no.

Every machine I've used WinXP on has demonstrated much better live window-resizing. It's a little embarrasing that my old laptop with a crappy video chipset (NeoMagic) and anaemic memory can resize windows a LOT faster and more smoothly than my G4/500 AGP (Rage 128) box, but there it is. If window resizing were the sole measure of the usefulness of the OS (a stupid notion), MacOSX would be doomed. 

Of course, it could be that XP _looks_ slower because your eyes are bleeding from the day-glo colour scheme..


----------



## serpicolugnut (Nov 30, 2001)

I can't believe people are still complaining about this...

OK - here's the fastest way to resize a Window..

Click on the Green button. 

Window resized. Now go get some work done.

Do all of you really have this much time to sit there and look at how smooth/coarse a window resizes in real time?


----------



## PD (Nov 30, 2001)

No, I don;t sit around resizing windows all day. In fact, I like Macos x a lot. What I don't get is how a modern, new OS that is supposed to be one of the most powerful systems around can't handle a simple task like windows resizing....,to my uneducated brain, it just doesn't make sense.

All I want to know is WHY it's so choppy despite powerful hardware, lots of ram etc.. and my next question is: besides better hardware, HOW COULD APPLE IMPROVE window resizing. It's really not a big deal but it would be nice if the whole system fels responsive and snappy.


PD


----------



## serpicolugnut (Nov 30, 2001)

There are three ways Apple can fix/enhance Window resizing...

1) Improve the routines. They clearly improved them in 10.1, so maybe they can improve them even more for the next release. Then again, maybe the overhead of live window resizing with everything else that is Quartz is already optimized to the max. Only Apple knows that answer...

2) Provide the option to revert back to Window outline resizing for those with slower machines not capable of smooth window resizing...

3) Come out with faster hardware...

My guess is Apple will implement parts of #1, while implementing #3.

Remember, the OS is now more advanced than the hardware. The classic Mac OS runs so fast now because it was designed to originally run on hardware from 1984. Go back a few years to 1996, and remember OS 7.5. It didn't run nearly as good on a 8500/132 (a top of the line machine for that time) as does OS X 10.1 on a dual800 (top of the line now). And it's only going to get better...

If you can't deal, OS 9 still runs pretty good as long as you don't mind random crashes from time to time...


----------



## sebastiant (Nov 30, 2001)

Just wanted to say that the green button doesnt do much good at all. The window will, of course, resize. But not the way i like it.

I said it before:
Me and my iMac cant handle all the aqua eye-candy. 
(some dude told me that the eye-candy itself didnt make any difference, but we got another opinion here)
So let me turn it off, so I may resize or switch apps without going crazy.

And no... I cant spend money on more RAM.


----------



## SCrossman (Nov 30, 2001)

There was a small program that would turn off all of the eye candy, and it did improve the speed somewhat subjectively on slower G3s. But the lack of the real X interface (eye candy) made it really bad to look at. No shadowing, no anti-aliasing, no Quartz, yadayada. 
The best way to improve your OS X performance is BUY more RAM. OS X is very efficient at caching information. Memory is very cheap now, IMHO. But that holds true in any computer, doesn't matter what OS.
OS X takes wants more than the average user has installed.


----------



## PD (Nov 30, 2001)

But isn't 384mb ram enough??? that's three times what Apple says is the minimum...

I have that and still

PD


----------



## halli (Nov 30, 2001)

Ok, so live window resizeing is a little slow but it doesn't bother me a bit, I would not want to go back to outline resizeing cause now I know what the contents of the window is going to look like before I let go of the mouse, I mean who cares if you have to wait half a second longer. It's so sad seeing people arguing about such minor problems, I've had nothing but success with Mac OS X and wouldn't even consider useing any other system.


----------



## fabulousteeth (Nov 30, 2001)

I would have liked it if Apple had used an evolution of the Mac OS 9 interface for X, instead of Aqua, which is prettier but hugely too resource-hungry for today's hardware (my three-month-old iBook, in particular). I feel like it was a premature marketing move to make it part of X, which I tend to think would be a hell of an OS if it didn't take so long to do everything.


----------



## SCrossman (Nov 30, 2001)

> _Originally posted by fabulousteeth _
> *I would have liked it if Apple had used an evolution of the Mac OS 9 interface for X, instead of Aqua, *



It would have just been another hack onto the 17 year old OS we all have grown to love. 

When you use OS XII.xxx several years from now, the reasons will be apparent why things are different today. In 3-4 years, processors will run at 25+ghz, the data bus will be at some astronomical frequency, and our computers will be as useless as the 100mhz Power Computing box down in my basement (it was so cool in 1996).


----------



## Fahrvergnuugen (Nov 30, 2001)

> processors will run at 25+ghz,



This I highly doubt. The answer is not a faster clock cycle. In Intel's P4, the clock can generate as much as 25% overhead. No...in 3-4 years we will have clockless cpus and optical circuitry. All of the major chip makers are reasearching clockless cpus... [you can already get a panasonic pager with a clockless chipset, the battery life is double] the biggest setback is the cost of changing the production line for such a radicly different chip.

Does this have anything to do with live window resizing? No.

Can Apple make windows resize respectably with the current hardware? I think so.

Graphically, resizing a window is WAY simpler than some of the 3D games we have. Correct me if I'm wrong, but one major reason that live window resizing is poor is because it is all done by the CPU. If it were worked so that more of the work was done by the video card, the problem would be solved. Technicaly, I don't know what has stopped them from doing this already [maybe this is just a pipedream and it's not possible at all, though I find that hard to believe].  

Maybe the solution is make the finder use OpenGL like Quake does


----------



## fryke (Nov 30, 2001)

Hmm...

We hear it all the time. But it's not really Aqua, that's a problem. The Quartz engine just plain does much more than the good old QuickDraw 2D engine. It's Display-PDF (replacing OpenSteps Display-PostScript). This is not yet that obvious, but this will make OS X the one and true print/design workhorse in the future. 150 ppi monitors? 300 ppi monitors? They'll come our way. And OS X is based on PDF. Nice, huh? No: We'll depend on it in the graphics business.

And whether you like Aqua or not, it is more than just a more colorful theme. It's a new interface to the computer. Sure, they didn't kill every feature we were used to. But the goal was to completely rethink that good old adaption of the real world to a 2D space called the 'Desktop'.

Users that are completely new to computers love Mac OS X, because it makes sense and works as expected (as a User Interface should).

Maybe not everything is finished there. But then again Aqua was the last addition to OS X. Mac OS X Server 1.x had a Platinum interface popped upon OpenStep underpinnings. It did have an appeal. But it was dead ugly at the same time.


----------



## SCrossman (Nov 30, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Fahrvergnuugen _
> *
> 
> This I highly doubt. T *



They said the same thing when processors were running at 12mhz back on the 80286. Reaching the 100mhz barrier was unachievable, in their minds. They also said Apple was dead too. Believe what you want, it will happen.

Why can't you accept this? Whatever, dude. I have been there when saving files on a cassette deck was all we could think was fast (it wasnt). I remember when a 5mb cartridge was the "bomb" and now I have a 5gb iPod that I can carry all my stuff on in my pocket.

And your Fahrvergnuugen cannot go 160mph either too. 
A few years ago, I did not think a processor would reach 1ghz. I was as narrow minded as you are and had a hard time accepting the facts, but it will happen and the faster CPU and most importantly, the BUS, will achieve much greater throughput.
Processors will go faster and video cards will be able to do what the main CPU is not designed to do.
I also agree with several points of fryke's last post too.


----------



## edX (Dec 1, 2001)

Ok fast is nice. but what is the point of whining about a lost second or two that only occcurs every now and then? do you really believe that small amount of time effects your life? My guess is that the amount of time lost to window resizing in a whole day by the combined group of people participating in this thread wouldn't be a fraction of the time spent writing the original complaint about it!! I'll bet I lost more time reading this thread than i did in a whole month of window resizes. (my own choice i admit). I often save more time in one day by not rebooting from crashes than I would lose to window resizing in a year. And I for one like the looks of aqua. I would much rather stare at the rounder, softer, nicer, more modern looking interfaces. If this slows it down a sec here or there, then let me be the one to say - its still a better thing. On the other hand I will still contend that alot of it isn't the system's fault - it is the fault of the software writer(s). Not all apps have a problem with window resizing. some are very quick. The opera that i am using right now is a little slow but i like enough of the other advantages of the program to use it most of the time. IE zips around with lots of small tasks quickly but it crashes so often it's not worth booting unless you have to (there are other good reasons not to launch it, but that's another thread). Lets give the develpers a little more time to catch up to the system before we start blaming it for every little second lost to some minor irritation. Instead of complaing about apple on this issue, why don't you drop a line to your software developer and ask why he/she can't make the window resizing a little faster? 

just a little free philosophy to finish -
for a happier life, don't count the seconds you've lost. instead enjoy the hours and days that you have.


----------



## ERICBRIAN2002 (Dec 1, 2001)

hey ED SPRUIELL i noticed you have a imac 400 mhz with the umax scanner i wanna know some stuff about it so can you please give me your email add. heres mine if you want to email me eric.brian2@verizon.net.


----------



## buggs1a (Dec 1, 2001)

windows xp does not have bad window resizing. it's way faster and better then mac os 10.1 on any machie i have used.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Dec 1, 2001)

I can't speak for WinXP because there is no way I am forking over another $150 to Microsoft just so they can tell me how much of my computer I can alter before I have to get a code to avoid being locked out. 

But I do use Win2000 on a PIII/800, and can attest that Window resizing on it (with a 32MB RivaTNT2 nVidia card) is just about the same as OS X on a G4/400 and up. The resize is a little more responsive, but at the same time, the window "flickers" during resize, something I never see on any Mac running OS X.  And OS X has much more math to do on Window resizes than Win2000 - remember EVERYTHING in OS X is anti-aliased, which adds a lot of math. Also, compare the drop shadows on both OS's Windows. OS X's looks much nicer. And a final point - Icons. OS X's Icons are 128x128, even when they are set to be smaller, the system still has to deal with the extra info each icon has, as opposed to Win2000 which uses 32x32 Icons, with support for 48x48.

Still, I wish Apple would just give us an option to disable it so people who get themselves all worked up over it can just shut it down and move on to their next complaint....


----------



## nevir (Dec 1, 2001)

> _Originally posted by SCrossman _
> *
> 
> They said the same thing when processors were running at 12mhz back on the 80286. Reaching the 100mhz barrier was unachievable, in their minds. They also said Apple was dead too. Believe what you want, it will happen.
> *



You tit. You obviously don't know jack about processor design. More MHz is NOT the answer. You're an apple owner, you should know this by default. Intel's next gen processor is going to start out at 800MHz...less than HALF of the current P4s. This is because THE CLOCK MAKES TOO MUCH OVERHEAD. Making a bazilion ghz chip is not how they are going to make faster chips.

Motorolla has already applied for patents on optical circuitry and all the chip makers have R&D teams for clockless chips. The way computers grow, in 4 years time, the clock will be a thing of the past and we will be measuring speed via benchmarks [the way it should be done].

At any rate, this is not what this thread is about. It is not necessary to have a dual 800MHz G4 to have smooth window resizing. Apple will provide us with a solution, but there are many more issues that needed to be addressed first...such as CDR & DVD support.



> *
> And your Fahrvergnuugen cannot go 160mph either too. *


You obviously don't know anything about Paul's Cars.


----------



## SCrossman (Dec 1, 2001)

> _Originally posted by nevir _
> * You tit. You obviously don't know jack about processor design.  *



And you are so smart you have to resort to calling me names. What does my comments about the future speeds of CPU have to do with my knowledge of processors?
I know about clockless CPUs, but that has nothing to do with my comments. I was also building logic boards with discreet components using CMOS 4000 series chips many years before you were born.
Tell me old wise one, looking into your crystal ball, when will they stop increasing the clock of a computer, at what frequency?



> You obviously don't know anything about Paul's Cars.



I know I don't, and you know all. I never met Paul, let alone his cars.


----------



## uoba (Dec 1, 2001)

CALM DOWN GIRLS!


----------



## SCrossman (Dec 1, 2001)

go uoba 

look at this or here for more info about how fast things will go.
By then, our windows resizing will be as smooth as Win2k.


----------



## uoba (Dec 1, 2001)

That second article could be mistaken as an April Fools it's so good!


----------



## chemistry_geek (Dec 1, 2001)

Come on people, window resizing works.  That's all it has to do.  Does slow window resizing prevent you from doing your work?  Hell no.  Get a life.  I can't believe people bitch about pointless little differences between Mac OS X and Windows XP.  What do you do all day? LIVE in front of your computers wasting time resizing windows and running the cursor along the dock watching icons expand and shrink in size?  Just accept that there are some little sacrifices in life and leave it alone.

Oh this can't be!  Oh MY! No!.... Those PC zombees are beating us! Say it an't so Steve!

GET A LIFE!

chemistry_geek


----------



## Dradts (Dec 1, 2001)

Its not about windows resizing keeping us away from working. Its about Mac  OS X window resizing looking ugly, because it is so slow. Why do we all have Macs? Not just because they have faster processors, but also because they look nice and the have a nice OS. Thats y most Mac users complain about the ugly window resizing...


----------



## mailseth (Dec 1, 2001)

I hate to break it to you guys, but clockless chips are what the future is. If you dont believe me, head to slashdot or some good techie website and do a search on them.

Heh, he called you a tit. I have only heard that out of old monty python videos.


----------



## roksob (Dec 3, 2001)

How come the windows in Opera can be resized smoothly?  They have shadows and all the other eye candy.  It can't be such a big deal.


----------

