10.1 release slower then 5g27 on my dual

buggs1a

Registered
just installed 10.1 retail 5g64 on my dual. it is slower then 5g27. no idea why. some parts are slower while others the same. not one bit faster. and major problems too.
dual g4/450 with 896mb ram.
it sucks. no pc network support like steve promised. steve said all you do is open the connect to and it would see pc's, it doesn't and typing in smb://ip address does not work either. when you open the connect to and it searches you can not use the mac untill it is done. long time too. the mac is frozen. all you can do is move the mouse. 6 bounces first time i opened system prefs. QT took 3. others seemed ok. after it was 1 bounce only. in 5g27 these are 1 or 2 bounces in first launch.
when you open the connect to server panel it freezes the mac for a while. you also can not do anything else in the mac. speed isn't that great in the 10.1 release compared to 5g27. not any faster.
i like a couple features added but nothing special. looks like I'm waiting another 6 months at least untill I make the switch. Maybe, not sure yet.

finder resize window is pathetic still!!!!!!!!!! them jerks. you have it in view by keep arange by name. icon size is middle or a little larger. when you resize the window part of the time it is good, but when the window gets a little bigger while you are moving the size, to make it show more folders and files, it gets really jerky again. IE sucks the big one. resize that window is like i am using a 100mhz computer. IE now takes 2 bounces to open instead of 1 in 5g27. seems to me 5g27 is faster then 5g64 which is the shipping version now. i have no idea !!
 

Jorace

Registered
Try a clean install. Somthing must be messed up. Final blazes on my 533 with only 384 meg of ram. 2-3 bounce max for ANYTHING.
 

Olu

Registered
Ditto. Dual 500 with 768MB. All I can say is OH MY GOD! this thing screams. I was content with 10.04 but this release is something else. Resize in the finder is a non-issue. All the cocoa apps resize much better than before. IE is the same as before. maybe a little faster page rendering.

Though I don't watch DVDs on my computer I had to try it and I have to say that it's very, very cool. It hardly uses any processor power.

Application launch is 2-3 bounce maximum (except Omniweb which is 4 bounces).

I zeroed my drive last night and did a clean install this morning.
 

zippygaloo

Registered
ALL OF YOU! That's right, SHOVE IT! You know damn well OSX is slow but you just don't want to admit it because you are still waging your Mac vs. PC war. I hate PC's. They are ugly and confusing to me...TO ME! That's reason enough...FOR ME! I love Mac's, but this 10.1 OS is Freakin' SLOW. I have a new G4 with 576MB of RAM and it's still freakin' SLOW! So slow it's a joke! It isn't great! It isn't fun! It may be one day, but it isn't RIGHT NOW! So like I said. SHOVE IT!
 

Olu

Registered
Originally posted by zippygaloo
ALL OF YOU! That's right, SHOVE IT! You know damn well OSX is slow but you just don't want to admit it because you are still waging your Mac vs. PC war. I hate PC's. They are ugly and confusing to me...TO ME! That's reason enough...FOR ME! I love Mac's, but this 10.1 OS is Freakin' SLOW. I have a new G4 with 576MB of RAM and it's still freakin' SLOW! So slow it's a joke! It isn't great! It isn't fun! It may be one day, but it isn't RIGHT NOW! So like I said. SHOVE IT!
Oh of course you're right. I must have been imagining that OSX 10.04 smoked OS 9.1 when you did more than 3 things at a time. I must also be imagining that OS 10.1 has now made GUI tasks as fast if not faster than OS 9.2.1. In my imaginary world uptimes of >1month in OS 10.0.4 were just crazy hallucinations and I lied about it to make you feel worse. It must have been through this haze that I thought both my processors were being used instead of one like OS 9.2.1.

Grow up. You've seen the demos, most people are happy with the speed of OS 10.1. Instead of screaming at people, why don't you try and figure out what's wrong with your machine, setup, or perceptions? Or better yet burn a CD, watch a DVD, listen to MP3s, and surf the web on both OS and tell us how it turns out (after you have to force restart OS9).
 

Makosuke

Guy Who Loves X
First off, I use Macs because they both rock and work for me; despite years of virulently bashing PCs (and with good reason), I won't begrudge anyone their Windows OS or box if they feel that it works better for them. I'm also not going to point fingers, scream, or flame.

But... I'd like to point out that OSX isn't slow. Putting the platform wars aside, most of the games I (and according to benchmarks by other people) run in X run perfectly fine. Web pages load approximately as fast as in 9. According benchmarks on their own site Lightwave 4D (after they properly optimized it) runs about the same under X as 9, and it even compares favorably to their Windows version.

What is slow is the Finder. Zippygaloo is justified in saying that the Finder, in comparison to previous MacOS incarnations and most versions of Windows, is very slow. The 2D drawing code is also rather unoptimized, and the combination of those two things make using X seem slow--apps take a bit to launch, menus have a perceptible lag before they drop, window resizing is glacial, and on slower systems live dragging isn't too speedy (though on a DP it's as smooth as I could ask for). But (with the arguable exception of app launching), none of those things mean that X is slow, only that the application "Finder" and some Quartz functions are slow, which nobody denies. That's a significant part of the reason that 10.1 can be so much faster--they optimized the poorly written finder (and I'm sure there's plenty more room left), as well as some lower level stuff.

As for me, I've got enough power to burn that the Finder and Quartz run fast enough, and anything else (that is, real work like rendering, ripping, game playing, calculating...) runs darn fast. I'm not complaining.

Oh, and about the original post--I concurr that something must be wrong, because the release version should blow the doors off 5G27 by any standars.
 

buggs1a

Registered
i did a re install and it's not faster that i can tell. 5g27 opened stuff in one bounce after first time. same in retail 10.1. so it's not faster in app launch time.
i did a full install/clean, reformat etc.
it's ok though other then some issues that wont work like steve said, pc networking. other then that it's ok.
 

serpicolugnut

OS X Supreme Being
5G27 may have been slightly faster in some respects, but it also was very unstable. I tested it, and the among it's problems were constant Finder crashing, frequent hard freezes, and the damn thing just wasn't finished.

I think Jobs promised a little too much. I've got three Macs here...
1) dual800G4/1GB RAM
2) Powerbook G4/500/384MB RAM
3) PowerMac G4/400/896MB RAM

All see a dramatic speed increase with 10.1 over 10.0.4. However, not all are getting the advertised "1 bounce appliaction launch". Nor would I expect them all too. The dual800 obviously works as it should. Everything is super fast. Applications do launch in 1 or 2 bounces at most. The PBG4 is the slowest of the bunch even though it's the middle machine in terms of mhz. Maybe because of the slower graphics chip, maybe because it only has 384MB of memory. The G4/400's speeds are very good, but applications, when launched the 1st time, can take 4-5 bounces. The second launch is always 1 or 2 bounces. But every other aspect of speed (finder windows, scrolling, screen redraws, etc) is in line with what was advertised.

As for your problems with "Connect To", I think your mistaken that it grabs control of your machine, not allowing you to do anything else. In my usage, it grabs control of the Finder, allowing you to switch to another application while the Finder trys to connect. Also, I've had no problem connecting to SMB servers with "Connect To". I'll agree that the implementation is lame. You shouldn't have to type the address in. You should see a list of what servers are available, click on it, and connect. It should be that simple. I'm pretty sure Apple will be getting a ton of complaints on this and probably upgrade it in the next major release.

I guess the bottom line is if you feel 5G64 is too slow for you after evaluating a bootlegged copy of 5G27, why not go back to 5G27?
 

SCrossman

MacTech
I could not get PC networking to work at first and you won't see them listed in the Connect to Server window. You can use smb://computer_name/share_name and connect. I have done this with Windows NT4 and 2000. However, it did not work until I uninstalled Dave 3a (thursby.com). So if you installed Dave and have not uninstalled, it will not work!
OS X 10.1 is fast, regardless of zippygaloo's objective opinions. Classic is as fast as 9.1 or +/- some things are actually faster, others slightly slower. You also have to remember that this is a true preemptive multitasking OS, unlike OS9's cooperative MT, which could take over the system completely, giving maximum CPU to the current running app. This cannot happen under OS X as it is giving all running processes the time they need to execute without any one process hogging all CPU.
It is only going to get better with a few interim updates between now and 10.2 The networking interface issues to a PC has to be improved from a user standpoint. There is no auto-mounting and the log on to a server needs work, but the underpinnings are there and they work. Using SMB over AFP/IP yields improved networking support and I plan on doing some tests this week to measure the difference with some benchmarks. The ability to drop AFP support from our servers and use native SMB will be a godsend.
 

tenneck

Registered
...I am on a QS 867G4+ and I can go down my dock clicking on every icon and they are all popping up in one bounce even while I am clicking on the next icon. Supa dupa fast. I will say that it was much faster after I did a clean install on a fresh partition.

Don't know if that helps your eloquent 'shove it' argument.
 
Top