10.1 Speed Not Acceptable

mindbend

Registered
Note: Keep in mind that I am an ardent Mac fanatic, which is why it pains to me write the following:

Just got 10.1 installed on a G4 450 and a 400 iMac Rev B. To me, the finder speed is still unacceptable. There is simply no excuse for how pathetically sloth-like window resizing is. I hate to promote Windows, but it runs circles around 10.1 for desktop level operations. It is truly a joke and an embarassment.

I spend my day behind my Mac, I find it really irritating to have to negotiate windows coated with syrup. Internet Explorer is a travesty. I can take a coffee break before the window catches up. The fact that Apple even uses the word "fast" on its OS X hype pages should be illegal. "Fast" relative to what? A turtle? C'mon.

Is it functional? Of course, it's functional, but just barely. It is faster than 10.0.4, but so what. 10.0.4 didn't even register as motion on a speed scale. My charts indicate it as "frozen stiff".

There is only one thing that's truly faster in my tests and day to day uses of X, and that is network performance. That is nice indeed, but it ain't enough. Also, network volumes/directories still display slowly through apps like Photoshop. Also, I'm getting a six hour time differential when reading time/date stamps on a Windows 2000 server (this is not the case when the same machine is running OS 9). What a joke. And they call this a network machine...

This is unreal to me. We are actually moving backward! And this whole thing about apps launching faster. Where? I haven't seen it. Faster than 10.0.4, yes, but still nowhere near as fast as OS 9 for me.

On paper, OS X is fabulous. Even in practice, it's interface, look, stability and features are great. Too bad every single app I have runs better under 9!!! InDesign is glacially slow under Classic. Pressready is now useless. Synchronize is broken under Classic and Qdea is still spinning their heels on an X release. Illustrator is slow, so is everything else.

Games? Yeah right, who are you kidding? I'll believe it when I see it.

And where the hell is Final Cut Pro for X? I only make my living using it. And I actually fell for their "Summer" release BS. Why do I keep drinking the Koolaid?

OK, OK. My rant is fading. I told myself I would wait one full year and until Photoshop, Final Cut Pro, AI, GoLive and a few others go native. That day has not yet come, so I won't give up. But, for this customer to stick around, I want to see native apps and dual gig processors by Christmas. Until then, it's OS 9 for me.
 

Aussie John

Registered
Well I have to say i dont know really what you are talking about.
The finder speed on my G4 450 is doesnt really seem any different to OS 9.
 

Jadey

sosumi
It's strange I've read a number of posts from people complaining about the speed of X with greater specs for macs than I have, yet despite a few minor glitches, X runs very smoothly on my mac. I'm still only running 10.0.4 too! I wonder what the difference is... are they running classic constantly? (although after a RAM upgrade that runs well too here) do they not defrag their drives? There must be some apple TIL's on this.
 

mindbend

Registered
Jadey,

With all due respect, seriuosly, I've tried and seen 10.0.4 on several machines, none of which even come close to being describable as "smooth". Are you serious? I'm not trying to be a smart-ass.

Some things are indeed glass-smooth, such as moving windows around. That's wonderful. But resizing them is a total joke. Are we comparing Apples to Apples (no pun intended)? Also, window nav drop-downs are slow, and so is almost everything else. I'm currently creating an Excel spreadsheet documenting application launch times, file open speed, in-app speed and other info. Suffice it say that OS X has not beaten OS 9 in one single category.

I've heard talk of people getting better speed doing fresh clean installs, perhaps I should do the same. I'm not holding my breath though. It seems clear to me that OS X users do not have the same critical standards that I have. If I move a mouse cursor around the screen and the graphic/window/icon/whatever can't keep up, that equals slow. Period. This is 2001 for crying out loud.
 

Aussie John

Registered
I think you should seriously consider doing a clean install as i have no problem moving icons or windows around the screen
 

pooch

Registered
How much ram are you running OSX.1 with? I have a 266 G3 that I just stuck an additional 256mb or ram in and OSX.1 works nicely. My tibook on the other hand has no problem runing x.1; in fact, it is the nicest OS I have ever used hands down! You might want to do what Aussie John suggested and re-do the system cause X.1 is not slow at all!
 

Jorace

Registered
I to think that you should try a clean install. I have heard many people say that 10.1 was slow as a dog when they upgraded, but if they do a clean install it was very fast.

I am running 10.1 on an iBook, and window resizing is as fast as 9, and Very smooth
 

whitesaint

cocoa love
I think your mind is bent. I'm not being a smart ass. I mean 10.1 may be slow in a few tasks, but it is alot faster than 10.0.4. There is no excuse for what you're on. You are exaggerating way too much beyond belief. Bended mind, with all due respect, shut the hell up. If you dont like OS X switch to Windows. Have fun see ya later.

In 10.1, I get things accomplished when i need to. Sure it's not as fast as 9.2.1 or whatever your using, but i would very gladly switch the speed over for a crash-resistant OS itself. OS X is the best OS there will be for a while, and it has evolved to much. I can't believe an "ardent mac fanatic" would say such things. Especially, when it has come this far, there are thousands of Apps for it (or at least it seems like it), and its got the best graphics, stability, of any OS. I'm not saying it is the fastest, we all have that thought in the back of our head. But it's fast enough to blow Winblows out the window.
 

mindbend

Registered
I'm glad that everyone is happy with X. I really am. One day, I will also be excited about it. But, you see, I make a living off of the efficiency at which I can work. OS X simply doesn't cut it, yet.

My own suspicions are that Apple is purposely keeping X in the hefty requirements arena so they can sell more boxes. They are in the hardware biz after all. I have no evidence of this.

I will refrain from further comment until I reinstall it (clean install if you will) tomorrow. At that point I will either admit I was wrong or I will challenge people to provide examples of how OS X is faster than 9. (Faster, not more stable. I've got OS 9 running rock solid, so stability isn't issue. I need speed, dudes.)
 

Abakadoosh

Smiling 'till death
ok, ill give ya speed, but i dont know if this applies to all. I have an old sawtooth, g4 400 single, ya know, the old g4. anyways, ive added some memory over time and now have 704 megs of ram. im thinkin, "this 'll do me". well, i was running os 9 at the time. now, im not agreeing with mindbend over here, but! it almost seems as if 704 wont be suffient. my dad just told me, i think it was yesterday, that he read somewhere that classic, when booted, is automatically given a gig of ram! all on its own. well, 704 just isnt enough for a system that requires 128 min, then adds a gig for Classic. so if your running classic mindben, bendming, or whatever the hell your name is, then JUST RUN OS 9!!! if all of your apps work better in it, THEN JUST RUN IT! not like its ganna kill you! after all, all the major apps are mostly still beta's any ways.

hmm... i seem to have taken several turns in this post.... anyways, what i was originally ganna talk about, is that many of my apps start and work faster than os 9 ever did! internet explorer, dont even try comparing it to the os 9 version, the os x one will shred it! most of the time it doesnt even take me one freaken bounce to start IE. sure some things are slow, and window resizing still isnt really worth it, but take a look at your memory and cpu usage sometime, and you'll see why your counting bounces.
 

jabhome

Registered
The speed difference I experienced on my icebook was phenomenal after I did a clean install. The upgrad just did not cut it. The one thing I will agree with that Mind Bend mentioned was resizeing windows. Finder resizing is smooth as silk for me, but IE it a bitch. I too can grab a bite to eat before IE catches up. In fact all of my browsers are a little slow when it comes to window resizing. The rest of my apps and especially the finder resizing is a joy, comparable to Windows and OS9.
 

ezra

Super Organism
Originally posted by mindbend
Jadey,

With all due respect, seriuosly, I've tried and seen 10.0.4 on several machines, none of which even come close to being describable as "smooth". Are you serious? I'm not trying to be a smart-ass.

Some things are indeed glass-smooth, such as moving windows around. That's wonderful. But resizing them is a total joke. Are we comparing Apples to Apples (no pun intended)? Also, window nav drop-downs are slow, and so is almost everything else. I'm currently creating an Excel spreadsheet documenting application launch times, file open speed, in-app speed and other info. Suffice it say that OS X has not beaten OS 9 in one single category.

I've heard talk of people getting better speed doing fresh clean installs, perhaps I should do the same. I'm not holding my breath though. It seems clear to me that OS X users do not have the same critical standards that I have. If I move a mouse cursor around the screen and the graphic/window/icon/whatever can't keep up, that equals slow. Period. This is 2001 for crying out loud.
I highly recommend you do the clean install, it's sounds like that is your problem. I've done many different installs on several machines, and you do get bad installs sometimes. I've had a G4 733 running slower than a G3 333, so it does happen, probably more that it should. A stock 450MHz machine with OpenGL support should be redrawing just as fast as your OS9.
 

legacyb4

Registered
Not too sure why you are having so many problems, but I did a clean install on a G4/400 AGP with (now) 512MB RAM and so far, the system feels pretty happy.

Sure, there is a Finder-level slowdown compared to OS 9 or a Windows box (I've got a Windows 2000 server sitting under my desk as well), but guess what? The minute I got my hands on this used G4, I feel no urge to flick my monitor switcher to the PC unless I have to adjust some server setting!

I'm the system admin for a 8 server, 35 client Windows startup and I still am happiest sitting in front of a Mac; call me a die-hard, but OS X is a real joy to use and I only hope it gets better.

Cheers.
 

chris v

Registered
Happy with speed here, too.

I'm running most of my main apps (Adobe) in classic, still, and it's running just the same as OS 9 did, with one major ecxeption-- NO CRASHES! I booted into OS X on Wednesday afternoon, launched classic, (G4 450 AGP) and my machine's been up since then, without even any apps locking up, much less the whole system.

When you factor in 2 to 4 cold restarts a day, at five minutes each, I can tolerate the occasional slow finder window. It's not like I sit around and resize windows all day, anyway. Column view is about instant for me, and apps launch as fast as they did under 9.

But then, I also did a complete low-level reformat before installing 9.2.1 & X. I also ran disk warrior and rebuilt the directories after I installed 9.2, but before I installed X. I think this may have significantly sped up Classic launch time, as Classic mode starts up in just over 30 seconds, now.

My one big complaint? Bring back the Users and Groups control panel!

CV (MacNN refugee)
 

buggs1a

Registered
mindbend, no chance in hell you will see dual 1ghz macs by xmas. i don't think so at all. not till Jan macworld at earliest. only opinion.

10.1 opens apps faster then 9 in IE and QT for me. But just barely. simple text and text edit are same that i can tell.

finder resize window yes is still bad. IE is the worst. only cus MS didn't change the code at all, it is same code to run carbon only. MS sucks in IE.
QT is horrible when playing local mpeg files. moving the window around, using the file menues etc is pathetic. build in SMB networking fucking sucks. i copy a 700mb file from pc to mac and it;s few hundred k/sec and moving the progress window is jerky as hell. copy a 10mb file is it waaaay smoother and faster. using dave in os 9 is no problem for anything.
games? uh, true, yeah right apple. i say that too.

I don't think os 10 will be really really usefull for me till the apps i want are on it and it's performance is as good as 9 or better in 100% of all areas. now keep in mind mac os 10 is only 7 months old or so. os 9 took 15 years to get there. give mac os 10 2 full years and i bet it will blow everything away. thats when i would start using it maybe, by next summer, 10.3 or so.

also keep in mind apple is in the middle of re writing the finder entirely into cocoa. this will help MAJOR!!! this will be in 10.2 or 10.3/summer release next year.
 

Shibby

Homer
Mindbend

i am not sure why u are having so many problems but i have to say that 10.1 is FAST compareable to 9.2.1 apple should be proud of what they have accomplished. i agree with some of the other members have you tried a clean install?
 

Dradts

Official Mac User
I don't really wanna say this, but windoze 2000 is way faster than any mac wit mac os x on it!
I really don't like windoze, n i hate working wit it every day. But mac os x just cannot catch up the speed of windoze (yet). Even on a "slow" pentium III 500 windoze 2000 runs smoother than mac os x on a g3 600. I hope this will be fixed soon by apple.

I am developer in a software firm, and i can't get it y it is so hard for apples developers to write a fast window resizing routine.
Cause window resizing is the thing that sucks most wit mac os x. :mad:
 

serpicolugnut

OS X Supreme Being
Windows 2000 is not faster than OS X when it comes to Window resizing. With 10.1, my Finder window resize is real time, and it is as smooth as can be on a dual800, a G4/400, and a TiBook G4/500. On my P3/800 running Win2000, Window resizes are choppy - and Windows doesn't have nearly as much computation to do when you resize a window. Remember, in the Finder, when you resize a Window, the computer is also computing the drop shadow, which is quite a bit of added information...

Also, Apple is NOT reworking the Finder in Cocoa. That is the biggest myth out there. A Carbon application is not any slower than a Cocoa application. Both are frameworks, and Carbon apps can be just as fast as Cocoa applications. Both frameworks offer advantages over the other. For instance, Cocoa apps integrate Services easier than Carbon apps can (but it's not impossible to implement these in Carbon now with Mach-O Carbon applications). Carbon apps, on the other hand, have the benefit of having their Window resize routines either use live resizing (like IE 5.1.2), or outline resizing (as in Classic resizing). IE 5.1.2's anemic Window resizing is a result of inefficient coding on the applications part, not the OS.

And finally, if you upgraded to 10.1 from 10.0.4, and saw no speed boost, then you should do a clean install and a reformat. Every machine I've installed 10.1 on has seen a dramatic speed increase, and I've installed on everything from a Rev. B iMac with 128MB of RAM to a dual800G4/800 with 1GB of RAM. Obviously the dual800 is going to be faster than the iMac, but both saw significant improvements in the overall performance.
 
Top