10.1 Speed Not Acceptable

I'm no expert on this, but the comment that Classic "takes up" 1 gig of ram is wrong. It is "allowed" to take up that much ram, it's not actually allocated. That means if you have a gig and a half of ram, then Classic can take up as much as a gig. VM is allocated on the fly, so Classic will only take up as much RAM as it needs (as long as it under a gig).

On a side note, I think a lot of people need to remember a couple of things:
1) OS X 10.1 is still not being advertised. Why? Because apple knows OS X is not polished enough for mass use. Apple fanatics who want to test out the OS will be okay, but maybe not your grandma. So if it's too slow, your just going to have to put up with it.

2) How much freakin time are you spending in the finder resizing windows? I d that like every couple of days. I only have 500mhz G3 icebook wth 256 MB of ram, and everything flies in 10.1. Opening folders is amazingly fast, playing DVDs and doing stuff at the otehr time is possible, compiling code is faster, etc. Login and bootup is so much faster and smoother, and menus come down almost instantly. If the only issue you have with 10.1 is finder resizing, I think we're okay.

3) If it's too slow, just use 9.2.1. If it's such a big deal to resize windows quickly, it will serve your purposes well.

F-bacher
 
I’ve officially decided to withhold further comment regarding speed(OK, after all the stuff below this I officially decide to withhold comment) until true native OS X applications are available for comparison. Until then, there can be no proper comparison other than Finder level stuff.

I’m a very analytical person. My speed comments were not based on opinion, but on fact. Speed is not up for debate. Granted, speed is relative, but it is also quantitative. I began an exhaustive spreadsheet comparing OS 9 and OS X Finder and application speeds (launching, opening files, window redraws, etc.), but came to the conclusion that I just don’t have enough evidence to go on. I’ve only go the following for X:

IE, which we all agree is sluggish.
Painter 7, which in prelim tests was comparable to OS 9
System apps (which I have come to realize do load/operate quite quickly, a sign of good things to come)
“Prerelease” Illustrator 10 (quite slow, but hey, it’s unofficial, so again, not comparable)

Everything else worthy of testing I only have in Classic.

FWIW—I did a “clean” install of X on a G4 450 to its own partition. This quickened application launch speed, but still left me wanting more in the Finder. For example: in column view (my favorite), those little resize sliders at the bottom are poky. Window resize for the most part is acceptable. I can live with the speed I’m showing now. Plus, as others have pointed out, the new navigation options render resizing much less necessary. But still….argh! It’s like having a Ferrari with a sticky gear shift or something (fill in better analogy here).

Again, I reiterate, I have a very low tolerance for the slightest delay in anything in an OS. By God, when I hit a button I want action, and now! Here’s what it boils down to. I can walk over to my Windows 2000 Server box and get ridiculously smooth desktop level redraws. I know it’s nowhere near as pretty or smartly designed as OS X, but damn is it smooth. How is Apple supposed to convert customers with anything less?

I would probably stay right inside X al the time except for the following reasons:

1. OS X sees our Win2K server with a six hour time difference, which screws my synchronization software. Unacceptable. (OS 9 reads the server properly).
2. Final Cut Pro will not run in X. This is Apple’s flagship software (even more than QuickTime in terms of importance). Once they carbonize, dare I say, Cocoa-ize this, I will piss my pants.
3. Critical apps non-native (what else is new).
4. No USB printer sharing (actually I’m not sure about this, couldn’t find this in X, am I wrong?) This is crucial for my office network.

Finally, don’t get me wrong. Some take this speed criticism as Apple-bashing or some such nonsense. Apple’s biggest fans are also their biggest critics, because we are the most demanding as well as the most loyal. I’ve read virtually every Apple historical book and Steve Jobs biography as well as tirelessly converted a handful of PC users to Macs. I love Apple. Apple changed my life. All I ask is a slightly faster Finder level redraw (oh, and some more apps—hello, Adobe? Hello? Anyone listening?). J
 
Final Cut Pro for OS X is due out before the end of the year from what I've heard. Not sure if this is right or not, but I would expect the latest it would arrive would be MWSF '02.

USB Printer Sharing is missing. Hopefully this will be on tap for 10.2, which will either be out at MWSF in January '02, or in March.
 
Just wondering...

have you done clean install? (I think many people are suggesting you do this, but we don't know if you've done this before your comment, or you did this after the suggestion) I didn't bother to upgrade, I just did clean install, so I can't say from my own experience, but I hear a lot of people notice significance difference.

and, have you done stuffs like put swap on another hard drive, and/or defrag the partition your system is on? When I first got OS X, I had my system and swap on same volume... and by the time I decided to defrag it, the volume was pretty messed up...

I'm not into making comparisons and finding if there was any difference and stuff... but I heard increasing the size of dynamic pager benefits you as well... I'm not graphic guy and I don't deal with things that require large memory at once, so I don't really know.

well, there's more than a good chance you know how to run the system better than I do... and maybe you've done everything to increase the speed of X... but with my G4 400, I don't have any complaints...... I really dunno what to say... maybe you just have different stardards/expectations from X
 
To whomever said that Apple is in the process of cocoa-fying the finder, I'd love to know where this bit of information came from... can you provide links or some sort of quote?

I'm not doubting you at all, I would just like to read whatever you've read! I'm a fanatic with keeping up with rumors and late-breaking news, so I'd love to know where you found this out!
 
The very fact that you need to clean-install this "upgrade" in order to see any benefits (instead of obvious degradations in performance, as I've seen after 10.0.4 -> 10.1 upgrades) is plenty of evidence that X is not ready for prime time.

People love to post to this server admonitions in the form of "If Apple wants to [goal], than they better [requirement]." So here's another one: if Apple wants to convert OS 9 users to OS X, they better make the upgrade process feasible.

Do you have any idea how much I tweak X after I install it? Jesus, the LAST thing I want to do is do a clean install. I'm actually using this OS! It's a dev server, and file server...why the Bejesus should I have to wipe this completely, do a clean install of what's supposed to be an UPGRADE, and then reinstate all my apps and tweaks? That is just incredibly annoying.

I ditched X once before, because it was hampering my days with poor performance. I might have to do that again soon. Sad, very sad....
 
I've installed OS X 10.1 and updated 10.0.4 on my PowerBook G3 500 with 640MB RAM and I am really pleased with all the speed improvements. I have a messed up computer (4 Gig of Apps) - I do everything on it and I do NOT want to re-install. So I didn't - and it is still fab! I've had it running for 3 days now. Classic and all for Photoshop and OE and I've been using the network in college (all Win PCs - bummer!). Anyway... speed is not an issue. No crashes. No restarts. Nothing wrong. Ok, IE 5 for X is really slow even on the fast network - Classic IE is much faster! I think, no, I know, the battery is being drained about 1.5x as fast in OS X compared to 9. But sleep doesn't seem to drain any, I had heard that it would compared to OS 9. I did get some 2hrs out of a battery today - I'd get way over that in OS 9. I did give it a pounding though. (That's far better than my mates Sony laptop - he gets 45 mins MAX!!).
 
I've also just updated 10.1 on a 7300/200/96MB - works great too as a PHP web server over EtherNet. Finder speed is ok. I'm just dead chuffed that old beast is still useful. It's faster too after 10.1. I'd had it on 10.0.4 previously and 10.1 even kept my PHP / MySQL intact when updating - nice touch!

I've also installed Win XP Pro on a 450P3 320MB. Boy, they've swiped some stuff from Apple! However, the general public are not ever going to know about OS X and because XP "works" and they're just going to use it. It's got quite a lot going for it I have to admit - I think MS have finally got level. Apple are going to need every one of us to shout very loud about X if they're going to get any of that 90% that's left!

I have to say that MS did a fab job with Word for X - it loads really quickly on my 'Book. It has to be one of the best apps on X at the moment.

Just roll on these Apps - I want to kill classic forever ASAP!

Oh, someone was moaning that InDesign was slow in classic - wrong! I've found it to be the same as it is in 9 - pretty good. Not Quark 3.3 but very usable. And with InDesign 2 soon and some thing 17 times faster - I can't wait!
 
I have to agree with Mindbend in response to his first post of this thread...

Being the biggest Mac fan their is... being surrounded by my friends who all use other OSs... and being a loner in the world of Mac use... I have always stood proud and glad I used something that is better than the rest.

I tried to use 10.1... and I used it for at least 4 days... before I rebooted back in to OS 9 to use PressReady... and well, I haven't booted back into 10.1.

Sure, it sucks when IE crashes my entire machine and I have to reboot... and how much I enjoy that NOT happening in OS X... but when I switch over to Windows XP to run "one" application that I don't have for Mac... and I lust for the day that my windows would open as fast as it does... my IE to blow chunks out Windows, and for pages to load zippy fast.

I will NEVER convert to Windows... this isn't a message of... Apple is loosing its luster... simply not true. Steve says 10.1 is at 6pm clock wise... so he is saying that its half-way to what it should be, 50% complete... I hope that when it comes noon... that it can be something I am truely proud of... and not stutter around my Windows friends who talk about how slow 10.1 is... and how fast XP is.

Speed comparisons:

Windows XP box: Compaq PIII-650mhz 256mb RAM
Mac OS X box: PowerMac G4-500mhz 256mb RAM

According to the Megahertz Myth, that Mac box should blow chunks over that 650... and yet... that system rocks when it comes to performance.

Admin
 
Again, I reiterate, I have a very low tolerance for the slightest delay in anything in an OS. By God, when I hit a button I want action, and now! Here’s what it boils down to. I can walk over to my Windows 2000 Server box and get ridiculously smooth desktop level redraws. I know it’s nowhere near as pretty or smartly designed as OS X, but damn is it smooth. How is Apple supposed to convert customers with anything less?
Click to expand...

Well, since you indicated your preference for OS 9, I highly suggest that you NEVER, EVER attempt to do anything with multitasking.

If you do, you'll see slow....when compared to either OS X or Win2K.

Wade
 
will not make the finder any faster. Programs written in the Cocoa API are not inherently faster than Carbon or any other API come to that. OmniWeb is pure Cocoa and its window sizing is just as crap as the finder. The core window sizing routines are to blame. Optimize them and everything will get quicker. Just take a look at window moving: Fastest thing on the planet man! MUCH faster than MS Windows. Windows 2000 window sizing is faster than Mac OS X 10.1. I've used 3 different Macs running 10.1 and we have a whole rack of Win 2k machines and Win 2k window sizing is faster. Nothing anyone can say will change that. That's not opinion it's a fact. I see the difference every single day.

Mac OS X 10.1 launches programs faster than Windows now though, not that I gave a toss about that. I'd swap the speedier program launches for a fast window resize.

Rant over (for now)
 
It is not so much the overall performance of the finder that is the problem IMHO.

The finder is at least as fast as any windows machine I have seen (once the windows machine has been used for two weeks and has got slow - another discussion!!).

The problem that MUST BE FIXED is that the finder, and other applications appear to 'go out to lunch' far to often. This would suggest that on a "fully pre-emptive multitasking" operation system that there is something wrong with the finder thread model and event handling.

I would expect that even if one window in the finder is having difficulty (and is displaying a wait indicator) that I should be able to switch to another window and continue working. This is not the case, one window unhappy - the whole machine unhappy.

Before anyone says that this is paging or other resource problems, top and vmstat report that I have plenty of available resources.

I have observed this on a variety of platforms, and all releases of X including X.1

Hardware G4/500MHz 512M
 
For me personally, the practical benefits (for a web designer and programmer) of OS X are so great that any minor sluggishness does little to disappoint me. There is something I find humorous in all this though...

The constant comparisons between OS X, OS 9 and Windows performance are meaningless. THat's not to say that OS X performance is all good... I think Apple laid on the Aqua a little thick to force computer upgrades. Oh well, what are you gonna do, they make their money from hardware. My POINT however, is that u have to expect performance trade-offs for some benefits. Pre-emptive multi-tasking makes your computer do more things at once, but it doesn't make it faster, so therefore things are gonna take longer.

Of course, maybe some of you who find the performance unacceptable have mitigating issues in your systems that are actually making the performance much worse than mine. Still, it's hard to believe that even the naysayers aren't benefitting from being able to write a shell script as a scene renders in the background, or burn a CD while reading news, or even playing a game while compiling a program. For me, productivity has to do with being able to continue working, not resizing a window faster. I probably resize 10 windows in an 8 hour day. So if it takes 5 seconds to resize instead of the .5 seconds people expect, I am losing a whopping 1 minute of productivity per day. Whereas if I boot into OS 9 I spend AT LEAST 2 minutes for all my apps to boot where the system is essentially locked. Not to mention the various tasks that commandeer the system even during routine tasks (rendering 500 slashdot comments for instance).

OS X is still far from where it needs to be, but I'm already hooked. When I think about moving back to OS 9 or WinXP/2000 I see a solid 20% loss in productivity, and a 50% loss in compatibility/testing (PHP/MySQL/Apache/BBEdit/Photoshop/Dreamweaver). I'm still glad people are bitching though, because Apple seems to be listening.....
 
As a server, my little PowerBook running 10.1 is doing just fine. sshd, Apache, PHP, MySQL, ProFTPD they're all running along...much better than if I were developing to a Windows server right now.

In my calmer moments, I realize anew that the fact that I can run all of these processes under Mac applications, that this PowerBook is also a portable development server, is argument enough for OS X for me -- especially after much time spent (= wasted) configuring (= crying over) MoL in LinuxPPC.

I just hope that subsequent "updates" to the OS don't render the desktop interface even more sluggish than it has now become for me in 10.1.
 
I cannot understand how OS X can be so slow for some people. I find with 10.1 that I can even use OS X on a Wallstreet 266 PowerBook. Those who say it is like molasses must be in some kind of time-warped space continuum or something is really wrong with their install. I have installed it on approximately 8 macs so far and find the speed certainly acceptable. Window resizing does not keep up with the cursor if you move it fast, but I don't spend a lot of time resizing windows. It surely is not like Windows 2000, but I will be thankful for the many other reasons it is not like W2k. To the person commenting that classic takes a Gig of RAM, that is nonsense. It might be allocated that much in virtual memory space, but I am running it on a new 733 G4 with only 128mb of RAM (I will be adding a 512mb DIMM) and classic still loads and is certainly acceptable for our use in commercial desktop publishing. I find the speed on my two cubes to be more than acceptable except for some networking issues. The one thing that is slower than OS 9 is opening and closing windows, they don't just snap onto the screen like in OS 9, but kind of fade in slower. No big deal. I can accept the slower windows for the greater stability and being able to do many things at once. Don't use your iDisk while trying to manipulate anything in the Finder. iDisk is one of the banes of OS X.
I didn't do a clean install on anything but the Wallstreet and 733 G4. Every other Mac I have running X came from 10.0.0 on March 24th without a clean install with nary a problem in the upgrade.
 
Don't assume that the enormous amount of very capable people having problems with speed on OS X are fools or on acid -- that won't help anyone who is actually trying to deal with these issues. I am a developer who, as you can see, has been contributing to and learning from these boards on macosx.com since October of last year, and I have gone through many installs and upgrades on many machines.

Two Apple beta testers in this company upgraded their identical TiBooks last week from 10.0.4 to 10.1; while one ran into problems and had to run the upgrade twice, the other made it through the upgrade fine. Their end performance is similar, but not identical. This Lombard 400MHz PowerBook, with 512 MB of good RAM and a new, fast 20 GB disk drive, is experiencing major performance problems. The 10.0.4 install was made to this drive after a total reformat, and the 10.1 upgrade was the only major change to the system after that. The upgrade finished without a hitch, but I immediately noticed some of the problems that many have been referring to here.

The point is that with a software deployment this huge for what is essentially still a beta OS every well-considered viewpoint, and every well-measured datum, must be taken into account.
 
Originally posted by kcmac
What is Launch CFM? How is it removed?
Click to expand...

The Process Viewer in Utilities.

[Just quit it]
[Doing some tasks now]
[Back]

Wow, and nice little pick me up.

Verified on my Biege G3 333 MT.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top