Broadband is fast on Windows? WHY?

Ive noticed that MSIE running in VPC is much faster than any other browsers I try on using the emulator. I wouldnt be surprised if M$ is favoring their apps on their OS.

Thats on a G3 450MHZ with 512 MB Ram and 10.1.1.
 
The Disk Cache trick has an affect because the disk I/O performance has quite a bit to do with how fast a page renders.... ;-)

In general terms however, I can not wait for the day, that every window in OS X draws and re-draws as fast as items running in windows.. It still feels slugish and you can sometimes see a window pane being drawn, where as a window just (Baam) shows up and moves by gosh with the mouse when you move it, in windows... But it'll get there someday ;-)
 
On my comp, iCab seems to have the edge, sometimes even over IE.

You should try Dillo on a rootless X server - that runs so quick, it's hard to click on a link before it loads. Strange how not many pages (like this one work properly) in it though.

I'll shut up now.
 
Okay, just got XFree86 and OuroborOSX (Sp?) installed. Now I gotta try this Dillo thing. :D
On "regular" OS X, Opera is definitely the fastest browser, leaving IE in the dust. And BTW, at work I access the 'net through my company LAN, using IE in WinNT. Don't know all the details of the LAN configuration, but the speed ain't all that great. It's probably traffic-related, but often pages render slower than at home using OmniWeb on my iMac with a cable modem connection.
 
this may be of interest as well in bringing the mac up to speed with the pc
another thread at macosx.com
I have also noticed that some browsers respond to this hack better than others. My question is why are the new browsers taking so long between version updates? I would be happy if they would just fix one problem a week and share it with us. Following macupdate & versiontracker, I see many osx developers who are making fixes to other types of software almost daily. And I'll bet thses folks have dayjobs. IMHO, there is no one browser right now that is clearly above the others. Some do one thing better than others, but all fail at something. Are we waiting for osx.2 or just wanting to make a big impression at macworld expo?
 
Originally posted by Admin
Okay... here are my results...

Mac OS X 10.1.1

ReLoading: http://www.fuckedcompany.com

default settings on browsers

iCab - 7-12 seconds
OmniWeb - 6 seconds
Netscape X - 6 seconds
IE - 4-6 seconds

Windows XP

IE 6.0 - 2 seconds (max 4 seconds)

The problem I have with alternative browsers, and even Netscape (starting with version 6) is that the experience goes down the tubes. The fonts are horrible, and the display isn't even well.

I know I know... that Microsoft doesn't follow standards and you can make 80 mistakes in your HTML code and it will still come out smelling like a rose in IE... but still... pages simply look nicer, fonts and all, in IE for Mac & Windows.

OmniWeb is coming along... the anti-aliasing on small fonts is not good. iCab... still has many screws loose. Netscape, which was always a long time favorite of mine... just seems like it stepped back in time.

Admin
Click to expand...

I said I wasn't going to post here again...But this I had to respond to. You've tested a variety of different browsers, all from different companies and Windows with IE outperforms them all. Load Opera on windows, load Netscape on windows...they'll all be faster than on the Mac......how is that Microsofts fault?

Keep in mind i'm not defending M$ at all here...I'm just saying I think it's the Mac system as a whole, the way it crunch's data or something...either way Windows is just plain faster.

I do think that all the eyecady is what makes IE in X so slow, it just can't draw it fast enough...OS9 I have no excuses for.
 
I've noticed the same thing. Both IE and OW are slow here. OW is a little faster though. IE has so many redrawing problems and OW is too featureless to use full time. I was on my Dad's Crappy PC and the damn thing loaded pages at lightning speed. UGH! I totally despise MS and I'm beginning to think Microsoft's alleged "Mac Developers" can even program their way out of a wet paper bag. I await the day we have a native OS X version of IE that is even the same as the OS 9 version. What is MS's problem? Even the Mac programmers who only work on Mac versions can't program worth shiz-nit. If the guys over at Omni would make OW have all the features I need, I'd switch and never look back. All they need to do is keep up with IE. Then I'll be happy.
 
Maybe the slowness of most OS X Browsers is also caused by the font antialiasing and by the double buffered windows.
Maybe its faster when font antialiasing is switched off.

I bet, m$ windows is just so fast because there ain't no font antialiasing :D
 
Actually, there is, but only on certain fonts bigger than certain sizes. And it looks just like the IE font smoothing. Whereas OW's smoothing is much nicer.
 
As to the effects of AA, with TinkerTool, you can disable AA (Font Smoothing tab, Disable Font Smoothing in CoreGraphics). Restart your favorite browser, and see the effects - warning, this might be ugly :) . On my machine (Cube 450, 384Mb Ram), I hardly see a difference in window resizing with or without AA.
 
Originally posted by rinse
the anti-aliasing.... hmm i saying no....

<speculatiion> i think much of it might have to do with sites being run on MS IIS use a language, Active Server Pages ".asp" which is probably much easier to render on MS IE than Mac IE. </speculation>

ASP Sites are run on the server side and then send a normal html page to the browser. So this ain't the cause for the slow rendering. Guess its something else... :confused:

I still think it has to do with the fact that windows is just too ugly to b slow :D
Click to expand...
 
I'm working whole the time on Windows on MacOSX.com. I see that my windowsmachine is very keen on saving webpages on my hd. But most of these computers suffers from blocking after 1 hour and must be restarted (this takes 5 minutes). I suspect that memory is the reason, a machine with 32 mb of ram is maybe a bottleneck (because M wants to sell os with M - explorer) even as it has a fast processor and huge hd(nicer than one with a little and more ram - no problem). You have a similar problem if you have a i(powermac) and emulation or has to use it for Java 2 on OS9.
 
Hmmm, not sure what happened to that message:

You running Win98 or ME? Could be, if so. Still I find that weird that you have to reboot the machine a lot. But 98 and ME do suck major moose balls. NT and 2000 work awesome and I leave either up for months at a time, and the two main apps I tend to use are IE 5.5 and SecureCRT. Only reason I usually have to reboot is when software requires it on install or whatever.

I'm not talking about you here, but I contrary to popular belief here, Windows NT and 2000 are very solid OSs and do a lot of things MUCH better than any Mac OS, and vice versa. That's the way things are. Anyone who says differently has their head in the sand. :)
 
the sand's nice and warm..feels good...definitly more comfortable and grounded than having my head in the clouds and flying around cow pastures. yup, i like the beach.;)
 
I'm only saving money by not replacing my computer, I can't prevent those &é"''(§è!è!ç!ççà)- at 1 km of my house for making new processors.
 
Originally posted by hazmat
I'm not talking about you here, but I contrary to popular belief here, Windows NT and 2000 are very solid OSs and do a lot of things MUCH better than any Mac OS, and vice versa. That's the way things are. Anyone who says differently has their head in the sand. :) [/B]
Click to expand...

True, they are solid, and I have toyed with both. However, I also like the sand, and have to comment on this.

Most of the things I have seen NT/2k do better than my Mac is to fsck with my driver settings and handling the MS-ified standards. 2k can sure do things much better than my Mac if MS is the one that 'standardized' whatever service like ASP/etc. There are a couple of other things it does better, but I really don't care about those. A whole half-second increase in waiting for a few things really outweighs some of the configuration issues still haunting pre-XP machines (and possibly even XP machines, I haven't checked) with drivers/etc.

With OS X out, and XP also out, the two 'combatants' are focusing on entirely different things. Apple wants a multimedia powerhouse, which it is producing (albeit with slowly growing support) exceptionally well. Just needing a G4 machine to do real-time filtering/etc with FCP3 is pretty good. Microsoft wants to own the world's machines with their OS. Microsoft doesn't really try to do anything exceptionally well, it just makes its own standards that play well with their OS because they attach into their own OS code tightly (through custom shims/etc for each 'integrated' app). Apple used to not do that, but these days I am not so sure with QT. However, the rest of the stuff is playing nice with the OS, and doing the same things any other program does.

It is a trade-off on what you want to do with your machine...

(Note: this post is most likely flamebait)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top