How much faster can 10.3 be??

AppleWatcher

AppleWatcher

Tigerrr
I was wondering; 10.2 is out now a while... But compared to 9.2.2 it still is not that fast (especially on a iMac DV SE... :( ).

So, what do you think? How much faster is 10.3 going to be??

Thankx,

AppleWatcher
 
It'll be incredibly slow compared to 9.2.2. :p

what exactly is slow in 10.2.2 for you? as mac os x - now and in the future - wants a decent graphics card for quartz extreme speed, your imac will be out of it for as long as there's mac os x. sure, 10.3 will be a bit faster here and there, maybe even much so. but what you perceive as slowness is a change in architecture that won't be 'solved' just like that.

you lost some interface speed.
you won a lot more. like real multitasking.
better threading.
and all the other UNIX stuff...
 
Yes I know... But I've a 8 MB videocard, so QE won't work that well...

*sigh* I think my next computer is a PC :$

AppleWatcher
 
The same happens with MicroSoft OS, for each invocation, for which there are so very many, there is a perceptable slow down and hence you need to buy a faster machine. Bill Gates knows this just fine, keeps the dosh rolling in for evermore....kind of got a sneaking admiration for the sly s*d.
 
Then I'd (personally) do the following: Buy a cheap-o-PC for 399$ and also a new iBook for 999$. That'll get you so much more than just a PC for maybe 3/4 of the price...
 
Now I'm going to do the following:

I assume you guys all know Aldi (www.aldi.com);
they have GREAT PC's for very low prices...

And I really do need a very fast PC because I'm going to study Informatica (informatics??) at the University of Utrecht...

;)
 
No disrespect but why not talk about buying a PC somewhere else. Buying cheap PC is old hat, we know how to do it.

Utrecht is a great city, I loved it, I worked for SGI there.
 
Uhm, 'really', 'much', 'sorta', 'somewhat' and a whole bunch of other meaningless relative quantifiers...

Sort of a pointless question, don't you think? How would anyone know. It doesn't exist. It's like asking, "What colour would my eyes be if I was taller?"
 
If you would be much (very much) taller, your eyes would look blue... just because of the oxygen of the air...
 
i'm trying to follow the logic here. 10.2 is slow on your old mac, so you're going to abandon X altogether and buy a new, fast, pc?
what about the option of buying a new, fast, mac? X.2 screams on my dual 867. $1700 + $100 to upgrade to ATI Radeon 9000. multitasking, as stated, is where X shines.
also, have you tried tweaking the OS to make it a bit faster?
.: install a simple, sharp cornered theme
.: put minimize to scale
.: install windowshade and use that instead of minimizing
.: use chimera instead of IE ^_~
.: adding quality RAM
.: turn off dock effects (magification, hiding, etc.)
and other little tweaks you can find at resexcellence.com.
it helped my old imac quite a bit, and it's helping this G4 450 that i'm using quite a bit as well.
 
Gheghe thx for the tips; but I already knew them. No, I'm not abandoning OS X because it works so slow on my iMac... I won't abandon it, but I'll need a PC for my study... And it will be much faster than my iMac DV SE with 400 MHz...

I can't buy another Mac, simply because a Mac isn't the right computer for my study... And because I don't want to abandon OS X, my question is: is 10.3 going to be faster (like 9.2.2, for example)??

AW
 
Originally posted by fryke
you lost some interface speed.
you won a lot more. like real multitasking.
better threading.
and all the other UNIX stuff...
Click to expand...

You just gave "win some loss some" a whole new meaning... :D
 
yes. :)

Well: Panther builds have not leaked as of yet. Mostly because the big work on it hasn't even started yet at Apple. Right now, I guess, Apple is defining Panther. There are always project groups working on several things before the compiling begins.

I guess we won't see leaked builds this year, if Apple aims at a Summer release (although Jaguar 6B11 leaked in December last year...).
 
Really, it seems to me that the logic behind the assumption that 10.3 will be faster is flawed. At least with OS 6 thru 9, new system versions were never faster on the same hardware. More efficient maybe, but I never had a performance increase when upgrading my system software.

Is OS X different because there's so much optimizing left to do, or do we just need faster hardware?
 
Most operating systems when upgraded (especially MacOSX) have some form of performance alteration/hit, but its also likely that most of the slow down is due to emulation of the older apps using Carbon and less well written Cocoa apps due to the possible lack of exposure. I can't say for certain but this may well be partly true.

What I do notice with other UNIX systems, that they do generally behave in a multitasking manner (strange but true) , "you don't always get what you want" at the instant you click the button.

Windows behaves poorly if you try to get it to do something alse at the same time, of heaven forbid upgrade the simplest piece of software without having to reboot the server, crippling the company with outages during every break or lunch hour, UNIX is always better in this area, trust me.
 
Yes, real multitasking systems are generally a bit less responsive and this problem is solved by ever-updating the hardware.

However, the performance of OS X has been improved with every .x release since the Public Beta in 2000, so the assumption that Apple will further increase the performance is a 'historic assumption'. (Forget about 6-9 for OS X.)

However, people are also screaming for features all the time. My guess is that we'll see a completely new Finder by 10.5, but that this project is just taking time - and Apple has other, maybe more important, projects people can work on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top