Losing faith in Apple?

.... and Win2K crashes often and conflicts with IE6 which is another MS application. No to mention the occasional crashes or "if it doesn't work well, reboot the machine..."

One more thing... don't compare Pc to Apple Mac OS X.... Win2k is a dos based OS whereas OSX is a Unix based OS. - Always bare this key information in mind.

Cheers
 
I keep hearing Mac OS X uses a third generation display layer while Windows only uses 2.

This means Windows is faster but sometimes you see windows that aren't drawn completely or you can see the background behind a window that has crashed or hung for a few seconds. Apple never redraws part of the screen, only the whole screen. This slows down the OS, plus the G4 is so slow.

Apple is thinking of the future, when OS X is just as fast as Windows XP and will blaze and look 100 times better.
 
Originally posted by solrac
Apple never redraws part of the screen, only the whole screen. This slows down the OS, plus the G4 is so slow.
Click to expand...

Huh? You must've gotten wrong information there... Quartz _does_ redraw elements. In fact part of its slowness (well, I wouldn't call Quartz Extreme on a good graphics card slow at all, but that again depends on what you compare it with, really) is coming from how it's handling the redrawing of the elements. And the remark that 'the G4 is so slow' also is a bit off, since Quartz Extreme handles most of the GUI in the graphics card.
 
Originally posted by fryke
Hm.

1) Ask Microsoft.

2) Not true. Application launch and execution time (plus the OS speed itself) is faster in Win2k than in WinXP.
Click to expand...

XP boots 3x faster than 2000. It shuts down roughtly 2x faster. The OS speed itself is not any slower than 2000. In very few instances is XP actually slower than 2000 in lab benchmarks. You can see for yourself at the URL below.

http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/default.asp

The bottom line is why did OS X have to take such a performance hit to offer up all this great stuff compared to OS 9 whereas XP didn't compared to 95/98 and 2000?

Also, the only reason I bring up Windows at all is because when referencing OS 9s speed advantage over OS X, everyone brough up the fact that OS Xs improvements came at a cost.

Why didn't all of XPs improvements over older Windows versions come at a cost?

Why can't Apple get OS X up to snuff and not penalize us performance-wise?
 
I too have com under pressure to go to PC. I am the only one in my family using a Mac, and my family is looking at getting a new computer. My step father fell in love with the 17' iMac, but then he found out about Windows Media PC Edition. For less money then the 17' iMac, he is seeing a computer that can do tha DVD R stuff, along with the ability to turn our big screen tv into a home theatre system. Try explaining to him that getting a mac is better? I am personally regretting my .Mac subscription. I am seeing more value in MSN in Windows, and as my programing classes become more and more demanding, I am having second thoughts. Apple needs to do something. I personally don't care about the performance, but it woul dbe nice to have a good computer for under $1000 like everyone else.
 
Boeing 777, WIndows 2000 is based off of Windows NT 5.0 kernal. DOS isn't being used anymore in OS's from now on, over at Redmond.
 
Itanium, in response to your question. Windows 2000 and Windows XP has transparency and ETC, but, its not PDF based. Its all bitmap based. It takes more to do all of this stuff with PDF then it does for bitmaps. Microsoft is working on technology that will do for Windows, what Quartz does for the Mac, I don't know how well its going though.

If Apple doesn't come out with something that truly impresses me in January, or maybe even before then, when I get my tax refund check, i'm seeling my iBook and getting a Dell laptop. I love Apple, but I'm being tired of being kept in the dark about everything. Intel, Microsoft, don't keep their customers in the dark like we are.
 
I don't want Microsoft to come out with something that will do for Windows what Quartz has does for OS X. :p

I understand what you're saying though, the next version of Windows is going to be 3D hardware accelerated.

Should add some nice looking new effects but the Windows GUI responsiveness is certainly not suffering as it is.

I just don't understand why Apple seems to think its ok that you can even resize windows properly. Its annoying to say the least.

Multitasking as well leaves a lot to be desired. Having several apps open and switching between them in OS X causes a lagged, slowdown effect. The "spinning wheel of death" is more prone to happen when several apps are open to.

Jaguar was a great improvement but I still don't think OS X is even close to where it needs to be.

I still intend of purchasing a Mac. An iBook actually. I had a PowerBook G4 DVI and realized $3500 didn't buy me anymore responsiveness or productivity than a $1500 iBook would have.

At least when I can't resize a window properly or apps lag while going into/coming out of the dock or while being switched between, I wont be as frustrated with a much cheaper iBook.

Love OS X, just wish it performed as well as it looks.
 
The thing about the resizing is this. Everything is being double buffered. This is done so that you don't get that ugly effect that Windows gets when messing with windows when the system is busy. What it does is, even though a window maybe shrunken so that not all the icons are viewed, the icons are kept ready just in case. When you resize, the window manager has to follow the cursor, render the drop shadow, arrange the icons in the proper order based on the preference yous et, as well as do anything that needs to be done to the high res icons. When you consider everything that its doing, Quartz is running pretty fast. The problem is, we're all used to having things happen instantly, and now there is all of this compositing that needs to be done at the same time. Microsoft's work is going pretty slow, from what i've read, the stuff tehy come out with is goign to be annoying. I've read documents from them that say they want the computer screen to be a room,a nd the applications that are running,t o be up against the walls for yout o chose what you want to run. Then theres all the stuff about the "Shelf" that Micrososoft has beenw orking on, and just released with MSN 8. I've used MSN 8.0's shelft, and its pretty much the Dock.
 
Who says we're being kept in the dark as Apple customers????

The answer is this: OS X's GUI is years ahead of Windows, and the stuff it's doing is true transparencies and effects real time. Windows is not.

ALL WE NEED IS FASTER HARDWARE.

Windows XP is faster and did not suffer a performance hit as much as OS 9 to OS X because:
1) XP is on a 2 to 3 Ghz chip
2) XP's display technology is not doing nearly as much as Quartz

Less effects, faster chip. Do the math.

Once Apple gets a faster chip, XP won't be able to TOUCH OS X.
 
Well put, solrac. :) (your above post, not itanium's quote below, of course.)

Originally posted by itanium
XP boots 3x faster than 2000. It shuts down roughtly 2x faster. (...) The bottom line is why did OS X have to take such a performance hit to offer up all this great stuff compared to OS 9 whereas XP didn't compared to 95/98 and 2000?
Click to expand...

Well, first: I'm used to keep my computers running, so I (personally, I know) don't give a sh*t about boot and shutdown times, unless an OS is crash prone. My personal experience with Win2K, WinXP, Mac OS X and Linux are that (OS) crashes are a rare occasion.

Second: You *do* get that Mac OS X is not a straight evolution development from OS 9, right? Windows XP is a straight evolution from Windows 2K, although in some places I gather it's a backwards development, too.

Well, I'm a bit tired of those OS comparison stuff, as it seems futile to me. I think Windows is quite useable for Office stuff - and wouldn't buy a Mac if I only did that besides entertainment - but unbearably clunky and style-less for everything creative. I don't _feel_ well on Windows, whether it's running on a blazingly fast Athlon or P4 processor or a meager PII. I'm glad Win2K and RedHat 8 run amazingly well on my PII/350, but I only use that machine for Office, browsing and watching TV, which all are applications that can be done on a TV set and a 68K Mac, too, so I guess that doesn't count anyway.

I think Apple has gotten more than they've bargained for with the introduction of the original iMac: Freeloaders. People who will ALWAYS think everything should be free and faster. People who aren't aware of what they're really getting when they get an iMac: A quality product, finished from technology to design, complete in its experience, from the first mouse-click to the shadow of a window in the GUI. Something I care to pay for.

The question of this thread alone shows that the Mac is more than your average computer maker: "Losing faith in Apple?" In order to do that, you must first have faith in Apple. Having faith in Microsoft is a paradoxon, you know. There's no such thing as 'the Microsoft faithful'. There sure as hell *IS* something as 'the Macintosh faithful'.

So, back to the original question: I have faith in Apple. They're to computers what RADO is to watches, what BMW or Mercedes are to cars. Or even more than that.
 
Originally posted by fryke

Well, first: I'm used to keep my computers running, so I (personally, I know) don't give a sh*t about boot and shutdown times, unless an OS is crash prone. My personal experience with Win2K, WinXP, Mac OS X and Linux are that (OS) crashes are a rare occasion.


As lovely as that idea is, its not very practical for home users to keep their computers running 24/7. For starters, its not very economical. Also, most people are trained that when you're not using something, you turn it off, much like you would your car or television. Its nice to sit down and have your computer boot in 20 seconds, not a minute and 20 seconds. Much like its nice to sit down in your car and have it start on the first try. Or imagine, sitting down to a television and waiting a minute and 20 seconds for it to turn on. You can see how this might be annoying for OS Xs target audiance, home users.

Second: You *do* get that Mac OS X is not a straight evolution development from OS 9, right? Windows XP is a straight evolution from Windows 2K, although in some places I gather it's a backwards development, too.

Cute, but you *do* get that XP is not a descendant of Windows 95/98 and is in fact Microsoft's first attempt to bring a professional operating system to the home user. It may be based on the NT kernel like 2000 but that is where the similarities end. User management, system restore, built in CD burning, etc are not in the least bit evolutions of 2000. [/B]
Click to expand...

The bottom line is that I can see how people might feel they are losing faith in Apple, especially when comparing Apple products to others such as Intel CPUs and Microsoft OSs.
 
All I was really saying was that compared to Microsoft or Intel, we are left in the dark. You can go anywhere, and read about the current projects at Microsoft, or Intel. Like Project Longhorn, and Blackcomb over at Microsoft. Everyone knows that with Longhorn, the .Net will come into its full effect as software as a service. Intel, anyone can read about the new platform they are building for laptops that not based off of the Pentium IV, but is supposed to be just as fast but at lower clock speeds, and comes with 802.11b networking right on the board. What do we know about what Apple's doing? We know they may or maynot ever release a G5, if they don't they may or maynot use the new IBM 64-bit PPCs. As far as Mac OS X goes, it is great, but what is coming next? We've heard rumors, but we don't know in what direction they are going with from here. Its hard to have faith, when we don't know what to have faith in. We've heard stories for years about iMovie 3.0, but where is it? We've heard about a PDA, that we now thing might be a Phone/PDA, but no word beyond that. Part of the reason why Apple's stock is doing what its doing is that there isn't any information about what direction they are going in, to base a busying decision on. Yes, we've heard about the digital hub, but have we already seen all the iapps that will be released? Are certain iApps already hit their peak, never to get a revision again, like iMovie? We know that Apple bought a bunch of different 3-D companies back in the summer, but whats going to happen with it? All we've heard about, is a Mac OS X version of Shake, and thats all we've heard. This is what I meant by the dark. Yes, Quartz is great, Aqua is beautiful, but where are we going from here? When Steve Jobs came back, we knew there was goign to be a simplified product line, because he said it was going to happen, and it has. We knew that everything was going to migrate to Mac OS X, and we have, its great. But what else is there to come?
 
So fellas, I managed successfully to bring you back to the main subject. Don't praise me for that.
Indeed XP is faster since it's running on a faster CPU and has been designed for it. Now, you want to compare XPs performances to OS X? Right, then run XP on the same G4 OSX is running and check how fast XP is.
Why compare the performance of an OS if they aren't running the same CPU nor the same hardware? Pointless really.

And yes, Apple to Computers is what Mercedes and BMW is to cars - Or Miele to Dishwashers and washer machines. - XP is a 0% financing Chevy. It works but it's simply not stylish.

Cheers
 
Windows XP maybe more responsive, but OSX, Quartz and all is still faster. My friend has a Dell Pentium IV 1.7 GHZ, with 256 MBs or RAM, and while his system is more responsive, it hangs if you try to do more then 4 or 5 things. My iBook on the other hand, being only 600MHz, with no Quartz Extreme, and 256MBs, can run alot more without nearly as many hangs. I hardly ever see the spinning ball anymore. Now, this wasn't the case before 10.2 though. But, the system hangs in Xp are pretty irritating.
 
Originally posted by itanium
As lovely as that idea is, its not very practical for home users to keep their computers running 24/7. For starters, its not very economical. Also, most people are trained that when you're not using something, you turn it off,
Click to expand...

Have you ever heard of putting a computer to sleep? Why would you want to turn your computer off? Putting it to sleep uses just about the same amount of power as turning it off... so sleeping is just as economical. And, OSX wakes up faster than booting.. osx or xp.

I can't seem to get my mother to learn very much about her computer, but she does know how to put it to sleep.. if she can learn that, any users can be "trained" to put a computer to sleep. She likes the instant wakeup.

Your argument is rather lacking.
 
Originally posted by itanium
XP boots 3x faster than 2000. It shuts down roughtly 2x faster. The OS speed itself is not any slower than 2000. In very few instances is XP actually slower than 2000 in lab benchmarks. You can see for yourself at the URL below.

http://www.veritest.com/clients/reports/microsoft/default.asp

The bottom line is why did OS X have to take such a performance hit to offer up all this great stuff compared to OS 9 whereas XP didn't compared to 95/98 and 2000?

Also, the only reason I bring up Windows at all is because when referencing OS 9s speed advantage over OS X, everyone brough up the fact that OS Xs improvements came at a cost.

Why didn't all of XPs improvements over older Windows versions come at a cost?

Why can't Apple get OS X up to snuff and not penalize us performance-wise?
Click to expand...

What is wrong with you? Don't you have any idea that OS X is a complete rebuild of the system from the ground up? Not so XP, it's merely an update to Windows 2K. They have done a tremendous amount of work on OS X since it was released and they will continue to so in future versions.

MDA
 
Well, everyone is so concerned with the fact that OS X is a complete rebuild of the system from the ground up.

That has NOTHING to do with the speed.

OS 9 could've been modified with Quartz, and it would've slowed down too.

The advanced Quartz effects coupled with the slower G4 processor is all that is slowing down the GUI.

I would love to see how fast the GUI is on a DP 1.25 Ghz G4 with a top of the line NVidia card taking advantage of Quartz Xtreme. It must be nearly as fast as XP.
 
Originally posted by solrac
Well, everyone is so concerned with the fact that OS X is a complete rebuild of the system from the ground up.

That has NOTHING to do with the speed.

OS 9 could've been modified with Quartz, and it would've slowed down too.

The advanced Quartz effects coupled with the slower G4 processor is all that is slowing down the GUI.

I would love to see how fast the GUI is on a DP 1.25 Ghz G4 with a top of the line NVidia card taking advantage of Quartz Xtreme. It must be nearly as fast as XP.
Click to expand...

I'm running it on a Dual GB Wind Tunnel with the ATI 9000 Pro and it is nearly as fast as OS 9. I don't bench mark against XP. Of course the fact that OS X is a complete rebuild has something to do with the speed. There is an incredible amount of work to do in order to couple the Unix core and Auqa and everything else that makes up OS X. I doubt that in an operating system this new they have managed to optimize it for all of the speed they can get out of it AND keep up with all of the other pieces they are constantly working on and adding. I don't understand why people can't be more patient and wait for the OS to mature before the gripe continually about the speed. If the speed of XP excites you that much go use it. I have used XP and I'm not that thrilled, it's still Windows after all.
 
...that I will not reply in similar posts, I apologize to everyone for the things I'm going to write below...

People whine and say their opinions without checking things first: Only one supposedly checked but I think that he isn't telling the whole story! Yes: G4 is slower than P4 and Athlon XP... But that doesn't mean that the new Dual G4s are slow... PLEASE! Did ANYONE for real tried to check what I've asked? Don't bother to answer! NO, is the correct answer! Because if ONE really show a Dual G4 in action simply knows that Wintels aren't fast enough in order for one to whine about the G4! Or in multitasking OS X+G4 really beat Wintels without breaking a sweat!!!

I said to people of this forum that they should give a real benchmark of computer power and NO ONE bothered to give it a shot just because they know that G4 is slower! Gimme a break! You don't know jack...

Time after time and one more time I'm telling people here... Find a Dual G4 and do the following and then do it in ANY Wintel/Winamd out there, for REAL:
-Encode a DVD while
-Listening to an Mp3 while
-Ripping an Mp3 while
-Watching a DVD while
-Playing a video clip while
-Downloading from the Internet while
-Uploading to the Internet while
-Surfing the Internet while
-Doing ANYTHING else you like at the same time

Then let us all know in this forum or any other forum out there if OS X+G4s are slower than the Wintels of this world...

As for X being slower than XP in what respect? Redrawing windows on screen? What about the time that I have to reformat my HD and reinstall all my apps just because the OS lost ALL of its so called speed? Or when I'm forced to reboot or reinstall or repair the installation because of BSODs? I've read for a 1000th time that BSODs in Win2k and/or XP are matters of bad hardware! Crap! Absolutely crap! If it is bad hardware how come after a reformatting and reinstalling everything the system continues to work just fine? I know the answer and it is simply because of crappy OS architecture (yes I know XP isn't all that bullet proof)... Or what about of defragmenting and/or fixing errors of my HD every once in a while? I would go on and say MANY things about Win2k and/or XP but what about that speed of Wintels?

Also, if Ed or Admin will allow me to do the following I would be happy to do so, just for the fun of it: As I said in the past, my real life work is a PC/Mac tech therefore I have MANY everyday BAD experiences with the PCs and with Macs that run M$ OSes and I have this idea... Could Ed or Admin let me post those experiences in these forums? So, each and everyday we will have things to show to the faithless croud that Wintels aren't all that hot! On the contrary for all its worth I never met a PC person when he/she sees a Mac in action feeling well about his 2K/XP Intel/Amd machine (EXCEPT when he/she wants to JUST play games!)... Maybe its because he/she sees on the Mac a beatiful computer with personality whereareas his/hers is just another PC... Also, one other thing that a PC user understands when he/she sees a Mac in action is that for SO long he didn't know the truth! They all know that Macs are slow, do not have apps, they don't work with PCs, they don't have or can't do this and that... How, untrue! But what am I telling here? Even the so called Mac users do not know the truth!

As for anyone who wants to succumb into the Dark Side: For a year or a couple of years you will may JUST may feel better but after that you will regret your decision, for sure! As for prices: Did anyone REALLY check Dell's site and compared their offerings to Apple's? If so, do you still think that Dells are THAT cheaper than Macs? I know that you may after all got a surpise! Macs AREN'T all that expensive now, are they?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top