Mac surfing speeds slaughtered in Wired

I don't really see a speed difference. I was using IE 6 on a 500 Celeron w/ Windows Me yesterday and it didn't seem any faster (or slower) than my 733 PowerMac w/ Mozilla... Both on Broadband Connections. Mozilla was just as fast on it, too.. I mean, why are we getting bent out of shape over 2 seconds render time? Is the world really forgetting about having patience? I mean, it's 2 seconds! And some people report no delay at all! It's all how you preceve it.
 
I can definately notice a difference. I am using Windows XP on my folks Gateway at home and it's BLAZING! On my iBook 500 and IE (even Chimera) it's noticebly slower.

Not enough for me to go crazy about.
 
Originally posted by dricci
I don't really see a speed difference. I was using IE 6 on a 500 Celeron w/ Windows Me yesterday and it didn't seem any faster (or slower) than my 733 PowerMac w/ Mozilla... (...) I mean, why are we getting bent out of shape over 2 seconds render time? Is the world really forgetting about having patience? I mean, it's 2 seconds! And some people report no delay at all! It's all how you preceve it.
Click to expand...

Erhm... You're contradicting yourself quite openly here. :)

AND you're comparing a 500 MHz Celeron to a 733 MHz G4. But the G4 is much faster than the MHz tell, right? A 500 MHz Celeron must be about the speed of a 68LC030 at 16 Mhz according to the latest Photoshop tests at Apple.

It's not about those 2 seconds. Or maybe it is. It's about the simple *fact* that the Mac is *noticeably* slower at rendering web pages. WIRED has all rights to post such an article. We Mac people have to swallow this one, sadly.
 
Originally posted by fryke
browsing the net has been faster on windows for several years now... and nobody actually *did* something about it, and even chimera on os x is slower than ie on windows.

it's a big pile of dog's sh... to claim the mac is a great internet browsing platform. but that's how it is, and i'm staying mac all the same.
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more. My computer is about 1 second slower than an XP box when rendering any complex page, probably because the resources and programming talent at MisroSoft has done a good job in optimisation, and I just don't give a rat's ass. My time is not so valuble that I get peeved by a few seconds taken out of my day, so truth be told I'd happily sacrifice a bit of speed for a nice interface. (and I do, every day)

That goes for Photoshop too, and any other speed tests - OK, so some PC's are faster for the same money at many PhotoShop tasks than the fastest Macs (despite what Apple say). I don't really care. Give me intuative and fast over suicide-inducing and even faster any day of the week.

Bernie :eek:)
 
I really don't care, lots of people are being dumb about it. What just puzzles me is how some people are saying how it takes over 12 seconds to load CNN.com. I cleared my cache, and it loaded in about 5 seconds. *shrug* whatever.
 
What I meant was, the Celeron and my PowerMac seem to render the same - Within a second. I can't see any speed difference. I type in a url, hit enter, within a second I see a page.

And Wired is still wrong. There are *NO* pages that I know of that take 10 seconds to render unless you're using a fubar browser/OS X install.

IE is slower, yes. But other browsers are faster? Yeah, that's Apple's fault.
 
Originally posted by ksuther
I really don't care, lots of people are being dumb about it. What just puzzles me is how some people are saying how it takes over 12 seconds to load CNN.com. I cleared my cache, and it loaded in about 5 seconds. *shrug* whatever.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the page loads for me in 2 seconds, but the slowest part is loading the images. But that has nothing to do with the OS, it's this high quality "instant" Verizon DSL!
 
well, i've been using windows pcs and macs in parallel for the last couple of years now. (about seven years.) right now i have a tibook g4/500 and a pII/350 here, connected via 512k cable. my tibook is no foul install and i have other machines at work to compare. windows xp (which is CLEARLY a bit slow on the pII/350) and ie 6 renders ANY page noticeably faster than my tibook. swallow, please.

:)
 
And you don't specify which browser used on the Mac, or how each machine is connected to the cable, or the ram count, or the hard drive RPMs, and many gazillions of other factors.

I have something you can swallow if you don't stop being such a smartass.
 
Hmm... I just wanted to say something like 'Hey, btw. I'm not bitching you personally, dricci...' And then I came across your newest post. Well, let's say it anyway... I'm not very agressive. My apologies if you felt insulted by my post.

If you lived around the corner, I'd come over and give you some Swiss chocolate. We'd both laugh and walk on in our lives. I hope we can handle this without the chocolate.
 
This is a comment I posted to the "daughter article" at ITavisen.no, the norwegian slashdot.org/wired.com rippers;

Dette er det mest idiotiske tullet jeg noen gang har lest på en "dedikert" nyhetsside. Det sier jo seg selv at M$ optimaliserer, og har mye bedre mulighet til å optimalisere sine programmer for windblows enn OS X, og at de med vilje sløver ned IE for Mac, som Apple blir tvunget til å inkludere i OS X på grunn av en 5-års avtale som går ut til sommeren (takk og lov!). En kan ikke generalisere internettsurfing på denne måten, å gi uttrykk for at IE er den eneste nettleseren for Mac. At en journalist uten peiling på Mac i det hele tatt skriver en slik artikkel, er jo også helt meningsløst.
Enda mer forvridd er det jo at M$ selv sier at IE er treigere enn IE, hadde de faktisk fokusert litt mer på Mac-avdelingen er jeg sikker på at M$ kunne levert langt bedre freeware-produkter for Mac. Jeg, for min del, ville aldri brukt programvare fra de griske monopolistene med helt syke lisensavtaler, og som stjeler personlig informasjon og logger enhver handling du gjør på maskinen din. Jeg bruker alltid nettlesere som Chimera, Mozilla og OmniWeb, som er langt raskere enn IE.

Artikler som dette gir et skjevt bilde, og fremstiller bare den ene siden av saken. En nyhetsside som dette bør være hakket mer nøytral. Det er heller ikke iMac som generelt er en "sinke på internett", om noe apellerer til iMac, apellerer det selvsagt også til Apples andre modeller. Det er sant at nettleseren som kommer med windblows er raskere enn i OS X, men det håper jeg virkelig det blir slutt på til sommeren, når avtalen som M$ utnytter grovt, går ut.
Hadde vi f. eks. sett en nettleser fra Apple selv, som er mye flinkere til å optimalisere for ytelse i Mac OS X enn M$, og som i motsetning til monopolistene bruker allerede opprettede standarder, ville den garantert vært like rask, om ikke raskere, enn IE for XP.

I just thought any norwegians coming by may find it interesting :)
 
Okay, OS X renders web pages slower than Windows... So what?! I don't care if I have to wait 5 seconds longer for a page to load. Besides, this is all highly subjective. I think OS X is a bit slower than Windows and OS 9, but I didn't get the OS purely for speed. I like the UNIX underpinning, I like the UI, I like the fact that I can run Office on a UNIX machine with amazing UI. So web pages renders slower on beta browsers on a version 1.1.4 release OS - it's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things! As for IE's performance, it's such an old browser (just carbonized) anyway, there is bound to be optimizations that needs to be made.

I do think it's strange that Wired didn't test Mozilla... Since I have very good experience with it (it's my default browser). I don't like that aspect of the article, and I think it's somewhat biased in that sense. Other than that, I think constructive criticism in the press is good for Apple, now, if the Wired article is constructive or not is left to everyone's personal judgement.

If you have qualms with OS X's UI/render speed... Give Apple some feedback and let's move on.

-B
 
Originally posted by fryke
I hope we can handle this without the chocolate.
Click to expand...

aww.. I wanted some chocolates :(

Hehe, just kidding. Sorry if I sounded angry, but it just seems I've been attacked by windozers lately (not saying you) so I tend to get very defensive. No hard feelings.
 
5 or 10 sec??? hahaha

You should try Mozilla. I did their little test and when using IE for the Apple web page it did take 10 sec when I used OmniWeb it took 5 and when using Mozilla 1.0 it took 3....3!!!!!!
 
Wired uses microsoft products to compare speed on macs? Geez... why didn't they use netscape or something? Wanted to keep it biased, huh? :mad:
 
Okay, OS X renders web pages slower than Windows... So what?! I don't care if I have to wait 5 seconds longer for a page to load.
Click to expand...

Only 5 second difference (or 1, or 2, or 10 seconds, whatever the case may be) may not sound like much, but it is huge! It really adds up. In a typical browsing sessions, you may view 200 pages. If it is 3 seconds slower per page, then that is 10 minutes wasted from your life. :(

Of course, one might say that anyone who typically browses 200 pages in a sessions is wasting away their life anyway, but I digress... ;)
 
I have tried every browser available in every version as it becme available and until Mozilla 1.0.0, I always reluctantly came back to IE, simply because it worked. IE plays every type of media and loads every CGI, Java, Jvascript out there without too much complaint. None of the others (Omniweb, iCab, early Mozillas, Netscape, Opera) can say the same.

So far though, Mozilla 1.0.0 has handled my tests. I may finally be switching from IE.
 
One of the WinDose computers in my college computer room takes (Timing - I'm using it now) 35 seconds to render a page :eek: :eek:

Bernie :o)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top