Motorola breaks the speed barrier - 1.0ghz... Intel demos 5ghz chip.

verlorenengel

verlorenengel

Geek Stink Breath
What the hell is wrong with Motorola? I'm losing faith in Motorola and consequently Apple day by day.
I just bought a dual athlon 1.4 system with a ultra160 scsi drive (15000rpm) for less than the price of the entry model G4 which is what, 800 odd mhz?

Don't get me wrong I love OSX and Apple, but Motorola+Apple = hell.

I can't believe how far behind Apple is lagging because of Motorola.
 
This argument has been beaten to death... the thing is, beyond any sort of platfrom zealotry or bias... My 733mhz G4 is still freakin' fast.

I can do everything i want to (video, web design, photoshop, flash, Quake 3) and still perform those tasks quickly. I don't give two shits about clockspeed.
 
I find my dual 500 very slo with a majority of osx applications.. In contrast when I first bought it, running os9 it was blazing fast.. and I assume os9 would do the dual 500 justice.. Pity about X I guess.
I think carbon apps are the worst hit on my machine, native cocoa apps can be slow but not "cludgy" which is the feeling I get using carbon apps.
 
I first posted some serious speed complaints about OS X's speed a couple of months ago and got blasted for it. People with DP 500s said their machines were "smooth as glass". I was running an SP 450 and getting quite sucky performance and was very skeptical about these DP 500 claims.

I was disappointed to come to the realization that OS X simply is too demanding for Apple's mid level (formerly top level) machines. After months of bitching and moaning about this, I finally just came to accept it and blew a buttload on the new DP G4 1 gig.

Suffice it to say that for the most part, OS X runs great on it. Some Apps like IE5 still suck, so I've got to assume there's simply some suck ass code in there. The Quartz layer has still got a touch of stickiness to it, but it's very comfortable. Finder navigation and even resizing is quite nice. Only windows with tons of icons and dynamic organization show any sluggishness and not enough to complain about (though that's a relative statement I've come to see).

I still have faith that X can be fine tuned a bit more for speed and currently their best machine, albeit expensive, is quite fast. In some areas it's insanely fast. Take 22X MP3 encoding for example. Or realtime DV previews in Final Cut, wow. Or video encoding. Also, any game I'm able to throw at it is now glass smooth at full resolutions and all options turned on. The new Macs are finally for real in all areas. And they'd better be at that price.
 
My DP 500 is still pretty smooth. I push it pretty hard, and I'm a little sloppy in terms of keeping my installation tidy.

As far as applications go- blame the developers. Just because application developers can release tight, streamlined code doesn't mean my hardware is any less fast.
 
Well obviously internet explorer is one of the most commonly used applications right? And it stinks.

But what are the alternatives?

This is what happens when I download a file with IE:
1. Annoyed because it appears to have no multithreading
2. Start up OmniWeb
3. 15minutes later (or sometimes not) OmniWeb crash reporter pops up and OmniWeb is rendered useless
4. Start up Mozilla
5. Get sick of mozilla because I hit apple N three times before a window pops up, then go file -> new window and four popup... [or other weird buggy apple key woes]

OmniWeb would be okay if it didn't blowup randomly.. I'm using sneakypeek 28 so that's probably why.. But I think the browsers for X really do suck right now.

Has anyone tried installing VPC and using IE for Win9x/XP and is it a viable alternative or not really? :)
I'd like to see a better entourage also...

Photoshop (b743) I find to be usable, very good for a Carbon application.
 
Originally posted by verlorenengel
Well obviously internet explorer is one of the most commonly used applications right? And it stinks.

But what are the alternatives?

This is what happens when I download a file with IE:
1. Annoyed because it appears to have no multithreading
2. Start up OmniWeb
3. 15minutes later (or sometimes not) OmniWeb crash reporter pops up and OmniWeb is rendered useless
4. Start up Mozilla
5. Get sick of mozilla because I hit apple N three times before a window pops up, then go file -> new window and four popup... [or other weird buggy apple key woes]
Click to expand...

Ha! I do have to admit, yes this has happened to me.

I'd like to see a better entourage also...
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a bit buggy. I have witnessed several odd IMAP related hiccups.... however a patch is around the corner, and for M$, Office.X is really nice!

Photoshop (b743) I find to be usable, very good for a Carbon application. [/B]
Click to expand...

I agree, however, one doesn't want to praise a company on their beta's too highly or they suddenly become GMs ;)

My main argument against OSX is the Finder. Quite simply it is sluggish and buggy.
 
Ahh yes Finder. What were they thinking making the main filesystem browser / backend to the display system Carbon. ?!
 
Easy. They wanted to demo what Carbon can accomplish. And failed. I guess this will be addressed with System 11 (whatever THAT monster will be called... Mac OS XI? Mac OS X 11.0? I hope it'll just be Mac OS 11.0, because by then OS 9 will be gone from the displays in stores.). But whether they'll fix the Carbon Finder (hmm...) or create a fine Cocoa replacement, I don't really care. It's not Carbon that is bad. There's Carbon software that behaves quite well.

Oh, and totally off-topic... I bought a PPC-Card for my Performa 630 sometime in the nineties, because System 8 (Copland) was promised to run on all PPC-equipped Macintosh computers. Sue anyone? :p (America is way off sometimes. Such a strange country. Doesn't 'common sense' make any sense in the States?)
 
i don't get it. what are you guys all talking about? osx runs just fine on my 500mhz cube, this is neither a mp machine, nor does it have that fancy 133mhz bus and ram.
i've completely banned os9 from my disk some time ago and i'm not crying one single tear after it.
 
You're a few weeks behind in your OW sneaky peek build. They are up to Build 36...

Life on a G4/800DP with OS X is a joy. All my apps run very snappily. The app that has the worst performance of the bunch though is IE. I gotta believe that Microsoft is concentrating on the next big rev. of IE (6), because the current versions issues are just too big to not have continual updates to fix it. Window resizing in IE 5.1.3 is just plain bad - on ANY Mac no matter how fast. This is IE's problem, not the OS's - just look at OW - it's windows resize smooth as glass. And for those who claim it's because IE is a Carbon app, keep in mind MS could have just gone with window outline sizing, like they do in their Office apps.

I think acceptable OS X performance starts at around a 500 mhz G3/G4 with at least 512MB of RAM. My TiBook 500 only has 384, and while it is plenty snappy for what it does, I find it gets the SCUD much more frequently than my G4/800 with 1.5GB of RAM (which hardly ever gets it).
 
I must interject and lower that "good performance" barrier down to 400MHz for a G4. I have 640 MB of RAM installed, and OS X performs "nicely." Yes, I'd love more speed, but who wouldn't? Who wouldn't love more speed in OS 9? I agree, OS X can be a bit taxing at times on my machine, but nothing that's going to make me pull my hair out.

I consider myself a "power-user," as well, so I am GREATLY concerned with the overall perceived speed of a system. I can fly through OS 9 windows like a bat out of hell, usually making people's heads spin if they try to watch. OS X -- not so much, but you learn the fastest route to something one way or another, and I can get to a nested sub-folder 30 levels deep just as fast in OS X as I can in OS 9.

Yes -- the finder seems a bit sluggish. But seriously, folks, who needs to resize and reposition windows every 5 seconds? You can just as quickly hide the foremost app and do your finder stuff, then unhide... you can even do this quickly in OS 9. I understand that SOME resizing and repositioning may be necessary, but if you do this in excess, then hell yeah you'll notice some slowdown and might just possibly need to reconsider how you work if you're doing this that much!

Point: OS X is different from OS 9. I've started working in OS 9 again frequently, just because a few programs haven't been ported yet, and it was a very similar experience from going from OS 9 to OS X the first time -- except backwards. I had to remember foreign key commands I hadn't used in ages and had to navigate the desktop and folders a bit differently. I think OS X has made the transition from OS 9 to OS X pretty painless, but there WILL be some differences. Think about it: if Jobs and Co. had made OS X just like OS 9 with the exception of the UNIX underpinnings, we'd all be screaming that he didn't think different enough. He kicked everything up a notch -- graphics, animations, usability, stability -- everything. Give it time. Remember the headache OS 8 was? Well, it paved the way for 9 and from what I can see, OS 9 has a TON of support here... in terms of speed, usability, etc... OS 8 didn't run as fast as OS 7 on the same machine -- similar to OS 9 and OS X.

I'm just as critical as the next guy/gal, but I tend to be an optimist and can see great things in store for OS X. I'm always waiting for the next upgrade to see what's been added or improved and haven't been let down yet.

Props to OS X.
 
There's only one thing you have to give up to have all that great speed, the Mac OS. Speaking for myself it doesn't matter how fast Intel manages to get their chips to run as long as the OS they are running is Windows.

MDA
 
I have a G4 400mhz... 768 RAM... OS X runs "great". :) Yes... motorola has their heads in their asses, but they will come through for us :) remember mhz/ghz #s do not matter.
 
Originally posted by Nummi
I have a G4 400mhz... 768 RAM...
Click to expand...

Nummi: update your tag line! You've got more RAM to brag about now! Hehe...

I'm stuck at 640MB, and I've been considering splurging for 4x256MB 2-2-2 chips from Kingston just to max it out with the highest quality RAM available, but then again, my G4/400 *IS* an aging machine, and while it's still PLENTY fast for me, those new Quicksilvers with an educational discount are looking DAMN enticing... ;)

Kudos to anyone running OS X on anything less than a G4/500 and not bitching about it... I'm loving it, Nummi's loving it... Apple's doing it right!
 
Motorola sucks.

That said, X runs just fine for me, with the exception of IE and the Flash Plugin running under IE. There are a few other apps (iPhoto... for shame!) that are still really slow when scaling a window, but for the most part my machine is really snappy under X. No complaints.
 
Complaining about OS X on your multi proc. G4s!!!!

I run OS X on a B&W G3 350. DO YOU HEAR ME?!?! A G3 350!!! And it runs BEAUTIFULLY. Granted, I've really tweeked my G3 ... (Gig of RAM, new Radeon 7000 graphics card, bigger 80GB HD) and to be honest, I definitely see bottlenecks in performance because of my slower proc. and lack of altivec. But to be perfectly honest, I can tlel you that my machine works GREAT in OS X. From window resizing (who the hell sits around resizing windows all day anyway?) to app launching to running 3 OS's at once (through VPC and Classic), my machine STILL ROCKS, 2.5 years later.

I'm going to upgrade to G4 500 soon (soon as Uncle Sam gives me my damn money back) and expect to be blown away ... I mean, adding 150 MHz AND the power of Altivec all at once ... Alice doesn't stand a chance ;)

Ya'll need to quit whining. I've played with X on the DP800s at the Apple Store, and while it was niiiiiiiiiiiiiice it wasn't NEARLY as much of an improvement as I would have expected coming from my pokey ol' B&W (with PCI graphics no less).

Not to mention that fact that I've run X on a stock 8600/300 with 256 MB of RAM. Ran fine. Not superduperfast, but fine.

I think we can place blame with the code we're running. Does anyone remember how much faster their machine got when they upgraded to OS 9 from OS 8.x? I remember being blown away when I loaded 9 onto my 8600 from 8.1. Give the OS and apps time to get their code slimmed down without all the debugging overhead ... we'll be seeing future updates to X run faster than 10.1 on the same hardware. Guaranteed.
 
I've been using OS X since March 24 (or thereabouts) on an iMac 600 DV Special Edition and then later on a new iBook 500. I found maxing the RAM out has greatly improved the performance on both machines. I think OS X handles marvelously, though there is some sluggishness that we all know about.

The concept that people seem to miss is the fact that they are not rebooting their machine daily, application crashes aren't bringing the system down, and true preemptive multitasking enables us to use our time performing several tasks at once instead of staring at a progress indicator. I don't think we can underestimate the power of OS X's UNIX underpinnings. This is such a quantum leap forward over anything that OS 9 was capable of. I'm not a programmer, but I do think that the melding of Mac and UNIX is a monumental effort and of course, a work in progress. I know there are several annoying little things that OS X does that OS 9 didn't, but we are really getting so much in return from X that OS 9 cannot really be compared to X anymore.

Another thing to think about is the way in which the kernel in OS X schedules priorities. There is a very interesting explanation on the Connectix site explaining why Virtual PC 5 on OS X is slower than the OS 9 version. I think it is worth reading. Sorry, I can't find it at the moment.

Overall, I've found OS X's performance to be perfectly acceptable, certainly more than Windows 2000 on a Pentium III 600 notebook that I use daily at work. OS X is exciting, refreshing, and new. I think we should embrace the difference and look towards the future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top