i'm sick and tired of waiting for menu to drop!!!! i think it's worse in japanese too... now i'm thinking back in the powerwindows time on 9, menu slowed down just like it does in x, how do i turn this transparency on menu items?
It's not just kewlness, there's a very good HI reason why menus are translucent - In Aqua, translucency signifies something is transient, and will only be onscreen for a short while. So sheets and menus have translucency.
What is your hardware config? RAM? I have used japanese X on a PowerBook and on an original 733. No speed problems on either.
I too am mystified by the volume of speed complaints I've seen (mostly on the macfixit fora before the seemingly pointless censorship by admin and the childish antics of several users sickened me enough to stay far far away). I have even tried X on the slowest machine I own (that would take X - I didn't even try on the SE or SE/30) - a 1998 PowerBook - and couldn't duplicate all the problems I've heard mentioned ad nauseum even on new(er) machines.
Anyway, post your config and maybe we'll be able to troubleshoot a bit better...
I'm running a Beige G3 266 with a 16mb graphics card (and the on-board 4mb graphics), and I have to agree that the transparent menus do consume alot of processing power.
I would also like a way to disble this. I think its more practical for os x to come with a way to turn down the over-kill anti-aliasing, live alpha-transparencies, and drop shadows. As well as disabling live-window draging (its not slow, but it would make background processes run quicker when you drag a window arround).
Until apple does that (and I really doubt they will - I'll probably buy a new G4 before apple gives us some powerfull UI options), I'm sticking with XDarwin and afterstep. Transparent menus pop up instantly.
PS: Remeber how the croud was almost silent as those menus poped open on Jobs at MWNY? I think more than a few people are complaining about this.
I would have to agree. A LOT of people are complaining about this. I just haven't been able to replicate the issues mentioned. I have to say that there is barely a difference between the speed I experience already on my 733 and the demo SJ performed.
i don't think the old PB I have will ever be as fast as I'd like, but it IS over 3 years old. I don't think 10.1 will make much of a difference. But it is nowhere near being unusable. In fact, I get much more done in X now that I use it almost exclusively than I do in 9 even though X is slower on the PowerBook than 9. The only thing that 10.1 will affect on the PB will be that I won't have to boot into 9 to watch a movie on the plane.
Even though it doesn't really make a difference to me, I agree with your second paragraph. Those things should be options if it will make it more usable to a large group of people. But, I guess putting myself in Apple's shoes, I'd rather see you buy that new G4...
but it doesn't change the slow response to the VERY first click on each of the menu... it's okay after the initial load but it's still a pain in the rear for going to the menu cuz of the delay. oh well. 10.1 then...
Well, I guess this is a closed issue really, but I'd like to chime on on the what I optimistically regard as the reasoning behind the sluggish - and even buggy - performance of MacOS X up to now. The argument I've heard most often is that they needed to have a stable release first and then begin paring it down and optimizing. As a developer I've tended to do the same thing, taking optimization as the icing on the cake, so to speak.
I'd like to pretend it has absolutely nothing to do with marketing, but I'm willing to admit that Apple felt they needed to get MacOS X out the door before it was entirely perfect. The Cube was a marketing disaster after all!
But I wouldn't have traded my 4 months of MacOS X experience for 4 months of playing with Conflict Catcher every other day. I've done about 5 installs of MacOS X on my home and work machines combined, the last time so I could move to a larger partition. But it got easier every time, thanks in part to Apple's diligence in providing 10 combined 10.0.0 - 10.0.4 and other updates as disk images.
Of course Apple was counting on my loyalty, and they've kept it despite their flaws, such as a dearth of update documentation. They counted on the fact that most "early adopters" would be brave long-time Mac gurus. Looking around the forums that have existed for Apple products on UseNet, MacFixit, here, and elsewhere for 20 years I find an amazing user base willing to help each other out of any jam. Apple surely counted on this too.
I guess the most true and positive thing you can say about MacOS X at this moment is It's only going to get better!
hate to tell you guys. but uhm, auqa is opengl based.
the *only* load transparent menus put on your system is on your opengl compatable card. it uses no cpu cycles. if it is slow it is because your system is running slowly loading the menu content.. even a ultra slow card does 2d transparency effects extremely quickly.
try running a lower res or 16 bit color. heck even me 'mr quality freak' dosnt mind 16 bit color in os x too much, with it's system wide hi quality dithering.
" .... reasoning behind the sluggish - and even buggy - performance of MacOS X up to now.The argument I've heard most often is that they needed to have a stable release first and then begin paring it down and optimizing."
Isn't that a contradiction in terms? You need a stable copy so release a "sluggish - even buggy," copy??? Stable to me is - yes, less crashes and easier recovery - but also NOT buggy. The bugs and sluggishness are what the little guys get all frazzled about... They're used to an occassional restart. I hope that was a mistype re: your software dev procedures.
I agree with just about everything else I think (I'm in edit and can't see your original post...), But the reaosning was Mostly, if not ALL, marketing and PR and honour. Apple had to ship.
A LOT of other things besides opengl and the vidcard can create issues with menus. Stupid example: one of your your HDs is sleeping and you drag across "recent Items" (one of which happens to be on that sleepy drive) or something... There are MANY other calls from the menu that do go to the cpu...
I have been running Mac OS X 10.0.4 on a cube now, and it is definitely close to unusable. I usually go back to OS 9, now, and once in a while I want to go back to Mac OS X for it's stability and beauty, but by the time I get there I remember the speed issues.
It is very slow in certain things... submenus DO have a delay, like the ones in the dock if you have a folder on the right side, and window resizing is waaaaaaaaaaaay too slow, and opening applications and things like that are really slow too. Menus aren't that slow (just about as snappy as OS 9 but a little slower) but submenus are definitely slow.
Here's to hoping that OS X 10.1 will improve speed issues, and if initial reports are any indication, chances are it will be up to par by the time 10.1 is released!
My test that I always use to see if a computer can handle the GUI to a degree sufficient enough to please me is to click and hold down on a menu and then run the arrow back and forth across the menu bar. If the menus can follow my arrow in a snappy fashion (Like they do in 9), then I'm good. If not (like they do in 10, even on my G4/733), then I'm looking forward to the 10.1 update to solve this problem.
Yeah, everything I hear is that 10.1 will be quite a relief to all the irritations of 10.0.
What still makes OS 9 faster than X are the animations!
I use 10.1 5G59
Long menues tend to fall down too slow, and when they disappear - they fade out. This fading is an animation - it only takes som mS, but you loose time in the long run.
OS 9 doesn't have animations, so it responds directly to every click.
Click - no wait.
in Windows 98 and upp you have the chance to disable animations.
A person like me want this function.
Sure, X is really cool lookin', but a nex gen OS should be as fast as possible.
I use a G4/400 - I don't suffer from speed loss, but I get surprized every time I log in to OS 9