very sloooowww OS X

M

mcthunda

Registered
I have OS X10.2.8 and I have re-installed it about 4 times. I thought that this would increase the speed of things. When os9.2 actually owrked on my machine(won't boot now) it was ten times quicker than OS X. What is going on, I thought OS X was meant to be an updated version. Is it just my machine or is it normally slow.

I downloaded macjanitor this speeded things up fractionally, but not much. Do you think it's just a case of more Ram? If so what's recommended?

Thanks
 
righty-ho:

please post the full specs of your computer - model, processor, speed, RAM, hard disk space/free space.

OSX is a new operating system, designed to work on new computers, it always was going to be slower than OS 9, it takes power to process all the transucency and image scaling etc. you'll probably find that you just need some more ram, and it'll work fine then.
 
MacOS X has been around long enough now that it cannot be called a "new" operating system any longer. It is not true that MacOS 9.2 is necessarily faster than MacOS X on the same hardware. Certainly this is not the case on my 500 MHz PowerBook G3 Firewire with 384 MB RAM. To the contrary, QuickTime Pro and Microsoft Office v.X are noticeably faster under MacOS X 10.0/10.1/10.2/10.3 than when booted under MacOS 9.2 and running the Classic versions of QuickTime Pro and Microsoft Office 98. The increased overhead of MacOS X is more than compensated for by its superior memory management.
 
Also, "fast" doesn't necessarily mean that the user interface is "snappier" than OS 9.

OS 9 would beat the pants off of OS X 10.2.8 in terms of one application doing a task probably -- but OS X is a true multitasking environment, where OS 9 was simply a hack in this area. The minute you run more than one program simultaneously, OS X wins.

OS X is better and faster, but is faster in a different way than you're probably expecting. If you're expecting the user interface to be snappier, menus to drop down quicker and things responsing to double-clicks faster, you'll probably be disappointed. If you're expecting a better multi-tasking environment, MUCH better memory management, and responsiveness of the system when a program is "hogging" the processor, then you'll be delighted.

Again, it's faster in ways you probably don't realize, and you may be comparing the two in ways that make OS X seem slower.
 
mcthunda said:
I have OS X10.2.8 and I have re-installed it about 4 times. I thought that this would increase the speed of things. When os9.2 actually owrked on my machine(won't boot now) it was ten times quicker than OS X. What is going on, I thought OS X was meant to be an updated version. Is it just my machine or is it normally slow.
Click to expand...

OS X 10.3 is somewhat faster than 10.2, and 10.4 is somewhat faster than 10.3.

That said, if you are using an older Mac, with a G3 processor running slower than 400MHz, you may always notice that actions in the finder are somewhat less snappy than they were in OS 9.

mcthunda said:
I downloaded macjanitor this speeded things up fractionally, but not much. Do you think it's just a case of more Ram? If so what's recommended?
Click to expand...

For really good performance from OS X, it would be nice to have at least 1GB of RAM.

Doing a complete complement of routine maintenance can help speed up OS X significantly too. See my routine maintenance website, below.
 
MisterMe said:
MacOS X has been around long enough now that it cannot be called a "new" operating system any longer. It is not true that MacOS 9.2 is necessarily faster than MacOS X on the same hardware. Certainly this is not the case on my 500 MHz PowerBook G3 Firewire with 384 MB RAM. To the contrary, QuickTime Pro and Microsoft Office v.X are noticeably faster under MacOS X 10.0/10.1/10.2/10.3 than when booted under MacOS 9.2 and running the Classic versions of QuickTime Pro and Microsoft Office 98. The increased overhead of MacOS X is more than compensated for by its superior memory management.
Click to expand...


i was thinking context. It's not new now, but 10.2 was the first properly usable OS X, so it is, in that case, new, as opposed to the old OS 9.

my reccomendations for this user therefore are more ram, a lot more, and possibly panther.
 
To sum things up:
- 10.x is not merely an update to 9.x. It's a new operating system. (In this context.)
- OS X needs more RAM, a better graphics card, more RAM, more disk space, more RAM and a faster processor than OS 9, generally.
- Depending on what Mac you're using (give us the specs!), it might be advisable to stay at OS 9.2.2 or to use Panther (Mac OS X 10.3.9) instead of Jaguar (Mac OS X 10.2.8).
 
wow... wasn't expecting this much response. Thanks guys. Ok specs;Emac version 2.1, Memory 128mb, 700 MHz, PowerPC G4. How easily can I upgrade the momery(if this is the case)? And would I be able to change the proccesor on the mother board(like a PC)?
 
Well the biggest thing would that 128 mb of RAM. That's well below the minimum requirements. There should be a panel on the bottom of yur eMac that can be removed to give you access to the RAM. (just 3, maybe four regular philips screws). You need PC133 type RAM. You can pick up 512mb for aobut 60 bux. That should make things MUCH better. But don't go too crazy buying memory, your eMac can only recognize up to 1GB.
 
ok I have 128mb and a 240mb PC133 Ram that i took out of a PC, I opened the panel up and slotted in. When I started up OS X and looked at computer spec it still said 128mb, so it didn't reconize the memory i just put in.
 
ok I tried it with another memory stick and this message came up; Defult Catch!, code=300 at %SRRO: OLc10068 %SRR1: 00003030
Apple Powermac4 4 4.2fi
To Continue Booting Type 'mac-boot' or shutdown 'shut-down'

I booted and a blank screen opened and did nothing.

I changed the memory again and it worked fine.. What was wrong with the other stick of memory?
 
The other stick of memory could have not been PC 133 (you could have been mistaken). Or it could have been simply a messed up peice of ram. To be absolutely sure it is good ram, buy it new. But with that new ram I absolutely guarantee you will see a big boost in performance. With that G4 and the graphics chip and HD you have. You should be flying through Mac OS X.

BTW: I didn't even know emacs could boot into Mac OS 9 but i can be mistaken. I thought they came with Mac OS X.

EDIT: whoever tells you need 1 gig of ram. That is not true! 1gb is for superb performance. And with jaguar you really only need 256 but 512 is perfect for most multitaskers. For video editing, gaming (which the emac can't handle), photoshop and stuff like that. 1gb is for you.
 
I'm going to reiterate here. I hope I'm not being too redundant.

You will definitely see a speed improvement going from 128 MB to _anything_. I do suggest having MORE than 256 MB total. More is better. Anything over 512 MB probably won't increase performance unless you're editing very large pictures, or movies, or similar intensive graphics tasks--or if you're using several large programs at once.

I think you're going to be MUCH happier with more memory. It's worth the expense.

Phluxy: Some eMacs could boot into OS 9.

BTW, I use OS X (currently 10.4) on my iBook 500 MHz. For me it's certainly better than OS 9. But it's definitely sluggish. I find it strange that when you click on certain interface buttons they don't change color. No visual feedback. I'm trying a few buttons here on my iMac and they DO change color when clicked. The iBook is another story. Wonder why.

Doug
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top