When will we finally see the codename "Cheetah?"


The reason I ask this is I think "Cheetah" would indicate the fastest release of OS X, faster than OS 9.

When do you think that OS X will finally become a faster OS than OS 9? We obviously haven't reached that stage yet, and there are lots of codenames to go... Lion, Leopard, Tiger, and other large cat codenames have not been used yet. And they will most likely all be used before Apple promises us speed with codename Cheetah.

Just a random thought. :D


10.0 was Cheetah?

:D My bad. 10.0 is no cheetah, though. ;)


Anyway, you should all know the point I'm trying to make, since I can't edit the thread title. :p


U.S.D.A. Prime
Well, i just have to inject a little reality into this post. OS X will NEVER be as fast as OS 9, given that you're running them on the same machine. They can't be compared in terms of speed simply because they operate EXTREMELY differently. The "active" application in OS 9 could "hog" the processor and suck up all the resources of the system to use itself, making it seem very speedy. OS X prevents this with preemptive multitasking, so one application or process cannot "hog" the entire system, making ALL open applications equally as responsive, give or take.

You gotta get a faster machine to see faster OS X. I'm sure that OS X will see more speed boosts in the future, but I doubt it will ever be as responsive as OS 9 on any past PowerMacs.

Sorry... reading over that it seems to be a little "history lesson-ish" or something... I apologize for being too lazy to go back and re-word it.


I think you're all kinda insane. I felt generally good about the speed in 10.0 with the exception of application launching. Seriously, my productivity benefits so much from being in charge of the machine, and not having to worry about crashes that X beta started showing productivity gains in some areas against 9 native.

Unless your system is under load, 9 and X give the frontmost application nearly equal opportunity to use the processor. What kills responsiveness in X is the window redraw and the pervasive VM. OS 9 was only better in terms of speed because the apps know what to expect and played along nicely. Somtimes you'd get nightmarishly slooow response from an application that had to actually think to redraw itself. This happens less with X thanks to double buffering of everything. Want to see a bad X app? scroll through a PDF in Acrobat. Good 9 app, bad X app.

Also, 2 processors in OS 9? Pheh. What a joke. Now my app can run crazy on one processor while windowing does its thinking on the other.

How about QT compressions, if I had one going for 18 hours on 9, that was 18 hours I couldn't use my computer. Now I can use my computer, and since QT still only compresses a lot of (or all, I haven't checked all of them) codecs in a single thread, I can still work at nearly normal speed on my second processor while QT goes crazy.

Or what about responsiveness and skipitude while mp3 compressing or playing a DVD. Don't get me wrong, soundjam is still better than iTunes in a couple of ways, overall the OS 9 experience was only better when it was good. When it was bad, it was FAR worse. And on average, I think X is faster, and more than fast enough. I would like better responsiveness to window resizing, but I'm not certain that's an Apple problem. Ehhh, it probably is.

Anyway, X is more than fast enough for my liking. Just don't give up on stability. Also, I'd like my CPU to not heat my house. I hope they don't give in on that front.

Maybe I'm the only person on the face of the earth capable of being happy with what gets my job done, but I don't really feel the need for any more focus on X speed. Application development speed and maturity is of WAY more concern to me. System responsiveness while something waits on network access, that's of concern to me. And that's getting better in X.


Excellent points about system speed. I have only a single processor 533 MHz g4 and it is plenty fast for me. The only proof I need is that I don't fear burning a CD, Listening to iTunes and surfing the web all at the same time. In 9 to insure against the production of coasters I would quit everything and restart with a very basic extension set. In 10.1 and 10.2 I start the burn and listen to tunes (that almost never skip compared to 9) and surf the web and never get a toaster. Having said that, I would like to have a snappier feel from the finder, but thats my only major complaint.


cocoa love
I think Cheetah *might* come out next year, because apple says that their computers wil no longer support OS 9. So i think they will be optimizing all their hardware for OS X. Just my 2 cents.


Adjutant On-Line
10.0 - Cheetah
10.1 - Puma
10.2 - Jaguar

Thems the code names people, so unless apple decides to recycle code names, 10.0. will always be Cheetah, wether it ran like one or not.


Staff member
Check your spelling and read threads before answering, Ophidian. :/

I think Apple should finally head over to innovate again in a really important field: User Interface (I'm not talking themes!). Not that Mac OS X hasn't got the greatest user interface we know of, I think it's much better than anything MS or the Linux community and BeOS have come up with (I'm still not talking themes! I tell you this because maybe one or the other user will try and deviate my point to themes. Hopefully, nobody will.).

But then again, Mac OS X wasn't that big a step in ease of use coming from Mac OS 9. Apple sold us the Aqua interface (not the look, the look and FEEL and usability) as THE interface for the next decade, but I think there's more work to be done than has been done until now.

Improving speed is one of the top priorities at Apple, I believe, so it's quite useless to discuss whether or not Apple should improve the speed of Mac OS X.


Adjutant On-Line
Originally posted by fryke
Check your spelling and read threads before answering, Ophidian. :/
Yeah my spelling can be bad sometimes, but im not quite sure I understand your criticism of my reading skills.

Unless I completely missed the point of this thread (and with the topic drift I might have), its about people being unsure of the code names of the OS X releases. I simply pointed out the code names, what versions the refered to, and stated that its unlikely a OS code named Cheetah is going to come out of Apple any time soon.