Why is MacOs X PB so slow

M

marcus

Registered
I have had no problems in installing mac os x but it is sooooo slow! Starting up Internet Explorer a native macosX application takes much more time as under 9.04. Is this problem a beta problem or will mac os x be slower than mac os 9?
Next problem. I have connected an printer via ethernet to my mac. The printer appears in the dialog but I can not print anyway. What I do wrong?
Next problem. Does macosx support leonardo isdn cards of hermsted?
Next Problem . Is it possible to make the font size on the desktop smaller. The text on the desktop looks like a video game.
Thanks for your help an informations.
 
I have a iMac 233 with 96 mb ram and 4 GB harddisk, and I think that macOs X is very slow too. Am I the only one who thinks that?
 
First off, OS X is still in Beta. Secondly, I would follow the recommendation to have at least 128mgs of ram in your computer.

About printing under OS X, I know USB printers can't print due to a lack of drivers, but I don't know printers connected through other means.

The question is not does macosx support leonardo isdn cards of hermsted, but does leonardo isdn cards of hermsted supports macosx? If the company hasn't released drivers for OS X, then it won't work.
 
I have an iMac 333mhz with 96mb ram and it runs slow as hell... I really liked the thought that Apple never mentioned you need 128mb of ram to run it efficiently, until now. Apple has stated they are aiming for a minimum memory requirement of 64 megs when they release the final. Also keep in mind
OS X is running in "debug" mode. This means the os is double checking every code execution twice. This also keeps the OS "running" in its infant stage. When the final is released it will stop wading through the code many times. This will provide a dramatic speed boost. Remember that NeXT went though the same "speed crisis"

.....Just a thought/////
 
Umm...Apple CLEARLY states that OS X PB needs 128MB. When you order it (its on the order page), on it's website for OS X PB, PDF literature, in the Box OS X PB came in.
 
Yes , and by the way I don t think the problem resides in the RAM....I have a G4 192 mgs and I promise you it is as slow as yours...The thing I can see is that it is already increadibly stable....YEEEESSS..and UNIX in it maaaaan -
But the fact that OsX is in debug mode means everything....
be patient and don t forget to feedback apple...it is for our benefit.....
 
I have 256MB, new disk drive that delivers 32MB/sec, and it's slow.

Printing to USB Lexmark laser (w/ 18MB, 66mhz engine) use to be real fast and instantaneously. Slow. And slower yet from IE 5.5. Also, when I do try to print a range of pages, it prints them all anyway!

I upgraded my G3/350 to a 466 (oc'd 500) hoping that would help. Not. I lose my backside cache probably - the one extension that prevented Classic from loading was Powerlogix init to enable cache/set speed.

Downloading is better, faster. Able to handle that kind of stuff better. doesn't support Multilink PPP (yet) so I can take advantage of dual modem support.

Vendors like to say "Windows 2000 requirements..." and lie about how easy etc. It costs a lot, takes more, works terrible (but runs) in those low-RAM etc systems. Why companies hold off, wait for fixes or attrition if they can. And W2K when it comes pre-installed, the CD(s) are EXTRA I understand.

I OS 9.1 takes 32MB to load Classic, 40MB to load X, and swap a lot, yea, you might be able to boot. X will only use what it "needs" and create a swap file, so you don't have to "worry" but I would look at price of RAM ($1/MB) and buy. It is okay now and likely to rise through the end of the year. It just isn't that expensive. Like if you can't afford to have a 2nd backup hard drive, then beta OS testing might be a stretch.

Gregory
 
Hi guys! I have 320mb ram, huge hard drives, and a 300mhz machine and I can tell you that OS X is slow...slow....slow. I understand about debug mode and beta. However, it better be faster in GM because users won't be happy and I don't think Apple needs that right now or next year.
;-)
Daniel
 
Disable as many Apple and probably all your 3rd party extensions in OS 9.0.4 used under X (Classic) and see if that doesn't help. It did here and the sluggishness is a thing of the past.

Folder Actions? Control Strip? Indexing? Security? Multi-user? Disable most of the OS 9 crap. I had to disable one init just to boot Classic. Don't even need to boot into 9, just find the Extension Manager, make your changes, create a set for Classic, relaunch. CC8 can disable more easily more files that help, or manually.

Printing is still terribly slow, and Ie 5.5 has to be 125% to look normal.

Creating a partition for Classic and one for "active, working" OS 9 might be easier while still need to do some stuff just from 9 (scanning).

Being able to relaunch Classic, even choose a different system folder, is very very handy.

Gregory
 
Hi !

I have read elsewere (on 2 other forums) that to have a speedier OS X, one should install a fresh version of OS 9 on one partition and OS X on another partition. These readers had experienced first with the "OS X over OS 9" type of install with abysmal speed results, and re-installing on two partition "quickly" corrected the speed issues.

As for myself, I cannot say, having not received my MacOS X CD Yet.

Hope this helps.
 
I have a Macintosh G4/450 Multiprocessor with 512MB RAM. I got the 512MB RAM not by blowing a lot of money, but by looking at all the old PCs I had with 128MB RAM cards and cannibalizing them for this one system. It worked great, so if you have a bunch of old computers you're not using anymore, you might want to consider taking that route. Those four memory slots are a big advantage when it comes to "liberating" memory from other computers.

With the exception of resizing windows and Final Cut pro in the classic environment, I've found MacOS X to be very speedy and responsive, except that it drops characters when I type (see the report I wrote on that elsewhere).

Even Photoshop works pretty well in Classic. It's not quite as fast as MacOS 9, but it's very usable.

It's quite likely that a lot of the reason for my good fortune with X is that I have a brand new machine (only two weeks old) and therefore haven't gotten too many problem extensions on yet.

D
 
Classic is naturally going to be slower, and drive RAM usage waaay waay up (since most or all of Mac OS 9 has to be loaded, emulated, along with whatever applications are running inside Classic). Classic has gotten better and better with each developer release of Mac OS X though. But I will be very happy when I no longer have to run it or boot into Mac OS 9.

As said above, the public beta is (most likely) in Debug mode. This does slow things down. And I really doubt that Carbon is still fully optimized yet. Cocoa apps seem (usually) pretty fast, both starting up and executing. But IE 5 and Sherlock both do seem to take much longer to activate. Since this is where most of the current development is going on (Cocoa is relatively stable at this point, while Carbon has been grafted into this environment at a relatively high speed), it's probably the least optimized. As many state, it's very important to file those bug reports and other general feedback to Apple!

(by the way: In the Grab Bag folder in Applications in Mac OS X, there's a CPU monitor. Through the CPU monitor you can also launch the Process Viewer or start a terminal session running 'top'.)

The IOKit is relatively new (it first showed up after DP3) but is a great system. I don't know if it's 100% complete yet or not, but I imagine it will still take some time for drivers to get ported over to it. Fortunately, IOKit is open sourced as part of Darwin, which should offer third party hardware and software makers opportunity to develop and test against it. Now that the Public Beta is out and IOKit's been around enough, I hope full support for it starts happening soon. This probably includes support for processor upgrades.

Finally, the Quartz\Quicktime\OpenGL graphics layer is probably not fully optimized yet either. Quartz behaviors started showing up in DP2 (and may not even have been in DP1), and weren't fully active until DP3. Quartz is a pretty advanced little piece of flesh, as Aqua fully demonstrates (live layer compositing, etc). Quartz is a vital component of Mac OS X for both Screen and Print purposes, so it's important that it too gets done right.

Mac OS 9 uses some shadowy tricks with its virtual memory system to speed up relaunch of applications, a hack that Mac OS X probably does NOT do. I haven't noticed a lot of splash screens in Mac OS X Carbon apps (hurray for bouncing dock icons btw!), which might add to the feeling that an app is taking a long time to load. GoLive and Photoshop in Mac OS 9 have a lot to go through when starting up, but the splash screen usually lets you know what's going on. The anti-modal ways of Mac OS X might discourage this tactic, but I'm not at all positive that's the case. Since the Mac OS X environment behaves differently that Mac OS 9, our mental mappings to visual cues that something's happening aren't rewired properly yet.

NeXTStep 2.0 seemed to SCREAM on a 68040. I'd be shocked if the GM of Mac OS X doesn't follow suit.
 
I think part of the reason why Mac OS X is slow is that the Content Indexer is running full speed. Otherwise, on my 350 Mhz, G3 B&W I find the new OS to be fairly snappy.
 
OSX does tend to run a tad slower on my G4 400. Slower than OS9 did. That cirlce of mulitple colors spinns a lot :)
I have been able to print over appletalk, not a problem and very speedy.
What else has been adressed,um, Oh yeah, the instruction manuel said that you need to have OS9 installed prior to installing OSX. How did your friend to this, Pascal?
 
Pascal is right. I did the samething and you give me an opportunity to tell my story. Just like a lot of people, I first installed os X on os 9, but the SPEED WAS SO BAD.
I then bought a new hard drive for the occasion, transferred all my files on it, rebooted with OS 9 CD, erased and installed 9 on my former drive, restaured my files on it and then lauched the installation of OS X from OS 9, choosing my new hard drive (did you get everything ? :)).
Now I have one drive for OS 9 and one drive for OS X, which is very handy. When I boot under OS 9, I don't have to suffer seeing my hard drive cluttered with the OS X cannibalisation (you people who have both one on top on the other, same drive, know what I mean) Speed got a lot better, everything works fine. It is not as speedy as when Steve demos it , but it is now very usable. I think this is the best you can get from X.

I have:

G4 500
256 RAM
 
OS X on my G3 B&W overclocked to 500 with 512MB of RAM is super speedy. Well as speedy as I expected it to be anyways. :D

Just remember Quartz will *never* be as quick as Quickdraw on your current iron. Quickdraw isn't rasterizing PDF data and applying multiple layers of transparency. That takes alot of horsepower, and the current hardware is really just adequate. In a year or so this won't even be an issue. Just think of all the possiblites that Quartz will offer you though, esp. if you are a graphics pro:

Real time previews of your printed pieces on screen using the same technology that prints them. WYSIWYG is truly WYSIWYG, not interpreted. No stupid crappy low res previews in Quark anymore (well when they update anyways!) for EPS files. You'll be seeing the actual file there. No wondering what that overprint will look like. Quartz will show you! Want to edit that PDF file on that web site? Do it in your browser!

You are all creative people. I'm sure you can think of some more ways Quartz will be utilized :D

About classic: go into the Applications menu and right-click on the Classic.app and show package contents. Go into the contents/resources folder. You will see an application called TruBlue. Open the login panel prefs and drag this there for startup. TruBlue is the guts of classic. I've found that just launching TruBlue at startup adds about 5-10 seconds to launch time, however just having trublue running instead of Classic makes things a bit speedier. I don't really know why it just seems so. I'm sure some things are missing, but I haven't found any yet. All my classic apps run fine. Quark loads nearly instantly. Give it a try you'll like it! Plus, trublue doesn't suck any resources until you launch a classic app. It can sit there and not slow you down.

Overall I'm very impressed with the speed and useability (esp the speed of the dock that sucker has been worked over!). It will only get better. Send in your feedback!
 
chales wrote :
Oh yeah, the instruction manuel said that you need to have OS9 installed prior to installing OSX. How did your friend to this, Pascal?
Click to expand...
mrfreeze explained very well what I was trying to say. It is also how I intend to install OS X : one drive for X and one drive for 9. Keep em separate, keep em clean ! ;-)

(It is also the best way to insure a safe escape route in case of an X crash : don't forget : this is beta software. Good, efficient, well done and seemingly stable, but beta nevertheless !)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top