Will OSX ever be as fast as XP?

My Ti-book (400mhz, 256, 20 gig) runs comparably to my dad's Celeron (433, 312, 100gig-7200rpm). I am not impressed with the performance of XP, and I am not impressed with the performance of X (I even have XP's cache file on another hd!!). XP maybe faster resizing windows, but it still feels very slow. It is nothing compared to win 98 in speed. That said though, X is nothing like 7.0 or 8.1. I have been using computers for 11 years now. I have lived with Win 3.11, system 7.5 (bleh), and now X and XP. There have been brighter days when it comes to RAW OS speed, but now we finally have stability. Things will pick up, push push push for better hardware!
 
Also, keep in mind that OS X's display layer (Quartz) is a completely new display engine. It's nothing like QuickDraw or Display PostScript. So it's pretty understandable that there are still some performance issues that needs to be worked out.

I have high hopes on OS X's future repsonsiveness. With every small update the UI has been getting more responsive, and with 10.2 that should really be noticeable.

Also, I do find that I am more productive in OS X because of its rock solid stability.

Can't wait for Jaguar, it's gonna be something amazing.
 
About Quartz being completely new and Display PostScript...

Yes, it is new, yes it sure has quirks to be solved. But afaik one of the great things about using Display PDF (Quartz) instead of PostScript was that things would be faster (in general), because PDF uses less space than PostScript and is already optimized for screen (in opposition to PostScript). My guess is that Apple got a bit over board about all those fancy things one can do with Quartz: And they did them all somewhere in OSX. :)
 
OS X can be as fast and even faster than XP. Just update your prebinding everytime you install new applications. Use the freeware Pacifist to do this:

http://www.versiontracker.com/moreinfo.fcgi?id=12743&db=mac

If you let the energy saver on overnight you will also need Macjanitor to do the system cleanup tasks that are done at 3:30 AM: http://www.versiontracker.com/moreinfo.fcgi?id=10491&db=mac

OS X can be dog using the GUI version of SETI, though at least you can install the Darwin version with SETI Dockling: http://www.versiontracker.com/moreinfo.fcgi?id=10528&db=mac

Oh and Mac OS X 10.1.5 at long last supports many of the older G3 graphics cards that weren't supported before.

10.1.5 update to 10.1.3 or 10.1.4:
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=122010

10.1.5 update to 10.1, 10.1.1, 10.1.2
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=122011
 
Sorry to keep this OT, but nobody's mentioned persistence of vision, yet.

Stare at your monitor, then quickly close your eyes. You'll notice that the image fades, rather than instaneously disappearing. This effect means that 24fps is enough to give the illusion of smooth motion.

Eyes don't work in terms of fps, they accept continuous input. Persistence of vision is merely a feature of the eye that made Walt Disney's job a little easier!

(1,000,000 fps? He'd still be working on Snow White... :p )
 
What you fail to realize is that that has nothing to do with a moving image on your computer screen.

Your monitor does not have the ability to simulate motion blur due to restrictions in design and refresh rate.

LCD displays are even worse. Games and movies can look terribly choppy even at a high FPS rate.

The only way games can compensate for the short comings of TVs and monitors is to pump up the FPS. What's even worse is that they are fighting against a CPU and GPU while trying to do this. When the FPS drop from 60 to 24, it is terribly noticeable.

Anyway, thanks for the example but that would only apply to looking at the fan, not a computer screen.
 
i own both a P4 with 512 of ram running XP, and I also own a G4 with 512 running OS X 10.1.5... in my opinion...xp is slow as dog shit, comparred to OS X.
 
Originally posted by PhilH
Sorry to keep this OT, but nobody's mentioned persistence of vision, yet.

Stare at your monitor, then quickly close your eyes. You'll notice that the image fades, rather than instaneously disappearing. This effect means that 24fps is enough to give the illusion of smooth motion.

Eyes don't work in terms of fps, they accept continuous input. Persistence of vision is merely a feature of the eye that made Walt Disney's job a little easier!

(1,000,000 fps? He'd still be working on Snow White... :p )
Click to expand...

This phenomenon is not really associated with the eyes so much as the brain. The brain's visual processing neurons get fatiged, this is why you syill see the image when you close your eyes.
 
Originally posted by Koelling
Other people would say that Macintosh is slow because they play games that only play at 65 fps rather than 100 (The eye sees at 24? 32?).
Click to expand...
Cough. Not exactly.
 
Jaguar has hardware accelerated scrolling, even on systems that don't support Quartz Extreme. Scrolling is every bit as smooth as in OS 9.
 
sincerely, my Windows XP PC runs faster than Mac OS X.
OS X always have been slow, I don't know why.
Many Mac fans blindly defend Apple products but I think they should know much more about what they are talking.
Mac OS X is a very good OS, I think it's the best OS ever made for home computers, but Apple has to do something with the performance of this system.
 
I wonder how fast XP would look if we had it running on 500 mhz G3s without DDRAM?

The GUI is a little slow because it lacks hardware acceleration. However, let's not forget the fact that the hardware is at least a year behind what the x86 crowd offers.
 
However, let's not forget the fact that the hardware is at least a year behind what the x86 crowd offers.
Click to expand...

Try more like 3 years.

If OS X did have some decent hardware to run on, it probably would shine a lot brighter.

Unfortunately, Apple decided long ago that a polished case is worth more than what's inside.
 
I disagree that Windoze is faster...here's the syatems where I base my arguments from:

300 G3 DT Mac w/768mb ram, 30 gb drive.

1.6gig P4 Dell w/512mb ram, 30 & 20 gb drives.


XP seems to have problems loading the application windows at times, and is extremely slow on a 1.6 P4. Not to mention constant freezes and related issues.

OSX runs actually quite well when you figure in the nonexistant video card (2mb) and speed of the machine. I'm running 10.1.5 and when all things are considered, it runs circles around XP.
 
hmmmm... Well, i've NOT used "X" on an optimal machine as such, only my iBook, and even then, i didn't find X "that slow". Anyhow, i use XP Day in day out (obviously not with Luna! lol)

But i don't think Luna is that Fast! My Computer went totally Crazy, and i couldn't get DSL 2 authenticate on XP, so i began using 98 (Dual Boot)! Anyhow, it taught me 2 things ...

how S**T Win 9x is! lol
But how FAST it is too! The Classic GUI was so so Fast, and it made Such a Difference on Web Page Rendering! it was as though i had a faster connection (and i am on 512k DSL! lol) in comparison to XP!

But now i have both OS's back, reinstalled and fresh, and XP hacked to Death once more, its faster and all, but with all the "crap" running 2 "aquafy" it, its not all that fast! ...but i couldn't stick looking At "classic" again, even if i could do things twice as fast! lol

I'd Definately like to see X, as fast as "Classic Windows", as for Luna, i don't think its that far Behind!

NeYo

i can only speak, on behalf on my XP machine (Below) ...And mu 500Mhz iBook :(
 
I find it funny that *NIX people cheer the speed of their OS and condemn macintosh because it's so slow. What most people (read: consumer people) talk about their operating system they are talking about the part that *nix people would call the window manager.

As a novice Darwin user, I realize that it is soooo much faster to shut down Aqua and run off of the console or in XWindows. But if I start a window manager that even comes close to the beauty and functionality of Aqua it is dirt slow. There is one called Enlightenment which is as close as a window manager gets to being as beautiful as Aqua but is much slower than Aqua in all the tasks that people worry about, window resizing, scrolling, ect. TWM or windowmaker are window managers that make it fast but you loose some features that make people productive.

I guess that was kinda off topic but the point is that the speed of the OS is based on the speed of the User Interface. I personally am happy with the speed, but we have the choice of a trimmed down gui just like any linux person does.
 
Originally posted by Koelling
I find it funny that *NIX people cheer the speed of their OS and condemn macintosh because it's so slow. What most people (read: consumer people) talk about their operating system they are talking about the part that *nix people would call the window manager.

As a novice Darwin user, I realize that it is soooo much faster to shut down Aqua and run off of the console or in XWindows. But if I start a window manager that even comes close to the beauty and functionality of Aqua it is dirt slow. There is one called Enlightenment which is as close as a window manager gets to being as beautiful as Aqua but is much slower than Aqua in all the tasks that people worry about, window resizing, scrolling, ect. TWM or windowmaker are window managers that make it fast but you loose some features that make people productive.

I guess that was kinda off topic but the point is that the speed of the OS is based on the speed of the User Interface. I personally am happy with the speed, but we have the choice of a trimmed down gui just like any linux person does.
Click to expand...

FYI: Gnome 2.0 was recently released (http://www.gnome.org) that has anti-aliased text (Checkout the screenshots). Now that looks pretty sweet. I wouldn't mine installing that to run on OroborOSX/XDarwin. Also, KDE 3.0 was recently released as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top