So please stop whining at Eugenia whitout a point So basically Eugenia is simply right in saying that performance of earlier version of OS X was horrible expecially UI responsiveness. I mean I could find tons of other reliable reviews around (you trust arstechnica don’t you). “Interface responsiveness and effective stability are the two biggest fundamental problems, but missing features and compatibility issues rank just as high if you actually intend to use OS X as a full Mac OS 9 replacement: the 10.0 release cannot view DVD movies printer drivers are still scarce CD burning is not yet supported, even by Apple’s own iTunes CD authoring application and a lot of hardware (like my G3/400’s serial port adapter to which my printer is attached) seem destined to be orphaned forever.” While in the conclusion page you can read Even something as simple as launching the System Preferences takes 6 bounces.” ![]() “Bouncemarks” may be rough, but when you see classic Internet Explorer 5.0 barely make it through a single bounce before coming up, and then watch the carbonized Internet Explorer 5.1 “preview” bounce 18 times, the verdict is clear. Even without a stopwatch, it’s easy to measure the time needed to launch an application by counting how many times its icon bounces in the Dock before it settles down to run. “Native OS X application launch times are not particularly impressive, and sometimes downright bad. Eugenia even forgot to mention how horrible was launching applications in 10.0. Shawn please stop this! Even my dog knows what Eugenia was talking about. “…Your problem is you can’t stand to be wrong. My point: there are trade-offs in performance. The new kernel has bigger requirements, but when they actually go head to head on acceptable hardware, 2.6.x performs better (e.g. 600 Mhz P3 with 256 MBs of RAM), XP blows Win98 off in overall speed/multitasking. However, when both are running on the same hardware (e.g. For example, Win98 is able to run on less memory/Mhz than XP can (Win98 can easily run on a P200 with 64 MBs of RAM for example). I don’t really expect to see the same percentage of increase on Tiger, because OSX seems to have stabilize a lot in terms of optimizations, plus the new indexing backend will take cpu cycles away anyway.Īlso, there is a difference between “consume less memory” and “run faster specific tasks”. ![]() As time went by, the good engineers at Apple fixed most of the slowness and so, up to Panther we have seen a steady increase in speed with versions. But that’s only because the first versions of OSX sucked seriously and OSX already had a bad name of being really slow. >get faster with every OS update, rather than slower >My experience with Mac OS X is that it does indeed
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |