I don't think we should use the G5 as a benchmark... because I am using a powerbook like many other switcher.. so, I do believe OSX is slow... but dam good and reliable and very stable. I agree some of the post.. but face it... Nothing is perfect in this world.. and Mac done the best at one end and Windows does something good in another end... what more can we ask.. just wish there is a PERFECT OS? keep dreaming
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
OS X is LAME
- Thread starter krohde
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This guy *does* deserve to be ridiculed. You make very rational and thought-out responses, but look at what the other guy said...
Or what?? Is that a threat? Are you leaving the platform? Or is it that Apple can't compete with their current offerings? I hate this kind of statement; its meaningless.
This guy is obviously posting angry.
OK, everybody, why don't we try what the original poster said. Open up a bunch of apps and try switching between applications.
I just tried myself. I've got folding running, Safari, Mail, Terminal, Preview and iTunes playing a song from a network computer. Opening a new iTunes window takes well under a second. Switching from safari to iTunes takes FAR less than a second.
I'm on a 400 MHz G4 TiBook with 512 MB of RAM.
I can understand that OS X is slow at *some* things. Certain apps (Photoshop and MS Office, forinstance) can also be very slow. But who are you going to blame that on? Apple? Or how about the freakin' developer of the slow app?
Somehow Apple and *most* third party developers can make reasonable apps, but others can't. How can you blame that on Apple?
We have to be realistic in our expectations. We should expect speed and responsiveness, but must temper that with reason. My menus on my machine repond faster than I can traverse them. Do I need them to be faster? Not for productivity's sake.
Bull! Absolute bull! I've worked on Win 2000 for YEARS and can attest that is not true. It takes some applications a while to launch (office apps, Outlook, Outlook express, etc.) while others are more instant (IE, etc.). But that entirely depends on the applications. As far as switching apps is concerned, I see neither system clearly beating the other.
This is a perfect example of complete misconceptions about what fast really is annd the trade-offs associated. Like IE on Windows. It loads before you even start the app. That means its in memory waiting for you to use it. There is a trade-off there.
If you are going to come to these sites spreading FUD and misconceptions, then by all means, go! You aren't doing the platform any good anyway.
I, however, wish that you could see through the FUD you are peddling and use some reason and practical criteria for judging a system's speed and responsiveness.
Also, does it *really* take more than a second and a half to switch apps or bring up a window? If so, something could be wrong with your system. Repair the disk and disk permissions. Try a reinstall. Get more RAM (if you only have 256 as some have suggested). You may be dealing with an unoptimal system configuration. There are many potential explanations for this type of behavior *if* it is actually happening.
No its not. There are some things that I think are slow(dock interaction, really big menus, some horrible applications, mozilla's GUI), there are others that I think are fast (copying files, networking, web page rendering). Overall, I think the speed is completely acceptable, and while there are pros and cons, I think that OS X is worth it.
And I'm on a system dramatically slower than yours.
All I'm asking for is less hyperbole and more practical analysis and facts. If you are coming here expecting a reasonable conversation about this, you went about it the completely wrong way. No-one will take you serious when you are using such irrational arguments (without a presentation of the fact in the case, might I add).
I'd change my strategy, if I were you.
Taft
Everyone says this. It's always the same argument, but it simply doesn't hold water.
If you take all the time you spent sitting around, waiting for OS 9 to finish it's one-task-at-a-time so you could move onto something else, it would far outweigh any GUI lag in Jaguar. Multitasking makes up for any perceived slowness in OS X.
It has been an eternity since I tried this, but I recall that it was faster to use Navigator in Classic to browse than it was using an OS X browser.
I don't know how this was even possible - maybe they should have designed OS X to run multiple OS 9 sessions... hahaha
I don't know how this was even possible - maybe they should have designed OS X to run multiple OS 9 sessions... hahaha
That's quite a machine you had there. Not only did it have a Pentium but it also had an Ath(a)lon? No wonder it was so much faster--the PowerBook only has one processor.
I find it hard to believe that Dreamweaver MX takes forever to do much of anything. I've used it on a dual 533 tower and it seemed fine. Adobe GoLive seems faster to me, but then, it started on the Mac anyway.
heh, thanks, love, but if you saw a real picture of me, an 18-year-old male, you might change your mind. my, 'tar, however, is indisputably, completely, amazingly beautiful. that would be rena tanaka. and if i were her, i would be self-absorbed enough to make a tar with pictures of myself. but as ugly old me, i opted to use a personal idol as my 'tar. sorry if that confused you. or did you know, and you're just utterly drunk?
Well lets see what I have running on my PB 12".
- Finder
- Mail
- iChat
- iTunes (playing)
- Camino (with several open windows with mutliple tabs open)
- Project Builder (two projects open)
- Interface Builder
- Textedit
- Property List Editor
- Preview
- XJournal
I run this machine with 256mb of RAM (I know what fast is, my PowerMac Dual 867 has 1.25Gb of RAM) and yes, it certainly is slow to change windows sometimes, but not aggravatingly slow.
I was just playing with the latest Panther build the other day and doing some speed comparisons with Windows XP on a 3ghz P4 with 768mb of RAM. I must say I was pleasantly surprised to see my Mac running circles around the PC's in some aspects (this is my PowerBook) like Safari loading faster than IE 6 and rendering faster than IE 6 (even over airport). As for login times and boot time, the Mac was faster on the former and about 10s slower on the latter.
Panther is certainly faster and by far a much more advanced and more beautiful OS than Windows. It just screams out 'Use Me!' these days. I can't wait to use the GM.
- Finder
- iChat
- iTunes (playing)
- Camino (with several open windows with mutliple tabs open)
- Project Builder (two projects open)
- Interface Builder
- Textedit
- Property List Editor
- Preview
- XJournal
I run this machine with 256mb of RAM (I know what fast is, my PowerMac Dual 867 has 1.25Gb of RAM) and yes, it certainly is slow to change windows sometimes, but not aggravatingly slow.
I was just playing with the latest Panther build the other day and doing some speed comparisons with Windows XP on a 3ghz P4 with 768mb of RAM. I must say I was pleasantly surprised to see my Mac running circles around the PC's in some aspects (this is my PowerBook) like Safari loading faster than IE 6 and rendering faster than IE 6 (even over airport). As for login times and boot time, the Mac was faster on the former and about 10s slower on the latter.
Panther is certainly faster and by far a much more advanced and more beautiful OS than Windows. It just screams out 'Use Me!' these days. I can't wait to use the GM.
"even over airport?" airport has more bandwidth than any residential broadband service i have ever heard of. what are you running, T3? i don't remember exactly the stats on that, but i would think that you would still be able to get the full rate over airport. point is, airport is not a technology that slows your internet down. LAN transfers from computer to computer, yes, but not internet.
Nope.
Back to the thread, this has got to be the fifth thread or so I've seen like this since I've been here, the origional poster starts a thread that will no doubt get him flamed and never returns to it, other posters proceed with the flaming while others sympathize but put out more rational, well-thought out arguments and attempt to cool down the conversation a bit but it starts to repeat itself and drifts from a flame-fest to a real discussion to....
I disagree when our Linksys router manages to send data tremendously slower than over LAN.
Rememeber, all Airport has latency...your ping is generally double than over standard ethernet. Bandwidth is a different story though.
The point that shadowfax is making is that AirPort is 11Mbps, my impression from polls that have been done here is that the fastest internet connection anyone has is approx. 3Mbps, in which case there is no chance of a bottle neck when connected via AirPort as you still would have 8Mbps bandwidth left spare.
Latency DOES affect Airport
The issue though (as posted originally above) relates to RENDERING in Safari and IE. When a web browser is pulling in a bunch of SMALL FILES like web images, an Airport connection CAN affect the speed. Additionally, Airport performance depends upon the distance between the base and the antenna. So, NEVER do you have the FULL bandwidth of Airport and SELDOM do you have anywhere near the MAJORITY of it. Couple that with the LATENCY issues and there remains enough of a point not to criticize the statement "even with Airport."
As for this whole thread, I think the poster was more "momentarily frustrated" than he was just being a "troll."
He (or she) has been a registered MacRumors member since May 2002 with 29 posts on record to peruse. Anyone jumping out to FLAME this post could have saved some time reading before jumping to conclusions. If this poster was registered today that would be different. This poster has asked legitimate questions about the Cube and then the new Powerbook 12" both before and after the purchase.
Believe me, I have FLAMED many people (on occassion, I get testy and recommend trolls just switch back to Windows OR never switch to Mac in the first place), but this seems a legit frustration that was properly answered by the very helpful post listing system speed-ups.
As to why no return to post after asking the question -- legitimate question.
As to the relevance of threats to try to make a point -- legitimate gripe.
However, upon further investigation, these seem to be poor approach issues NOT issues that point out a Troll.
Hopefully, the few posts above have been very helpful (to the original poster as well as to others with optimization issues) and the original poster will return to thank those that spent their time to contribute.
The issue though (as posted originally above) relates to RENDERING in Safari and IE. When a web browser is pulling in a bunch of SMALL FILES like web images, an Airport connection CAN affect the speed. Additionally, Airport performance depends upon the distance between the base and the antenna. So, NEVER do you have the FULL bandwidth of Airport and SELDOM do you have anywhere near the MAJORITY of it. Couple that with the LATENCY issues and there remains enough of a point not to criticize the statement "even with Airport."
As for this whole thread, I think the poster was more "momentarily frustrated" than he was just being a "troll."
He (or she) has been a registered MacRumors member since May 2002 with 29 posts on record to peruse. Anyone jumping out to FLAME this post could have saved some time reading before jumping to conclusions. If this poster was registered today that would be different. This poster has asked legitimate questions about the Cube and then the new Powerbook 12" both before and after the purchase.
Believe me, I have FLAMED many people (on occassion, I get testy and recommend trolls just switch back to Windows OR never switch to Mac in the first place), but this seems a legit frustration that was properly answered by the very helpful post listing system speed-ups.
As to why no return to post after asking the question -- legitimate question.
As to the relevance of threats to try to make a point -- legitimate gripe.
However, upon further investigation, these seem to be poor approach issues NOT issues that point out a Troll.
Hopefully, the few posts above have been very helpful (to the original poster as well as to others with optimization issues) and the original poster will return to thank those that spent their time to contribute.
The original poster may have a point: there are a few 12" PB's out there that are dog-slow compared even to my 500MHz iBook. Some of them have equivalent RAM (384 MB). I chalk it up to a manufacturing defect.
where have you seen these and what was the diagnosis? do you know what production run has these problems, like which serial numbers may be bad machines? i just ask because i have a 12" PowerBook and once in a while it acts sorta "funny".
A couple of notes: 1st, I was mistaken about the RAM in my (dad's actually) iBook, but I remember specifically thinking "that's got the same RAM as mine". My current iBook is the one with 640... just a minor note there.
2nd, it's not so much that they act "funny", but that they take forever to do the simplest tasks. "Connect to Server" (while connected to Ethernet or Airport or none) might beachball the system for 5-10 seconds. Opening a folder with a lot of items might take 5 seconds to display (though that could probably be attributed to their slow HD's). Changing system preferences takes an inordinate amount of time, as does loading them.
As to your actual questions: I've seen them in various places. School, the Apple Store in Walnut Creek (side note:
), the Apple Store in Emeryville, and a friend all have really slow 12" PB's. And not all of them are slow. At the Apple stores, one of the several display models might run slower. I have no idea for a diagnosis though beyond the possibility of a manufacturing defect. Sorry, no info on serial numbers either.
Yeah I know what the point was, hence my "bandwidth is a different story though".
Thanks BigJayHawk for clarifying. I guess my rushed explanation was not enough.
Back on topic, even if you aren't a troll, you have some issues.
First off, 1.5 sec? Really. Let's count that out loud. 1... 2... nope, done. Believe me, I still have a 400 MHz PC with Win2000. I would kill for 1.5 sec for ANYTHING. Better than my Dad's 200 MHz, and even my Stepmom's 600 MHz notebook sometimes, but not as good as my old 1.3 GHz AMD. Of course, I sold that because it sucked.
Don't get me started on my Mom's Celeron Sony PC with XP.
I had a 1.6 GHz PC at my old job, and we had several muti-GHz Win2000 machines at a job I had a few months ago. Right now I'm forced to use a 1.8 GHz P4 WinXP (ugh) PC with loads of RAM at my new job. Let me tell you - they aren't fast, they aren't stable, we have a ton of problems, and I would love to take that G4 off your hands for you.
I could always use a new notebook.
First off, 1.5 sec? Really. Let's count that out loud. 1... 2... nope, done. Believe me, I still have a 400 MHz PC with Win2000. I would kill for 1.5 sec for ANYTHING. Better than my Dad's 200 MHz, and even my Stepmom's 600 MHz notebook sometimes, but not as good as my old 1.3 GHz AMD. Of course, I sold that because it sucked.
Don't get me started on my Mom's Celeron Sony PC with XP.
I had a 1.6 GHz PC at my old job, and we had several muti-GHz Win2000 machines at a job I had a few months ago. Right now I'm forced to use a 1.8 GHz P4 WinXP (ugh) PC with loads of RAM at my new job. Let me tell you - they aren't fast, they aren't stable, we have a ton of problems, and I would love to take that G4 off your hands for you.
I could always use a new notebook.
I used to think my 400 MHz G3 was slow, but after spending a few days of maintainence here and there to fine tune my performance, I am absolutely screaming through most of my everyday activities online. I'd love to have a new PowerBook or Cube, I'd happily throw in some more RAM into those babies and enjoy the user experience with those two fine machines. Both are a lot faster and a lot nicer than my PowerBook. I remember when I was little and playing in MS Paint in Windows 3.1 on a 33 MHz Packard Bell 486 system with 4 megs RAM...if you want to know what slow is, try zooming in on an object in Paint on that system....makes even 1.5 seconds to switch between all those applications on a painfully unoptimized system seem like heaven. After a half hour of simple tweaks, I am sure you can make your 12" PowerBook run even nicer, just give it a try.
you know, as per the comments about sporadically slow albook 12's, i think it might be worth a try to reformat and install OS X fresh. it's kind of a fun idea, just to get used to the OS X platform. you get to install a lot of stuff, and spend hours figuring out how to configure all your apps... it's things like that that have made me a productive user. i'm sitting here on my GHz tibook (not much faster than the 12), switching apps... ichat to safari is a split second. i set up a 900 MHz iBook for my friend Joy (her first mac!) about 2 weeks ago, and even with 128 MB of RAM, that thing switched apps instantly... unless, of course, the CPU was busy. but that was a clear RAM issue that you expect from running the minimum specs for OS X.
for a reference, photoshop takes me 8 seconds to load... i don't think that's so bad at all. after it loads, it runs just as fast as safari or anything else.
for a reference, photoshop takes me 8 seconds to load... i don't think that's so bad at all. after it loads, it runs just as fast as safari or anything else.
yeah, this is really important. i have made it a rule that the first thing i do after i get a new Mac is drool on it, then i immediately do a fresh install of the OS. i've almost always had a problem with the factory install.
I went from a 1.7(?) GHz Athlon to an 800 MHz iBook, both with 256 MB, and my iBook seems faster than the Athlon ever was, except when playing games. However, I must say that I did do a reinstall of the OS as soon as I got the machine. It's treated me quite well over the past 6 months, except for a sudden decision to die without warning last Thursday However I must say I was impressed with my first call to Apple - I didn't get put on hold, and I wasn't treated like an idiot. And the iBook's behaved itself all weekend, although it is going in to the local store for a checkup tomorrow.
However I must say I was impressed with my first call to Apple - I didn't get put on hold, and I wasn't treated like an idiot. And the iBook's behaved itself all weekend, although it is going in to the local store for a checkup tomorrow.
My iMac got really slow all of a sudden one day. It was quite surprising because usually it's good. I have a 1.6 GHz P4 machine with 512 MB of RAM sitting next to it and the difference is usually very slight. Anyway, I searched in the Help section and found some way to speed things up. I can't remember exactly but it had to do with disk permissions. I followed the simple instructions and my machine worked okay after that
The only time I wish my Mac were faster is when I'm loading iPhoto. Sometimes the 8 or 900 pictures take a little while to load.
Squire
Originally posted by Squire
The only time I wish my Mac were faster is when I'm loading iPhoto. Sometimes the 8 or 900 pictures take a little while to load.
The main reason for this is not related to the Mac's speed it is related to the way that iPhoto indexes photos. It is a simple way to program the indexing but it makes large photo files take very long to index upon start-up.
The bottom line is that iPhoto is a FREE program that is designed to do its task very well but not necessarily very efficiently. However, there is no such "free program" included with Windows so there is no competitive comparison anyway.
It's almost as if iPhoto, iTunes, iMovie, and iDVD have certain features that are purposefully limited to entice the purchase of the pro version of the software. (iDVD and iMovie have pro versions from Apple, iTunes has some "similar" pro apps from Apple, but iPhoto does not yet -- maybe on the way? <hint, hint>
I think most of the slowness comes from apps that were ported from OS9, like photoshop, dreamweaver, powerpoint etc... the UI of these apps are also pretty horrible IMO, but their slowness compared to running even in classic is sometimes really bad...it may have something to do with parts of the carbon framework (toolbox), as they were re-written to run under OS X, they probably aren't optimized very well. Also, those apps weren't originally written for OS X, so I would guess that they need more optimization, because OS X, just as the OS by itself, isn't very slow.....just like people used to blame OS X for crappy internet, it was actually crappy IE that made OS X look bad...if anyone needs blaming its the people that put out these slow applications in the first place!!