Nope, you don't need Rendevous for only one machine. If you want to network printers then it's a different story.
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.
Why is OS X slower than a frozen turd?
- Thread starter mangoman
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nope, you don't need Rendevous for only one machine. If you want to network printers then it's a different story.
I think it's pointless for people to say MY OS X IS FAST as a rebuttle to a post complaining about the speed of OS X. For many people, including me, the speed of the interface is just unacceptable. OS 9 is JUST FASTER when it comes to things like drop down menus. It infuriates me that the Final Cut Pro 3 isn't as fast as FCP2 or ever FCP1! Shuttling through DV clips in FCP3 is incredibly slow in OS X. If it wasn't for the great new tools I wouldn't even use FCP3. I am mostly a video/graphics guy and programs like After Effects and Photshop work slower in OS X than they were in 9. I just bought a new DP 1.42 to replace my SP 500 out of frustration. I cannot wait any longer for the performance I used to have with older programs.
Anyone else here pissed off at FCP? Heh. Later.
Anyone else here pissed off at FCP? Heh. Later.
I think the point is that we're saying that either
1) We have different standards (not useful)
or
2) Something's wrong with the person's machine (which might be fixable)
Pinpointing a performance problem isn't pointless. Boasting about how fast your machine is is pointless.
dual gig here (quick silver) and FCP 3 responds great. And drop down menus well... I click they drop. If it happend any faster I'd swear my Mac had ESP.
Lethal
I started to have a lot of trouble with Jag recently on my 733/1.5 Gigs RAM and it got to the point where my only option was a Software Restore which brought me back to 9.2 and 10.1(I don't have my Jag disks anymore, long, sad story)and it's not so bad. OS 9 actually feels awesome. It's SUPER fast and is a nice change believe it or not. OS X has always given me trouble and like you(original poster), I run a very lean and clean system. I could never make X happy enough to run smoothly though. LOTS of beachballs and Force Quits and forced shutdowns. Jag also seemed to do some scary things like if I changed the audio volume the OS would instantly crash and I'd be back on the Log In screen. Just plain weird things like that. I'm loving OS 9 for certain things but I think I'll eventually need X again for PHP and server stuff. I'll probably buy Panther this summer and use this machine for a server. I definitely won't sell it since it still boots OS 9 and I always want to have a machine around that can do that.
TJWett - the symptoms you describe about having troubles with OSX 10.2 then whizzy performance with OS9 is classic explanation of RAM conflict - not a Jaguar fault. The specs for Jaguar are incredibly tight and chips that function well before upgrades (or in your case downgrades) can cause all manner of problems in latest releases.
I had severe doubts about Jaguar until changing a faulty RAM chip, but now... Having been in both camps I believe OSX is as good as the Apple hype. I think therefore that as regards points made by other posters to this question, it is valid for people who have a fast OSX set up (perceived or real) to say so, obviously not to brag but to illustrate it is a kicking system when hardware and software are on form. It is too easy to blame all ills on OSX when faults could well lie elsewhere.
I had severe doubts about Jaguar until changing a faulty RAM chip, but now... Having been in both camps I believe OSX is as good as the Apple hype. I think therefore that as regards points made by other posters to this question, it is valid for people who have a fast OSX set up (perceived or real) to say so, obviously not to brag but to illustrate it is a kicking system when hardware and software are on form. It is too easy to blame all ills on OSX when faults could well lie elsewhere.
A lot, actually. I think it's clever, but that doesn't help me when I need to get something done. It's more to draw a crowd in the Mac section of the store.
I recently worked using a WinXP machine with the classic Windows interface. The 1.8 GHz P4 was slow, so I turned off every fading and sliding visual element. After that, the machine was pleasantly usable and didn't look any worse.
If we could turn off the liquid effects, at least, copying and things that take a while would go more quickly as that process would have a higher percentage of the CPU.
I suspected this too. I use Viking RAM only and had it checked out twice with no problems showing. I also had the powerboard checked for shorts that could've caused the machine to crash when doing things like unplugging headphones from the jack. the machine has checked out 100% from 2 different very qualified authorised service centers in NYC. i was thinking maybe i have a ghost but it's more likely that there is some conflict happening between Apple hardware and software. Think of all that's gone on just since the Quicksilvers were released. 10.1, then 10.2, then DDR, then no OS 9 booting, etc. Who knows what this software is optimised for anymore? Apple is still in a mess with all these transitions, there's bound to be problems somewhere.
Is it PB 800 or a Casio calculator in the same case?
I actually opened the thread because I have the same question. Why? Why is it so slow? Slower than 9, Slower than Windows (on PC's, decent Pc's, P III's for example) Of course, it is the most beautiful Os on the market, it is so powerful inside (Terminal is a plenty of joy, though I'm just beginning to learn the system) and so on...
But why the nice and rather modern Mac can't work without the spinning beach ball showing here or there? Well, the OS is good.
The speed isn't. That's it.
I actually opened the thread because I have the same question. Why? Why is it so slow? Slower than 9, Slower than Windows (on PC's, decent Pc's, P III's for example) Of course, it is the most beautiful Os on the market, it is so powerful inside (Terminal is a plenty of joy, though I'm just beginning to learn the system) and so on...
But why the nice and rather modern Mac can't work without the spinning beach ball showing here or there? Well, the OS is good.
The speed isn't. That's it.
OSX isnt snappy up front, there is no denying that, but there is a story about a hare and a tortoise, with the added twist that OSX is literally a brand new baby tortoise and can only get faster. Remember it runs on half the the Mhz of a PC. Hopefully Apple will not get caught up in relying on mega MHz for speed, but will develop its efficiency and build speed from the ground up.
As regards the spinning beach ball, despite properly organised software, suspect RAM. Hardware causes software style conflicts. The Apple Hardware checker CD is handy, but only a reliable checker for major errors. Unfortunately it is well nigh impossible to define a subtle RAM fault even with the sophisticated 3rd party equipment out there. Also in the age of cheap chip prices, the technicians' time for checking is more costly than the price of a replacement chip - so it makes more sense to pull 3rd party RAM yourself . It is clearly explained in the Mac handbook, and I didnt find it any more fiddly than resetting VRAM.
Run on factory installed RAM for a while with a few light apps open. Once you know it is stable then add the 3rd party RAM back one at a time. You should notice if you put a dodgy chip back in. And if there is no improvement, at least you have eliminated RAM from the hardware check.
As regards the spinning beach ball, despite properly organised software, suspect RAM. Hardware causes software style conflicts. The Apple Hardware checker CD is handy, but only a reliable checker for major errors. Unfortunately it is well nigh impossible to define a subtle RAM fault even with the sophisticated 3rd party equipment out there. Also in the age of cheap chip prices, the technicians' time for checking is more costly than the price of a replacement chip - so it makes more sense to pull 3rd party RAM yourself . It is clearly explained in the Mac handbook, and I didnt find it any more fiddly than resetting VRAM.
Run on factory installed RAM for a while with a few light apps open. Once you know it is stable then add the 3rd party RAM back one at a time. You should notice if you put a dodgy chip back in. And if there is no improvement, at least you have eliminated RAM from the hardware check.
Re: Why is OS X slower than a frozen turd?
I think you're suppose to turn on your computer in order for it to work.
Just kidding! I dunno why it's taking so long for you. It's fine on my computers.
I think you're suppose to turn on your computer in order for it to work.
Just kidding! I dunno why it's taking so long for you. It's fine on my computers.
Re: Re: Why is OS X slower than a frozen turd?
(slaps forehead) THAT's IT!
Heh. Good one, smartass. (hey, better than being a dumbass, right?)
Originally posted by GeneR
I think you're suppose to turn on your computer in order for it to work.
(slaps forehead) THAT's IT!
Heh. Good one, smartass. (hey, better than being a dumbass, right?)
Re: Re: Re: Why is OS X slower than a frozen turd?
Whether I am one or the other is debatable, right?
Best of luck.
Originally posted by mangoman
(slaps forehead) THAT's IT!
Heh. Good one, smartass. (hey, better than being a dumbass, right?)
Whether I am one or the other is debatable, right?
Best of luck.
In my experience a frozen turd can be quite swift, especially when clocked through post domestic stretches of sewerage conduit. Would tis particular turd be in a large frozen section of waste water or frozen in the usual proportions of turds just more rigid? Either way perhaps we should be asking "How fast is a frozen turd?"
I thankyou.
Ha ha ha
If only that was true. Sigh!
Originally posted by mangoman
Man, I hear the BOOZE talkin' now!
If only that was true. Sigh!
5 months is anything but fresh. That means you've performed a couple of updates on the system in that time which seems to cause problems over time.
Do you run any Symantec Norton programs?
I recommend a fresh reinstall you should see a substantial boost. On my Dual/GHz/DDR PowerMac I saw a 15-20% boost after reinstalling after only 5 months. Though there were some system problems before the reinstall due to very poor programing on Symantecs part.
I know I have a very fast system but I basically never see a spinning ball cursor. I even run screen savers as my back ground. iCal is very prompt for me giving me nearly instantaneous changes on a click and never give a ball even on initial load.
OS X is a bad idea if you need to get work done
How about a SPEED boost to OS X to actually make it useable??
OS X.2 is SLOWER than 9.2.2 on my dual gig machine. I have things to do so I don't waste my time with OS X.
They shouldn't release any upgrades until they figure out how to ACHIEVE THE SAME SPEED THEY HAD WITH THE OLD OPERATING SYSTEM.
Am I the only one who sees the emperor has no clothes? Who gives a crap about aqua interface and pretty windows. I have work to do, not stare at blue bubbles.
An upgraded operating system for more money that offers: slower speed, confusing file system, the annoying extra level of crap to deal with because now it's GUI shell over another operating system, being forced to use CLI to tweak things.
And for what? Where are the advantages? My friends who use it say "well, there's no crashes!" I got news for you tech boy, I have very few crashes now. If you added up all the crashes I get and subtract the lost time from my work time, I'd still be way ahead in productivity because OS 9 RUNS FASTER ALL THE TIME EVERY DAY.
OS X was a terrible idea and a step backward in functionality and productivity. BUt now we're stuck with it. THe least they could do is make it run as fast as the old OS. How embarrassing for them!
I love Macs, but why are people so hesitant to speak the truth, which is: OS X is not useable for anyone with reasonably quick computer skills who has work to do. Going from 9.2.2 to OS X is like going from a computer back to a manual typewriter.
Fortunately, I won't be forced to use X til at least mid 2004. BY then, maybe it will be useable.
I have always been an Apple champion, but not any more. Apple really blew it bu making the Mac more Windows-like. Blech.
How about a SPEED boost to OS X to actually make it useable??
OS X.2 is SLOWER than 9.2.2 on my dual gig machine. I have things to do so I don't waste my time with OS X.
They shouldn't release any upgrades until they figure out how to ACHIEVE THE SAME SPEED THEY HAD WITH THE OLD OPERATING SYSTEM.
Am I the only one who sees the emperor has no clothes? Who gives a crap about aqua interface and pretty windows. I have work to do, not stare at blue bubbles.
An upgraded operating system for more money that offers: slower speed, confusing file system, the annoying extra level of crap to deal with because now it's GUI shell over another operating system, being forced to use CLI to tweak things.
And for what? Where are the advantages? My friends who use it say "well, there's no crashes!" I got news for you tech boy, I have very few crashes now. If you added up all the crashes I get and subtract the lost time from my work time, I'd still be way ahead in productivity because OS 9 RUNS FASTER ALL THE TIME EVERY DAY.
OS X was a terrible idea and a step backward in functionality and productivity. BUt now we're stuck with it. THe least they could do is make it run as fast as the old OS. How embarrassing for them!
I love Macs, but why are people so hesitant to speak the truth, which is: OS X is not useable for anyone with reasonably quick computer skills who has work to do. Going from 9.2.2 to OS X is like going from a computer back to a manual typewriter.
Fortunately, I won't be forced to use X til at least mid 2004. BY then, maybe it will be useable.
I have always been an Apple champion, but not any more. Apple really blew it bu making the Mac more Windows-like. Blech.
Re: OS X is a bad idea if you need to get work done
if your using os9 and are happy about it the why are you compaining about osx? just continue not using it, im sure you'll be fine for a few years, and by that time osx should be up to your standards.
if your using os9 and are happy about it the why are you compaining about osx? just continue not using it, im sure you'll be fine for a few years, and by that time osx should be up to your standards.
Re: Re: OS X is a bad idea if you need to get work done
I sure hope so! But my point is that it should never have taken so many steps backwards in the first place.
Originally posted by beatle888
if your using os9 and are happy about it the why are you compaining about osx? just continue not using it, im sure you'll be fine for a few years, and by that time osx should be up to your standards.
I sure hope so! But my point is that it should never have taken so many steps backwards in the first place.
Re: OS X is a bad idea if you need to get work done
What is slower, exactly?
I can think of two very general categories computer operations can take: gui operations, and actually computational work.
Lets examine those categories for a minute. In the first group, we have things like clicking on menus, resizing windows, minimizing windows, working with folders. These are operations that require direct and snappy feedback to user actions. In other words, "When I click, s*** happens...and fast."
In the second category, we have computational work, multi-tasking, services operating between applications, OS capabilities, etc. These are operations that happen when we aren't clicking. Rendering a web page, copying files, downloading files, running simulations, compiling code, rendering images, playing music...doing ll these things at one time.
The reason OS X IS useable--despite your best efforts in smearing its name--is because it handles operations in the second category so well. It does very well in the area of scalability in regards to the number of operations it can handle and the OS's ability to troop onwards despite heavy load. It has a robust and efficient back-end as well as very robust in regards to the features it supports. These are VERY important things for people like me. And notice that I didn't claim it was the fastest and most robust back-end out there (its not) but it is good, and FAR better than OS 9 on these items.
The gripes people generally have about OS X fall in the first category. The eye candy and highly object oriented nature of the system come at a cost. This cost is evident in operations such as the response-time menus. However, even on my 400MHz G4 w/ 800-ish Gig of RAM, the relative slowness of a the GUI does not seriously inhibit my ability to do work. I would venture a guess that usability studies would back me up when I say that the same is probably true of everyone else, as well.
And your comments about a more "confusing filesystem" and the "extra level of crap" is absurd. The filesystem is very clear and very well organized (far better than windows). The problem is that you are used to not having to care about where you put your files in OS 9. There are consequences for this sloppiness, especially in a multi-user environment. Just because something is different doesn't make it worse. That is something a lot of you people will never be able to understand.
This uncomprimising attitude really bothers me. There are distinct advantages to using OS X. If you can't admit that, then you are not looking at reality. Not everything is better, but there are distinct and serious advantages.
Taft
What is slower, exactly?
I can think of two very general categories computer operations can take: gui operations, and actually computational work.
Lets examine those categories for a minute. In the first group, we have things like clicking on menus, resizing windows, minimizing windows, working with folders. These are operations that require direct and snappy feedback to user actions. In other words, "When I click, s*** happens...and fast."
In the second category, we have computational work, multi-tasking, services operating between applications, OS capabilities, etc. These are operations that happen when we aren't clicking. Rendering a web page, copying files, downloading files, running simulations, compiling code, rendering images, playing music...doing ll these things at one time.
The reason OS X IS useable--despite your best efforts in smearing its name--is because it handles operations in the second category so well. It does very well in the area of scalability in regards to the number of operations it can handle and the OS's ability to troop onwards despite heavy load. It has a robust and efficient back-end as well as very robust in regards to the features it supports. These are VERY important things for people like me. And notice that I didn't claim it was the fastest and most robust back-end out there (its not) but it is good, and FAR better than OS 9 on these items.
The gripes people generally have about OS X fall in the first category. The eye candy and highly object oriented nature of the system come at a cost. This cost is evident in operations such as the response-time menus. However, even on my 400MHz G4 w/ 800-ish Gig of RAM, the relative slowness of a the GUI does not seriously inhibit my ability to do work. I would venture a guess that usability studies would back me up when I say that the same is probably true of everyone else, as well.
And your comments about a more "confusing filesystem" and the "extra level of crap" is absurd. The filesystem is very clear and very well organized (far better than windows). The problem is that you are used to not having to care about where you put your files in OS 9. There are consequences for this sloppiness, especially in a multi-user environment. Just because something is different doesn't make it worse. That is something a lot of you people will never be able to understand.
This uncomprimising attitude really bothers me. There are distinct advantages to using OS X. If you can't admit that, then you are not looking at reality. Not everything is better, but there are distinct and serious advantages.
Taft
Check this
For me, dual 867 with 512MB and DDR Ram, i have no problem with speed on OS X.
The only time the mac is slow is -that may sounds weird- if the dock is too full or the harddrive not optimized or the font app contains too many fonts activated.
Hope this helps,
D
For me, dual 867 with 512MB and DDR Ram, i have no problem with speed on OS X.
The only time the mac is slow is -that may sounds weird- if the dock is too full or the harddrive not optimized or the font app contains too many fonts activated.
Hope this helps,
D