Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

10 Things Apple Did To Make Mac OS X Faster

CowboyNeal posted more than 8 years ago | from the road-to-betterment dept.

375

bariswheel writes "This kernelthread article seeks to investigate further to the inner core of OS X and the improvements therein. The subtopics are the following: BootCache, Kernel Extensions Cache, Hot File Clustering, Working Set Detection, On-the-fly Defragmentation, Prebinding, Helping Developers Create Code Faster, Helping Developers Create Faster Code, Journaling in HFS Plus, and Instant-on."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I love OS X (5, Interesting)

BoomerSooner (308737) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993395)

OS X is the only OS I"ve ever installed that subsequent versions speed up my older computers. Amazing... I'm waiting for an Apple Intel Tower and I'll retire my G4 Tower.

Damn ADC interface.. what am i to do with this big ass cinema display?!?!!?

Re:I love OS X (0)

Incongruity (70416) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993404)

Damn ADC interface.. what am i to do with this big ass cinema display?!?!!?

you buy one of these [apple.com]

Re:I love OS X (1)

jk379 (734476) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993423)

The link seems to be dead now. Can you let us know what the part was that you were linking to?

Re:I love OS X (1)

Stormwatch (703920) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993486)

I can guess it's an ADC to DVI connector cable.

Re:I love OS X (1)

lurker4hire (449306) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993493)

A quick look at the Apple Store found this:

Apple DVI to ADC Display Adapter

Go to apple.com --> Store --> (left side navigation under Mac Accessories) Displays --> should be on the first page for $99

Re:I love OS X (1)

Incongruity (70416) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993508)

Thank you -- I was kinda expecting apple's obfuscated link to include sessioning info. Despite my best efforts (okay a quick glance) I couldn't find a clearly permanent link. -t

Re:I love OS X (5, Informative)

Wingsy (761354) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993537)

And if you bitch about having to buy an adapter to drive your Cinema with your new Mac, they may give you a 99 dollar discount right over the phone. They did for me when I bought my Quad.

Re:I love OS X (2, Informative)

grahamlee (522375) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993658)

/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/6164000/wo/zf5gxeMdPL 3E3KJeQG51ahhwsC4/1.0.19.1.0.8.25.7.11.0.3

WebObjects URLs with a "/wo/" are session-based; in fact that " zf5gxeMdPL3E3KJeQG51ahhwsC4" stuff is the session ID so you can't go pasting them in places and expecting people to be able to use the URL. If they've got a "/wa/" then they're so-called direct action links, which are fine and can be transferred.

6164000

That's the number of the app instance - and is quite high in this case :-)

Re:I love OS X (5, Funny)

IHSW (960644) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993414)

Clearly you've never installed Windows 2000 over Windows ME.

Re:I love OS X (5, Insightful)

kc0re (739168) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993436)

Um.. ANYTHING installed over Windows ME is an improvement. Hell, Going backwards would be an improvement.

Re:I love OS X (0, Offtopic)

Crizp (216129) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993459)

I think my brother owns the single machine that worked perfectly with ME, and on which installing anything else was a stupid thing to do. ME on that machine was, believe it or not, rock solid.

However I'm convinced installing ME again would make it even worse. Things like that happen only once, if ever.

Re:I love OS X (1)

Tatsh (893946) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993484)

Hilarious and true.

Re:I love OS X (4, Funny)

dreemernj (859414) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993551)

Indeed. Windows ME was a crime against humanity.

Re:I love OS X (-1, Troll)

Yahweh Doesn't Exist (906833) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993691)

blah blah blah ME sucks blah blah blah

I'm an OS X user and find this ME-hatred ridiculous.

as a former ME user I can say that for me it was not noticably any worse/less stable than any other MS OS yet was an improvement in practical terms in several significant (to me, an actual user) ways:
1. faster booting
2. disk scan ran inside windows and was a million times faster
3. native .zip support

all MS's OSs are crimes against humanity. supporting Hitler 2000 and condeming Hitler ME doesn't make you a hero, or a "power user", or cool. nobody using a MS OS has any right to start getting preachy about poor design.

Re:I love OS X (0, Offtopic)

mjm1231 (751545) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993710)

I'm pretty sure that Win2000 was an earlier release than ME (by almost a year), in which case it can't be considered a "subsequent version". Although it would be an improvement, it would also be a step backward.

Linux (5, Interesting)

metamatic (202216) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993462)

Linux gets faster too.

Kernel 2.4 to 2.6 was a pretty big jump in speed. I just upgraded to the latest KDE and a bunch of other updates, and got another performance jump. Once they shake the bugs out of the Radeon drivers for X.org, I'll get accelerated X, and another big speed boost.

In fact, of the major OSs, it's pretty much only Windows that keeps getting slower.

Re:Linux (2, Insightful)

Kristoffer Lunden (800757) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993657)

Have to agree here - at the same time as I do get more and better applications to play with, the machine actually performs better for each update. The whole last 6 months (one release period) for Gnome has seen a lot of focus on improving speed and it shows when comparing for instance Breezy and Dapper.

OTOH, I guess MS is driving the hardware industry forward too, which is not all bad.

Re:I love Debian (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14993541)

I never used OS X, but getting faster with a new version is not new to me.
Having debian sarge inn my celeron 1000 laptop, upgraded to etch a few days ago and ... it runs much, much faster.
There are 2 reasons, mainly ... faster kernel and faster gnome. Besides, gnome is the one application that allways improve, since 2.2, there have always been speed improvements.

Re:I love OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14993543)

OS X is the only OS I"ve ever installed that subsequent versions speed up my older computers

Yes, now all they need to do is make it as fast as OS9 was on the same machine in 1998...

Re:I love OS X (5, Informative)

v1 (525388) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993675)

Damn ADC interface.. what am i to do with this big ass cinema display?!?!!?

As you may or may not be aware, the ADC connection provides a DVI signal, USB port, AND power. The display has no power pack, and gets its juice from the computer. If you have only a DVI port, you will require a rather large adapter. It's not so much an adapter as it is a "power injector" that injects power into the cable whilst converting it from DVI+USB to ADC. This takes the form of what looks like a very large white power brick from a powerbook.

They are unfortunately rather expensive. ($150?) You can get them from Apple, or from Dr Bott.

The other answer is of course to find a graphics artist or developer that does not already have a second display, and sell it to them. Odds are very hight that if you bring the display over and let them "test drive" it for even five minutes they'll buy it immediately.

Re:I love OS X (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14993712)

you couldn't be more right with the exception of Tiger (spotlight&dashboard) every Mac OS X that i ve run perform faster than the previous one... and i'm talking about a G3 @400Mhz here so the difference is quite sensible.

Dupe several years later? (5, Informative)

rg3 (858575) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993402)

Re:Dupe several years later? (3, Insightful)

bondsbw (888959) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993421)

Parent is flamebait? Come on, now... 'rg3' should probably be hired as a Slashdot admin to keep up with such things.

I'm quite impressed he or she can remember so far back. The current posters often miss dupes within the same day.

Re:Dupe several years later? (2, Interesting)

Kangburra (911213) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993458)

The current posters often miss dupes within the same day

I am not sure you can blame the posters, often two people post the same story before either is listed on the site. Even if one is already there, surely it's the editor that's at fault not the poster?

Re:Dupe several years later? (1)

bondsbw (888959) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993472)

Sorry, that's what I meant...

s/poster/editor/

Re:Dupe several years later? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14993443)

Not only is this article several years old, but Windows does most of these things as well. btw. a lot of (1 to 3 days delayed) reposting of Digg articles here recently...

Re:Dupe several years later? (1)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993563)

a lot of (1 to 3 days delayed) reposting of Digg articles here recently

ah, but some of us can't be jiggered to read Digg cos of the inane level of discussion there...

What about OSes with GNOME? (0, Offtopic)

Dylan Knight Rogers (931327) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993410)

GNOME has become increasinly faster with each release. It's not just Mac OS X. You don't get out much, do you? GNOME 2.14 is supposed to be extremely fast in comparison to previous releases, which were also faster than their predecessors.

Re:What about OSes with GNOME? (2, Insightful)

repruhsent (672799) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993434)

Believe it or not, not everyone who reads Slashdot are GNU/Hippies. Some of us like to do something with our machines other than recompile software.

Re:What about OSes with GNOME? (3, Insightful)

Runefox (905204) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993492)

You don't have to be a "GNU/Hippie" to use Linux, and there are plenty of reasons to do so, as well, not the least of which is that it's free and it'll run on that old P166 you bought over a decade ago. The "GNU/Hippies" you speak of are largely the guys who spend all day tweaking this and that to make sure the next release of your operating system is secure, productive, and pleasing to the eye, which you might notice Linux is becoming more and more, especially with user-oriented flavours like Ubuntu. The main difference is, the guys at Apple get paid for what they do, and the guys who contribute to Gnome do not. As such, Apple is a little further ahead, especially since their UI is more closely integrated into the core of the OS than Linux' is (and they don't have to contend with different flavours of hardware). Anyway, in closing, flamebait.

Re:What about OSes with GNOME? (1)

alienw (585907) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993645)

Unless you install an ancient version (which would not have any useful software available), Linux will be much slower than, say, Win98. GNOME is a memory hog, X11 is a memory hog, and Linux is not designed to work on slow hardware. It might be okayish without X11, but don't even think about running X on anything less than a 600-700MHz CPU. The requirements are about the same as for WinXP -- the system itself eats up about 256 megs. It may run with less than that, but it won't be usable. I _have_ seen Win95 installed on a 386 SX with 8MB of RAM. That's the extremely slow 16MHz, 16-bit bus version of the 386. It ran, but it was so slow that it was not even funny. That's about how well Linux will run on a 166MHz computer.

Re:What about OSes with GNOME? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14993705)

You're a fucking troll thats what you are. I run X with Firefox and what have you on 200MHz/64MB. So, pretty please, with sugar on top, STFU!

Re:What about OSes with GNOME? (-1, Troll)

alienw (585907) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993719)

Yeah, and I could compute ten billion digits of Pi on my pocket calculator. It would just take an awful long time, just like starting Firefox on that machine of yours. Also, ever consider getting an account so you don't look like such a retard?

Re:What about OSes with GNOME? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14993435)

I beg to differ. The jump from 1.4 to 1.6 stunk; 1.6 was a pig. I think somewhere in there the Gnome people let themselves get caught up in this 'race' with kde, instead of just making the best gnome they could. That's all straightened out now and current revs of gnome do, indeed, get faster. I also think it continues to be prettier than kde and that kde continues to have slightly better integration than gnome. But it doesn't matter much to me. I seem to use a lot of apps that require various gnome libraries but I have no desire to use a DE; Gnome or KDE (or XFCE (what happened there?)) It's just fvwm2 and the console for me.

Re:What about OSes with GNOME? (2, Funny)

wazzzup (172351) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993440)

You don't get out much, do you? GNOME 2.14 is supposed to be extremely fast in comparison to previous releases, which were also faster than their predecessors.

Uhhh...I'm guessing if anyone's not getting out much....well, nevermind. If you can't say something nice don't say it at all.

Re:What about OSes with GNOME? (1)

TedCheshireAcad (311748) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993664)

haahahahahaha +digg

Re:What about OSes with GNOME? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14993448)

I noticed a big DE speed-up compared to the GNOME 2.x branch after switching to XFCE. The majority of the original Gnome user base concur.

Re:What about OSes with GNOME? (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993466)

Gnome is maybe not the best example. I'd rather talk about lightweight window managers like blackbox fluxbox and openbox. I tried using Gnome 2.10 on FreeBSD 6.0 on a 133 MHz Pentium I laptop, it's as slow as a zombie turtle, as blackbox runs fast.

Re:What about OSes with GNOME? (0, Flamebait)

shywolf9982 (887636) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993488)

You can get X run on it? WOW. Anyway, consider that blackbox is just a window manager, when GNOME, like KDE and others, starts a ton of background processes that take care of many things (wallets/keychains, sound daemons, etc etc) that goes beyond the "let's show some windows".

Said that, since I don't need those things, I'm a happy user of blackbox and derivates, which I can also use on windows (and surprisingly, everyone that saw me using it wanted me to install it on their windoze box)

Re:What about OSes with GNOME? (1)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993525)

You can get X run on it? WOW.

WTF is that supposed to mean? I ran X on 20Mhz 486s with 4MB RAM. It's not X that is the problem, that's what he was pointing out.

Said that, since I don't need those things, I'm a happy user of blackbox and derivates, which I can also use on windows (and surprisingly, everyone that saw me using it wanted me to install it on their windoze box)

That's the point!

Re:What about OSes with GNOME? (1)

4D6963 (933028) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993533)

haha, of course I can run X on it! 133 MHz, that's not a ZX-80. If it can run Windows 98 SE, it can run X, and it can run blackbox.

Personally I wouldn't want to use blackbox on Windows tho, maybe it's cuz I didn't spend much time using it/customizing it but it seems to be quite limited compared to Windows.

Re:What about OSes with GNOME? (1)

shywolf9982 (887636) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993590)

There are limits yes. Most notably, editing the menu (or any kind of preferences) needs you to edit a config file, and right-clicking the taskbar doesn't work for closing windows.

But I deployed a severe addiction to the root menu (right-clicking the windows desktop is a trauma now) and it has some feature that windows misses completely, like a decent virtual desktop management, and some cool plugins (being able to customize the window decorations rocks, and also being able to roll up a window).

As mini-review, I have to say that it serves my purposes well, so I'll give it a 8 (btw, I use xoblite http://xoblite.net/ [xoblite.net] )

Re:What about OSes with GNOME? (1)

GooberToo (74388) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993574)

Gnome is not a window manager! Gnome is a desktop environment. The defacto window manager for Gnome is Metacity, but you are free to use any properly compliant window manager in conjunction with Gnome. For example, you could run E and Gnome together. Running any type of complete desktop environment on a P133 is completely inappropriate. You should be running the lightest WM you can find, without a desktop environment. A WM such as FVMW2 might be worth looking at.

Your complaint makes as much sense as riding on a train with lots and lots of automobiles in tow and declaring all of the carried cars are slow. Get off the train then try again!

Re:What about OSes with GNOME? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14993580)

GNOME is not an OS. It is merely a Graphical User Interface, so your point is moot.

Re:What about OSes with GNOME? (1)

Beefslaya (832030) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993589)

Compile Gnome for OSX, it's ported..I think...

Better yet, get Darwin release, it comes with Gnome.

Personaly, Aqua kicks the crap out of Gnome. Hardware accelerated desktops...it's nice to use the 7800 when I'm not blowing off Zombie heads. Makes my desktop look all shiny and stuff.

But if you want Gnome...be my guest.

Re:What about OSes with GNOME? (1, Flamebait)

WhiteWolf666 (145211) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993643)

KDE, too.

Actually this is a general feature of most software. Just not Microsoft's software.

Most software gets _faster_ in between versions. New features may run slower, but other aspects of the software should speed up, not slow down. Optimization takes time.

People are just used to Microsoft, where (version ++1) = (hardware ++1)

heh (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14993412)

Offtopic, but slashdot is telling me that this story has "2 of 1 comment". heh.

Re:heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14993417)

I've never seen that for a main article, but it happens all the time on the little title only blurbs.

Obvious Dupe (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14993413)

The website even has a link to the old slashdot story: http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/04/06/03 /130214.shtml [slashdot.org]

Re:Obvious Dupe (1)

AlastairMurray (537904) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993495)

I thought I had read this before, almost 2 years old as well.

Re:Obvious Dupe (3, Interesting)

Goo.cc (687626) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993627)

I'll tell you what happened: somebody submitted this old story to Digg and a Digg reader then submitted it here. (I have noticed that many stories appear at Digg first, which is why I read Slashdot once a day now, and Digg now has Slashdot's old spot on my link toolbar in Firefox.)

Pointless Effects (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14993419)

If Apple is going to bother optimizing other stuff on the OS, they should at least give you a way to turn off some of the extras when it comes to the GUI.

I don't need high resoution icons, drop shadows, dragging window effects, minimize effects...etc. In windows land, you can turn most of these eyecandy effects off and performance is greatly improved. You'd think that Apple would have considered this when releasing a computer with 256mb of ram on the base model (G4 mac mini). I love the computer, but it is SLOW.

Re:Pointless Effects (1)

Dylan Knight Rogers (931327) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993429)

Agreed, however it is not always the case. My 300mhz G3 is running Tiger more smoothly than my Xeon desktop running XP.

Re:Pointless Effects (5, Insightful)

ioErr (691174) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993479)

I don't need high resoution icons
Those you can turn off. Just set the Finder to use 32x32 pixel icons. icns resources generally contain several versions of an icon, 128x128, 48x48, 32x32, and 16x16 pixels. If you use one of the small versions then the system won't waste time scaling the icon, or memory holding a big bitmap. I doubt you'll see much gain though.

But it's not in Apple's interest to let you turn off too much of the eye-candy. They want Mac OS to have its distinct look, and they are are in the business of trying to sell you newer hardware.

Re:Pointless Effects (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14993499)

and don't forget dock preferences is where you can turn off the minimize effects, to some degree at least.

Re:Pointless Effects (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14993512)

/Applications/Utilities/Tinkertool allows you to disable many of these features.

Re:Pointless Effects (5, Informative)

Rocketship Underpant (804162) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993528)

Unlike Windows, OS X is composited on the video hardware, and the effort to produce most of those visual effects is done by the GPU, hardware that would otherwise be idle. Turning them off wouldn't give you any speed gains on the CPU, from what I understand.

Re:Pointless Effects (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14993567)

That's true for newer, high-end machines. But older, slower Macs do not use any fancy video card tricks, and those old machines are the ones who tend to need help under OSX.

Re:Pointless Effects (1)

the_humeister (922869) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993662)

Yeah, well tell that to my B&W with an unaccelerated ATI Rage 128. It would be nice if there was a way to just turn off all eye candy on this thing. I don't need transparency on the dock, drop shadows, genie minimize, etc...

Re:Pointless Effects (1)

spongebill (941756) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993668)

right o and more still...... RAM is your problem. 512 to start... i recommend a 1gig tho.

Re:Pointless Effects (5, Insightful)

St. Arbirix (218306) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993545)

In Windows land, the desktop eye-candy isn't hardware accelerated. Turning off a lot of the OSX eye-candy would only serve to idle the graphics hardware rather than making the computer respond any faster.

Hopefully, Microsoft's Aero will prove this point.

Re:Pointless Effects (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14993709)

> In Windows land, the desktop eye-candy isn't hardware accelerated.

This is wrong. What little Windows eyecandy there is (menu fade-in etc) is accelerated on virtually every video card.

What you people are ignoring is that the basic OSX eyecandy (genie effect, etc) is 100% done on the CPU on older Macs. The advanced eyecandy (expose effect, etc) just doesn't happen on those machines.

Re:Pointless Effects (5, Insightful)

pohl (872) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993561)

those GUI 'extras' are not what is making a 256MB G4 slow. Rather, it would be the fact that the machine is going to be constantly swapping out to disk. Get more RAM.

Re:Pointless Effects (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993642)

Get more RAM.

Are you buying?

The point was that if turning off GUI special effects reduces the graphical environment's working set, it would be worthwhile to investigate.

Re:Pointless Effects (2, Interesting)

pohl (872) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993703)

The point was that if turning off GUI special effects reduces the graphical environment's working set...

It wont, and I've already bought more memory for myself. Been there...saved up.

Re:Pointless Effects (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14993562)

Yea, there's lots of stuff you can turn off in Windows. There's also a power button on the front of the computer that turns the whole damned mess off so you don't get annoyed by any of it.

That works for me really well.

Re:Pointless Effects (1)

minus_273 (174041) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993614)

there are Haxies that allow you to do all of that.

I'm not a SO guru, but... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14993431)

what about Linux? Could it obtain benefits implementing some of the improvements made into MacOS X? I've heard about BeOS and the incredible perfomance due to multithreading, it's very dificult to adapt an BeOS kernel to the Linux features (multiuser, drivers...) maintaining the perfomance?

Panther to Tiger? (5, Interesting)

fa_king (952336) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993452)

I updated from Panther(10.3) to Tiger(10.4) and my machine seemed slower. I decided to do a fresh install, and things improved, as always the fresh install is better than an update.

I still think that Panther was running a bit faster tahn Tiger, maybe it is the widgets..........
silly widgets!

This was all done on a PowerBook G4(TiBook).

Re:Panther to Tiger? (3, Interesting)

boomerny (670029) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993491)

It's not just you, I've heard many reports of Tiger being slower on older machines. Because of that, I'm staying with 10.3 on my Pismo until it is replaced as it runs acceptably fast in nearly every situation (I don't do video or gaming or any other CPU/GPU intensive stuff). I don't miss Widgets or any of the other new eye-candy type stuff in 10.4. BTW, the replacement for Pismo will be in the form of the second-gen Macbook Pro with a Merom-based core duo being released in Q3 (fingers X'ed), and will hopefully last 6 years like my Pismo has.

Re:Panther to Tiger? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14993517)

I'm confused. If you don't do any video, or gaming, or CPU intensive stuff, why are you so worried about a slight speed increase/decrease either way? If all you're doing is checking email and reading slashdot then your greatest bottleneck is most likely your network access...

Re:Panther to Tiger? (1)

fa_king (952336) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993555)

Most Anonymous cowards are confused! LOL

I do games and such, that was funny how you just assumed I read email and slashdot.

I chuckled!

THanks for the chuckle Anonymous Coward

Re:Panther to Tiger? (2, Funny)

NicklessXed (897466) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993604)

The AC's post wasn't directed at you, but at its parent. I guess ACs are not the only ones confused around here...

Re:Panther to Tiger? (5, Informative)

CottonEyedJoe (177704) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993581)

I have two slower Macs, A G3 500 MHz iBook running 10.4.5 and a Blue and White G3 400 MHz running 10.3.9. The iBook is a bit faster for everyday tasks and that hasnt always been the case (the tower has a faster bus, faster graphics card, faster disk etc...). One thing you MUST do on older macs running Tiger OR Panther is upgade your RAM to a reasonable level, which usually means maxing it out. Even then I had to turn off dashboard on the iBook (I dont really use it on any of my macs anyway).

Both machines are still great for general desktop work and light development. I bumped the iBook to Tiger (OSX) to get Tiger (Java), and I havent really bothered to upgrade the tower because I havent had the time and its not a pressing concern for me. But given the results on the iBook, I dont expect a performance hit when I do upgrade.

Re:Panther to Tiger? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14993497)

This is hilarious.

There is a post rated +5 that claims how great it is that every new version is so much faster then the previous. The parent to this post points out an issue he/she had with a point upgrade that indicated something different and it is modded -1 off topic.

Soo... If it is a good Apple thing, it is +5 Insightful, if it the same exact topic but might not show a pro Apple bias, it is offtopic?

Re:Panther to Tiger? (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993616)

I turn off Dashboard. I don't think a single widget is worth 20-30 MB when it only does one tiny task and isn't as quickly killable when I'm done with that task, unlike a regular program. Take that 20-30MB per widget and multiply it by ten or twenty and you have a massive resource hog.

One way to make Slashdot faster (-1, Offtopic)

GAATTC (870216) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993467)

Read Slashdot articles the day before on digg [digg.com] . What is needed now is a RSS reader that will weed out duplicate stories from the feeds I subscribe to.

Call me weird, but... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14993471)

I much preferred Mac OS back in the OS 9 days. OS 9 screamed in comparison to OS X. It had its problems, sure, but at the time it was the only mainstream OS that was not built on technology besides itself.
Nowadays everything is built on some form of *nix. Even MS is originally based on VMS, so in fact, everything is based on some form of *nix.
Like I said, I preferred OS 9 and when OS X came out, I used it for about a year, sold both my Macs and moved over to Linux. I cannot justify $129 for an OS. Paying for the hardware is bad enough.

Re:Call me weird, but... (3, Informative)

ThisNukes4u (752508) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993507)

VMS is not even remotely related to Unix. See History of Unix [wikipedia.org] and VMS [wikipedia.org] wikipedia articles.

Re:Call me weird, but... (3, Informative)

technothrasher (689062) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993514)

Even MS is originally based on VMS, so in fact, everything is based on some form of *nix.

Um... VMS is definitely NOT "some form of *nix".

Re:Call me weird, but... (0, Flamebait)

kilodelta (843627) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993518)

Umm - to this day MS operatings systems have a command prompt. Granted, it's now emulated instead of an actual part of the OS. But load QuickBasic in a command prompt and then watch your XP box crawl.

Yes, early versions of Windows were DOS based. And DOS and CP/M pretty much evolved from Unix system III or so. It's also painfully obvious that Gates ripped off BASIC and DOS. Interesting that some of the most successful started as criminal empires, no matter how small.

For instance - I'm sure those who've heard of Conversent know about it's sordid beginnings. It started with a stole MicroVax II - run as Intelecom Data Systems. Years later it sold out to form Conversent but the base of the company is still a criminal act. Charming.

Re:Call me weird, but... (1)

Johnny Mnemonic (176043) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993617)


Mafia saying: behind every great fortune lays a small crime.

Re:Call me weird, but... (5, Informative)

Haeleth (414428) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993530)

OS 9 screamed in comparison to OS X. It had its problems, sure, but at the time it was the only mainstream OS that was not built on technology besides itself.

It was also the only mainstream OS that could not handle filenames more than 31 letters long, the only mainstream OS that didn't have protected memory, and the only mainstream OS that didn't have any form of preemptive multitasking.

The first of these is the most ironic. Back in 1999, Mac users were still ridiculing "Micros~1", while in fact it was their operating system, not Microsoft's, which could not handle adequately long filenames!

But it was the second and third, the lack of basic features essential for the stability of modern desktop applications, which led to it being such an unreliable system. No surprise that Apple were so keen to ditch the whole crufty thing in favour of the modern platform that became OS X. OS 9 was totally failing to salvage their rapidly declining reputation. OS X was their salvation.

So, yes, OS 9 screamed in comparison to OS X. But so did its unfortunate users... loudly and regularly.

Re:Call me weird, but... (5, Informative)

Deep Fried Geekboy (807607) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993559)

Anyone who spent any time trying to debug extension conflicts did not shed a tear for OS 9.

OS 9 seemed faster because the first iteration of OS X, which people tended to run on the same hardware, was dog slow.

Re:Call me weird, but... (1)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993571)

The first of these is the most ironic. Back in 1999, Mac users were still ridiculing "Micros~1", while in fact it was their operating system, not Microsoft's, which could not handle adequately long filenames!

And Microsoft Office X still had that crappy 31 character limitation. I was wondering why it wouldn't let me save a document with more than 31 characters since I had never used OS 9.. I guess that explains it, Microsoft sucks.

Re:Call me weird, but... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14993592)

OS9 supported more than 31 characters. Only the Finder was limited to 32 characters.

OS 9 Speed (1)

jscotta44 (881299) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993594)

OS 9 only screamed when you only ran one-maybe two applications at the same time. I would never have dreamed of trying to run the 15-20 explicitly instantiated applications (plus only God knows how many system instantiated processes) on an OS 9 box and expect it to be fast. And that is not counting the number of reboots I would have to make throughout the day.

I'll take OS X any day over OS 9.

Re:Call me weird, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14993666)

"The first of these is the most ironic. Back in 1999, Mac users were still ridiculing "Micros~1", while in fact it was their operating system, not Microsoft's, which could not handle adequately long filenames!"

That's only part of the story. On the Mac under OS9, you always had 31 characters available, and special characters could be used (except for the colon).

Under Windows, you could have a PATHNAME up to 256 characters, and couldn't use a lot of special characters. Thus, depending on how many folders deep your file is stored, and how long the folder names are, you could quickly run out of characters to name a file.

Even today, on my Windows 2000 desktop, there may be a file stored on the server with a path greater than 256 characters - I can see the file, and copy it, but if I try to open it I'll get an error message that the file is not found. (In Acrobat, at least.) No explanation, no suggestion - just a failure to open.

Re:Call me weird, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14993536)

I much preferred Mac OS back in the OS 9 days. OS 9 screamed in comparison to OS X. It had its problems, sure, but at the time it was the only mainstream OS that was not built on technology besides itself.
Nowadays everything is built on some form of *nix. Even MS is originally based on VMS, so in fact, everything is based on some form of *nix.

VMS is not Unix. OS 9, like pre-NT Windows, is a toy operating system, for toy computers.

Re:Call me weird, but... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14993570)

"Even MS is originally based on VMS, so in fact, everything is based on some form of *nix."

For the short of memory...

There were a LOT of operating systems before *nix. One of the main creaters of OSses was Digital Equipment Corporation. They had an OS for each of their different computer systems (PDP-1 through PDP-20, also known as DECsystem-20). All these OSses had a different architecture, because they wer built for different purposes. However, DEC standardised the CLI on these OSses. The CLI was called DCL (Digital Command Language).

ATT (Bell Labs) were using DEC systems with when they decided to create their own OS. IIRC they used a PDP-7, and later PDP-11's running RSX-11. So, instead of everything being based on *nix, it's the other way around. All the *nixes are "inspired" by the other OSses at the time, in particular RSX-11 and DCL.

VMS (later OpenVMS) was the world's first commercial computer using a virtual memory system. That's why it's called VMS. It was meant as a successor to RSX-11, and it ran on VAX computers (Virtual Address eXtention). The chief VMS architect Dave Cutler was hired by Microsoft to help create Windows NT. Windows NT later became W2K, WXP etc.

So, also Windows is NOT based on *nix.

As far as I can tell, actually only Linux is based on *nix.
Anybody know any other OS that is based on or inspired by Unix?

Re:Call me weird, but... (1)

CompShrink (960573) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993663)

Um, ok, I'll bite.

For those who don't know the quite well known fact, OSX is based on BSD...

And for those who don't know, you guessed it, BSD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bsd [wikipedia.org] is based on Unix.

Which also shows BSD (current flavors FreeBSD, OpenBSD, NetBSD, etc) is Unix based.

As well as SUN Solaris http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun_Solaris [wikipedia.org] .

No wonder you posted as Anon Cow.

Re:Call me weird, but... (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993690)

Linux isn't based on Unix. It borrows ideas heavily from it, but technically it's a different operating system because the kernel and userland tools have independent origins rather than being forked off either BSD or SysV.

This is a bit like saying that the bird which just waddled past, with duck-like feathers and a yellow beak, making a "quack quack" noise wasn't a duck.

Ten things they should fix (5, Informative)

laurensv (601085) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993509)

somebody made a list about ten things that don't work as well as they should (and as a mac admin I agree) : Ten More Things I Hate About Mac OS X [informit.com]

Re:Ten things they should fix (1)

v1 (525388) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993694)

I would rate those top ten lists +1 insightful, -3 irrirating. They're one of those pages that has ONE screenful of content and a "next" button at the bottom, so you have to click to another page every 20 seconds. Whee, fun. Almost always a result of someone trying to get you to refresh banners 3 times a minute to get them more ad hits.

Mac users.... sigh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14993728)

From the article: I hoped that by pointing out rough edges in the user interface, readers would say, "I never noticed that before, but you know, that really is very annoying and should be fixed." Boy was I naive.

The article touched a nerve with many Apple apologists and set off a firestorm of controversy.


And that is precisely why I will never ever even consider getting a Mac. The users.

(Ok, so there are more reasons, like I don't see any win, but rather a loss of freedom and a step backwards on an interoperable world if I buy into the proprietary system of any vendor. But that goes for many others, not only Macs. These users are pretty much a monopoly though).

G3 (1)

SP33doh (930735) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993523)

a while back, when OSX.2 had recently came out, and I was still running on an iMac G3 (with 256mb of RAM), I got OSX. it ran much smoother than OS9 did.

Overheard in July 2007 (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14993552)

Mr. CIO: I've decided to switch our 30,000 desktops over to OS X.

Steve B.: But they can't match our rate of innovation! I've got over 12000 developers working on Windows OS alone! Their staff is a small fraction of that!

Mr. CIO: That's why we're moving to OS X.

Ironic? (4, Funny)

MoogMan (442253) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993591)

Consider the following a sampling of such optimizations, in no particular order

I'm somewhat concerned that an optimisation geek did not order his data set.

Easiest way to make a Mac faster is go back to OS9 (0)

jbx (90059) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993649)

For all the talk about the speed of OS X, Apple has never addressed the most obvious issue: on a machine that can run either OS 9 or OS X, OS 9 is very much faster. They took an OS written from the ground up in the early 80s to be graphical, and replaced it with an OS written the 70s to be textual, with the GUI glued on top of it.

And then even worse, the people who wrote Carbon, the MacOS backward-compatibility layer, had no idea how to write it to be fast - simple calls like HLock which used to be two instructions on the original 128K Mac are now thousands of cycles under OS X. (And Apple's answer to this? "Remove your HLock calls; they don't do anything anyway.")

Don't get me wrong; they've done great things, given what they started with. But they threw out the baby with the bathwater when they ditched MacOS.

Whats up with the ABI change? (2, Interesting)

torpor (458) | more than 8 years ago | (#14993665)

It used to be that OSX had a brain-dead ABI that resulted in not all of the PPC registers being used 'properly', in order to maintain a 68k 'compatability' mode ..

Has this been changed? Are all the registers of the PPC being used properly now? Is the PC register actually being used as a program counter, rather than one of the generic 32-bit registers?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?