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!

Mac OS X Slow for Web Browsing?

pudge posted more than 12 years ago | from the mac-os-x-slow-for-everything dept.

OS X 728

Atryn writes "Wired News has reportedly confirmed user performance complaints in their own tests. From the article: 'That was a conscious decision Apple made,' Mac MSIE project manager Jimmy Grewal said. 'They optimized for user experience rather than raw performance.'" My hunch is that you can take care of many Mac OS X performance issues by logging in as user ">console" ...

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

Mac and Graphics (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3372869)

Everyone knows Mac's SUCK at graphics!


No troll, but the WHOLE UI is slow (0, Troll)

qurob (543434) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372881)

Painfully slow on a G3, usable on a G4.

Really, Windows 2000 is oh-so-much faster. Even XP is faster!

They've made OSX faster with each revision, but the interface is still nowhere near what you'd expect. It does have *NIX behind it though, that might explain it

Re:No troll, but the WHOLE UI is slow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3372900)

well, OSX was designed for G4, although they left compatibility with G3s in so that people wouldnt have to upgrade to G4s.

Re:No troll, but the WHOLE UI is slow (2)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372985)

Not to be a bastard, but why would apple do that? Apple WANTS you to upgrade more than anything else. That's where their $$$ is. Why not leave in localtalk too? They want to kill the old tech, and bring in the new!

IOW, they left compatabillity in 'cause you would have had the 'million man march' on apple headquarters if they hadn't. (Apple did take forever to support their video card cards in the g3's - long enough to get some upgrades to g4)

Re:No troll, but the WHOLE UI is slow (1)

x1l (258922) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372924)

i have a rev. a imac, and OSX take 5 mins or more to boot. if you click the IE icon on the bottom of the UI, you get to watch it bounce for 10 second while IE launches. Yes, it was nice to have a console and *nix commands, but the UI was so slow I had to put yellowdog back on.

Re:No troll, but the WHOLE UI is slow (1)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372946)

If it's Unixlike does that mean there is a port of the X Window System? You could just get rid of that whole icky Aqua nonsense and run an X server with something nice and minimal like icewm.

Re:No troll, but the WHOLE UI is slow (3, Funny)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 12 years ago | (#3373052)

If it's Unixlike does that mean there is a port of the X Window System?

yes. Rooted and rootless.

You could just get rid of that whole icky Aqua nonsense and run an X server with something nice and minimal like icewm.

Yep. This must be slashdot.

Re:No troll, but the WHOLE UI is slow (1, Informative)

larane (200672) | more than 12 years ago | (#3373045)

I agree. Bought a 500mhz iBook2 mostly on the promise of OSX and its BSD base. Even with 320 megs RAM, OSX is basically unusable. Browsing is worthless. Mozilla (I need that tabbed browsing) runs like a dog. Even opening shell windows takes longer than it should. Luckily Yellow Dog Linux has saved the day and shows the promise of the hardware--it's a pleasure to use. KDE looks beautiful on the nice bright screen and everything, even KDE, feels responsive and quick.

I've got a PIII 450 desktop sitting nearby. Several years old, 256 megs ram, ata100 card. It's blazing fast for an old machine like that.

Apple is supposed by some supporters to be a vanguard of new hardware adoption (OK, so they were quick to adopt firewire). Yet the first iBook2 has pc66 memory! And OSX, for all its eye candy, is useless unless you've got a completely new G4. Really, save your money and buy a 386 based system. You'll laugh as the OSX users watch that spinning ball and you blaze around on something as old as a pentium II.

OSX is a cynical exercise by Apple, where they think their users are so stupid that they'll take eye candy over performance and usability (oh wait this is supposed to be usable). Or, maybe it's a ploy to make everyone buy new macs. Whatever they're doing, this reminds me of how I felt about Star Wars Episode I, where Lucas cynically thought he could put any old crap out and his fans would love it. Well, not this one.

Re:No troll, but the WHOLE UI is slow (-1, Troll)

L1nUx h4x0r (574828) | more than 12 years ago | (#3373050)

Dumbass. Linux is the only real OS left. All this proprietary shit is just that, a bunch of crap. Mac OS X ain't all that bad, but it's not the best either. Come on, why would you want to deal with all that restrictions and stuff. OSes should be free man! GPL all the way!

My GNOME desktop is hella faster than all of them (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3373054)

I do most of my work on my GNOME desktop with some work being done on a windows2000 box and I can say that GNOME is way faster for most things. Nautilus is still a bit slow but I have the GNOME 2 beta 2 on a laptop with just 64 megs of ram AMD-K5+ processor and Nautilus is so much faster. So that unix jab is most likely from somone who doesn't have a clue or used one of the Linux desktops five years ago when code just started to trickle in.

BTW the slowness of OSX has to do with the fact that they have heavy use of alpha blending and window effects. It has nothing to do with the unix core. Also the display is based on technology similar to Adobe's PDF.

A simple solution (2, Insightful)

ringbarer (545020) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372886)

Take a fork off Mozilla, and compile it so that it doesn't go through all the legacy-compatible OS X Event Layer fluff.

The trouble is that the OS has to be backwards compatible all the way back to the early days of Multifinder et al. If you're compiling directly for OS X, you don't need to worry about the cruft.

Re:A simple solution - Fizzilla? (3, Informative)

WD (96061) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372916)

I don't know much about OS X, but I think maybe you might want to look into fizzilla [] ?

Re:A simple solution (4, Informative)

znu (31198) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372969)

Try Chimera [] . It uses Mozilla's Unix back-end with a Cocoa front-end. It's only at version 0.21, so there's still a bunch missing, but it's already by far the fastest OS X browser.

The latest betas of OmniWeb [] also beat IE by a nice margin.

Stability over Speed (5, Insightful)

wiredog (43288) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372888)

That seems to be the choice they made. First get it stable, then make it fast. There's something to be said for that idea.

Re:Stability over Speed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3372962)

Indeed, that was the old NeXT credo:

rev 1: Stability
rev 2: Speed
rev 3: Stuff

Re:Stability over Speed (5, Interesting)

47PHA60 (444748) | more than 12 years ago | (#3373011)

I purchased a power mac dual 1GHZ machine for video editing after a few years of painful Windows NT/2000 on a dual Pentium, then a dual PII.

The dual PII is now a fast, stable linux machine, and my Mac has not crashed _once_. Each time I allow it to download and install the latest OS update, it gets faster.

In theory I always agreed with the stability over features idea, but I really had no idea how satisfying it is in practice. It's the most stable workstation under $5000 I've ever used, and not once have I bothered to read anyone's benchmarks on the system.

The best part is that if the web browsing may be slower, I have not noticed at all, because the overall experience is much more satisfying.

Linux Torvalds fucked me up the butt yesterday. (-1, Offtopic)

rollin_rollin_trolli (574303) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372891)

But he's useless. Stick with real men

MSIE (4, Insightful)

class_A (324713) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372895)

MSIE is very slow. Table parsing in particular is dog slow. I have to read Slashdot on a PC; stories with 150+ comments take forever on the Mac. Other browsers are reported to be faster, but the default browser is crap. I know I could replace it, but does the typical iMac user who just wants it to work out of the box?

Re:MSIE (1)

windex (92715) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372931)

Mozilla is *severly* faster. It just takes longer to load. I'm browsing slash with mozilla right now. Both browsers suck equally in one department, though, and that's plugin support. It's not that there aren't plugins, it's that they completly suck. Macromedia's flash plugin for OS X is slower than the Linux flash plugin. feh.

Early Post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3372897)

This early post for Annabel Lee!

It was many and many a year ago,
In a kingdom by the sea,
That a maiden there lived whom you may know
By the name of
And this maiden she lived with no other thought
Than to love and be loved by me.
I was a child and she was a child,
In this kingdom by the sea;
But we loved with a love that was more than love--
I and my
Annabel Lee;
With a love that the winged seraphs of heaven
Coveted her and me.

And this was the reason that, long ago,
In this kingdom by the sea,
A wind blew out of a cloud, chilling
My beautiful
Annabel Lee;
So that her highborn kinsman came
And bore her away from me,
To shut her up in a sepulchre
In this kingdom by the sea.

The angels, not half so happy in heaven,
Went envying her and me--
Yes!--that was the reason (as all men know,
In this kingdom by the sea)
That the wind came out of the cloud by night,
Chilling and killing my
Annabel Lee.

But our love it was stronger by far than the love
Of those who were older than we--
Of many far wiser than we--
And neither the angels in heaven above,
Nor the demons down under the sea,
Can ever dissever my soul from the soul
Of the beautiful
Annabel Lee.

For the moon never beams without bringing me dreams
Of the beautiful
Annabel Lee;
And the stars never rise but I feel the bright eyes
Of the beautiful
Annabel Lee;
And so, all the night-tide, I lie down by the side
Of my darling--my darling--my life and my bride,
In the sepulchre there by the sea,
In her tomb by the sounding sea.

Why exactly does it run slow??? (1)

PsychoFurryEwok (467266) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372898)

Why exactly does it run slow? Is it the OS itself or the browser?

Re:Why exactly does it run slow??? (1)

Eccles (932) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372943)

Why exactly does it run slow? Is it the OS itself or the browser?

It's the OS.

I work on a cross-platform PC/Mac app. Among the code I maintain is some floating-point computation-intensive code. No UI calls at all. It's three times slower on OS X than the same code running on OS 9. Why? Ya got me.

Re:Why exactly does it run slow??? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3373000)

Two reasons, probably.

First, the current batch of PowerPCs are no longer the FP monsters they used to be. The 604e ran circles around the x86 chips of the day, but x86 has since caught up.

Second, up until very recently OS X relied on straight ANSI C for its math libraries (pilfered from one of the BSDs). That code was recently replaced with hand-tuned libraries written in assembler, which should provide a boost. I'm not sure if the new mathlibs have been released or not.

Re:Why exactly does it run slow??? (2)

znu (31198) | more than 12 years ago | (#3373001)

If it's the OS, why is Photoshop only a couple of percent slower on OS X? Why is LightWave faster on OS X?

Re:Why exactly does it run slow??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3373026)

IE for Mac is a "Carbonized" application -- the same binary runs on OS 9 as OS X. Though Apple claims Carbon apps are 1st class citizens, there still is bound to be some amount of compatibility layers there that is slowing it down.

Re:Why exactly does it run slow??? (2, Informative)

jone1941 (516270) | more than 12 years ago | (#3373028)

Because photoshop uses 2D graphics and lightwave uses 3D graphics. When apple said they concentrated on usablity, they also realized people would want games. So they skipped writing 2D acceleration for the entire os but made sure that they had the best OpenGL (3D) acceleration on the market.

So, to answer your question, 3D runs fine, 2D has no acceleration, so anything that uses considerable 2D redrawing will be some percent slower, while 3D should be as fast or faster.

Re:Why exactly does it run slow??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3373027)

The answer to your "why" is "you don't know what you're doing."

Interesting Source they chose (4, Interesting)

Microsift (223381) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372899)

Asking the guy who makes the browser, and works for a competitor of Apple's...Surprising he put the blame on Apple...Shocking!

I run OS X, and I don't have any issues with browsing the internet.

Re:Interesting Source they chose (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3372935)

Actually, asshole, he defended Apple by saying that it was the right choice to make the system more stable first. It's zealots like you that make me sick. Oh, it's Apple, it can't have any problems. Well where the hell were you when my G3 with OS8 was locking up 3 times a day?

Re:Interesting Source they chose (2)

TheTomcat (53158) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372989)

Microsoft is the leading third-party software provider for Apple OSes (or at least so my former employer, who was himself a former Apple employee, told me).

I wouldn't exactly call them competitors.
Their software doesn't even run on the same platform.


Once again... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3372902)

Not first post!


No problem here. (4, Informative)

toupsie (88295) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372908)

I run a G4/500 (old PowerMac) and use Internet Explorer using Squid+Squid Guard as my proxy system (protects against ads and "accidental" pr0n). I have no problem with the speed of browsing. Mozilla is a tad bit faster but it is buty-ugly to look at compared to IE. Omniweb is blazing fast and beautiful but it doesn't handle JavaScript and CSS as well as IE, YET! As a Mac user, look and feel is very important to me since I look at my monitor for 8 hours a day for work.

Looking at just web browsing speed on an OS is not a great reason to choose one over an another.

Re:No problem here. (2, Offtopic)

larien (5608) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372966)

protects against ads and "accidental" pr0n

What, as opposed to deliberate pr0n?

Anyway, what is accidental porn? Is that when the guy misses the, er, lets just stop here....

Re:No problem here. (2)

toupsie (88295) | more than 12 years ago | (#3373009)

Accidently stumbling upon pr0n while surfing the net. :)

Re:No problem here. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3373038)

accidental pr0n is ... getting tricked into clicking on a seemingly benign [] link... and you get

Re:No problem here. (0, Offtopic)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 12 years ago | (#3373074)

Accidental pr0n is when you're at work checking your Yahoo! email and a banner ad for Playboy or Maxxim is at the top of the screen. Only a tad awkward when there are females around. I bitched out Yahoo's customer service and I no longer get pr0n ads.

Re:No problem here. (3, Insightful)

b1t r0t (216468) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372972)

Mozilla is a tad bit faster but it is buty-ugly to look at compared to IE.

When's the last time you downloaded a new one? Mozilla for OS X has had an "Aqua" style appearance for like three or four months now.

Sheesh, people, quit judging Mozilla based on stuff before 0.9.5. There may have been a few regressions here and there, but there has been a lot of progress since the start of the year.

Re:No problem here. (3, Interesting)

toupsie (88295) | more than 12 years ago | (#3373031)

When's the last time you downloaded a new one? Mozilla for OS X has had an "Aqua" style appearance for like three or four months now.

That's what I am talking about! I have tried about every build of Mozilla since the beginning for OS X. The Chimera builds show some promise with more incorporation of native widgets but the interface is still ugly. Looks like it was designed by a Windows user.

Re:No problem here. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3372986)

(protects against ads and "accidental" pr0n)
Uh! Don't U feel better nah, U faggot ?

My favourite line... (0, Redundant)

gordgekko (574109) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372914)

J.D. Falk, a 10-year Unix administrator, replaced his home PC with one of the first flat-panel iMacs to leave the warehouse. Falk shrugged off performance problems even after a demo. "I've wanted a Mac for a long time."

Let me understand this, someone is willing to accept a PC which does something important demonstrably slower simply because it comes in a pretty package? Would I want this guy running my systems for me?

Sorry, no deal. The new iMac is a sweet looking machine but if a company throws a half-assed OS out there, they deserve the same level of antipathy that Microsoft deserves.

Re:My favourite line... (2, Insightful)

znu (31198) | more than 12 years ago | (#3373019)

Why are you assuming "pretty package" was the deciding factor? Maybe the guy wanted a Mac because it would let him run the only Unix OS that has mainstream application support. Can you not believe that something like that might be more important to someone than a couple of seconds difference in page rendering?

Re:My favourite line... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3373022)

Be quiet. What someone wants in their home has nothing to do with who they are at work.

I am sure I could pass similar judgements on, say, your lifestyle or choice of clothes. Or music. Whatever.

DID anybody try another browser? (1)

tanveer1979 (530624) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372915)

the iMac's default Internet Explorer browser took an average of 10 seconds per page to render several popular sites

Did anybody try another browser? The problem may be with how it interacts with IE

Re:DID anybody try another browser? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3372956)

Read the article, dumbass:

Switching browsers -- even to the latest version of Opera, the self-styled "world's fastest browser" -- indicated that Mac versions of most browsers are conspicuously slower than their Windows counterparts.

Re:DID anybody actually read the article? (3, Informative)

larien (5608) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372988)

It tells you the answer...

Reverse Slashdotting? (5, Funny)

JZ_Tonka (570336) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372917)

I noticed a link to Slashdot in that Wired article. Wouldn't it be ironic if a bunch of Wired readers brought Slashdot to its knees?

Re:Reverse Slashdotting? (0)

Ignominious Cow Herd (540061) | more than 12 years ago | (#3373066)

I thought ALL slashdot readers were Wired. or is that weird?

MSIE for mac (2, Insightful)

jlemmerer (242376) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372918)

Since IE is already slow on Windows, the native system it comes from, it was to be expected that it will be even slower on a mac, since as far as i know there is only a compability layer to make the IE work with the mac instead of a truly MAC - Designed IE. to summarize - just patchwork to make it run...

In those days spirits were brave, the stakes were high, men were real men, women were real women and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.

Re:MSIE for mac (1)

nam37 (517083) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372975)

Since when is MSIE slow on Windows?

Re:MSIE for mac (1)

jlemmerer (242376) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372991)

ever since i installed it....

Re:MSIE for mac (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3373037)

Ahhh. You installed IE on your Windows machine. I see. Ok troll. You can go now.

Re:MSIE for mac (1)

Milican (58140) | more than 12 years ago | (#3373013)

Well try rendering a table of 200 comments or so in Netscape 4.7x then compare to IE (5.0 and above maybe)... then tell me what slow is.


Re:MSIE for mac (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3373056)

That would be Netscape then. Anything in the 4 series is substantially slower than IE. It also depends if the table was coded properly.

Re:MSIE for mac (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3372981)

Maybe on your 486 running 95 IE is slow but even on my girlfriend's 450 running 2000 IE loads in under 2 seconds. Slashdot loads faster than I can time. Why don't you take your uneducated, bullshit, FUD troll somewhere else.

Re:MSIE for mac (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3372994)

I think they started with a totally new set of code for IE on Mac. It's not just a port of IE for Windows. IMO, IE for Mac is much better than IE for Windows.

Also, I've noticed that IE on XP is quite a bit slower than it was on 2000, and it doesn't always draw pages correctly.

Re:MSIE for mac (2, Interesting)

JatTDB (29747) | more than 12 years ago | (#3373070)

You're probably seeing IE6 vs IE5.5. IE5.5 was good. Very good. Fast as hell. Stable (I could leave my Win2K box at work up for at least a month, with 6-10 or so IE windows open at any given time).

Then came IE6. Slow. Frequently jumps to 100% CPU usage on even the simplest flash animations (a big problem now that so many ads use those rather than animated GIFs). Crashes frequently.

Unfortunately, uninstalling IE6 isn't exactly an easy task...maybe they'll make 6.5 soon and it'll be as good as 5.5 again.

Re:MSIE for mac (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3373017)

Microsoft apps used to be written that way - most notoriously Word 6. Since the days of Office 98, however, Microsoft's Mac apps (including IE) have been written from the ground up for that Mac. They share very little code with their Windoze counterparts.

Re:MSIE for mac (3, Informative)

inajar (196074) | more than 12 years ago | (#3373041)

What makes you think IE on the Mac is just a patchwork port running in some sort of mythical compatability layer? While it may be true that older versions of IE on the Mac (versions 4.5 and earlier) were based on the Windows versions, version 5 was built from scratch for the Mac. I would encourage you to do a little research before posting next time.


VM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3372919)

Their Virtual Memory probably sux.

Maybe they should have hired Andrea Arcangeli...

Re:VM (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3372990)

The VM in Mach is outdated. It was designed when semiconductor memory was small and expensive, and disks were much smaller and slower, and where L1 and L2 cache was non-existant. Mach VM was not designed for modern high speed disk drives and large semiconductor memory usage. It is truly a relic of the past.

Shouldnt be a problem.. (1)

Chicane-UK (455253) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372930)

At least it shouldnt be a big problem for most users.. the internet isn't exactly the fastest thing unless you are hooked up through a T1 or better - Modem or ADSL users shouldnt really be able to notice a huge difference.

"Ah nuts.. dropping an equivilant 0.01k/sec off my overall download speed because I wanted the animated dock and hi color icons!"

Let's see (1, Flamebait)

ekrout (139379) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372933)

They optimized for user experience rather than raw performance.

Let's see...considering the fact that the average user's experience on a computer involves little more than email, Instant Messenger, and browsing the Web, I think they made a grave mistake.

- Eric
Founder, monolinux []

Re:Let's see (1)

Tower (37395) | more than 12 years ago | (#3373033)

Though one would think that if one were to only worry about email, IM, and the web, one wouldn't need to pay for a Mac instead of a e-machines cheapo box... I would hope most Mac users actually *do* something with their machines.

I concur - it is slow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3372941)

Mac OS X is pretty much useless on my G3. It is very sluggish. Not only launching applications but day to day browsing can be very painful. I don't know why rendering is so painfully slow. Unfortunately, I can not afford a hardware upgrade. My computer is only bit over a year old. I am planning on going back to OS9 as soon as I get the time time to do a full backup.

Re:I concur - it is slow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3373040)

It works OK on my G3 400 powerbook.

But the trouble is OS 9.x is so unstable that I won't work with it.

However, it has come a long way in speed since the initial release.

Chimera (5, Informative)

Gerv (15179) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372944)

Chimera [] is, according to these tests [] , the fastest MacOS Web browser by a factor of 2.

Chimera is, of course, based on Gecko, the Mozilla rendering engine. It's mainly the work of Mozilla uber-hacker Dave Hyatt [] .


Now that's a name! (1)

WWWWolf (2428) | more than 12 years ago | (#3373086)

There used to be a Athena widget set-based browser for X11 called Chimera. (At least Debian seems to carry it still...)

It was a nice browser, just, ahem, limited in functionality - and, due to Athena, somewhat... unaesthetic.

Shouldn't Chimera (MacOS browser) rather be called Phoenix, then, or something? =)

Hmmm thats strange (2)

Mattygfunk (517948) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372945)

Mac MSIE project manager Jimmy Grewal said. 'They optimized for user experience rather than raw performance.'"

In my experience you optimize for performance and sacrifice optimization for user experience.

Re:Hmmm thats strange (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3373049)

you obviousl don't know what you're doing then. Read any article, book, or sample applications. Perceived performance in a userland application is desired over raw performance. This is especially true in games. Think about it this way. Do you care what the framerate is on a movie or game if it appears slow and jittery? How about if it appears fast and smooth?

jeeesus (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3372952)

my eyes, page looks gay with apple theme

Mac OS X IE is not the same as in Windoze (4, Insightful)

ciryon (218518) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372959)

Who uses IE in Mac OS X anyway? Both Opera and Mozilla are truly great browsers which run fast and smoothly in Mac OS X.

Here's something interesting though:

IE in Mac OS X follows the standards a lot better than IE in Windows.

When we constructed our new company webpage we had to customize it for both IE/windows and IE/Mac.


Re:Mac OS X IE is not the same as in Windoze (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3373005)

Who uses a Mac anyway, apart from gays who don't know a fuck about computers ?

Re:Mac OS X IE is not the same as in Windoze (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3373012)

When we constructed our new company webpage we had to customize it for both IE/windows and IE/Mac.

And you didn't customize it for the worst standards compliance browser ever - Netscape 4.x? I still get at least 5% of my hits from the 4 series.

Re:Mac OS X IE is not the same as in Windoze (1)

Winjer2k (515635) | more than 12 years ago | (#3373025)

Right now, I'm browsing slashdot on my 500MHz iBook with Opera 5.0. It is a bit slower than Opera 6.0 on my PC, but as the article mentions, Opera 5 for Mac isn't yet optimized for OS X.

If you want raw power out of a Mac, switch back to OS 9 or boot up Linux.

MSIE is slow, not the OS... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3372964)

Granted OSX is sluggish on G3's, but on a G4 MSIE plays a large roll in browsing speed.

Both Opera (beta) and Chimera (also beta) are tremendously fast browsers under X!

Slashdot is the most painful of all... (3, Insightful)

krugdm (322700) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372973)

On my Win2K machine at work, a /. article with 200 replies render within seconds. On my G4/400 at home, the same page could take 30 seconds or more to render. What's worse, I get the "spinning CD cursor of doom" while it renders, so I can't even click on Stop or Back.

Open Source? (3, Interesting)

line-bundle (235965) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372977)

The culprit, it turns out, isn't the new iMac's hardware, but its operating system, which Apple focused on getting to market first and bringing up to speed later.

This looks like the opensource motto `release early, release often'.

use xfce (2)

wbg (566551) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372983)

the real interface behind macosX.
honestly i switched to it from kde, and am really happy. the filemanager r0x0rs, the way minimised windows get iconified to icons, is really neat, you can drag them around, and handle them like desktop icons.
for example icon view of directory "devel" for example.
desktop menu is great, that lets you minimize all windows at once etc.
it even supports antialiasing if you want to. and is no resource hog. xfce is the working environment, that gtk is built for, not gnome.
i say working environment because i mean it, you can really get work done, whereas the desktop environments i know mostly try to mimic commercial gui's like apples macosX and windows.
fighting the eyecandy

Why use IE??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3372984)

OmniWeb is about 50X better, about 20X faster, and not a M$ product.

Speed is relative (4, Insightful)

b1t r0t (216468) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372995)

My mom wants one of those new iMacs, and I don't think she'll consider OS X web browsers to be slow. Because right now she's using a 6100 with AOL 4.0. Now that's slow.

Mac web browsing is just slow... (1)

qurob (543434) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372996)

A friends G3 with OS 9, a friends G4 with OS9/OSX, My old 604 with OS8....

Maybe its the multitasking, or lack thereof?

Post Script Acceleration (3, Interesting)

jone1941 (516270) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372998)

The main reason that people are complaining about the speed, is the fact that OS X uses Post Script to store and draw pretty much everything. This Post Script Engine is what gives the GUI its beauty and its lack of speed. The GUI, as it stands now, has no support for 2D hardware acceleration. This is mostly due to the fact that todays graphics cards were not intended to support 2D Post Script Acceleration directly. This is the problem that needs to be fixed.

Alot of the issues surrounding OS X's percieved speed will hopefully be resolved with the 10.2 upgrade. There should be some components that will have hardware acceleration support. So, as already stated in the article, apple wanted the user experience first and the speed second. As we have seen each revision of the os has provided better performance. The good news is it can only get better.

Re:Post Script Acceleration (2)

znu (31198) | more than 12 years ago | (#3373068)

PDF, not PostScript. This is the cause of some of the GUI performance problems some people see. But remember, the OS X architecture is going to probably be around for another 15 years. It's hard to switch graphics engines at a later date, so it made sense to go with something really capable from the beginning, since the hardware that will be on sale for most of OS X's lifespan will have no problem handling it. Try OS X on a dual 1 GHz machine. "Snappy" is a good word for it.

haven't noticed (2)

westcourt_monk (516239) | more than 12 years ago | (#3372999)

I have a PII 300 running win2k, a powerbook g4 with OS X, and a G4 400 tower with OS 9.2. My wintel box is about the same speed as both the macs. The OS 9 machine has memory issues (even after assigning 256 RAM to it) with IE that crash it every so often and I have crashed my OS X machine twice in 11 months.

I really don't notice a speed difference in page loading.

Now my room mate has a 1.6 GHZ AMD with XP on it. That is faster but it crashes at least twice a day. I'll take the extra 10 seconds (more like 2-4) over a crash or a two a day.

Been discussed in Apple's forums (3, Insightful)

TheTomcat (53158) | more than 12 years ago | (#3373018)

Here's an example.
The mac zealots (not unlike linux zealots) get all defensive about such issues, as you can see.

Why Does Web Browsing STILL S*ck On the Mac? []


I know... (1)

Linuxthess (529239) | more than 12 years ago | (#3373020)

It gotta be that damn cool aqua theme sucking up the cycles. Thats why it takes /. so long to load a discussion dressed with that theme.


How does a gfx card accellerate page rendering? (1)

ddennedy (140408) | more than 12 years ago | (#3373023)

Help me understand this comment:
Jimmy Grewal, Microsoft's program manager for the Mac version of Internet Explorer, agreed that the problem lies with OS X, not the browser. In particular, he said hardware graphics acceleration was largely missing from OS X at this stage in its development. "The effort of drawing something to the screen (on Windows) can be offloaded to a graphics card, but in OS X the CPU is heavily involved," he said.

Exactly how does a video card or DirectX accellerate page rendering--minus video and 3D plugins, of course? I've heard of accelleration in the form of OpenGL/Direct3D, DirectDraw/XVideo, and Motion Compensation. This sounds like bs to me.

I suspect maturity of the code is the big culprit as well as the trend of inefficient UI skins ala WinXP and Aqua. I noticed a considerable performance penalty upgrading to WinXP on even a dual Athlon XP 1600.

Re:How does a gfx card accellerate page rendering? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3373091)

First off, I know you're not going to bother reading this since I'm just a dumbass AC. Fact is, I'm just too lazy to find my PW.


Video cards have 2D acceleration, not just 3D acceleration. This means they do the work of drawing lines, boxes, text, pictures, etc. Surprisingly, that mundane work takes a lot of CPU power.

In OS X, the rendering model is different from previous OSes. OS X makes extensive use of alpha-blending, bezier curves, and other goodies that video cards flat-out don't support. Thus, the work has to be done by the CPU.

Better video acceleration in OS X won't directly make tables render faster, but they'll offload the work of drawing those tables to the screen, allowing the CPU to spend more time working on the table itself. The end result is.....accelerated page rendering!

Over-emphasised as usual. (5, Informative)

cowscows (103644) | more than 12 years ago | (#3373029)

You'd have a hard case arguing that OSX doesn't have room for improvement speedwise, but it's this horrible thing that some people like to pretend that it is. Some of the blame goes to Apple, some goes to the application writers. Mac IE renders some stuff painfully slow. I don't know why. Like the article said, things like slashdot comments feel like they're taking all day. In reality, it's only 5 seconds, but we all know what sort of attention spans people have nowadays. There's a pretty new browser called Chimera that is early in development, and still has a limited feature set, but it renders things almost instantly, including slashdot comments. So there isn't some inherent problem within the OS that makes it impossible for your applications to function reasonably.

Not to sound too much like an apple apologist, but they've done quite a bit to get OSX to where it is so far, and the more I use it, the more I appreciate where it's advanced over OS9. I don't mind waiting a bit for things to improve. Just like I don't really mind anymore waiting 5 seconds for IE to throw together the comment threads. Most of us could benefit from learning a little patience.

Although I would surmize that it's apple's fault that they get judged so harshly. Seeing as steve jobs claims that every time someone in their company makes a sketch on a post-it note, they've created a new revolution in the world, people are justified in being extremely critical.

Re:Over-emphasised as usual. (2)

cowscows (103644) | more than 12 years ago | (#3373047)'s not this horrible thing yada yada...

even when I use the preview button, I get crap wrong.

OmniWeb, Chimera (3, Informative)

MouseR (3264) | more than 12 years ago | (#3373042)

I use OmniWeb. Primarily. It's render outclasses anything else on the platform. It's very fast too in comparaison to IE.

Blaming Apple for IE's sluggish performance is a bit easy. Coming from the IE project manager, it's downright insulting.

For browsing outside a proxy, I sometime uses the new Chimera browser. It's a Cocoa (Objective-C) -based browser that's based on Fizilla. Fizilla is a Mac OS X version of Mozzila.

Chimera is astonishingly fast. It's render is better than Netscape 6.2, but like OmniWeb, it's JavaScript support is still lacking somewhat. Fortunately, javascript support isn't an issue for me, unless I require online banquing, where I'll use Netscape 6.2 (despite it's utter ugliness).

Re:OmniWeb, Chimera (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3373098)

Coming from the IE project manager, it's downright insulting
Right. Next time you try to speak like a grown up, try to at least choose the right words, stupid kid.

"optimized for user experience rather than perf." (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3373046)

"They optimized for user experience rather than raw performance" :

- Should we work on those stupid icon effects or make the system stable and not too slow ?
- Mac users are lame, those faggots only need glossy icons to wank off anyway
- OK they'll have their stupid visual effects then


I get much better performance. (1)

Acoustic_Nowhere (521733) | more than 12 years ago | (#3373057)

Maybe it's just me, but the mac I just replaced was a Powercomputing PowerTower Pro 200 with an external 33.6k modem, running Netscape 4.7.

Now I've got a G4 700mhz imac w/56k modem, running Mozilla (which is only in beta). Browsing is -much- faster. I'm (almost) sure my bottleneck is the modem speed, and not the browser/OSX.

That article mentions that it takes an avg of 10 seconds to connect CNN web to from a mac? My PC at work w/High speed internet usually takes 10+ seconds to connect to. CNN site can be brutally slow.

Maybe the article is referring to browser speed on OSX in a corporate environment with a high speed network? On that, I can't comment.

Internet Explorer is the problem (1)

sbennett57 (100147) | more than 12 years ago | (#3373058)

I almost never use Internet Explorer, its slow, you can't block pop-up ads, it looks ugly, etc. As a case in point, I ran IE vs OmniWeb (latest versions of both) and loaded a recent Slashdot discussion with 400+ comments. OmniWeb loaded and rendered with 8-9 seconds, IE clocked in at 19 seconds. I running over a cable modem with no cache the pages had to downloaded and rendered in both cases. I've tried Mozilla, Fizilla, Chimera and Opera, and all render faster than IE.

GPUs (2)

1010011010 (53039) | more than 12 years ago | (#3373059)

Microsoft of moving towards using 3D hardware to accelerate GUI performance, treating windows as surfaces and textures in order to offload the eye candy to the graphics processor.

I have heard that Apple is trying to (essentially) port Quartz/Aqua to OpenGL, so they they, too, can take advantage of hardware acceleration for drawing their eye candy.

The days of 2-D GUI acceleration, where fills and bitblts were 90% of the solution, are quickly passing. 2D hardware acceleration does not help with alpha blending, for instance.

I wonder how X/QT/Gtk will keep up with this next round of WIMP: WIMP-3D. Perhaps the Gnome Canvas could be hardware-accelerated using GLX. Rasterman is working (supposedly) on EVAS, a 3D-assisted rendering mechanism for X.

Slow Performance... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 12 years ago | (#3373063)

Slow performance diminishes user experience.

Browsers differences and UI responsiveness (4, Interesting)

theolein (316044) | more than 12 years ago | (#3373076)

I use OSX on an old G3 333MHz system and although it *is* slow in terms of responsiveness, the whole UI seems made to provide a sort of "pseudo" realism in that there is a lot of animation going on all the time, all windows support alpha transparency and in order to make dragging a non flickering experience, Apple has made every window double buffered. There *are* shareware goodies that'll turn off the shows but I think Apple made a mistake by not allowing users (or coders) easy access to a panel to turn off live scaling, live drag'ndrop and double buffering on a system wide level. I think Apple did this on purpose partly in order to sell newer hardware (from whence they gain the revenue so it makes sense) and partly in order to create a consistent "branding" in order to raise market awareness. Since I spend a fair amount of time in the terminal I'm not so affected byall this.

On the topic of browsers, MS IE is definitely the worst in terms of stability and speed in OSX. The other main contenders, Omniweb and Mozilla (and especially the Cocoa based Mozilla derivative Chimera) have improved enormously over the past year, from the point where Omniweb could not render any css or do any javascript and Mozilla crashed just about every 5 minutes to the point where Omniweb renders Hotmail better than IE itself and Mozilla now supports native UI elements and almost never crashes. IE improved a bit from the first beta version last years but has since only had the odd security upgrade and no feature or performance improvment whatsoever.

My personal two winners in the future will be Omniweb when it is fully CSS and DOM compatible and Chimera when it gets to version .9 or 1.0

I have also noticed that the UI has improved to the point where it is not that much slower than the Classic MacOS anymore and I presume that with 10.2 and further on it will get even better.

I don't know what these guys are talking about... (5, Funny)

Schemer (717) | more than 12 years ago | (#3373078)

...Lynx screams on my TiBook!

Usability & Stability over Speed (5, Interesting)

giberti (110903) | more than 12 years ago | (#3373083)

Apples market isn't the hard core geek (not yet anyway) they are trying to puncture the home PC market with the iMac, not the corporate desktop. So far I think they have done suprisingly well.

I just bought a G4 and it comes with: mp3 software, dvd / cd burning software, video editing software, email software, web browser, and a VERY intuituve interface.

Another nice feature is the DVD playback isn't sketchy (I had a creative DVD Player in my old Win2000 machine and could never get the DVD Window to size right.) and you can even tile applications without having any wierd show through from the DVD window.

Straight out of the box, you can do more than any WinXP/2000/ME/98 Box ever did. Then throw on any of the available apps Office / Photoshop / Illustrator / Mozilla / FTP (for those who don't like the command line) etc.

The set up is easy and the "iTools" that mac provides (free for mac users) are actually quite nice.

I have been using intel based machines for a little over 12 years and have always regarded mac's as odd. But now that OS X (BSD) is at the core, its a truely robust system. The only thing I use my PC for is work (we are married to some microsoft technologies like SQL Server.)

I will sacrifice speed for two things:

  • Usability
  • Stability

Mac has them both now. And without the need to reboot the machine due to memory leaks if an application crashes. I have this problem all the time on my Thinkpad.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?