Slashdot Mirror
OS X 10.1 Coming Today (Sorta)
usa35.com writes "News.com has a story detailing the release of Apple's 10.1 update. They say "unveiled" today, probably meaning actually disseminated to us general public folks sometime in the coming days." This is of course the release that regular users can actually use. Supposedly this is a free upgrade. Speed improvements, UI fixes, DVD stuffs. I can't wait to test it out a little. And those new iBooks are pretty reasonably priced (I figure that they can sell them cheap by cutting corners like most of the mouse buttons ;)
I'm sorry, but 10.0 was a very... incomplete release. It was sluggish, didn't have important things like DVD or CD-RW capabilities, plus it didn't always work correctly. 10.1, on the other hand, is just incredible. The speed increases are phenomenal (from 50-400%, depending on your CPU) and the added functionality and general GUI cleanup are much welcomed. 10.0 always had sort of a beta feel to it, but 10.1 feels like a sleek, finished OS. Kudos to Apple for the great job.
There is also talk of it finally fixing legacy appletalk support (not TCP/IP based). Yeah I know, move to NFS, be a real man, etc... But a lot of my co-workers are stuck in a MacOS less than 10. Makes it difficult. Not to mention that you can't communicate properly with a Linux server running netatalk. I can't wait!
Check out Althea for a stable IMAP email client for X. Now with SSL!
'cause that's when Steve said we'd get DVD playback. :)
Paul
Sounds crazy, but it's Apple so nothing is ever out of the question.
Macslash has a thread going about the release and a lot of developers with Betas are reporting some significant improvements in speed - most notibly the time to load apps in native and classic modes.
Sound waves should be free!
Not OS X per se, but its core software, Darwin, is essentially an open source BSD release. Quite a lot of work has been done on it. You can't run OS X-specific apps (things that expect the Aqua interface), but Linux and UNIX apps should port as well as they do in OS X.
It's the power and integration of the Macintosh hardware and software that makes OS X shine. Even if Apple chose to port the Whole Thing to x86, you would need a much more fortified PC than you would normally buy off the street.
Better than nothing, or maybe just do FreeBSD. Try www.darwinfo.org.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
I see a pleonasm there. Shouldn't it be OS X.1?
http://www.apple.com/macosx/newversion/
Tom.
Oh arse
However, one thing that worries me is whether or not they will include Dev Tools. I bought OSX 10.0 when if first came out, and it came with the disc. The Dev Tools include important things like a compiler for making other programs from the Terminal, and fun things like a Java browser, OpenGL stuff, etc. However, they were not included with my new computer. While I already owned them, so I just loaded them myself, I hope that people won't have to pay $129 just to get some tools that should come with new machines. Thanks Apple, you based the system on BSD, but don't forget the tools we need to really write with it!
Darnit Taco, please join the present. I'm currently using an Intellimouse Explorer on my Mac, and I've got five mouse buttons plus a scroll wheel. They all work quite well, thank you. If you really want a multi-button mouse for your iBook, just plug one into the USB port. You don't even have to reboot.
I know you meant it as a joke, but statements like that smell a lot like a troll. Please try not to taunt your audience.
This
Ok the 10.0.4 boxes I ran at work and home were slow in the aqua gui, truely, but as far as I/O,
/. most here would be pleased to know that it is not BSD/Darwin that is slow, but the Aqua gui that ppl are bitching and moaning about (with good reason, IMO).
processing, task switching, serving web/ftp...they all kicked ass to say the least.
For all the unix'ey love fests that take place on
Lack of features, nope, not for what I used it for: Surfing, SETI, FTP, pr0n watching, vcd (mpg1, naturally), ssh, classic apps...it did it all with nary a hitch (just don't leave a DVD in the drive...kernel panic w/o fail on my box).
So, yeah 10.1 is a drool inducer ooo-ooo, shiney *blue* objects!!! (kiki the ferret voice) and dvd, speed tweaks and some needed + native cocoa apps are well and good, but I hope the OS's speed does not suffer, gui be damned.
(can you tell I'm a CLI type?)
Moose.
la la laaaaaa
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
For those of us who also happen to own a multi-processor machine and have been unable to run Mozilla as a native OS X app, it looks like part of the problem was with 10.0.4's MP support and will be fixed in 10.1. For more info, check out this bugzilla bug.
Perhaps this could even mean an end to the dial-up disconnection woes, as those, too, were MP related. (For those of you blissfully unaware, MP machines with a dial-up modem connection had a tendency to randomly drop said connection.)
All in all, very good news, especially since Apple appears to have listened to its customers and will be making the upgrade free.
With 10.1 not only do I get dvd play back on a "Unix Based" os but MS is releasing a preview version of Word X. Now before you Anti-MS Dolts get your panties tied in a Knot. If you don't use Macs and haven't seen Microsoft's Mac software. You're missing out. MSIE:MAC Runs better than it does under windows. (There goes that whole its only "Faster" Cause its integrated into the OS Theory) And Microsoft Office for the Mac has consistently been the most useful Office Suite on the market. Star Office doesn't have anything on it. And Office:Mac has consistently blown the pants off of Office:windows For a long time.
But anyways. Check out the Microsoft mac stuff at www.microsoft.com/mac/ and just drool over screen shots of Office v X
And on a final Note. I love my TiPB I love OSX and I don't understand how I used anything other htan it for all those years.
--------========+++Dont Feed The Lab Techs+++========--------
I have used some of the earlier builds of OSX(though I haven't gotten the latest yet). It should be noted for build 5G64, which I have heard is the Golden Master, DVD playback will not work on Macs that use hardware DVD-decoding(ie. B&W G3 or Yikes G4/PCI with DVD piggyback card, Lombard G3/400 models and perhaps Wallstreet PB G3s with the DVD decoder PC Card). Since some of these computers are the very ones that would most benefit from an OS speed increase, potential owners should check with Apple, or they might have to be prepared to continue using OS9 a little bit longer. Newer macs that use software decoding work great.
I agree...where are the speedups? I was expecting major improvements out of 10.1.
On my Wallstreet G3/300 with 256MB of RAM:
- slightly faster, but not drastically so.
- Launching IS much faster, but this is due to
two-level namespace linkage, not due to any
innate optimization.
- OpenGL still is not implemented for Rage Pro.
- Skyline/Lucent wireless cards still do not work.
Skyline is Farallon's fault, but the Lucent *SHOULD* work, since it worked under OS 9 without
any 3rd party drivers.
- Still cannot eject PCMCIA cards without shutting down. Though it no longer kernel panics when you
manually remove one.
- PCMCIA-based hard drives still are not recognized.
- Still won't play DVD. Apparently they don't support the hardware DVD decoder cards (this IS an officially supported machine...where's the official support?)
- The compiler is godawful slow. I took a project
that built in 58 seconds under OSX Server 1.2, and it takes over 5 minutes to build on OS X 10.1 (on a G4/400 with 1.5GB of RAM!)
- On the plus side, sleep FINALLY works. It used
to turn on the fan when I put the machine to sleep, which would promply drain my batteries dry.
10.1 is finally USABLE, but it's still not what I wonder consider great.
...is the sound of 10,000 Slashdot moderators opening their dictionaries to learn what the word "pleonasm" means.
Or at least to see if there's a picture of it.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
I use Debian PPC on a PowerBook G4, and it's a little slow. For everyday interactive use like email and web browsing, it is the equal of all my other systems. For anything that taxes the CPU, it's a pig. For example, compiling ethereal takes over 7 minutes. On my desktop (1.4 GHz athlon) it takes a little under 1 minute. That's not really proportionate. People claim that GCC doesn't produce efficient code on the PPC, but I don't know the technical details of that. I do know that OS X takes advantage of the AltiVec unit on the G4, while almost no Linux software (only mpeg2dec to my knowledge) does so.
$ java -version
java version "1.3.0"
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.3
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.3.0, mixed mode)
So, a reasonably up-to-date version of Java ships with the OS. I'm guessing they'll send out updates with Java's minor releases, but not the micro releases.
The good news is, it's just BSD. So, if you want to upgrade it yourself, you can with a little work. I've yet to find a java app that doesn't run OK on it. I'm currently in the process of downloading Sun's Forte for Java IDE (shipping for Solaris), just to see if I can get that running ;)
--Mid
I have the MS Intellimouse with 5 buttons and a scroll wheel too. On a mac. Just install an extension [USBOverdrive.com], reboot, and voila. Plus you can configure all buttons too. This is a non-issue. Beginners like the simplicity of a zero-button mouse. 'Power users' can buy a multi-button mouse. End of the story.
Specifically, is it bearable on a new iBook? When I tried 10.04 on a new iBook it was like running Windows 2000 on a Pentium 133
Well, it wasn't that slow.. but it was slow.
The reason is very simple.
The finder sucked and they didn't use the graphic acceleration of the videochip.
They rewrote the finder and turned on the grpahic acceleration of the videochip.
Last weekend we had a local MUG meeting in which Apple showed both an iBook and a G4 with MacOS 10.1.
The speed difference was quitte noticable.
The speed was equal to a Pentium III 1 Ghz with windows 2000.
So, it could be a little bit better but it was quitte acceptable.
> laptop because of it's lack of mouse buttons.
Not the fastest snail on the leaf, is he?
I was hardly an early adopter, but I had two buttons on my mac in '92 or so (ok, hardly an early adopter of the second button. I had a 128k mac brand new . ,
They're availalbe all over the place, and come with the software to make that second button do whatever you want . . .
hawk, who gets a kick out of folks with the button-deprived windows mouse mocking those only slightly more deprived
I've only been using OSX for about a month now (got my first mac then). And I love it. It's a recent Quicksilver model, so honestly, I don't know what people are talking about when they say it's slow, but I guess it probably is on less recent hardware. What I really would like it more customization for the GUI, there's really very little you can do to change the appearance. They have two sets of button colors, and you can change the magnification and size of the dock, as well as the size of icons. Gee, that's fantastic, but that's it! Also coming from X and Windows, it's hell of hard to keep track of applications (maybe just because I'm switching from a taskbar to a taskbar clone- dock). But I seem to get flustered when I have too many applications open. I really wish they'd incorporate multiple virtual desktops like in X.
As far as features and stuff, well honestly I haven't noticed any lack of them. The OS is the pinnacle of compatibility and versatility. I can open MacOS9 in classic mode to run Microsoft Office (ya ya, Microsoft sucks, but if you haven't tried their version of Office on a Mac shut up), Internet Explorer under OSX along with whatever else I need, and I with the click of a button I'm transported to a Gnome desktop running my *nix X programs (the ones I don't need to run from a terminal). Oh yeah, and it's got a terminal. Using Fink it's a snap to install Unix software (granted not all the ports I want, but more are coming). It's funny the way it works, Microsoft products are actually much better on Macs. Or of course I could just log out of Aqua all together and run pure Darwin alone, or with X.
I was going to install NetBSD or Linux on the computer, but now I don't think I'll need to.
I saw a study in a magazine a few years back comparing application speeds between Windows and the Mac. It turned out that all applications they tested were virtually indistinguishable between the two platforms, megahertz for megahertz, except, that is, for Microsoft applications.
Microsoft applications were two to three times slower on the Mac, although Adobe and other vendors' applications were just as fast.
Of course, this is just a coincidence. It's not as if Microsoft would have any commercial interest in making the Mac platform seem inferior to Windows.
Tim
But they were able to grab the DVD RUNNING FULL SCREEN and capture it to a QuickTime movie that you can download off the web and watch on any QuickTime-enabled computer. Once you get full-screen DVD to QuickTime, you can convert it to anything and distribute snippets of it, just like Apple is currently distributing a snippet of X-Men via its web site.
I don't think this was done by pointing a video camera at a Mac screen, though I could be wrong.
-jon
Remember Amalek.
> THERE's the problem. If it were a $5 POS,
... it's an excellent pointing device for Mac OS X, which only requires one button. Mac OS X has a pervasive context-sensitive menubar at the top edge of the screen ... getting a second, limited, on-screen menu under your mouse cursor is just not that valuable. Mac users just slam the mouse cursor into the menubar and use the pull-down menus, which contain all of the options. Rather than right-click an item and choosing "Properties", you click on an item and choose File > Show Info from the pull-down menus (or press Command+I). Rather than right-clicking an image in a Web page and choosing "Save to disk", you just drag and drop the image from the Web browser window to the Finder (including Desktop) and it is saved as a file. All of the things that you may be used to doing with your second button have drag and drop or similar equivalents on Mac OS ... the user uses their one mouse and one button to move things around instead of using a second mouse button to display a text menu. Think about which is the best use of a mouse. After using a Mac, you might be pissed at Microsoft for all the broken drag and drop features in Windows (if you are a Windows user).
... it will last so long and get so much use that it will be almost free.
... very ergonomic. I did it, my wife did it, my brother did it. We all use Apple's mouse now. Try it and you'll see that there's more to it than meets the eye. Maybe you will even like it.
> no big deal, but you've already paid $60 for a
> hobbled, less functional mouse that you're just
> going to trash.
You are completely incorrect.
First, it's not hobbled
Second, you don't pay $60 for the mouse when you get it with a system. You can sell an Apple Optical Mouse on eBay and get $40 for it, which is likely more than you actually paid for it with a system. Use the $40 to buy whatever mouse you like. Any USB mouse works with Mac OS X. eBay can be operated with one mouse button on a Mac, so you will make it until the auction closes. If it was just a $5 POS mouse, all you would have is a $5 POS mouse, a non-biodegradable waste of space that you'd replace with a decent mouse later anyway. A good USB optical mouse is so compatible and has no moving parts
Honestly, it is CLASSIC for a person to get their first Mac after using Windows, complain about the one-button mouse, get out their old Windows USB mouse with two buttons, use that for a while, realize that they haven't hit the second button in three months, and go back to the Apple mouse, which you just cup in your hand and click with your palm
For the Windows and Linux bigots, relax. You don't have to get so tense. If you don't think OS X is worth your time, then just ignore it.
On the otherhand, if you have a bit of an open mind, you owe it to yourself to check it out. (Make sure you're checking out 10.1 and not 10.0.x)
It really is cool to have a mainstream commercial app like MS Word and say GIMP running rootless right next to it.
It really is cool to program with the Cocoa dev tools. (Yes, it requires you learn Obj C, but if you're a true geek, you love trying another language)
It really is cool to have a BSD-based system that even your grandmother could install and use.
It really is cool that the BSD-subsystem is available for anyone to hack on (Darwin).
It really is cool that there's a commercial company (Apple) guiding the OS and putting in all the most sophisticated plumbing (Aqua, IOKit, etc) that probably would never have gotten done or would have gotten done poorly otherwise.
It really is cool that all the major commercial app manufacturers have already pledged their support (many have already delivered) and that many apps which have never been on the Mac before are now coming over.
It really is cool that there's going to be a decent selection of games for this platform. Not Windows numbers by any stretch, but all the major titles and certainly more than Linux.
In short, if you take the time to look, it really is a very cool OS. Now, maybe you don't want to spend the extra money to buy a Mac. No problem. But that doesn't make it any less of a product.
Wade
A: The one mouse button was thought up by a guy named Jeff Raskin who is largely responsible for starting the Macintosh project at Apple. He thought that mouses with more than one mouse button would be confusing for new users. This might seem like an oversight, but when you consider how uncomplex graphical interfaces were back than and the fact that virtually no computers in mass production had mice as an essential navigational tool, it really isn't.
A: Because we can use the regular pull down menus to bring up a menu. If you take a look at *NIX & Windows UI's, you often see that not all menu items for the program are in the pull-down menus. Often, there are some commands that you can only access through right-clicking (i.e. the contextual menu). When this is the case, you're going to need a 2nd mouse button. Contrast this with the mac paradigm, where is it a cardinal sin to have commands that are not listed in the pull-down menus.
A: No and yes. Unlike other platforms, macs have the pull-down menubar at the top of the screen instead of on each window, like you usually find on Windows or GNOME or KDE (yes, KDE does have a mac menubar mode, but not by default). A menubar at the top border of the screen has been proven in usability labs to be far faster to access than menubar stuck on a window, because the user can ram the mouse pointer into the top of the screen to click on the inital menu item and they can't overshoot. This illustrates a principle of Fitt's Law, which states that things on the borders are faster to access than things that aren't because they are infinitely large . To learn more about Fitt's law, go here . This being said, contextual menu (i.e. right-clicking) is faster IF you can do it anywhere to bring up the same menu anywhere on the screen, because the mouse pointer can be anywhere and the menu will appear right under it. Unfortunately, bringing up a contextual menu in windows/GNOME/KDE almost always requires that you first land the mouse on a tiny visual target. If you have to click on a tiny 15x10 pixel icon in an e-mail program to bring up a contextual menu for it, any speed advantage of right clicking is negated.
A: The reason that mac users use those keyboard strokes is because Apple was smart enough to have the keyboard complement the mouse instead of replacing it. Just like right-cliking is supposed to do on windows. Notice that the command key most often used on macs for the keyboard combinations is located in a spot that is in the center of the keyboard, so a user doesn't have to stretch their fingers 3 miles to hit an out of the way key. Also notice that keyboard strokes using the command key make use of the two most dextrous fingers of the human hand: the index finger and the thumb. The result is that keyboard shortcuts on a mac are easy to do, and they can be done easily with one hand. Why don't Windows users use keyboard shortcuts as often as mac users? Because microsoft was stupid and tried to have the keyboard replace the mouse instead of complmenting it. They added those underline thingies on all the menus (technically, they're called mnemonics), which are far less efficient because you have to hit two sets of keys "Alt+firstletter Alt+secondletter" to use them. This added so much visual clutter and so jammed the users mental keyboard-menu associations that most Windows users also filtered out the keyboard shortcuts (i.e. Ctrl+letter). There is even less incentive to use keyboard shortcuts on windows because the ctrl key that makes use of them is far at one end of the keyboard, which makes keyboard combinations with keys in the center of the keyboard very hard to do with one hand and impossible to easily with the two most dextrous fingers of the human hand (the thumb and index finger). One final advantage of mac keyboard shorcuts is that the command key is represented in the menu system by a symbol that take up one character's worth of menu real-estate as opposed to "Alt" or "Ctrl", which take up 3-4 characters of menu real-estate.
A: Yes. I don't think you'll find many mac users who are against having more than one mouse button, but they are against some dumb windows/unix geek who knows nothing about macs and who refuses to learn anything about the way they are designed arrogantly assuming that the machine is unusable in some sort of way.
Windows has three main keyboard modifier keys (Shift, Alt, Ctrl) and two mouse buttons. Macs have four main modifier keys (Shift, Option, Command, and Control) and one mouse button. It works out to the same thing, because the single, straightforward "click" on the Mac is easy to execute in concert with a keyboard modifier key. Control+click, Option+click, Shift+click, Command+click are all easy to use and explain, regardless of left/right handedness, etc.
Mac OS X doesn't require you to use context menus. The Dock's menus can optionally be accessed with a right-click, but that is sensible shortcut for people who use a multiple-button mouse. You Control+click to see the menu, or Command+click to see the actual item that the Dock item refers to. You can also click-and-hold to get a Dock menu, and for most people this is just fine.
If you were running X-Windows on a Dell notebook, you'd have a much more serious problem, because X-Windows expects you to have three buttons. Mac OS X doesn't expect you to have more than one.
A DVD iBook with a 12" screen costs about $1500. An Intel-based laptop gives you an equivalent or faster processor, DVD and a 14" or 15" screen for a little less than that.
And it comes with firewire, ethernet and wireless antenneas? Is the processor actually faster, or just a higher clock rating?
Anyway, the point is moot. Apple has higher gross margins because it has an entire platform and various software products (many of which are free) to develop and market. Many grey box makers just slap a bunch of components in a box and compete to provide the lowest margins. That makes PCs more accessible financially, but it does not solve the problem of making them more accessible in terms of human interaction. It is a not an equation for evolving the concept of a personal computer. That takes product development. Forgetting that has undoubtably contributed to the huge downturn in the PC market.
The other problem is that you don't get much of a choice: if you don't like Apple's choice of peripherals (like their awful touch pad), you are out of luck.
How is the touch pad "awful?" And in terms of peripherals, the vast majority of wintel USB/FireWire devices work out of the box, or you can find drivers for them.
And, with its G3 processor, it's questionable whether the iBook is even fast enough to run reasonably complex OS X applications.
Is this based on personal experience with Mac OS X 10.1 on an iBook?
- Scott
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
My mouse comes with 16-buttons and four independent scroll-wheels, this allows me not only to scroll vertically, but horizontally, diagonally, and to zoom in and out. Other integrated features include a complete 128-key keyboard and surround-sound. Instead of optical technology, my mouse uses Extra-Sensory-Perception (R) to give better tracking. But it's most useful feature is the great satellite transceiver which allows me TRUE wireless operation from a distance of thousands of miles - which is great for when i'm away on business I can tell ya. It has a compartment for a miniature hashish plantation, glows neon, and hovers.
This sig has been deprecated.
There's 2 ways to get this upgrade.
Option 1, the so called 'instant upgrade'. Starting on September 29th, Apple resellers(including the Apple store and other retail outlets. probably CompUSA, MicroCenter, etc) will get CDs that will upgrade from Mac OS X 10.0.4 -> 10.0
Cost: Gas to get to the store
Option 2: The Apple Mac Up To Date program. You print out a PDF form and mail it to Apple. They mail you back the OS X 10,1 CD, as well as the Mac OS 9.2.1 CD and Developer Tools CD, I believe.
Cost: $19.99, a 6-12 week wait(according to the PDF form)
I think I'll swing by a CompUSA saturday, which is when they hand out the CDs(yes, saturday is the release date. Saturday is always the day retail Apple OS's go on sale it seems...)
-Henry
"Useless organic meatbag" -HK-47
Er, that's not especially relevant, however.
1) Because mice themselves are not an example of an intuitive interface. No one really ever seems to know what it is, or how to use it, until they've seen it in action. (whereupon it also is revealed as a really easy to use interface)
2) Because contextual menus -- if implemented in a worthwhile way, with proper commands et al -- are the single best menus from a Fitt's Law viewpoint. The time to travel to the location where the mouse already is is 0, and that makes for a pretty infinitely large single pixel. (nb of course that the contextual menu at the cursor's current location may not be appropriate, but it's still a good idea)
3) Because Jef Raskin simply decided to go with a single button by fiat. IIRC he did no user testing. He had seen how multiple mice were used on one of the only other systems to support them widely, the Alto, and hadn't liked it. He was supported in this by only a few people, but they were the only ones who cared either way. I seem to recall reading in his book, or in something online that if he had done testing over a longer period of time, the desirability of modified clicks might have come up. (on the plus side, click-drag-release behaviors were a result of this)
4) Personally, I'd join the ranks of UI experts, not that I consider myself to be one, who advocate adding a second button. Personally, I'd probably have two additional buttons, for symmetry, so that it was useful for lefties. I'd have the software support left handed button assignments and cursors. The main button would be as large as possible, for ergonomic reasons, and the secondary buttons pretty small. For purposes of distinction, they'd be a different color and texture, and have a glyph -- perhaps an arrow cursor w/ menu, on them. If it had an optical sensor, it would be located as far forwards as possible, for maximum control. Even if a plastic periscope was needed. Perhaps I'd find a way to work in my thumb side-mounted jog wheel idea too.
Anyway, I like the Mac, but it's important to sort the legend from the reality.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
> if I'm in Classic all day, why upgrade.
... Final Cut Pro is an amazing story.
Because with 10.1 its possible to run a Web browser in an entirely different memory space than you're running Photoshop. Even Classic apps benefit from OS X's memory management, too, so "Classic" itself thinks it has 1GB of RAM no matter how much you really have. You can set your Classic apps to take advantage of this.
Right now I'm running Word X, BBEdit for Mac OS X, IE X, QuickTime Player X, a couple of betas I'm under NDA for, and no classic apps. If I start up Photoshop in Classic, then Photoshop is running in its own space (albeit along with Mac OS 9). If IE goes down, Photoshop doesn't, and vice versa. This machine itself also has only crashed once in the last six months, too, and that was with 10.0.1 or so and the repeatable bug has been fixed.
For most people, just getting their always-running browser and email client native can make a big difference.
Final Cut Pro is a show-stopper for you, though, because it doesn't run under Mac OS X at all. Apple announced that Final Cut Pro X will ship in the fall, though. It is almost ready. What a system that will be
Actually, the GUI gets exactly as much priority as everything else in 10.0.4, the kernel priority manager was not tied into the bsd priority scheduler until later kernel. I am guessing that this general oversight has been fixed, but don't hink it has much to do with the GUI speedup. My bets are on good old fashioned optimization.