Slashdot Mirror


Making Operating Systems Faster

mbrowling writes "In an article over at kernelthread.com Amit Singh discusses 'Ten Things Apple Did To Make Mac OS X Faster'. The theme seems to be that since you won't run into 'earth-shattering algorithmic breakthroughs' in every OS releases, what're you gonna do to bump your performance numbers higher? Although the example used is OS X, the article points out that Windows uses the same approach."

11 of 667 comments (clear)

  1. optimizing Windows 2000/XP by xplosiv · · Score: 5, Informative

    Check out www.blackviper.com, it's one of the better sites dedicated to tuning and increasing performance of Windows 2000/XP

  2. Some tips on making your computer faster by wiggys · · Score: 5, Informative

    1) Don't install so much crap on your computer. 5 megapixel photos set as wallpaper along with Real Player, Gator Spyware Crap, Quicktime Task, HP scanner registration reminder sofware, webshots, Norton anything, MS office bar etc running on startup will make your nice shiny new computer run like an arthritic snail on sleeping tablets.

    2) Turn off some of the eyecandy. All those fades and whooshes and stuff don't actually do anything useful, they just consume CPU cycles and waste your time.

    3) Use Ad Aware and SpyBot regularly to keep scumware out of your computer. I had to clean up a PC this morning which had stopped working because the BASTARDS at NewDotNet wrote some software which fucked the TCP/IP stack backwards.

    4) Defrag regularly and run MSCONFIG to check what crap is sneaking back on to your Startup scripts.

    BTW, Windows 3.1 sitting on MSDOS 6.2 ran like shit of a stick on my old P133. I wonder if/how it would run on a modern system?

    --

    Sorry, but my karma just ran over your dogma.

    1. Re:Some tips on making your computer faster by mbbac · · Score: 4, Informative
      5 megapixel photos set as wallpaper
      Actually, Quartz does an extremely good job of displaying 6.2 megapixel images on the desktop even on slow and old Macs.

      All those fades and whooshes and stuff don't actually do anything useful, they just consume CPU cycles and waste your time.
      Most of that is handed off to the GPU via Quartz Extreme.

      Defrag regularly
      HFS Plus already does that for me.
      --

      mbbac

  3. Re:Haven't read the article yet .. by torpor · · Score: 5, Informative

    I dunno about all that but OS X doesn't seem slow at all to me.

    Try running LinuxPPC on your mac some day, and you will see a huge difference in general snappiness.

    I'm not saying OSX is un-usably slow, or even slow at all - heck my Rev. A tiBook, beaten and aged, is still all the computer I need, and I am very productive with it ... but I do have to admit that in all my computing experiences, OSX seems to be the one OS that is more 'acceptably mediocre', performance wise, than any other.

    On the register side of things, I can't for the life of me remember the full details, but I believe that the ABI for OSX only uses a sub-set of the PPC's full register set, and thus this means more swaps in/out ... that there are 'unutilized registers' in the PPC architecture when it is running OSX.

    This is separate from AltiVec, which is an instruction set, not just a register setup ...

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  4. Missing Step by baudilus · · Score: 4, Informative

    The number one thing they should do IMHO is reduce overhead. Using Microsoft Windows as an example, windows 98 has much less overhead than 2k, which in turn has much less than XP. A lot of it is eye-candy, which is all well and good, but those should be options that are OFF by default. XP differs from previous versions because it uses a 'shell' based gui (similar to KDE / GNOME, etc), which, while nice, is going to cause some system slowdown. Using the 'explorer' shell, which is heavily intergrated into the Windows OS, is the fastest, and should be the default. Then if people want to change it to look pretty they can, by sacrificing speed (in slower machines).

    Stop adding services / features that are on by default, and you'll see a huge improvement in speed.

  5. Re:Am I Supposed To Be Impressed By Apple? by Matthias+Wiesmann · · Score: 4, Informative
    Actually, if you had bothered with reading the article instead of repeating the old Apple has it easy with limited hardware cliché, you would have noticed that this is absolutely not related to driver performance.

    Only one optimisation presented is related to hardware drivers, and it is cache of what kernel extensions will probably be loaded. Most of the optimisations (basically lots of caching and dynamic defragmentation) could be implemented in Linux, regardless of the amount of supported hardware.

  6. Re:#1 thing Apple should do... by tarunthegreat2 · · Score: 4, Informative

    I agree whole-heartedly. If Windows came installed 'Bare-Bones', there'd be a lot less annoyed people out there (but I'm sure we'd all miss Clippy)....however, that's one of the issues - who do you decide what should be an inherent part of the OS, and what shouldn't. Although you won't find anybody on slashdot propounding the beauty of having IE tied into Explorer, I know lots of AverageJoes who like the fact that they can just have that address bar on the TaskBar, and type a webaddress into it or a file path. Maybe "Where The Line Should Be Drawn" can be future Ask Slashdot article....

  7. Re:#1 thing Apple should do... by Doctor+Crumb · · Score: 5, Informative

    I know it was a joke, but apple's GUI is rendered using the video card's processing power, not your CPU's. So such fancy effects are using cycles that would otherwise be idle, giving no performance hit at all, and making it look fricking cool at the same time.

  8. Re:One word: by Graff · · Score: 4, Informative
    With buffer cache you're always going to have to touch the disk at some point and that point wastes billions of CPU cycles.

    Most systems nowadays use a DMA-type system (Direct Memory Access) which streams data directly from disk to memory without involving the CPU much at all. The real slowdown is not the CPU cycles getting wasted, it's that the CPU can't work on the particular data you need until it is loaded. During the DMA loading process your CPU could be using tons of cycles on other tasks that are not waiting on data.

    Smart read-ahead precaching and buffering attempts to ensure that your processes will not be data-starved. Yes, buffering can fall behind but overall it does considerably speed up a system.
  9. Re:Haven't read the article yet .. by HeghmoH · · Score: 4, Informative

    The only thing that's even remotely like what you're talking about is the Mach-O ABI and how it accesses global addresses.

    Mach-O the ABI (not to be confused with Mach-O the executable format, which is totally different) accesses global addresses via PC-relative addressing. This design decision was made back in the NeXT days, and made a lot of sense at the time. Unfortunately, the PowerPC doesn't have any support for PC-relative addressing, so the only way to do it is to use several instructions and induce a pipeline stall in the process. Depending on how a program is written, this problem can mean up to a 10% speed hit.

    That is the only brain-dead decision in the ABI that I'm aware of. It certainly makes good use of all registers, intelligently defines leaf procedures, and in general makes full use of the PPC architecture other than that one problem.

    Altivec includes both instructions and processors. That is one of the things that makes Altivec really cool, is that it has a shitload of vector registers that are totally separate from the other registers, and don't interfere in any way.

    --
    Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
  10. More uninformed opinion on Slashdot by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are easier ways to enable these "features" than creating a ton of hoops for BOTH sides of users.

    What fucking hoops?

    Right-click My Computer->Properties->Advanced->Settings button.

    Choose either "Best Performance" or "Best Appearance." Or check each option individually. What a non-issue.

    If this was KDE, someone would have already answered with this, but because it's Windows, everyone just nods with the rest of the flock, "Baa, baa, yes, there are hoops to jump through, baa."

    Speaking of KDE, talk about fucking hoops. You've got a completely horrible control center, with three different areas for changing the looks of things like window styles, widget styles, and so on. Why the hell isn't that all integrated into one configuration dialog? Oh, I forgot, ease-of-use is a criticism we only reserve for non-issues on the Windows platform like checking a radio button to get rid of a blue theme.

    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."