Serious question - If PowerPC is so fast, then why is OS X so slow? I'm not trying to incite a war, I really want to know.
It has been said that the PowerPC chips are twice as fast per Mhz. (Implying a PowerPC 600mhz does as much work as a 1.2ghz PIII). However, all of us know from firsthand experience that both Windows 2000 and Linux will fly on a 1.2 ghz PIII. OS X, on the other hand, lags seriously on a PowerPC 600mhz. So what is the problem?
I'm inclined to believe, based on my own anecdotal evidence, that it takes about a PowerPC 1ghz just to begin to be as speedy as PIII 500mhz, for basic computing tasks. (Web browser, word process, etc).
So what is the problem? Does the chip really suck and Apple is just blowing smoke? Or is the chip good and OS X sucks?
Zelda Classic, as referenced in the parent post, appears to be some sort of spyware/adware. It wants to install something (doesn't say what exactly) during the installer, and won't proceed until you accept it.
I ran Ad-Aware immediately after the install and it found nothing. Anyone know more about this?
My experience are purely antidotal, but it seems that people respond better to targeted, relevant advertising (even if they know it's paid advertising) versus the heavy-handed or shady tactics used by most 'net marketers.
Antidotal, huh? What disease are you saving us from? Or do you mean anecdotal?
There's a great commercial on (I think) ESPN right now. The anchor guy is working late at night when suddenly the lights in the building go dim. He walks down to the basement as if looking for a circuit breaker or something. He throws open a door and we see Lance sitting on (but not pedaling) an indoor trainer. He says "sorry" and begins pedaling again, and the lights turn back on. Truly funny.
Is it just me, or does anyone remember the report from a couple months back (it was on TechTV's The Screen Savers), that said that the new iMac's surfed the Internet a couples seconds slower because of the lousy refresh rate on LCDs.
The problem with OS X surfing slowly has nothing to do with LCD refresh rates. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that the OS X GUI is fucking slow.
Now, I don't know if the problem is slow hardware or slow software, but the end result is that Macs are slow for web browsing, as well as other general tasks.
Before you flame me, that does NOT make them bad computers. But the slow GUI is VERY frustrating, especially if you are coming over from a Wintel background where the GUI is very responsive. For me, it was enough of a problem that my iBook purchase (a computer I really liked) ended with me selling it a month later. I just couldn't stand clicking on widgets and then waiting for OS X to respond.
You know what would sell even better? A pizza-box based on the eMac motherboard with no monitor included at all. Sure the aesthetics won't be perfect, but the shipping cost savings alone would easily let Apple slash the price.
You're crazy. Such a system would sell like hotcakes to both entry level and advanced users, increasing Apple's marketshare and shareholder profitability. Thus, you can be assured they will never do it.
If ever there was an OS update that deserved to be 'stolen', this is it. For 18 months now, OS X users have been promised dramatic speed increases and an end to the spinning beach ball of death "real soon now". Every update has delivered tiny incremental speed increases, yet even with 10.1.5, the GUI still lags.
The people that have already bought and paid for OS X are Apple's staunchest supporters. If anyone deserves to finally have a fast OS, it's them. Yet they are being asked to pay full tilt ($129) for the speed that should have been there in the very first release.
OS X as it currently sits can be slow even on fast Mac hardware, and annoyingly laggy on slower Macs. This is simply not acceptable. Mac OS X users deserve these fixes for free, and I suspect that most people will take them without paying if they have the opportunity.
You say a 1700 machine without a monitor- but you can get an eMac for $1100 WITH a monitor. Doubt you can find a PC that has comperable CPU performance for less than $3,000.
The eMac has neither slots to swap the video card, nor an upgradeable video card. It is not the equal of a $600 white box special, let alone a $1000 Dell. Do you realize that you can buy a P4 2ghz computer these days for $500? Even IF (And that's a big IF) we accept that the G4 is 'twice as fast as the Pentium' per Mhz, I can buy TWO white box clones for the price of the eMac.
And you must have smoked some good crack if you think OSX on an eMac is faster than Windows 2000 on a $500 Wintel. OS X lags, regardless of whether the hardware is comparable.
Along about OS 8 or so they added contextual menus, which used a ctrl-click. A lot of us promptly bought two button mice. OS X supports any mouse I've ever heard of, out of the box, with however many buttons (some special features do require custom drivers for the mouse) and just about any two-button mouse with a scroll wheel will work splendidly. And there's the whole command-line thingie for working that way. It doesn't do focus-follows-mouse (A bizarre concept to me) and there's only the one clipboard, but it's a very useful GUI.
Of course it's a simple matter to add the mouse of your choosing to your OS X desktop. But the fact that the portables only come with one mouse button is keeping me (and I suspect many others) from buying one. I don't know any way to graft a second mouse button onto an Apple laptop, and if you're working somewhere without a flat surface (bus, train, car) it's not always so simple to just plug in a mouse. I really hope they will address this in a future portable. A lot of existing users even seem to want a second button - every Mac user I know uses a 3rd party USB mouse with two buttons and a wheel.
I don't really see how adding a second mouse button to the laptops hurts anyone - if one button really is better, then the users that prefer it can simply continue to use the left button, right? There are all kinds of keys on my keyboard I never use, but my machine continues to work fine and doesn't confuse me.
Ok, for one, that 800 mhz would blow the pants off that 2 Ghz any day of the week. You obviously A) do not know your RISC vs CISC, and 2) Didn't read the above post, at all, where he explains it quite well. If you wanted a machine that could match a 800Mhz G4, you are looking more at 2.5 or even 3 Ghz on an intel. Then add in a firewire card and try comparing your prices.
If the G4 is such a powerhouse, then why is OS X so fucking slow? Let's get real, Mac hardware and Mac software goes hand in hand. The G4 may be great, but if OS X doesn't use it properly it's all wasted.
You claim that a 800mhz Mac can compete with a 2ghz Intel, but in my experience that is plain not true. The Wintel running Windows 2000 is far faster, while OS X pokes along even on upper-end Mac hardware. Keep in mind that you can buy the 2ghz Wintel for less than the 800mhz Mac and it's a double whammy, slower and more expensive.
How in the world did you get a +5? Macs DAMN WELL do cost more than PCs - in some cases, a LOT more. Does that make them bad computers? No. In fact, many people choose to buy Macs IN SPITE of the fact that they cost more, simply because the Mac has a strong enough (real or perceived) advantage to them.
There can be no denying that Macs ARE more expensive, however. Take a look at the box (no monitor) you get from Apple for $1700 and compare it to what you get from Dell or Gateway for the same amount. If you're willing to use a local white box vendor or build your own, the difference can be even more exagerated.
Even the Mac USERS I know these days admit that the systems cost more than Wintel. They just think it's worth it. But even the biggest Apple fans don't deny that they cost more.
Yeah, reading a book or taking a class (or searching online) is so hard. When will people realize that a computer it a techinical thing? You have to be willing to do a little homework, even with a mac (if you've never used one).
Not once have I ever had to "do a little homework" to figure something out on my Mac, nor on my PC. Everything I know about those two computing platforms have been learned from experience and trial and error.
I cannot say the same about Linux, where I frequently had to search google to find out how to do things that should be (in my opinion) simple.
I find it especially ironic that you're arguing over whether an obscure keystroke used for changing resolutions is good or not, when the problem could be solved by adding a 'monitors' applet to the control panel (which no one can be bothered to write). As is so common with Linux, it doesn't have to be good, just 'good enough'.
I really dislike those that complain about no configuration tools. I dont complain about it. if i had a gripe I would write one. he should write them. then he wouldnt have anything to complain about.
Your post basically sums up everything that's wrong with Linux in one short paragraph. The funny thing is you probably don't even understand why.
Interesting. Here in Southern California, Verizon does NOT use PPPoe.
While we're on the topic, can someone explain how exactly the ISP benefits from requiring PPPoe? I mean, I've only got one DSL, shouldn't they just believe that whatever is on the other end is me? What exactly do they gain?
To me, it seems worse in every way, just another thing someone can break, necessitating a call to tech support...
Why do people believe that using electric vehicles is better for the environment than fossil-fuel powered combustion-driven ones?
One reason - did you know that quite a bit of pollution occurs at gas stations, as vapor from the nozzle and your tank escape into the atmosphere? Even though generating electricity to fuel cars pollutes as well, it can be far less since it all happens at one location (where it can be more easily handled) than at a variety of poorly maintained gas stations.
You've missed one of the best options currently on the market for electric car shoppers in California- Toyota has made the RAV4 EV available to the general public for lease or purchase (previously it was only available to fleets). I got one a few months ago and it's been great.
So how much? Don't leave us hanging! Leasing one sounds especially attractive since as the batteries improve, you just turn it in and get something else.
I think that you'll find that the conversion centers listed are really for large industrial equipment rather than passenger cars. For example, the NGV Ecotrans facility listed handled converting a huge truck platform to CNG for use as the foundation of a float in the Rose Parade. Other conversion shops do things like add CNG to forklifts and other indoor (not street legal) equipment.
This is not to say that it's impossible. I don't know that there is a LAW that makes it illegal to convert your own vehicle... it may just be that it's impossible to get the resulting car to pass smog which is necessary in order to register it. California state law specifies that in order to pass smog a vehicle must have all it's original emissions control equipment, as well as a lot of other requirements, maybe that's the problem.
Almost every poster is overlooking that the original question is being asked by someone in California. There are lots of things you can get away with elsewhere (converting your own car, etc.) that won't fly here.
We have a special program that allows you to operate certain vehicles in the carpool lanes, even as a single driver! This should not be overlooked because it's a huge benefit in San Francisco or Los Angeles to be able to use the carpool lanes. The catch is that not all vehicles qualify - in fact, of the vehicles listed by the original poster, only the natural gas Civic GX would qualify.
More information is available from the NGV.ORG Incentives page which provides a listing of tax benefits, rebates, and other incentives for natural gas vehicles.
The hybrid vehicles being mentioned by other posters DO NOT quality for this program, despite being extremely low emissions vehicles.
Slashdot Mirror
Is DirecTV free now? I hadn't heard.
It has been said that the PowerPC chips are twice as fast per Mhz. (Implying a PowerPC 600mhz does as much work as a 1.2ghz PIII). However, all of us know from firsthand experience that both Windows 2000 and Linux will fly on a 1.2 ghz PIII. OS X, on the other hand, lags seriously on a PowerPC 600mhz. So what is the problem?
I'm inclined to believe, based on my own anecdotal evidence, that it takes about a PowerPC 1ghz just to begin to be as speedy as PIII 500mhz, for basic computing tasks. (Web browser, word process, etc).
So what is the problem? Does the chip really suck and Apple is just blowing smoke? Or is the chip good and OS X sucks?
I ran Ad-Aware immediately after the install and it found nothing. Anyone know more about this?
Do a search for Indy on eBay. From what I've heard, the laserdisc rips aren't bad. (widescreen, 5.1, etc.)
Antidotal, huh? What disease are you saving us from? Or do you mean anecdotal?
You are a COMPLETE LOSER. Get a life, go outside occassionally, jeez!
There's a great commercial on (I think) ESPN right now. The anchor guy is working late at night when suddenly the lights in the building go dim. He walks down to the basement as if looking for a circuit breaker or something. He throws open a door and we see Lance sitting on (but not pedaling) an indoor trainer. He says "sorry" and begins pedaling again, and the lights turn back on. Truly funny.
Parent deserves another "+1" funny", just for managing to write a troll that someone moderated up as interesting.
The problem with OS X surfing slowly has nothing to do with LCD refresh rates. It has EVERYTHING to do with the fact that the OS X GUI is fucking slow.
Now, I don't know if the problem is slow hardware or slow software, but the end result is that Macs are slow for web browsing, as well as other general tasks.
Before you flame me, that does NOT make them bad computers. But the slow GUI is VERY frustrating, especially if you are coming over from a Wintel background where the GUI is very responsive. For me, it was enough of a problem that my iBook purchase (a computer I really liked) ended with me selling it a month later. I just couldn't stand clicking on widgets and then waiting for OS X to respond.
You're crazy. Such a system would sell like hotcakes to both entry level and advanced users, increasing Apple's marketshare and shareholder profitability. Thus, you can be assured they will never do it.
LINUX SUCKS!
The people that have already bought and paid for OS X are Apple's staunchest supporters. If anyone deserves to finally have a fast OS, it's them. Yet they are being asked to pay full tilt ($129) for the speed that should have been there in the very first release.
OS X as it currently sits can be slow even on fast Mac hardware, and annoyingly laggy on slower Macs. This is simply not acceptable. Mac OS X users deserve these fixes for free, and I suspect that most people will take them without paying if they have the opportunity.
The eMac has neither slots to swap the video card, nor an upgradeable video card. It is not the equal of a $600 white box special, let alone a $1000 Dell. Do you realize that you can buy a P4 2ghz computer these days for $500? Even IF (And that's a big IF) we accept that the G4 is 'twice as fast as the Pentium' per Mhz, I can buy TWO white box clones for the price of the eMac.
And you must have smoked some good crack if you think OSX on an eMac is faster than Windows 2000 on a $500 Wintel. OS X lags, regardless of whether the hardware is comparable.
Of course it's a simple matter to add the mouse of your choosing to your OS X desktop. But the fact that the portables only come with one mouse button is keeping me (and I suspect many others) from buying one. I don't know any way to graft a second mouse button onto an Apple laptop, and if you're working somewhere without a flat surface (bus, train, car) it's not always so simple to just plug in a mouse. I really hope they will address this in a future portable. A lot of existing users even seem to want a second button - every Mac user I know uses a 3rd party USB mouse with two buttons and a wheel.
I don't really see how adding a second mouse button to the laptops hurts anyone - if one button really is better, then the users that prefer it can simply continue to use the left button, right? There are all kinds of keys on my keyboard I never use, but my machine continues to work fine and doesn't confuse me.
If the G4 is such a powerhouse, then why is OS X so fucking slow? Let's get real, Mac hardware and Mac software goes hand in hand. The G4 may be great, but if OS X doesn't use it properly it's all wasted.
You claim that a 800mhz Mac can compete with a 2ghz Intel, but in my experience that is plain not true. The Wintel running Windows 2000 is far faster, while OS X pokes along even on upper-end Mac hardware. Keep in mind that you can buy the 2ghz Wintel for less than the 800mhz Mac and it's a double whammy, slower and more expensive.
There can be no denying that Macs ARE more expensive, however. Take a look at the box (no monitor) you get from Apple for $1700 and compare it to what you get from Dell or Gateway for the same amount. If you're willing to use a local white box vendor or build your own, the difference can be even more exagerated.
Even the Mac USERS I know these days admit that the systems cost more than Wintel. They just think it's worth it. But even the biggest Apple fans don't deny that they cost more.
Not once have I ever had to "do a little homework" to figure something out on my Mac, nor on my PC. Everything I know about those two computing platforms have been learned from experience and trial and error.
I cannot say the same about Linux, where I frequently had to search google to find out how to do things that should be (in my opinion) simple.
I find it especially ironic that you're arguing over whether an obscure keystroke used for changing resolutions is good or not, when the problem could be solved by adding a 'monitors' applet to the control panel (which no one can be bothered to write). As is so common with Linux, it doesn't have to be good, just 'good enough'.
if i had a gripe I would write one.
he should write them. then he wouldnt have anything to complain about.
Your post basically sums up everything that's wrong with Linux in one short paragraph. The funny thing is you probably don't even understand why.
While we're on the topic, can someone explain how exactly the ISP benefits from requiring PPPoe? I mean, I've only got one DSL, shouldn't they just believe that whatever is on the other end is me? What exactly do they gain?
To me, it seems worse in every way, just another thing someone can break, necessitating a call to tech support...
One reason - did you know that quite a bit of pollution occurs at gas stations, as vapor from the nozzle and your tank escape into the atmosphere? Even though generating electricity to fuel cars pollutes as well, it can be far less since it all happens at one location (where it can be more easily handled) than at a variety of poorly maintained gas stations.
Does it have to be a hybrid? The Ford Crown Victoria (a nice big car) is available in a compressed natural gas version which might work for you.
So how much? Don't leave us hanging! Leasing one sounds especially attractive since as the batteries improve, you just turn it in and get something else.
This is not to say that it's impossible. I don't know that there is a LAW that makes it illegal to convert your own vehicle... it may just be that it's impossible to get the resulting car to pass smog which is necessary in order to register it. California state law specifies that in order to pass smog a vehicle must have all it's original emissions control equipment, as well as a lot of other requirements, maybe that's the problem.
We have a special program that allows you to operate certain vehicles in the carpool lanes, even as a single driver! This should not be overlooked because it's a huge benefit in San Francisco or Los Angeles to be able to use the carpool lanes. The catch is that not all vehicles qualify - in fact, of the vehicles listed by the original poster, only the natural gas Civic GX would qualify.
More information is available from the NGV.ORG Incentives page which provides a listing of tax benefits, rebates, and other incentives for natural gas vehicles.
The hybrid vehicles being mentioned by other posters DO NOT quality for this program, despite being extremely low emissions vehicles.
Before anyone gets any ideas, please not that this is no longer possible in California due to Air Quality regulations.