Linked by Jordan Spencer Cunningham on Wed 13th May 2009 01:18 UTC
Benchmarks Phoronix, known for their various speed tests and reviews, compared the latest in Ubuntu and what, until recently, used to be the lastest in Mac OS X with 29 different benchmarking tests. Some of the results were rather interesting.
Thread beginning with comment 363874
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
DavidSan
Member since:
2008-11-18



Exactly.

So when I click a launcher, the app needs to be there instantly to receive brownie points. When I press the close button, it needs to disappear instantly for brownie points. When I press a menu button, the menu should appear instantly. Etc. Mac OS X simply does not perform optimal when it comes to responsiveness.


It is true. Mac OS X is not as responsive as it should on the user interface department.


I'm from a BeOS world, and anything less than instant responses is evil and bad and should cause people to be fired.


That's not true. BeOS was very responsive, I used it, but it was not that responsive, especially considering how old the graphic interface in BeOS was. BeOS was not as responsive as Mac OS 9, for example. Mac OS 9 has its problems, but responsiveness was not. All the time the user was first (Except when the system hanged itself).

Preemptive operating systems, are not as responsive as cooperative multitasking systems, for obvious reasons, but you gain robustness.

BeOS display technology, was not either even 1/10 of the sophistication Mac OS X or Vista has. BeOS was pixel related, very similar to what Mac OS 9 was and Windows XP is. Everything was a bitmap.

Mac OS X, in contrast, is PDF-vector related, heavy transparent (everything has alpha channel, even if it is not used), double buffered. (It has to be slow, because everything is written on the screen twice), heavy anti-aliasing, etc. How do you think those animations are made? Vista is similar to Mac OS X in that respect.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

That's not true. BeOS was very responsive, I used it, but it was not that responsive, especially considering how old the graphic interface in BeOS was. BeOS was not as responsive as Mac OS 9, for example.


You've got to be kidding me, right? You're pulling my leg, right? You've put up a camera next to my display, and in a few weeks, I'll be eating bag of crisps and see my face on one of those crappy home video shows on TV.

Seriously. Have you ever USED Mac OS 9 and BeOS?

Reply Parent Score: 1

DavidSan Member since:
2008-11-18



You've got to be kidding me, right? You're pulling my leg, right? You've put up a camera next to my display, and in a few weeks, I'll be eating bag of crisps and see my face on one of those crappy home video shows on TV.

Seriously. Have you ever USED Mac OS 9 and BeOS?


HA HA HA! Yes I used both of them.

BeOS was very fast. No doubt about it, especially because it was a real multitasking system. But we are talking here about responsiveness, and there are many things to consider. Let me explain.

For example, multitasking responsiveness... In that regard, BeOS was amazingly fast. The king of its time... And it might be the king even by today standards.

But when you say interface responsiveness on one application only... Like hitting a button, or pulling a menu... Sorry, Mac OS 9 was faster. I did many tests at the time. The answer is simple: Mac OS 9 gave all the processor to the front most app, while all other background processes were desperately craving for attention. UI was usually coded on the same thread as the interface, so when the user was using the front most App the whole processor was just waiting for the user.

If you tried to do something "heavy" in the background, like CD burning, or printing, it was a disaster for the background process. Usually you lost CDs (buffer under run), or spend hours printing a page. But the front most App buttons were responsive. Was it good to be so responsive in the User Interface department? Maybe not. It has to do a lot with how you want the system to be perceived, but that is the reason cooperative multitasking was used on personal systems at the time: Windows and Mac. Preemptive systems like BeOS, while more robust, did not "feel" fast. BeOS shared the processor with all the background processes trying to give them a fair portion of time to each one. Mac OS up to 9 did not.

Windows has a similar approach even these days, that's why Windows is so bad on all multitasking tests, comparing it to Linux or any UNIX. And that's way so many users say Windows feel faster than Mac OS X or Linux, or any other UNIX.

See this, for example:

http://mobile.osnews.com/story.php/19769/Ubuntu-8.04-vs.-Windows-XP...

Of course, if you used BeOS in an Athlon 1 GHz you would not see the difference, just as many people swear Vista is fast on their 4 GHz Quad Core machines... I remember I conducted my tests on a PowerPC 180-225Mhz, 64 MB RAM. Many Mac users at the time noticed BeOS speed, especially rendering things, but many said user interface felt faster on the Mac. Again, the same word Windows people use today: "feel faster".

Reply Parent Score: 1