BareFeats has a benchmark, testing the SDRAM-based dual G4 at 1Ghz with the new DDR PC2100 ones. The new PowerMacs are the same or slower than their previous models, the test reveals. The Mac community got a bit dissapointed (judging from the forums). The author says that the slowdown is because the two processors share a 1GB/s pipe to Apple’s custom AGP/Memory controller. While the shared bandwidth is a factor, it is not the reason that makes the new Macs slower. Having a better look at the specs, show that the author have forgot a very important detail:The new PowerMacs have 1 MB of L3 Cache, while the SDRAM ones have 2 MB of L3 and that’s the real reason which results to the slowdown.
Especially his kinds of tests, that could fit a lot of their information on that cache, have a bigger impact when you have less cache. The author implies a technical “flaw” of the overall design, a hidden bottleneck, but this time I will have to semi-take Apple’s side, and say that this is not a technical flaw, but simply a design decision on the amount of L3 cache to be included.
Apple’s only mistake was to take this decision in order to decrease the price of the new Macs. Selling a slower Mac than the previous same model, it is just not good business these days for Apple.
New Macs might be a bit slower or the same speed as the previous same model Macs, despite the fact that they now using DDR. But this slowness is certainly not for the reasons the author implies (“shared bandwidth”).
Update: BareFeats have now updated their web site with the information about the cache, as presented here.
In other Mac news, Apple will coincide with next week’s release of Mac OS X version 10.2 (also known as Jaguar), consumers can buy a $199 a copy of the operating system and install it on up to five Macs in a single household
Rajan <<1) Windows XP does not scale well in a multitasking use case
It actually do. I normally have about 30 browser windows open… (okay, that doesn’t count because I’m using opera), a few windows of Office, Photoshop, and a slew of other applications open. And I don’t close them to watch a DVD movie
Have you even use Windows XP, or are you making statements based on Microsoft previous versions of their consumer Windows?>>
Actually keeping the apps open is a function of memory. I’m talking about active processes. XP doesn’t do a good job of it. Again, run the test usage case I gave you, then respond. To answer your question, I’ve used XP extensively.
<<1) I feel very comfortable recommending a Mac/OSX to my grandmother who doesn’t know the first thing about computers.
I feel much more comfortable recommending Mac OS 9 to my grandmother. Like I said above, Mac OS 9 is much more easier to use than Mac OS X, at least to me. Sure, it needs a clean up in the System Preferences (or whatever they call it in OS 9), but it is really a no brainer. >>
I have no experience with OS9’s interface, however based upon the shared memory model and cooperative multitasking I would be hard pressed to recommend it to anyone.
<<<anonymous – Bert: 2) I feel very comfortable recommending a Mac/OSX to the hard-core unix geek how wants additional flexibility.
How is Mac OS X more flexible than any other UNIX? >>>
The ability to run Native MS Office (unfortanetly open office doesn’t cut it in a business context – e.g try editing a complex 200 page RFP with a $10mill contract riding on it – formatting inconsistancies is not an option). The ability to run personal productivity apps (e.g. quicken, i apps). Ability to run professional grade media apps (Adobe’s stuff, MacroMedia’s stuff, etc…) The ability to run X11 apps as well as native apps. The ability to have quality terminal sessions against MS platforms (rdesktop doesn’t cut it). The list goes on…
<<anonymous – Bert: 4) I feel very comfortable recommending a Mac to anyone who has the need to perform targeted, specialized scientific analysis and prefers/needs to have general use productivity components in one system.
I wouldn’t recommend anything to them because I do NOT know their line of work, what they do, how they use it, how much they use it, blah blah blah. So in the end, whether a scientist studying possible life on Mars uses that $200 PC from Lindows, or that $20,000 workstation from SGI is irrevelant to me. After all, I have no idea what they do.>>
Same rationale as with the unix geek. I would, however, like to modify my statement in that I’m not refering to big $ backed commercial research endeavors but more so for lower budget type settings.
Charles: Almost every porsche made has had great brakes. And the GT-2 can accelerate with the best of them. There are some quick facts……
I didn’t mention brakes because both Macs and PCs can be offed easily…. 🙂
anonymous – Bert: I have no experience with OS9’s interface, however based upon the shared memory model and cooperative multitasking I would be hard pressed to recommend it to anyone.
Puh-leze. For a grandmother, who’s main applications would be Internet Explorer and Outlook Express….. tell me again, why are you hard pressed to recommend it to anyone? It is not like she would be doing AfterEffects rendering or so on.
anonymous – Bert: The ability to run Native MS Office (unfortanetly open office doesn’t cut it in a business context – e.g try editing a complex 200 page RFP with a $10mill contract riding on it – formatting inconsistancies is not an option). The ability to run personal productivity apps (e.g. quicken, i apps). Ability to run professional grade media apps (Adobe’s stuff, MacroMedia’s stuff, etc…) The ability to run X11 apps as well as native apps.
Tell me again, why would a UNIX geek be interested in the above, unless he is an anti-MS kinda guy? He’s job most probably won’t depend on a Office-like app, he probably wouldn’t know a thing about graphics designing, he couldn’t be bothered in iApps, he probably would need Quicken, but as a geek, he would probably be happy with GnuCash or Kapital.
anonymous – Bert: Same rationale as with the unix geek. I would, however, like to modify my statement in that I’m not refering to big $ backed commercial research endeavors but more so for lower budget type settings.
What’s the big difference? They both don’t use English, they both involve long boring processes…. 🙂 If you are a scientist, or know personally a scientist, and you recommend a Mac, I would accept such a recommendation… but…
anonymous – Bert: Again, run the test usage case I gave you, then respond. To answer your question, I’ve used XP extensively.
The background apps run fine in the background. SETI runs fine on Win2k (what I’m currently using), it uses less CPU power has I have more browsers open (currently I have IE, mozilla and Opera open, don’t ask why).
Rajan,
I hope that you are happy with your choice, that is what counts. Regardless of what points are raised your position is unyielding and I’m not here to convince you otherwise.
For others, especially those who are in the process of deciding what platform they want to compute on, I hope that buried within this mess is enough information to help make an informed decision.
Windows have been becoming more and more easier to use. Windows 95 was much more easier to use than Windows 3.1.1. Windows 98 was much more easier than Windows 95. Windows 2000 may be more complicated than Windows 98, but if you are doing basic stuff, it is more easier to use. Windows XP is overall MUCH more easier to use than older versions of Windows.
Linux too on the other hand will get easier to use. And it is. Two years back it takes you days to learn how to install Linux properly. Now, anyone could do it. Two years back KDE and GNOME was so confusing I took 3 months to learn. Right now, they are much easier (though not there).
There’s a lot more to usability than just the GUI. The advantage Macs have for the “I don’t want to know, and I don’t want to bother” user is that the entire system, from the hardware up to the OS and the UI, has been designed with him in mind. Windows and Linux, by comparison, merely slap a GUI on top of a user-unfriendly system.
Just for one example, consider installing and removing programs. On a Mac, a program is represented by one icon. You drag to your hard drive to install; you drag it to the trash to de-install. Installing and removing programs on Linux is only for the expert; no casual user is going to be able to learn about dependencies or compiling from source. Windows isn’t any better. On Windows, an installation changes DLLs and the Registry, and there’s no way of really getting rid of a program. Microsoft’s answer to this problem is the Add/Remove Programs control panel. Apple’s idea of usability is to put the user in charge, without requiring that he have special knowledge. Microsoft’s idea of usability is to put layer after layer of cushion between the user and his machine.
For the nontechnical user, a Macintosh is much more of a “power” machine than a PC, because on the Mac, high-end tools are made accessible for the non-geek, not hidden away from him. I can do things with my Mac that I wouldn’t know how to do with a PC, and I don’t have the time or the interest to learn. In all my years of Mac use, I have never had to call on a more experienced user to help me with installations, trouble-shooting, upgrading hardware or anything. Every sub-geek PC user I know thinks of his computer as a mysterious black box.
The designers of Windows and the various Linux GUIs don’t understand this. They think that GUI design is about prettiness, not function. And as long as they have that attitude, no OS for the PC will have the usability of Macintosh.
bkakes said” Bottom line: given these distinctions, I just don’t understand how anyone can say that a Mac will “last longer” than a PC. It’s in Microsoft’s interest to make Windows XP run well on older PCs, and it’s not in Apple’s interest to make OS X run well on older Macs.”
In the past (pre OS X). Youre mac did last longer. Before Macos X I didn’t need to chance my “Blue and White friend”. The mac I had before this one (4400) still runs Macos 9.0 very well and it isn’t even a G3 model. Has a ppc603e at 200MHz. The comming of Macos X has chanced this.
And even if my PC is faster, I have orderd a new mac. Why, I love the ease of use of the system. I use microsoft windows 2000, even runnig Linux here. And I love it how Apple has combined Unix with Macos.
Joe User:
Few years ago, installing apps on Linux was very hard to do. Now it is much easier. In Windows 3.1.1, installing apps needed an expert, now it is much eaiser to use. if you are here to debate that Mac OS is much easier than Linux nor Windows, I agree fully. Heck, I have repeatly said that a thousand times in threads about Linux GUIs.
Yes, I know that easy to use isn’t just the UI. Many OEMs are making sure that the OS works perfectly with the hardware and the user doesn’t have to do anything to use the computer. Sony is one (and yes, HP, Compaq, Dell aren’t). You are making it sound that it is impossible to integrate Windows and Linux with the hardware.
So, yes, Mac OS is much easier to use. I would love OS X if it came with OS 9’s UI. I love OS 9 UI because it stood out of the way. It was well designed – what could you say from a 16 year old evolution. But yes, Linux and Windows are getting easier to use – and they are.
Besides, Mac OS X’s UI designers also seem to think that prettiness would help the UI. I hate Mac OS X UI. It’s annoying, it gets in your way, it places things in places you wouldn’t guess. But I invite you to compare Windows XP’s UI with Windows 98’s UI. I invite you to compare Red Hat 6.2 with Red Hat 8.0. Things have changed my friend.
Your entire arguement is based around how Linux and Windows’s UI sucks NOW, not how it would be in the future.
I took two months to get used to KDE 1.x
I took a week to get used to KDE 2.x (which was very different)
I took years to get used to Windows 3.1
I took a few months to get used to Windows 95
I took a week to get used to Windows XP
I took a 10 minutes to get used to Mac OS 9
I look an hour to get used to Mac OS X.
Conclusion: Notice that Windows and Linux improved, while Mac OS went a step back… Mac OS 9 is the easiest OS I ever used. Mac OS X tends to get in my way sometimes.
So, Linux and Windows would continue to improve, and hopefully Mac OS X too. Remember, all of the above is how long I got used to it from the minute I first used it. Even though I use OS 9 more than OS X, I got used to it much more faster.
Your entire arguement is based around how Linux and Windows’s UI sucks NOW, not how it would be in the future.
It may well be, but when I talk about future CPUs for the Mac you complain it’s all vapour, isn’t the future of Linux and Windows GUIs also not vapour until they are announced and/or shipped?
>>Besides, Mac OS X’s UI designers also seem to think that prettiness would help the UI. I hate Mac OS X UI. It’s annoying, it gets in your way, it places things in places you wouldn’t guess. But I invite you to compare Windows XP’s UI with Windows 98’s UI. I invite you to compare Red Hat 6.2 with Red Hat 8.0. Things have changed my friend.<<
Yes the Windows UI has improved from the Win95 to WinXP, but it’s still ugly and lacks anything beyond Fisher Price, and though Microsoft has ‘slightly’ improved user-ability… Windows still gets in the way of any real productivity, though I can still get my work done, I like efficiency (something Windows lacks)!
As for Linux, it is improving every release no matter what distribution is out there. The only problem with Linux is the too much option and function available, though you can decide what you install, if you go full install you end up with much more than you can chew. I think the different distributions should look into this problem and cut down on some of the overhead so that Linux doesn’t look complicated, because in the end… it’s not!
Mac OS X… well coming from the Windows world 3 years ago I have to say that my first encounter with Mac OS in general was a culture shock (at first). A friend of mine introduced me to the Mac and said that I should consider going that route for my next purchase. So I had a play with his machine and I seem to have found something that fit me perfectly! After getting the Windows way of doing things out of my system, I became very comfortable with Mac OS in less than 3 months (and I mean where I knew everything like the back of my hand sort of thing). When Mac OS X was first being introduced (just screenshots and before beta) I hated the way it looked and I (at first) refused to upgrade. Then the ‘Public Beta’ came out and so I decided what the helk I’ll give it a run and throw my complaints at Apple. To be honest, I think the only thing that I was really sold on Mac OS X was that it was Unix (or Unix based) under the hood, which I liked very much. So I played with the Public Beta of Mac OS X for a few months and sending feedback to Apple relating to speed issues, UI issues, stability issues and what I would like to see… actually I can admit that I told Apple that I thought BeOS had the most efficient UI design ever and why should I adopt Mac OS X over BeOS?! Well then Mac OS X 10.0 was released, so I bought my copy and I learned Mac OS X in less than a week (don’t forget that the Public Beta was different on various UI stuff)! I still kept reverting back to Mac OS 9 because Mac OS X 10.0 was slow on my machine (iMac G3) and the lack of native applications, which except for what Apple shipped with OS X and AppleWorks and REALbasic being carbonized, I didn’t have anything that run on OS X. So I stuck with OS 9 throughout the summer until 10.1 was released. Definitely a speed boost where it was tolerable, and compared to the crappy PCs running WinNT/2k at work (SLOW), I could easily live with the performance, though Mac OS 9 screamed on the same machine, much like BeOS did on those crappy PCs at work!
All in all I think that Mac OS has evolved quite nicely and I find it hard to revert back to Classic now. I did download Netscape 4.8 for Classic to update from 4.78, so that was probably the first time in awhile that I have messed with OS 9. I will adopt Mac OS X ‘Jaguar’ (10.2) as well and I hope it serves me better than 10.1!
I figured Eugenia wouldn’t post this story, so here you go folks;
http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,104075,00.asp
This should make the AMD advocates very happy 🙂
This should make the AMD advocates very happy 🙂
Not too happy, If I’m not mistaken AMD is one of the copanies being sued!
>>Not too happy, If I’m not mistaken AMD is one of the copanies being sued!<<
Nic,
I’ll give you a call very soon, my girlfriend went back to the US last Wednesday, so I am freebird once again ha ha 🙂
I believe you mentioned somewhere in this thread that your experience with OS X is limited to some playing around with it in a store. Forgive me if I don’t take your views on OS X’s usability as the final word.
Your argument, it seems to me, is simply the latest in the series of myths by which the pro-PC crowd has tried to minimize the advantages of the Macintosh interface. In the MS-DOS days, people would argue that GUIs were toys not meant for serious work. From Windows 3.1 on, people would say that Windows was as good a GUI as Macintosh. Now you’re arguing that OS X is a step back while Windows and Linux are moving ahead. Does anyone argue the first two points anymore? And is your argument any more convincing?
My experience with OS X — which, perhaps, is more extensive than yours — is that the UI is a great improvement over OS 9’s. (And I’ve been using Macs since System 6, so I think I’ve got enough knowledge to compare.) Windows and Linux are still lagging behind. Windows approach is still to insulate the user even more from the computer. Windows XP doesn’t even want you to see the contents of your hard drive, for Pete’s sake! Linux developers are only beginning to consider usability issues, and they frequently think that a pretty interface is more important than a pretty one.
I know people think that OS X is guilty of the same crime, but I don’t think they realize that every bit of color and animation in OS X gives useful information to the user.
I cheerfully plead guilty to not considering what wonders Microsoft and the open-source community will provide in the future. I don’t have your powers of prescience. But from what I can foresee, usability on the PC still consists, and for the immediate future will continue to consist, of applying window-dressing on the system after the fact, while Apple alone designs entire systems designed for the convenience of the user.
I find it rather ridiculous to say that Windows “does not have any real productivity.” I have written two Master’s theses using Windows. Every day I can do whatever I need to do easily on my PCs. My wife never ever complained about lost productivity on her PC. So I don’t know what you do that makes you have no “real productivity” on your PC – if you have one, that is.
Another funny thing is that Mac users complained **SO** much about Mac OS X’s user interface. Now, about a year later, everything seems to be fine. The dock is great, Aqua is great – life is wonderful. I’d say that you just got used to the new user interface and whether it is “better” than the old one or makes you more productive is not important any more.
I don’t feel the need to bash Macs. They are interesting machines. So please stop bashing PCs. Windows has come a long way and is very easy to use. Some people use more than one OS as well, there is no need to make one look better than the other.
I think you dont see why Mac people start to bask Wintel. They do it because of what wintel people say about what they use. In effect insulting people for just using a mac. So they are defending themselves.
To me, it is not what is better on paper, but what is better for you. I go back to my tool comments earlier.
Of cause it’s slow, and it will never get faster, for the reason that:<p>
1) it’s based on UNIX, which is by all means is slow from the very kernel, and if you don’t see much free memory on your machine, that’s all the UNIX’s fault.
<p>
2) it only using more and more graphics then ever before that slows down the system even more..
From what I understand the Unix is a good Kernal. If I heard right, if freeBSD was around Linux might not have been developed? And if it was that slow, why do servers still use it?
It may well be, but when I talk about future CPUs for the Mac you complain it’s all vapour, isn’t the future of Linux and Windows GUIs also not vapour until they are announced and/or shipped?
Well, did Apple announce what their new processors would be? From GNOME’s and KDE’s usablity discussions (debates and quarrels, as well as some mud wrestling) and those little sneek peaks at “The Windows Version Between Windows XP and Longhorn”….
(Besides, Joe User’s rebutt was not that the UI was vapourware, but how the UI sucks now).
CattBeMac: Yes the Windows UI has improved from the Win95 to WinXP, but it’s still ugly and lacks anything beyond Fisher Price, and though Microsoft has ‘slightly’ improved user-ability…
Slightly? All, and again, ALL the people I know that switch from a previous version of Windows to Windows XP find the new UI much more productive. Sure, most of them complained about the new UI at first – simply because it is DIFFERENT. For me, I’m more productive on Windows XP than on Windows 2000.
And also, if we are talking about Fisher Price, you, a Mac OS X user, should know that the OS you use (at least till 10.1) place good looks over usablity. At least in Jaguar some of the things are fixed (like the menus being more apaque, the buttons more flatter.
CattBeMac: As for Linux, it is improving every release no matter what distribution is out there. The only problem with Linux is the too much option and function available, though you can decide what you install, if you go full install you end up with much more than you can chew.
This is the same problem with BSD. I see it is not limiting Mac OS X. The problem with the major distributions now is that they bundle everything with their distribution. But notice that the major distribution are either stoping this or moving away from the desktop. New distros like Lycoris, ELX blah blah don’t give 5 editors, 6 terminals, 2 office suites, etc. – but they choose what they think is the best and bundle it.
I think the problem now is standards. Distribution standards are getting less and less of a problem. Sure, it takes time, but it is moving in the right direction. Desktop standards too is moving in the right direction as KDE and GNOME is collabrating more and more on standards.
CattBeMac: Definitely a speed boost where it was tolerable, and compared to the crappy PCs running WinNT/2k at work (SLOW),
Well, just imagine if they were running Windows 9x…. even more slower. Besides, how old are the PCs compared to your Mac?
CattBeMac: This should make the AMD advocates very happy 🙂
Nah, just a bunch of people sore that they didn’t check out the benchmarks before buying. Besides, Intel didn’t advertise P4 to be faster than PIII or even Athlon. Maybe HP, but Intel? Also, P4’s speed woes in the beginning (it was a flop) are dead…
Joe User: Not too happy, If I’m not mistaken AMD is one of the copanies being sued!
AMD is not the company being sued. The first defendant is Intel. The complaint was that they advertise P4 to be faster than PIII and Athlon.
Joe User: I believe you mentioned somewhere in this thread that your experience with OS X is limited to some playing around with it in a store. Forgive me if I don’t take your views on OS X’s usability as the final word.
My experience with OS 9 in also limited to the stores, and I think it is the best god damn interface I ever used. Like I said, I got used to Mac OS 9 in less than 10 minutes, but for OS X, it is an hour.
But if you look at the numbers above, you noticed that Mac OS X is still the second best, and Mac OS X’s interface is improving a lot every major release (compare 10.0 with 10.1 with 10.2, and see the difference).
Joe User: Your argument, it seems to me, is simply the latest in the series of myths by which the pro-PC crowd has tried to minimize the advantages of the Macintosh interface.
I NEVER said the Mac UI is less better than the PC UI. You are putting words in my mouth. I said that OS X’s UI is worse than OS 9 UI. Sure, OS X looks pretty to some, but prettiness to me is nothing – unless it is too ugly I couldn’t use it without puking.
Joe User: My experience with OS X — which, perhaps, is more extensive than yours — is that the UI is a great improvement over OS 9’s.
Perhaps then explain how I could use a completely alien UI (OS 9) faster than OS X? I’m stating my experience. I’m not saying it is everyone’s experience.
Joe User: Windows XP doesn’t even want you to see the contents of your hard drive, for Pete’s sake!
When you reach C:/, just click on show contents of your hardware. Besides, an Average Joe probably wouldn’t need to go though the hard drive. To go to shared files, there is Shared Documents. If you want your own stuff, there is My Documents.
Joe User: I know people think that OS X is guilty of the same crime, but I don’t think they realize that every bit of color and animation in OS X gives useful information to the user.
How does the genie effect help the user? How does the semi transperant menus help the user? How does the almost round buttons help the users?
There is some parts of Windows XP’s UI that I think is useless and only eye candy, like the shadow under the text on the desktop. (They could have an option to disable the shadow and use a highlight..).
Joe User: while Apple alone designs entire systems designed for the convenience of the user.
To me, OS X is a cross between NeXTSTEP and Platinum – completely different UIs. Jobs fired most people on the usablity team, remember? ( http://old.osnews.com/archive/news/sept97.html ).
Georgiy: 1) it’s based on UNIX, which is by all means is slow from the very kernel, and if you don’t see much free memory on your machine, that’s all the UNIX’s fault.
UNIX isn’t slow. Mach may be slow, but it isn’t the cause for the sluggishness. The reason is Quartz – it is way ahead of its time.
Joe User wrote;
“It may well be, but when I talk about future CPUs for the Mac you complain it’s all vapour, isn’t the future of Linux and Windows GUIs also not vapour until they are announced and/or shipped?”
rajan r wrote in return;
“Well, did Apple announce what their new processors would be? From GNOME’s and KDE’s usablity discussions (debates and quarrels, as well as some mud wrestling) and those little sneek peaks at “The Windows Version Between Windows XP and Longhorn”….”
Actually Joe User does have a point, most PC advocates will indulge in vapour if it’s to their advantage, AMD’s Hammer being an example for the longest time, though it’s more reality now, at the time of the G5 rumors (which was circulating around the same time as Hammer) PC folks were screaming AMD Hammer, but dismissing the G5, well guess what … they both exist, though Apple has not adopted the G5 from Motorola since there is no proper desktop CPU derivative implemented yet (and probably never will be… can you say “IBM in da house”!?)!
>>Slightly? All, and again, ALL the people I know that switch from a previous version of Windows to Windows XP find the new UI much more productive. Sure, most of them complained about the new UI at first – simply because it is DIFFERENT. For me, I’m more productive on Windows XP than on Windows 2000.<<
I have worked with Windows since 3.1 and though Win95 was a huge leap from 3.1, I have not found much improvement overall to XP from Win2k, other than a better face, better networking and more stability (though one can argue that Win2k is more stable)!
>>And also, if we are talking about Fisher Price, you, a Mac OS X user, should know that the OS you use (at least till 10.1) place good looks over usablity. At least in Jaguar some of the things are fixed (like the menus being more apaque, the buttons more flatter.<<
I will agree with you there… before 10.1, eye candy seemed to be the only thing that the Mac OS X GUI could achieve, other than the ‘Dock’ was a nice addition… but since 10.1, I have to say the functionality has improved very much, especially with the BeOS like functionality that they added in places!
>>Well, just imagine if they were running Windows 9x…. even more slower. Besides, how old are the PCs compared to your Mac?<<
Not much older I’m afraid (maybe a year older than my Mac at most)!
>>Nah, just a bunch of people sore that they didn’t check out the benchmarks before buying. Besides, Intel didn’t advertise P4 to be faster than PIII or even Athlon. Maybe HP, but Intel? Also, P4’s speed woes in the beginning (it was a flop) are dead…<<
Actually Intel did indeed announced and marketed that the Penium 4 would be faster than the Pentium III and that is why they went through an embarrassment November of 2000 with the press because Tech sites were reporting everywhere that the P4 was in fact slower than the PIII, it’s only advantage was that of better memory architecture. I remember this like it was yesterday, which this helped boost AMD and the K7 Athlon into stardom!
>>My experience with OS 9 in also limited to the stores, and I think it is the best god damn interface I ever used. Like I said, I got used to Mac OS 9 in less than 10 minutes, but for OS X, it is an hour.<<
There is not a lot too Mac OS 9 (and those before it), so for you that might be the case, but for full fledged Mac users, Mac OS X is an easy step up… I should know, I made that slippery step!
To say that Unix is slow is the same as saying that GM cars are slow. There are many different kinds of Unix kernels out there. And to make things more complicated there are things like the Linux and Mach kernels that aren’t Unix at all. Some may look like Unix, some are totally different.
Mac OS X has many speed problems. That’s why the Mach kernel is not a microkernel in the strict sense. It is heavily modified. All the graphic stuff is also not helping. Every little thing in OS X needs more processing power than most other OSs: Genie effect, bouncing icons, high-res and high-colour icons, translucency effects all over the place, throbbing buttons, and so on.
And to say that Wintel people bash Mac user is ridiculous as well. Most people couldn’t care less. It is always a vocal minority. Anyway, this thread gets boring because of so much misinformation out there.
CattBeMac wrote:Joe User wrote:”It may well be, but when I talk about future CPUs for the Mac you complain it’s all vapour, isn’t the future of Linux and Windows GUIs also not vapour until they are announced and/or shipped?”
I didn’t write this; Nicholas Blachford did. (See above.)
rajan r wrote: I NEVER said the Mac UI is less better than the PC UI. You are putting words in my mouth. I said that OS X’s UI is worse than OS 9 UI.
My point was that for years, people have been saying “Well, at one time the Mac interface might have been better than PCs, but now there’s little difference between them.” You’re arguing essentially the same thing. The only novelty in your argument is that you’re not just saying Windows has gotten better, you’re saying that the Mac interface is degenerating — and I disagree.
(It’s interesting that Windows is always just now arriving at “Mac-like” usability, no matter how many versions come out. It’s even more interesting how many PC users have suddenly become converts to the “Classic Macintosh interface” and compare OS X unfavorably to it.”
How does the genie effect help the user? How does the semi transperant menus help the user? How does the almost round buttons help the users?
The genie effect shows where a minimized window went. Microsoft used this to great effect in Office X, where closing the formatting palette makes it genie-effect into the button that makes it reappear, clearly signalling where the button is. Previously, users would close the formatting palette and not know how to bring it back. Transparency, used consistently throughout the interface, allows you to see what’s going on behind menus and dialog sheets (useful when you need to provide information in a dialog sheet). Round buttons look nice, and how are square ones more usable?