Your overall point is true, but Leopard was slower than Tiger.
Exposé, Spaces and the Spotlight improvements in Leopard
put some overhead on the OS. Still, it's quite a record,
10.0 -> 10.1-> 10.2-> 10.3-> 10.4, each with more features
but also faster than their predecessor, then a slowdown
in the 10.4 -> 10.5 transition, but again speed improvements
going 10.5 -> 10.6. And there are architectures in place that
guarantee more speed in the future. It's especially striking that
Apple did this while keeping excellent OS 9 compatibility
(with Classic and Rosetta) for as long as they did (Rosetta
compatibility is ongoing), while also switching processors.
To tie into another thread, Apple couldn't have done all this
nearly as well if they didn't have complete control over their
hardware, which is probably a major reason that they are
fighting so hard to keep this control.
Apple is the best example, but not the only one. Linux has
shown dramatic feature improvements, and it is not uncommon
for a release to be faster than its predecessor.
From: tjpa <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Real Windows 7 Reviews Start to Appear
On Nov 3, 2009, at 1:39 PM, John Emmerling wrote:
This is arguably irrelevant. How many years ago was XP released?
You can
reasonably expect a version of any operation system from that far
back in
history to run faster than the latest version because the latest
version
assumes up-to-date hardware.
Not true. Newer releases of Mac OS X run much faster than earlier
versions. Especially true of the latest version.
You M$ bias is showing.
*************************************************************************
** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy **
** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ **
*************************************************************************
