On 22/12/2003, at 11:08 PM, Peter da Silva wrote:
Radeon is classic example - yes it improves video performance but not to a level where 10.2 or higher are (in my opinion) usable in a seriously normal work flow (flame away).
On the other hand, I really disagree that Jaguar is any "less usable" on
this hardware than 10.1. If anything it's been better than 10.1 ever was,
and apart from games it's been much better for me than OS 9 on the same
hardware. Yes, it needs more base memory, and the applications are far
larger and more disk-intensive, but I was never comfortable with any of
the pre-X operating systems: that whole "whoops, the Mighty Apple is doing
Something Important, hold on there and let the Mighty Apple work" breakdown
you get every time the great multitasking charade gets out of step, or some
application decides it's time to grab the whole UI for its Important
Dialog Box, just drove me nuts.
Sorry this was badly worded - yes I agree that Jaguar (not tried Panther on 9600) is a better proposition than 10.1 - It should have been 10.x As I said this is in my opinion. As a parallel I have and O'clocked B&W G3 running at 450 at work and I also believe this to be not snappy enough for X in a capacity more than basic work -true it only has 352 MB RAM so that is an issue.
As others have pointed out, the major bottle neck lies with M/board and RAM performance - the machines just cannot throughput the volumes of data that X generates fast enough to remain as snappy as OS 9 in a situation where you have multiple apps running there fore adding to the system heap and RAM usage.
Yeah multitasking / threading etc does help but at the expense of overall speed. And as you imply we are all spoilt for speed. The real question is are we really doing any more today than we were with system 6.0.8 (very stable and very fast) on a 68030 with only 20 MB RAM and if you were lucky 105 MB HD? I suggest that we are not more productive it's just we have prettier (perhaps more complex) things that we have done. You can draw a similar analology to the web - with DSL and cable etc in a few (if not less) years the web won't be any faster than 56K as the volumes we are forced to download will be so much higher due to eye candy (flash, Real, SVG, etc, etc)
I was going to post something about "kids today" being spoiled by faster
processors and disks and back in the old days we had to drive our 40 MHz
Sun Workstations to school, uphill both ways through the snow, but it seems
I've been spoiled too... and if it wasn't for XPostFacto making it possible
to run OS X on this old frankenputer I think I'd have given up on Apple
again.
I think I can still find an SE30, had to part with IIci recently to so 40mhz is fast....
-- Unsupported OS X is sponsored by <http://lowendmac.com/>
Support Low End Mac <http://lowendmac.com/lists/support.html>
Unsupported OS X list info <http://lowendmac.com/lists/unsupported.html> --> AOL users, remove "mailto:"; Send list messages to: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For digest mode, email: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subscription questions: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Archive <http://www.mail-archive.com/unsupportedosx%40mail.maclaunch.com/>
Using a Mac? Free email & more at Applelinks! http://www.applelinks.com
