10.1.3 now avalable via software update
- Thread starter Ralph J.
- Start date
julguribye
Registered
to be honest, i didn't notice a thing...the screen wasn't even set to thousands. this has to be the most minimal update Apple has ever relased to osx (not due to the filesize though)
edX
mac shaman
ken, I think you have a good point about the rebooting thing. I tend to notice a temporary acceleration whenever I do it. Although the huge speed differences that osx exhibited after os 9.2.2 came out and then 10.1 was very real !!
I have noticed all my browsers being a little less stable after this update and expect to see lots of little updates to these and other programs over the the next few weeks. It should be some fun days ahead.
what i am really wondering is if apple did enough with this issue for some of the 3rd parties that have been promising osx compatibility to finally deliver.
I have noticed all my browsers being a little less stable after this update and expect to see lots of little updates to these and other programs over the the next few weeks. It should be some fun days ahead.
what i am really wondering is if apple did enough with this issue for some of the 3rd parties that have been promising osx compatibility to finally deliver.
I notice no changes on iMac DV 400. Will update tomorrow at work on DP G4 1 gig. I'm not expecting much.
I continue to be sorely disappointed in OS X's graphics layer. I'm beating a dead horse, but it's a joke. Calling it slow is being generous. I am fortunate enough to have the best machine Apple makes and IE, AI10, InDesign 2...make it every program in X runs like crap in terms of window resizing, zooming and grabber hand moving to name a few.
Apple had better freaking get this fixed, it's embarassing. I am very seriously thinking of going back to OS 9 because of this nonsense. And please, those of you you post replies about how it seems perfectly acceptable to you clearly aren't doing much production work where you need every ounce of speed you can get. I am dumbfounded by how people can continue to defend backward progress.
Maybe in six months or a year when Apple fixes this crap subsystem I will be converted, but until then it is poor, poor, poor.
I would accept in the short term the non-live window resize (outline instead of actual content), but that's not a user selectable option.
Argh! (in pirate voice)
Here's a challenge, can anyone name me one single app that runs faster in X? I can't think of one and I've got a bunch of em.
-----------------
Note that there is hope. Final Cut runs like a dream. Everything about it is pleasantly snappy and rendering smokes. Very nice. Windows manipulation very fast also. There is hope.
Also, games on the new DP with the GeForce card run great. It CAN be done!
I continue to be sorely disappointed in OS X's graphics layer. I'm beating a dead horse, but it's a joke. Calling it slow is being generous. I am fortunate enough to have the best machine Apple makes and IE, AI10, InDesign 2...make it every program in X runs like crap in terms of window resizing, zooming and grabber hand moving to name a few.
Apple had better freaking get this fixed, it's embarassing. I am very seriously thinking of going back to OS 9 because of this nonsense. And please, those of you you post replies about how it seems perfectly acceptable to you clearly aren't doing much production work where you need every ounce of speed you can get. I am dumbfounded by how people can continue to defend backward progress.
Maybe in six months or a year when Apple fixes this crap subsystem I will be converted, but until then it is poor, poor, poor.
I would accept in the short term the non-live window resize (outline instead of actual content), but that's not a user selectable option.
Argh! (in pirate voice)
Here's a challenge, can anyone name me one single app that runs faster in X? I can't think of one and I've got a bunch of em.
-----------------
Note that there is hope. Final Cut runs like a dream. Everything about it is pleasantly snappy and rendering smokes. Very nice. Windows manipulation very fast also. There is hope.
Also, games on the new DP with the GeForce card run great. It CAN be done!
edX
mac shaman
yes it can. so why do you continue to harp on this as apple's fault when it seems apparent that the problem lies in the talents of the developers? Just because microsoft doesn't make a browser that is worth having is not Apple's fault!!
one thing that is far better in osx - firewire devices. they load quicker and work smoother. This may not be an app per se, but it certainly effects the way some apps work. and makes running apps off an external hd a nice reality. I really can't tell the difference from my internal hd. and it isn't like that in os 9.
I keep harping cuz I just dropped $3000 for suck-ass Quartz speed, that's why! And as for Apple's responsibility vs. the developers' responsibility, something tells me something is very wrong when not a single developer (Adobe, MYOB, Macromedia, Microsoft, Corel, Omnigroup, etc.) can make an X app that seems to run crisply. (Reminder:I'm ONLY talking about the graphics layer, not launch speed, rendering, calculations, etc.).
Firewire is great, you're right, I love it in X. Almost instant mounting is awesome! And very fast transfer speeds. Nice. Here's other stuff I love about X:
"smarter" app launching via extensions
built in server
it looks awesome
much better navigation options (now give my damn spring loaded folders back plz!)
dock is very efficient
Apple's software lineup is very well integrated
process killer, though I should'nt ever have to use it
it's just "cleaner"
easier to get where I need to, things are more logically placed
I can finally have multiple network protocols at once
auto-launching apps like dvd player, itunes, photo capture, etc.--smooth
But here's another thing slower in X that is all Apple's fault, network access. It takes me about half a minute to get fully mounted on our Win2K server including Command+K to bring up connection window, then login, then mount. OS 9 does this all in like 3 seconds. Lame. I thought X was supposed to be a network OS! Fortunately, the more important part, network transfer speeds are great. I can get slightly faster speeds (10%+-) from OS X than from our PC laptop connecting to the Win2K server.
I know my words sound harsher here in print, as all tongue-in-cheek and subtle sarcasm can be misconstrued for simple rudeness, but my point still remains. Until someone shows me an app that runs as well or better in X in the graphics layer, I will continue to harp on this. Non X users deserve to know the weakness of this otherwise great OS. Also, I want to keep the pressure on Apple in case any of them are watching.
And as for Apple's responsibility vs. the developers' responsibility, something tells me something is very wrong when not a single developer (Adobe, MYOB, Macromedia, Microsoft, Corel, Omnigroup, etc.) can make an X app that seems to run crisply. (Reminder:I'm ONLY talking about the graphics layer, not launch speed, rendering, calculations, etc.). Firewire is great, you're right, I love it in X. Almost instant mounting is awesome! And very fast transfer speeds. Nice. Here's other stuff I love about X:
"smarter" app launching via extensions
built in server
it looks awesome
much better navigation options (now give my damn spring loaded folders back plz!)
dock is very efficient
Apple's software lineup is very well integrated
process killer, though I should'nt ever have to use it
it's just "cleaner"
easier to get where I need to, things are more logically placed
I can finally have multiple network protocols at once
auto-launching apps like dvd player, itunes, photo capture, etc.--smooth
But here's another thing slower in X that is all Apple's fault, network access. It takes me about half a minute to get fully mounted on our Win2K server including Command+K to bring up connection window, then login, then mount. OS 9 does this all in like 3 seconds. Lame. I thought X was supposed to be a network OS! Fortunately, the more important part, network transfer speeds are great. I can get slightly faster speeds (10%+-) from OS X than from our PC laptop connecting to the Win2K server.
I know my words sound harsher here in print, as all tongue-in-cheek and subtle sarcasm can be misconstrued for simple rudeness, but my point still remains. Until someone shows me an app that runs as well or better in X in the graphics layer, I will continue to harp on this. Non X users deserve to know the weakness of this otherwise great OS. Also, I want to keep the pressure on Apple in case any of them are watching.
hazmat
Rusher of Din
Good point, Ed. More and more I am demanding Cocoa apps for my own use. In almost every way they are smoother and better than the cluster fuck that the majority of Carbon apps seem to be.
OS 9 may be faster in a lot of ways, but I am still really happy with OS X. Coming from a UNIX and NT background, I still find OS 9 one of the most pathetic OS's I have ever used.
hazmat
I am not very network literate, could you briefly explain what SMB is and maybe how I can use it to log on to our Win2K server?
Would this help the fact that I can't use long file names via X on the server?
Is this something that has to be set up on the server or on my Mac? Both?
Thanks!
I am not very network literate, could you briefly explain what SMB is and maybe how I can use it to log on to our Win2K server?
Would this help the fact that I can't use long file names via X on the server?
Is this something that has to be set up on the server or on my Mac? Both?
Thanks!
hazmat
you mention cocoa apps being better. i don't necessarily dispute this, but where are they? what are you using that is so great? seriously, not being a smartass.
Omniweb is still apiece of junk, albeit a very nice looking piece of junk (piece of junk is here on out defined as "suck ass slow graphically").
Apple's own flagship products aren't cocoaized AFAIK. Actually, I'm only speaking of FCP, I really don't know about the rest. Is Appleworks, iTunes, QT, iDVD, etc. cocoaized?
I'm just looking for examples so I can see if and where this Quartz thing has any hope.
you mention cocoa apps being better. i don't necessarily dispute this, but where are they? what are you using that is so great? seriously, not being a smartass.
Omniweb is still apiece of junk, albeit a very nice looking piece of junk (piece of junk is here on out defined as "suck ass slow graphically").
Apple's own flagship products aren't cocoaized AFAIK. Actually, I'm only speaking of FCP, I really don't know about the rest. Is Appleworks, iTunes, QT, iDVD, etc. cocoaized?
I'm just looking for examples so I can see if and where this Quartz thing has any hope.
edX
mac shaman
mindbend - i have to say i don't know about big professional graphics programs. I still think it must have something to do with the developers and lack of really understanding how osx works yet.
for an example of how graphics can work differently let me use my browser of choice these days - icab.
if you download icab and run it 'right out of the box' you are going to see a mess. it is slow, sloppy and not very visually appealling. But if you start by unchecking css2 in the prefs it goes faster and renders better. Then hunt around their web site by going to dwonloads and then in small print in the menu frame there is an option to get alternate icon sets. Download a bunch of them. and play around with the different ones. some slow the thing down to a crawl. I found one that puts lightening into it. I can't remember which one but i think it was a multicolored aqua theme. I can take a grab and post if you really want to try this.
the point being, that just the different icons effected the speed of the browser. such a little thing and such a big difference. I get speeds with my imac 400 and my icab that are close to macs with twice the mhz and mozilla - another good example of trimmed graphics speed i have heard.
I have also found that most apps prefs are set to some lowly common denominator to make sure that everyone who switches from windows can make them work or something. playing with prefs can often put some zip back into your apps.
and while i don't know your habits, i also find it useful to remind folks to do a defragmentation and optimization regularly. people seem to think that osx doesn't need it, but i can see a big difference everytime i do it. I would think that big graphics files use lots of temp files which are big offenders in the fragmentation dept. you might want to think about that as well.
for an example of how graphics can work differently let me use my browser of choice these days - icab.
if you download icab and run it 'right out of the box' you are going to see a mess. it is slow, sloppy and not very visually appealling. But if you start by unchecking css2 in the prefs it goes faster and renders better. Then hunt around their web site by going to dwonloads and then in small print in the menu frame there is an option to get alternate icon sets. Download a bunch of them. and play around with the different ones. some slow the thing down to a crawl. I found one that puts lightening into it. I can't remember which one but i think it was a multicolored aqua theme. I can take a grab and post if you really want to try this.
the point being, that just the different icons effected the speed of the browser. such a little thing and such a big difference. I get speeds with my imac 400 and my icab that are close to macs with twice the mhz and mozilla - another good example of trimmed graphics speed i have heard.
I have also found that most apps prefs are set to some lowly common denominator to make sure that everyone who switches from windows can make them work or something. playing with prefs can often put some zip back into your apps.
and while i don't know your habits, i also find it useful to remind folks to do a defragmentation and optimization regularly. people seem to think that osx doesn't need it, but i can see a big difference everytime i do it. I would think that big graphics files use lots of temp files which are big offenders in the fragmentation dept. you might want to think about that as well.
hazmat
Rusher of Din
I know there have been other threads about this before, but I don't feel like searching for them.
SMB (Server Memory Block - I think), is the standard protocol for file sharing on Windows machines. Samba is an open source version of SMB. I installed it on a Sun at my old job. OS X includes it; in fact, I think 10.0 didn't even have Appletalk, just SMB? I believe that DAVE is SMB for the Mac. So, to connect to a Windows share, you don't need Appletalk at all. The syntax is something like smb://hostname/share_name . Or replace hostname with IP. Works great right out of the box. It's been a while, but IIRC, SMB seems to have some limitation on filename sizes, at last I think it's SMB. I think I ended up FTPing the files to not have the name truncated. Also, I learned here later on that it is a on-way thing; client only. If you want to share via SMB, you need Samba or the like. I believe there is a version specifically for OS X.Hope this helps....
hazmat
Rusher of Din
The Cocoa apps I am using are Adium, Omniweb (sometimes - the 4.1 beta is really good, but not there yet), Mail, TextEdit, and more that I can't think of at the moment. I think iDVD 2 might be. The following is from my limited knowledge of programming, which is very limited. Basically Cocoa, taken from NeXT, has a lot more included in the API, where in Carbon there is simply guidelines, which most developers seem to ignore, making things a mess. In Cocoa apps, there are things you can count on to be there all the time, since it's built-in. The one example I always use is keystrokes. Shooting the insert point to the beginning or end of the line, etc. IF it exists in Carbon apps, it's totally not consistent. These are included with Cocoa, and any Unix person will appreciate them. The Emacs commands on shell command lines. Coming from Unix and Windows, I find it very difficult to move around in non-Cocoa apps' text fields. The OS X Missing Manual has 6 pages on why Cocoa is so great.
Anyway, to me they just seem to work better overall. Might just be subjective.
It's not that easy. Basically they're just very, very different. Cocoa stems from NeXT/OpenStep (later 'yellow box') and Carbon is a slimmed down version of the Classic Mac OS APIs.
According to several developers the goals you can achieve are very much the same. The difference lies in the approach. Coding something completely from scratch? -> Cocoa. It's much easier and faster. Switching a project from Classic Mac OS to Mac OS X? -> Carbon.
The goal is of course having all apps as Cocoa apps.
Lately the Apple HI Devs Mailing list has been talking about how many 'old' Mac developers are not used to the graphics model of Mac OS X yet and how they tend to do 'too much', so the computer has to draw things two or three times instead of once. Quartz is layer-based. I guess Cocoa devs are used to this (or more used to this) coming from NeXT or OpenStep.
According to several developers the goals you can achieve are very much the same. The difference lies in the approach. Coding something completely from scratch? -> Cocoa. It's much easier and faster. Switching a project from Classic Mac OS to Mac OS X? -> Carbon.
The goal is of course having all apps as Cocoa apps.
Lately the Apple HI Devs Mailing list has been talking about how many 'old' Mac developers are not used to the graphics model of Mac OS X yet and how they tend to do 'too much', so the computer has to draw things two or three times instead of once. Quartz is layer-based. I guess Cocoa devs are used to this (or more used to this) coming from NeXT or OpenStep.
homer
Safety Inspector
SMB = Server Message Block. And configuring Samba server for X so that my PC can talk to my Mac has been nothing but a huge pain. But then, I'm not too up on the Unix file permissions business, so maybe that's my problem--but shouldn't that be built into the Samba config tool? Anyhoo, it would make my day if Apple would put an easy-to-use SMB server into 10.2.