[prev] [thread] [next] [lurker] [Date index for 2003/09/09]
> At 17:22 -0500 2003.09.08, Peter da Silva wrote: > >What I'm getting at is this like the graphics, or memory protection, or > >> >I occasionally see "significant system slowdown" in OS X myself. I've come > >> >to an accomodation with it... but in terms of accomodation this is like > >> >comparing a sore finger with multiple amputations. > >> No. You keep talking about Mac OS as though extension conflicts and > >> running a lot of background junk is how it was meant to be. > >Why shouldn't you be able to "run a lot of background junk"? > Why should you have a third arm? I don't have a third arm, but I had a fourth leg and a third lobe to my brain. And I miss my extra legs, and I'd really be ticked off if someone took my Visor Prism. > No, you didn't. This is what was said: Beg pardon, I guess that's your shoe after all. > No, these "problems" *actually, simply, didn't matter*. I got used to driving to work. > >On Mac OS, several times the Finder stopped responding while it > >deleted files, copied files, detected and displayed the CD, emptied > >the trash, and ejected the CD. On Mac OS X most if not all of those > >pauses, which added about a minute and a half to the whole process, > >didn't happen. > My Mac OS computer experienced no such pauses running Mac OS, except for > when it was broken or wasn't being maintained properly (IOW, I haven't had > such problems on Mac OS in many years). *shrug* I wish I had a dual-G4/1.4, or whetever it is that you've got that makes the pauses short enough that they're unnoticable. But I only have a G3/400, and if I insert a CD and then double-click on a folder, that folder doesn't open until it's got the CD icon up on the desk. Similarly, it won't empty the trash until it's finished ejecting the CD. Copying hundreds of megabytes takes time, and so on. And Finder is single threaded, apparently. It won't do any of that in the background like OS X does. So the score here? OS X takes a couple extra seconds to render the windows in True Quartz glory, but I don't have to wait for it to actually do its thing. For this operation, OS X is faster. On the other hand, installing OS X 10.1 on a 7600 took 10 hours, because it took half a minute per *menu* to render and display.There's stuff above here
Generated at 14:02 on 01 Jul 2004 by mariachi 0.52