Wayne's Experience with Mac OS X Tiger - Page 2

waynejkruse10 · 03-24-2006, 03:44 PM

having no sse2 might be a harder problem than you expect.

Sevoma · 03-26-2006, 11:51 AM

You can run it without sse3 with a kernel patch but without sse2... I don't know if it is possible.

horndude · 03-26-2006, 11:15 PM

actually windows has snappier behavior than OS X, windows open and close quicker

OS X needs even more RAM than windows to get the snappy feel that windows has, even then it isnt as fast

OS X doesnt behave nearly as I/O bound as windows gets sometimes though, have no clue why, only thing I can figure is it balances loads better........linux does this too and makes windows look silly under heavy loads

OS X also doesnt seem to load up its RAM as bad as windows does with a bunch of apps open, you close out an app in OS X and its gone, do this in windows and there's often lots of page file activity for a few seconds

its a tradeoff like anything else

OS X would be an amazing beast of an OS if theye hadnt used that mach3 microkernel and didnt have quite so many layers in the graphics API's methinks.

mac_mogul · 03-27-2006, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by horndude
actually windows has snappier behavior than OS X, windows open and close quicker

I disagree. When I'm at work using WinXP, if I go to close a window while I'm working in another application, I can click X and still wait several seconds before it actually closes. The same thing happens when I try to minimize a window.

Quote:

OS X needs even more RAM than windows to get the snappy feel that windows has, even then it isnt as fast

I disagree again. I've used a G3 iBook with 256mb RAM running Tiger and everything works just as fast if not faster than my beasty G4 iBook with 1.25gb RAM running Panther.

Quote:

OS X doesnt behave nearly as I/O bound as windows gets sometimes though, have no clue why, only thing I can figure is it balances loads better........linux does this too and makes windows look silly under heavy loads.

Windows looks silly all the time

You're right. In a way it is a kind of trade-off. But overall, OS X is a MUCH better operating system than Windows. Windows has just always been such a n00bie system. It practically does everything for you, whether you want it to or not. With Linux and OS X, you get total user control, and there's alot more room for experimenting with commands for both Linux and Unix. Anyone who knows the secrets of these two systems holds alot of power in their hands when using OS X or Linux. Windows just flat out does not have power like that.

horndude · 03-27-2006, 07:08 PM

OS X goes way out of its way to hide all the complexities and power of unix from the user, that makes it every bit as much of a "n00bie" system as windows.

Brtnboarder495 · 03-27-2006, 07:14 PM

Mac OSX offers more choices while avoiding confusion.

waynejkruse10 · 03-28-2006, 12:46 AM

after using it more, ive realised that its a very good operating system, but not as good as the fanboys make it out to be. Spotlight is nice (however i might do a search twice a week), the UI is nice and constant. Its quite fast, but i cant tell the difference between Windows and OSX as they are both very fast.

OSX is defenantly a more powerful OS but there are some really nice things that it doesnt have. The start menu on Windows (and applications/k menu in Linux) which are all basically the same thing make finding programs very easy. I have grown accustomed to this format. I guess OSX works differently as you can use spotlight for so much but the start menu can be accessed so easily. I dont like having to click on the apps folder all the time. I also like how windows sets out a whole bunch of folders for stuff automatically.

Conclusion: OSX Good but by no means it is as good as the fanboys say.

PS. About the look of the OS's. Both Windows and OSX look nice in my opinion however i think some of the animation things are silly but meh.

mac_mogul · 03-28-2006, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by waynejkruse10
OSX is defenantly a more powerful OS but there are some really nice things that it doesnt have. The start menu on Windows (and applications/k menu in Linux) which are all basically the same thing make finding programs very easy. I have grown accustomed to this format. I guess OSX works differently as you can use spotlight for so much but the start menu can be accessed so easily. I dont like having to click on the apps folder all the time. I also like how windows sets out a whole bunch of folders for stuff automatically.

Thats what the OS X Dock is for!

I keep all my most used applications in the dock for easy access.

Quote:

PS. About the look of the OS's. Both Windows and OSX look nice in my opinion however i think some of the animation things are silly but meh.

The animations can be turned off in the appearances preference pane.

waynejkruse10 · 03-28-2006, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Thats what the OS X Dock is for! I keep all my most used applications in the dock for easy access.

It simply cannot contain the amount of programs as i would want it to. I wouldnt want to put 60 or more items into a dock because it would be very small, and difficult to track down the right programs.

Excellent, no more silly animations!

mac_mogul · 03-28-2006, 02:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by waynejkruse10
It simply cannot contain the amount of programs as i would want it to. I wouldnt want to put 60 or more items into a dock because it would be very small, and difficult to track down the right programs.

There is actually a haxie program you can get (I'd have to search for it) where it gives OS X the classic Apple menu with the same kind of Start Bar functions as Windows. I never liked the original Apple menu, but for a long-time windows user, you might like it

I searched VersionTracker and its called Fruit Menu This might help a little in accessing your programs

Member Login