[please try and keep quotes to 15 lines due to people receiving messages indigest mode. Admin] > OS X IS more snappy and  more powerful than OS 9 on my machine, and it > rarely crashes. Plus while I use Logic I can upload my work to FTP servers, > MSN/email my client/boss, burn CD/DVD backups and have reference documents > open in web pages (all at once!),.... > Quartz extreme graphics card == 99% on both CPU and still snappy redraws... > Life is just too good with X. > Lets be honest here, instead of being an apple advertisement which may mislead people. I have been using X for 1.5 years on my tibook (550mhz/512ram) and 9.22 on my music tower, and my older g3 powerbook. I find - 9 is more snappy in terms of clicking on windows and such. there are time and processing overhead to the better graphics - although you can open a lot of applicatons at once, the system can get really bogged down, and you better buy a ton of ram and expect to watch the spinning beachball a lot. sometimes simple things will hang the system up for interminable lengths of time. And I have a daily problem with AOL where text does not appear on the screen correctly when writing an email. - running anything in classic mode will really drag the system down - i have the newest version of X (10.2.6) and there are still bugs, and occasional system crashes, not to mention application crashes. its not the perfect system its purported to be - I estimate that X demands30-50% more processing power to run than 9. You can get an estimate of this from looking at the box of any newer Native Instruments product where they require a 500mhz machine for 9 but 733 mhz for X - there is a significant learning curve for switching which I have pretty much mastered now but its been a hassle at times. buy a manual for X. - there are the costs of upgrading plugs, and apps like Recycle, things like metasynth and pluggo that will have to run in the dreaded classic....but also things like DiskWarrior need to be upgraded. Wordperfect has to run in classic. The good things about X - pretty - safari is much faster than IE - system does not crash as much, but apps still crash a fair amount

--- In logic-users@yahoogroups.com, GAmoore@a... wrote: > I have been using X for 1.5 years on my tibook (550mhz/512ram) and > 9.22 on my music tower, and my older g3 powerbook. Frankly, the Ti550 is a slowish machine for running X anyway. In particular the video card is not up to the task, and memory bandwidth is noted for being pretty poor, making it a slower machine than either the 400 or 500 that preceded it. >and you better buy a ton of ram and expect to watch the > spinning beachball a lot. Plenty of RAM is a necessity. I'd call 512MB an absolute minimum, and 1GB or more is a damn good idea. > - running anything in classic mode will really drag the system down I've been running Quark 4 in Classic for a couple of years now, that's plenty fast enough, doesn't noticeably affect anything running natively. Just a whisker slower than Quark in (booted) OS9, but not something I ever notice. If anything, it scrolls too fast ... again, if you're going to run Classic, get plenty of RAM. > - I estimate that X demands30-50% more processing power to run than > 9. You can get an estimate of this from looking at the box of any > newer Native Instruments product where they require a 500mhz machine > for 9 but 733 mhz for X NI are not exactly noted for the efficiency of their Mac programming anyway, and they've had considerably longer to optimize for OS 9. I agree X does demand more CPU, but on a modern Mac with a suitable video card I've found it's on the order of 10-15% more, or less. I'm not seeing a 30-50% performace decrease in Logic, more like 10% tops, and for straight multitrack recording I'm now seeing _better_ performance in X. The cause of a lot of the "X is slow" complaints is I guess the OS X Finder. Which _is_ slow compared to the OS 9 Finder. 10.3 has supposedly been improved considerably in this respect, developers and testers are reporting that responsiveness system-wide is approaching OS 9 speed even on older machines. I certainly wouldn't go buying a copy of 10.2 at this point... > Wordperfect has to run in > classic. Wordperfect? Wow. Very old-school, I'm impressed (it's an excellent app). Of course it has to run in Classic, it hasn't been updated since, what, 1996? I'm amazed at what _will_ run in Classic - a G5/G4/G3 PPC emulating an old OS which in turn emulates a 68k processor when required. My accounts are still running in Excel 4.0 in Classic ... I've run Quark 3.3 on occasion, apparently even Illustrator 1.0 and MacDraw will run fine. Are we OT now? ;-) John Pitcairn

On Freitag, Oktober 3, 2003, at 02:25 Uhr, John Pitcairn wrote: > The cause of a lot of the "X is slow" complaints is I guess the OS X > Finder. Which _is_ slow compared to the OS 9 Finder. No, it's much more: - windows take about 5 times longer to be 'filled' with content. Change a screenset on OS X and compare that with OS 9 on the same computer, and you'll get that result. - dragging items in any app is not really user friendly. If you are used to work fast, you'll always have to wait until the OS accepts your 'keeping the mouse pressed' as dragging. This substantially slows down working speed. Hopefully 10.3 will fix the second problem.. Best Ray ------- Raymund Beyer http://www.brainstorm-music.com

have you got something clogging up your system? ;-) i definitely don't have your screenset problems and dragging is instant. and my macs are old and slow.... steve parker

Jag is snappy on my Dual 2ghz G5 with 2 gig ram :D Also all machines will see big speed increases with panther.