Biggest waste of E129 ever

L1011 · 01-05-2005 5:25pm #1

Got Tiger yesterday in 3G in Blanchardstown - impulse buy.

Biggest waste of cash ever. Most overhyped upgrade of OSX so far.

Its no faster. In fact, it feels generally slower - probably because stuff that Quartz Extreme did has been moved to Core Image, and my card (which is QE supported) isn't Core Image supported.

Spotlight still falls behind what BeOS was doing in 1996. Dashboard feels like a childs toy.

The new WebCore has broken NTLMv1 authentication, presumably due to the new NTLMv2 support. This means no Safari, Dashboard weather, etc, software update, and so on without third party tools (ntlmaps, which is a massive resource hog)

The Airport Express is generally able to do more range, but drops out more frequently than it used to, even at close range.

I've had more exciting and useful point releases on BeOS. And by point releases, I mean 5.0.1. A free update.

lotas · 03-05-2005 1:42am

What are you running it on?

L1011 · 03-05-2005 8:31am

October 2004 iBook, basic model. Machine which is still on sale direct from Apple.

RicardoSmith · 03-05-2005 8:38am

How is BeOS these days.

L1011 · 03-05-2005 9:07am

RicardoSmith wrote:

How is BeOS these days.

Difficult to explain....

I'm using an almost completely built in 2005 version of it on modern (x86, the PPC port is dead) hardware, despite what people go around saying, and I have no shortage of applications, again, despite what people say.

However, its not as easy to just go get a version and install it as it was in 2000, as theres not been any master disc updates since well before Be went under. Have to wait for Haiku (fka OpenBeOS) to come through, probably later this year, with a beta release for that.

RicardoSmith · 03-05-2005 9:21am

Always liked BeOS though I had no use for it. Had the demo of it for x86 ages ago. Very pretty.

lotas · 03-05-2005 12:35pm

i had a demo of it on an x86 too, never got the video working properly though. as for the Tiger issue, its a little weird that its slower. i have it on my G4 powerbook, 1.33Gz and it seems a little faster then when 10.3.9 was on it. maybe .1 will fix it...

Hugh_C · 03-05-2005 4:53pm

MYOB wrote:

October 2004 iBook, basic model. Machine which is still on sale direct from Apple.

256 MB ram?
That's problem no. 1

Did you upgrade, archive or erase & install? I've erase & installed on one macine and upgraded on another. the erase works perfectly, the upgrade is dodgy.

Seems snappier to me - worth the upgrade for spotlight alone.

L1011 · 03-05-2005 7:01pm

hughchal wrote:

256 MB ram?
That's problem no. 1

Did you upgrade, archive or erase & install? I've erase & installed on one macine and upgraded on another. the erase works perfectly, the upgrade is dodgy.

Seems snappier to me - worth the upgrade for spotlight alone.

An OS that can't cope on 256MB of RAM is badly engineered (why do I suddenly remember the fights with SGI over IRIX 5 not working in 32MB of RAM....). But yes, I only have 256. Its all any other OS, Windows included, needs, and its all the specs say

I upgraded. I have never needed to nuke an OS for an upgrade, my BeOS disks have been imaged around the place, resized and upgraded for a good 5 years now with no problems, including one major major update, bigger than 10.3->10.4 equivalent.

Hugh_C · 03-05-2005 9:32pm

MYOB wrote:

yes, I only have 256.

OK. Thought as much. Not having the interest in OS design, all I can say is too bad. Mine runs well on 512 MB.

MYOB wrote:

I upgraded. I have never needed to nuke an OS for an upgrade

OK. Thought as much

I've tinkered so much with 10.3 that I thought it would be prudent to start from the ground up and not have to rely on the badly engineered (sic) upgrade scripts written by corpulent Apple engineers. I cannot conceive of how they would cater for every situation that may arise, with damaged permissions and screwy Java and all the rest.

Erase for me. The other upgrade machine I installed Tiger on hangs intermittently, although, to be fair, it's on an unapproved piece of hardware with all sorts of 3rd party bits in it. YMMV as they say.

I'll give you 20 quid for your unwanted copy...

lomb · 03-05-2005 9:35pm

is tiger 64 bit compatible or is a 64 bit mac version coming out soon on 64 bit hardware?

Hugh_C · 03-05-2005 9:38pm

lomb wrote:

is tiger 64 bit compatible or is a 64 bit mac version coming out soon on 64 bit hardware?

this information is available online Lomb, if you could be bothered to look.

DrNuyenVanFaulk · 04-05-2005 10:08pm

Actually, I have a PC laptop that runs XP Pro on 256 RAM and it's painful. When I upgrade to OS X (hahha, I'm still a cave-dwelling OS 9 user), I plan to make sure my machine has 512 MIN. I guess that's why Apple finally copped-the-hell-on with the new G5 and realised it was essential.

Still, it's nice running a fresh install of OS9 with 600 odd RAM, even if the it s a 400Mhz G4.

DrNuyenVanFaulk · 04-05-2005 10:12pm

And further to that, yes, a fresh install is always miles better than a covering update.

I'm intrigued by BeOS.... years since I've seen anything about it. Where can I get a copy?

DrNuyenVanFaulk · 04-05-2005 10:18pm

Actually, the PDf support in Tiger....

Can you create a PDF from Appleworks / Word, without buying Acrobat Writer? Rather, is PDF writing built-in to the OS?

It'll save me 150 euro....

RicardoSmith · 04-05-2005 11:22pm

DrNuyenVanFaulk wrote:

Actually, I have a PC laptop that runs XP Pro on 256 RAM and it's painful. When I upgrade to OS X (hahha, I'm still a cave-dwelling OS 9 user), I plan to make sure my machine has 512 MIN. I guess that's why Apple finally copped-the-hell-on with the new G5 and realised it was essential.

Still, it's nice running a fresh install of OS9 with 600 odd RAM, even if the it s a 400Mhz G4.

I have a PII 400 with 192mb running XP. Runs fine. Mind you I've turned off all the GUI glitz to speed it up. The base G5 has 256mb. It nothing about configuration making sense, its about it being sold at advertising/marketing price point. The majoirity of modern computers, with a modern GUI OS, even Linux work best with 512mb.

DubTony · 04-05-2005 11:41pm

DrNuyenVanFaulk wrote:

Actually, the PDf support in Tiger....

Can you create a PDF from Appleworks / Word, without buying Acrobat Writer? Rather, is PDF writing built-in to the OS?

You sure can.

Select Print from the File menu, click on the PDF drop down menu in the print dialogue box and select SAVE AS PDF.

Name it, and save it.

BTW, the default PDF viewer in Tiger is Preview. Might wanna change that

Tony

SouperComputer · 05-05-2005 2:48pm

DrNuyenVanFaulk wrote:

Actually, the PDf support in Tiger....

Can you create a PDF from Appleworks / Word, without buying Acrobat Writer? Rather, is PDF writing built-in to the OS?

It'll save me 150 euro....

neooffice \ open office is another way of doing this for free!

I personally prefer preview as the default viewer as its nice and lean. Adobe takes too feckin long to start up.

L1011 · 05-05-2005 5:24pm

DrNuyenVanFaulk wrote:

And further to that, yes, a fresh install is always miles better than a covering update.

I'm intrigued by BeOS.... years since I've seen anything about it. Where can I get a copy?

Erk. As a 'pro user', theres not one distro out there I'd wish on my worst enemy - the 'newbie' themed distros are usually put together so badly that they make usage close to impossible.

It'd probably be easier to swipe one of my restore CD's, sans the commercial software...

BeOS also has PDF writing built in :-) Its not as enshrined as OSX is.

DrNuyenVanFaulk - I'll PM you about a BeOS CD. FOC, doing anything to get new users these days...

SouperComputer · 05-05-2005 8:32pm

i tried BEOS a couple of years ago by way of MYOB's advice.

savage OS, very lean and functional. Not an everyday replacement for me but certiainly raised my eyebrows!

RicardoSmith · 05-05-2005 10:26pm

What sort of spec do you need for BeOS? What do YOU use it for?

SouperComputer · 05-05-2005 10:49pm

got tiger today, im happy enough with it.

i wouldnt call it an OS Upgrade, I think thats marketing BS.

Dashboard is pretty nifty and I like the dictionary. Translator is a big plus for me.

Only problems so far is occasional locking of the dock, which even relauncing finder doesn't fix. When it happens it wont logout or shutdown either!

all in all, im happy

actallly the flight tracking widget is dead cool.

Im surprised that safari has no tab support though!

ZENER · 05-05-2005 11:41pm

SouperComputer wrote:

Im surprised that safari has no tab support though!

What ??? You mean they've disabled Tab support ?? Surely thats a step backwards, the best feature of Safari is (was ?) the tab support !! You sure you just haven't switched it on ? It's disabled by default on all versions up till now.

ZEN

DubTony · 06-05-2005 12:02am

ZENER wrote:

What ??? You mean they've disabled Tab support ?? Surely thats a step backwards, the best feature of Safari is (was ?) the tab support !! You sure you just haven't switched it on ? It's disabled by default on all versions up till now.

ZEN

It's OK Zener, there, there, relax .... good man.

They haven't disabled Tabs support. It's still there.
sssshhhhh..... go to sleep now.

Tony

L1011 · 06-05-2005 12:17am

RicardoSmith wrote:

What sort of spec do you need for BeOS? What do YOU use it for?

Pentium 133, 32MB RAM, supported video card, or Pentium 300, 64MB RAM, unsupported video card. Or 2x66 or 133Mhz PowerPC and 32MB RAM.

I use it as my everyday OS. No problems. Mac is for work, although I can do that (ssh and text editing (of source code, that is)) from my mobile let alone BeOS. From the little gaming I do - my two favourite games both run natively, my third favourite works fine in DOSBox - to other everyday ****e like organising my music collection, web browsing, word processing, etc. Total outlay: $50 dollars. Got me the professional version of the OS and the office suite.

I use my Mac for less, and its really not got any advantages - all the goodc free software works on BeOS as well, and on Windows, and on Linux...

SouperComputer · 06-05-2005 1:38am

ZENER wrote:

What ??? You mean they've disabled Tab support ?? Surely thats a step backwards, the best feature of Safari is (was ?) the tab support !! You sure you just haven't switched it on ? It's disabled by default on all versions up till now.

ZEN

LOL, just shows how lazy I am! Never bothered even looking for it as firefox was sitting on the desktop!

Hugh_C · 06-05-2005 4:20pm

SouperComputer wrote:

Only problems so far is occasional locking of the dock, which even relauncing finder doesn't fix. When it happens it wont logout or shutdown either!

You can probably force a quit of the Dock using Activity Monitor in Utilities.

hc

SouperComputer · 07-05-2005 1:12am

hughchal wrote:

You can probably force a quit of the Dock using Activity Monitor in Utilities.

hc

nah feckin tried that too. at one point dashboard froze.... same thing. All in the 1st hour of use. Since then its been fine [touches wood]

Urban Weigl · 07-05-2005 12:14pm

I upgraded 6 Mac's to Mac OS X 10.4 (Tiger) thus far. As I see it, it's a major update, with a lot of the underlying technologies changing, such as GCC 4, the system kernel, etc.. On the other hand, while Spotlight is handy, I don't think it's the biggest feature. It's just hard to see all the underlying changes unless you're say a programmer.

IMHO, it will run fine with 256MB if you just want to do basic tasks, but power users will appreciate 512MB or 1GB.

Anyway, none of those 6 Mac's have crashed even once since upgrading, though they didn't crash before either. I did an Archive & Install on each machine, and was surprised to find that I did not lose any preferences, applications, settings, or anything. I could just continue using it as if it was just an "upgrade".

DannyD · 09-05-2005 1:55am

MYOB wrote:

An OS that can't cope on 256MB of RAM is badly engineered But yes, I only have 256. Its all any other OS, Windows included, needs, and its all the specs say

256mb for an os is plain stupid. Most gfx cards come with half that for gfx processing alone.Since May 3rd Apple ships all desktops (excluding emacs) with 512mb standard.Macos X is ram hungry, ram is dirt cheap, you have no excuse.Go against the grain if you wish.

SouperComputer · 10-05-2005 10:43am

downloaded BeOS max edition today.

burned the cue file, after booting was greeted with this:

Would you like to:

1. Install
2. Run live CD
3. Run recovery

having selected 1, I was greeted with:

Would you like to play a game while installing?

Savage!

MYOB, are you using the yellowtab version?

L1011 · 10-05-2005 8:09pm

SouperComputer wrote:

downloaded BeOS max edition today.

burned the cue file, after booting was greeted with this:

Would you like to:

1. Install
2. Run live CD
3. Run recovery

having selected 1, I was greeted with:

Would you like to play a game while installing?

Savage!

MYOB, are you using the yellowtab version?

No, I'm in the middle of a flamewar on BeShare with one of their engineers atm... admitedly, I've also had flamwars with the guy in charge of Max Edition in the past...

I'm still using R5.03 basically, with some random newer components; and will continue to do so until there is real competition - thats not going to come from what is basically a CD full of shareware being sold for 99 quid.

L1011 · 10-05-2005 8:13pm

DannyD wrote:

256mb for an os is plain stupid. Most gfx cards come with half that for gfx processing alone.Since May 3rd Apple ships all desktops (excluding emacs) with 512mb standard.Macos X is ram hungry, ram is dirt cheap, you have no excuse.Go against the grain if you wish.

Sorry to say this, but:

Troll

The vast majority of their installed base of -supported machines- shipped with under 512MB RAM. Many of their new machines still do. The latter suggests that it should work -well- on that spec.

There is no other OS that is that RAM hungry. Even a big Linux distro with GNOME can run happily in 256MB - Sun JDS is a good example there. Windows works fine.

OS's with similar ethos's - a desktop UNIX for the general public - which would be BeOS and SGI IRIX w/Indigo - can run in 64MB happily. The latter is pretty dead now, but I'm using similarly new, similarly featured software on the former.

nadir · 11-05-2005 1:50pm

I cant wait to try haiku either.

rsynnott · 13-05-2005 12:18am

MYOB wrote:

Got Tiger yesterday in 3G in Blanchardstown - impulse buy.

Biggest waste of cash ever. Most overhyped upgrade of OSX so far.

In fairness, it was a rush job, and should get much better when the incremental updates start. There's a lot that was rushed and left out of it.

ZENER · 13-05-2005 9:49am

I installed Tiger on a G4 Powermac and it refused to install with my PowerLogix 1.2GHz CPU installed. Replacing this with the original 733 cured the problem but I haven't yet re-installed the 1.2GHz unit to see if Tiger will run with it now it's installed.

Aside from my dissappointment that it would not - in fact - be 23 degrees in Dublin the next day (because the widget decided I lived in Dublin Newhampshire, USA !!!) I'm happy with the performance overall and the extra features are nice, I particularly like Grapher which it superb and will be very useful to me on my course.

The dictionary also is handy to have available without needing to start Office for an explanation and there is a noticeable difference in SMB/CIFS performance and network speed in general.

As someone said though it's probably better to describe it as a "Service Pack" than a new OS. But I'm still happy to have paid for it considering the apps that come included . . oh and the new desktop images are prettier

There are numerous little improvements that on their own don't amount to much but together they make for a more harmonious experience.

ZEN

DrNuyenVanFaulk · 14-05-2005 11:31pm

MYOB wrote:

The vast majority of their installed base of -supported machines- shipped with under 512MB RAM. Many of their new machines still do. The latter suggests that it should work -well- on that spec.

There is no other OS that is that RAM hungry. Even a big Linux distro with GNOME can run happily in 256MB - Sun JDS is a good example there. Windows works fine.

dude, no way in hell you can run XP comfortably on 256 unless you have all the extra features turned off and you're doing basic wordprocessing / net browsing on it.

I ran W2K SP4 (which, I must say, is one of if not the most stable OS I've ever used) on 64Mb RAM, and while it never ever crashed, it crawwwwwled. Then I ran it on 256 RAM..... crawwwwwwled. XP crawwwwwled also. And now, on 512, it crawwwwwwls.

I'm going to upgrade my arse 512 SDram to high-spec 1gig DDR ram. I only use my PC for games and it needs good ram.

So, yes, OSX should definitely need at least 512. What with all the extra widgets (literally!)

L1011 · 15-05-2005 12:01am

I've been running XP comfortably on 160 for a long time. I don't use Microsoft software, that might explain it... I also don't have the tellytubby theme turned on, or the double-width start menu, or any of the other ****e that stops it being 2K.

I also have a machine thats spyware and crapware free. Having any of that sort of stuff will make it crawl, and thats more than likely whats wrong with your box. An antivirus scanner also makes an XP machine crawl....

RicardoSmith · 15-05-2005 12:40am

Same here. I've a few older machines I look after for people with a spec of PII 400mhz with 192 running XP fine. Again all the themes, effects, shadows etc are turned off and it runs fine. Again they are all virus free and protected. Perfectly usable. Used for Office, web email etc. Normal user stuff. Better then W2K with the same amount of RAM in my opinion. More stable too IMO.

DrNuyenVanFaulk - So your machine crawwwwwlll no matter how much RAM. Maybe its not the machine thats the problem but how its configured. Do you run Norton. If you do that could be your problem. I run AVG with no speed or Virus issues.

lotas · 15-05-2005 1:34am

A friend of mine runs XP on his laptop with 256mb ram with all the extras on it, and it works grand. and he does photoshop stuff a lot on it. no problems with it. i did dev work on a 256mb laptop (simular spec to my friends) for about 2 weeks and it worked grand too. when i upgraded to 768mb, it went a LOT faster, but 256 does work. i know quite a few people with only 256mb in their boxes.

DrNuyenVanFaulk · 15-05-2005 8:10am

RicardoSmith wrote:

DrNuyenVanFaulk - So your machine crawwwwwlll no matter how much RAM.

That was my frickin' point! I had just said that there's no way you could run it comfortably with all the extras on. That includes the Fisher-Price graphics set, lovely desktop pictures, anti-virus software, and the rest! Yes, I'm well aware that if you whittle XP down to it's W2K basis it runs faster, and what spyware and anti-virus software does. But on 256, all you can do is write letters and check e-mails.

And no, my machine does not have spyware or viruses on it. But windows is such a popular piece of crap that it's suicide to have a permenant internet connection without some sort of permenant firewall/anti-virus software on it. I've had PCs destroyed (even the hardware destroyed) by viruses, so running XP sin anti-virus software is not an option. it's unrealistic. It's a damn neccessity. And that's why it's a pain in the ass having low RAM!!

And, just for the record, anti-virus software that constantly scans your system's activity does not greatly affect a PC's speed because of how much RAM it uses. It sucks processing power more than anything. And what limits THAT speed is not so much your processor, but the order of the algorithm used such software.

And in keeping with the thread's subject... Tiger rocks, XP sucks!

DrNuyenVanFaulk · 15-05-2005 8:12am

As for doing Photoshop on a laptop with 256 RAM: yeah, I've done the same. And it works, but it's very slow and boring.

RicardoSmith · 15-05-2005 10:36am

No offense but TBH I think the point you are making (badly) is a bad workman blames his tools.

"Biggest waste of E129 ever" ... how is that "Tiger rocks, XP sucks!"...

DrNuyenVanFaulk · 15-05-2005 8:10pm

RicardoSmith wrote:

No offense but TBH I think the point you are making (badly) is a bad workman blames his tools.

"Biggest waste of E129 ever" ... how is that "Tiger rocks, XP sucks!"...

WTF!?!? I'm not saying anythign about a workman!!! I'm saying that W2K upwards needs more than 256Mb so one can run it comfortably and avail of all of its utilities. That's all!

And, BTW (since you're so fond of reducing words to letters), saying "Tiger rocks, XP sucks" is keeping in line with the topic. The topic is about Tiger, being bad. This is a discussion forum. We discuss and argue topics, not agree foolishly to any statement made. My statement disagrees with the topic statment. I am far from confused. So STFUYA.

rsynnott · 15-05-2005 8:21pm

DrNuyenVanFaulk wrote:

WTF!?!? I'm not saying anythign about a workman!!! I'm saying that W2K upwards needs more than 256Mb so one can run it comfortably and avail of all of its utilities. That's all!

Nonsense. When I have to run Windows, I do so on a 256mb laptop. SQL Server and Enterprise Manager and Visual Studio. It's quite happy with those...

RicardoSmith · 15-05-2005 8:55pm

DrNuyenVanFaulk wrote:

....STFUYA.

(Shut the **** Up You Asshole)

:rolleyes: obviously its too technical for the rest of us.

DrNuyenVanFaulk · 15-05-2005 10:36pm

Wow! You're so clever for figuring it out and telling everyone. Thank god you're so smart otherwise we'd all be reading incomprehensible strings of letters!!

I'm just kidding. no agro.

RicardoSmith · 15-05-2005 11:16pm

No problem, its just that stringing letters together to form words is the way I've always done it. No need to be abusive because you find acronyms incomprehensible.

DrNuyenVanFaulk · 16-05-2005 7:36am

Ha ha ha!! I never said they were incomprehensible!
So, what, like, are you a Mac user? Or are you another member of the flat-earth-society come to beat down on a superior OS?

L1011 · 16-05-2005 8:43am

DrNuyenVanFaulk wrote:

Ha ha ha!! I never said they were incomprehensible!
So, what, like, are you a Mac user? Or are you another member of the flat-earth-society come to beat down on a superior OS?

You know, its stuff like this that made me not want to ever touch a Macintosh again. Its not justified now, and when comparing OS 9.1 to Windows 2000 back in the day, it was plain lies.

RicardoSmith · 16-05-2005 11:02am

DrNuyenVanFaulk wrote:

....incomprehensible strings of letters...

Odd..Must be the way you're stringing those letters together to form words. If you don't find them incomprehensible why mention it at all? Why say the're incomprehensible in the first place?

I am a use of all types of OS and hardware including Mac's. However what was interesting in this thread was a discussion of the new OS X version and BeOS. Not your inaccurate and vague posting about OS X > XP. Which has no interest to me. I (along with others) only corrected you that XP runs fine on 256 if optimized correctly. Thats different to having "all the extras" (whatever that vague comment means) turned off. The fact that your W2K machine crawls no matter what ram configuration would suggest, that it isn't optimised correctly.

As MYOB posted. Its typical on Mac threads. Theres always one who starts off with Mac > Windows then ends up that the user had problems with Windows, and still has problems with the Mac. Like not being able to optimise its RAM usage. Hence the analogy of the workman. Maybe that conclusion is incorrect, but if so, apologies but your posts give that impression.

Biggest waste of E129 ever

Comments