Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X (Real Studio network user group Mailinglist archive)

Back to the thread list
Next thread: Mark@SplitSW.com


Quicktime tracks / layers   -   Derek Seabrooke - CSCI/P2001
  Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X   -   MacMuse aol.com
   Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X   -   Alex Rice
    Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X   -   Kevin Ballard
    Window sub-class menu handling   -   Noah Desch
   Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X   -   Will Leshner
   Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X   -   Seth Willits
    Resource editor?   -   Thomas Reed
    Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X   -   Alex Rice
     Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X   -   Stéphane Pinel <
      Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X   -   Alex Rice
       Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X   -   Thomas Reed
        Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X   -   Tony Spencer
         Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X   -   Thomas Reed
       Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X   -   James Sentman
        Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X   -   Alex Rice
        Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X   -   Andrea Mariottini
         Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X   -   Totte Alm
          Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X   -   Andrea Mariottini
           Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X   -   Tony Spencer
           Build an OLE Server   -   Andrea Mariottini
          WinXp permission problems when user is not Admin   -   Karl Holmes
        Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X   -   Roger Carlson
        Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X   -   Tony Spencer
         Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X   -   Alex Rice
          Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X   -   Tony Spencer
      Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X   -   Tony Spencer
       Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X   -   Will Leshner
       Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X   -   Steve Sobek
       Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X   -   Seth Willits
        Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X   -   Tony Spencer

Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X
Date: 31.07.02 23:33 (Wed, 31 Jul 2002 22:33:16 EDT)
From: MacMuse aol.com

In a message dated 7/31/02 5:48:36 PM, <email address removed> writes:

<< There are no other apps except realbasic

> which I need to run in Classic. >>

Wow, how do you manage that. There are only 2 other apps beside RB which I
can run natively in OS X

Roger Clary

---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X
Date: 01.08.02 03:52 (Wed, 31 Jul 2002 20:52:50 -0600)
From: Alex Rice

On Wednesday, July 31, 2002, at 08:33 PM, <email address removed> wrote:
>
> Wow, how do you manage that. There are only 2 other apps beside
> RB which I
> can run natively in OS X

You must be in print/graphic design eh?

Actually I fibbed, I still boot Classic to run Photoshop, but
that's because I haven't got around to installing Photoshop 7 yet.

After I posted the initial message, RB 4.5 in Classic crashed on
me so much that I once again started using the Carbon version
again. Slow but relatively more stable. Sigh... :-/

Alex Rice, Software Developer
Architectural Research Consultants, Inc.
<email address removed>
<email address removed>


---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X
Date: 01.08.02 03:58 (Wed, 31 Jul 2002 22:58:43 -0400)
From: Kevin Ballard
On 7/31/02 10:52 PM, "Alex Rice" <<email address removed>> wrote:

>
> On Wednesday, July 31, 2002, at 08:33 PM, <email address removed> wrote:
>>
>> Wow, how do you manage that. There are only 2 other apps beside
>> RB which I
>> can run natively in OS X

Heh, I never ever go into Classic anymore.

> You must be in print/graphic design eh?
>
> Actually I fibbed, I still boot Classic to run Photoshop, but
> that's because I haven't got around to installing Photoshop 7 yet.

Photoshop 7 rules. My dad beta-tested it so I had it before it was released
:)

> After I posted the initial message, RB 4.5 in Classic crashed on
> me so much that I once again started using the Carbon version
> again. Slow but relatively more stable. Sigh... :-/

I don't find the Carbon IDE to be particularly slow, but then again I have a
fairly fast computer (new iMac).

Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X
Date: 01.08.02 04:26 (Wed, 31 Jul 2002 20:26:19 -0700)
From: Will Leshner
Wow. Now that I have Photoshop 7 and VPC 5 there are now *no* apps that
I need to run in classic. I basically now never run OS 9 or the classic
layer and it feels great!

On Wednesday, July 31, 2002, at 07:33 PM, <email address removed> wrote:

> Wow, how do you manage that. There are only 2 other apps beside RB
> which I
> can run natively in OS X

---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X
Date: 01.08.02 08:00 (Thu, 01 Aug 2002 00:00:18 -0700)
From: Seth Willits
On 7/31/02 7:33 PM, the NSA intercepted the following message from
"<email address removed>" <<email address removed>>:

> Wow, how do you manage that. There are only 2 other apps beside RB which I
> can run natively in OS X

I'm fully Carbonized. Photoshop, GoLive, REALbasic, BBEdit, Entourage,
AppleWorks, Mozilla, Aladdin stuff, CodeWarrior 8, MacResourceDog... They're
all there. REALbasic helps a lot because I can just write a program to do
what I want if I need to.

If only ResEdit was on X. I wonder what Apple is using these days. I can't
imagine they're just using Rez.

Seth Willits
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
President and Head Developer of Freak Software - http://www.freaksw.com
Q&A Columnist for REALbasic Developer Magazine - http://www.rbdeveloper.com

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not
sure about the former."
-- Albert Einstein
---------------------------------------------------------------------------




---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X
Date: 31.07.02 22:40 (Wed, 31 Jul 2002 15:40:53 -0600)
From: Alex Rice
I am back to using the Classic version of Realbasic. The OS X
version is just like molasses. Although the text editor is
definitely much faster than in previous versions, there is this
overall molasses feeling with the OS X IDE, and occasionally I
get the spinning beachball for several seconds for no apparent
reason.

Now this machine is no speed demon but it's only a couple of
years old, a G4/350, and it has SCSI disk and 500MB of RAM. It
should be plenty fast. There are no other apps except realbasic
which I need to run in Classic. Tomorrow I'm getting a G4/450
with 1.5GB of RAM. I hope that solves it for me.

I know, whine whine whine ;-)

Alex Rice, Software Developer
Architectural Research Consultants, Inc.
<email address removed>
<email address removed>


---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X
Date: 31.07.02 22:52 (Wed, 31 Jul 2002 23:52:38 +0200)
From: Stéphane Pinel <
Le 31/07/02 23:40, « Alex Rice » <<email address removed>> a écrit :

> I am back to using the Classic version of Realbasic. The OS X
> version is just like molasses. Although the text editor is
> definitely much faster than in previous versions, there is this
> overall molasses feeling with the OS X IDE, and occasionally I
> get the spinning beachball for several seconds for no apparent
> reason.

Maybe Jaguar will give you its supposed 25% fast more ?

>
> Now this machine is no speed demon but it's only a couple of
> years old, a G4/350, and it has SCSI disk and 500MB of RAM. It
> should be plenty fast. There are no other apps except realbasic
> which I need to run in Classic. Tomorrow I'm getting a G4/450
> with 1.5GB of RAM. I hope that solves it for me.

I've a G4/450 and RB runs with acceptable performances. My only problem is
list scrolling...

A+
--
St

Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X
Date: 01.08.02 18:38 (Thu, 1 Aug 2002 11:38:05 -0600)
From: Alex Rice

On Wednesday, July 31, 2002, at 03:52 PM, Stéphane Pinel wrote:
> I've a G4/450 and RB runs with acceptable performances. My only
> problem is
> list scrolling...
>
OK, now I'm on a G4/466 and things are going a whole lot better.
I guess a G4/350 is just on the cusp of not being fast enough to
run realbasic on os x.

Alex Rice, Software Developer
Architectural Research Consultants, Inc.
<email address removed>
<email address removed>


---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X
Date: 01.08.02 19:47 (Thu, 1 Aug 2002 13:47:10 -0500)
From: Thomas Reed
>I guess a G4/350 is just on the cusp of not being fast enough to
>run realbasic on os x.

Ouch! My 233 MHz PowerBook G3 takes offense at that! ;-)

(Yes, it's running OS X, and yes, the performance is acceptable on it, as
long as I'm not doing something like playing MP3s in iTunes -- which, for
some reason slows things down amazingly.)

-Thomas

Personal web page: http://home.earthlink.net/~thomasareed/
My shareware: http://home.earthlink.net/~thomasareed/shareware/
REALbasic page: http://home.earthlink.net/~thomasareed/realbasic/
Pixel Pen web pub. guide: http://home.earthlink.net/~thomasareed/pixelpen/

Why do they put Braille dots on the keypad of the drive-up ATM?

---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X
Date: 08.08.02 22:45 (Thu, 8 Aug 2002 23:45:14 +0200)
From: Tony Spencer
Well, that's simple. It has to read the mp3 file, decode it and play it,
whilst doing something else. My 250MHz PB's not much better playing
iTunes in the background!

I noticed that when ripping mp3s from CD, it'll do it about 4-5x CD
speed silent, but only 2-3x if you play the CD track while ripping, so
it obviously takes up a fair whack of processor time. And both of those
figures are running just iTunes alone, nothing else.

On Thursday, August 1, 2002, at 08:47 pm, Thomas Reed wrote:

> Ouch! My 233 MHz PowerBook G3 takes offense at that! ;-)
>
> (Yes, it's running OS X, and yes, the performance is acceptable on it,
> as
> long as I'm not doing something like playing MP3s in iTunes -- which,
> for
> some reason slows things down amazingly.)
>

Tony Spencer
St Etienne du Grès, (13) France
<email address removed>
http://homepage.mac.com/tonyspencer/

---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X
Date: 09.08.02 01:43 (Thu, 8 Aug 2002 19:43:29 -0500)
From: Thomas Reed
>> (Yes, it's running OS X, and yes, the performance is acceptable on it,
>> as
>> long as I'm not doing something like playing MP3s in iTunes -- which,
>> for
>> some reason slows things down amazingly.)
>
>Well, that's simple. It has to read the mp3 file, decode it and play it,
>whilst doing something else. My 250MHz PB's not much better playing
>iTunes in the background!

SoundJam used to play my MP3s under OS 8.6 on this machine without the
extreme performance penalty. There's more to it than just that, IMHO.
Maybe just the extra overhead of OS X, who knows.

-Thomas

Personal web page: http://home.earthlink.net/~thomasareed/
My shareware: http://home.earthlink.net/~thomasareed/shareware/
REALbasic page: http://home.earthlink.net/~thomasareed/realbasic/
Pixel Pen web pub. guide: http://home.earthlink.net/~thomasareed/pixelpen/

Any closet is a walk-in closet if you try hard enough.

---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X
Date: 01.08.02 19:58 (Thu, 1 Aug 2002 14:58:30 -0400)
From: James Sentman
>On Wednesday, July 31, 2002, at 03:52 PM, Stéphane Pinel wrote:
>>I've a G4/450 and RB runs with acceptable performances. My only problem is
>>list scrolling...
>>
>OK, now I'm on a G4/466 and things are going a whole lot better. I
>guess a G4/350 is just on the cusp of not being fast enough to run
>realbasic on os x.

I'm convinced that something more than this is going on. A friend and
I both purchased new 400mhz Ti powerbooks last year. While they were
both pokey under OSX, his was constantly plagued by the spinning
beach ball, while mine rarely if ever popped that up. He also had
more memory installed in his machine, which should have made it run a
little better, not worse.

It would seem that there is something, either hardware wise or
software wise that can affect one machine under OSX and not another.
He is now running Yellow Dog linux on that machine and raves about
the speed when it doesn't have to run Aqua, while I'm still happily
(if somewhat slowly) running OSX on mine.

It seems obvious that some peoples experience with OSX is
significantly worse than others due to the damnable beach ball. I'd
really like to pursue this and figure out what was different between
our two identical machines, but I have no idea where to start. His
machine and mine both passed all hardware tests, our drive speeds
were the same, although we had different drives. Very strange stuff
indeed.

Something is definitely up about this!
James

-

Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X
Date: 01.08.02 22:13 (Thu, 1 Aug 2002 15:13:34 -0600)
From: Alex Rice

On Thursday, August 1, 2002, at 12:58 PM, James Sentman wrote:
>
> It seems obvious that some peoples experience with OSX is
> significantly worse than others due to the damnable beach ball.
> I'd really like to pursue this and figure out what was different
> between our two identical machines, but I have no idea where to
> start. His machine and mine both passed all hardware tests, our
> drive speeds were the same, although we had different drives.
> Very strange stuff indeed.
>
> Something is definitely up about this!

I agree in general.

But this G4/350 machine is a great machine and I've been running
OS X on it since the 10.0 Beta. Haven't had any problems with it.
The only other app which runs really really slow on it is
Dreamweaver MX. But I've always thought that's because
Dreamweaver MX runs Javascript for a lot of it's UI...?

Alex Rice, Software Developer
Architectural Research Consultants, Inc.
<email address removed>
<email address removed>


---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X
Date: 02.08.02 08:25 (Fri, 02 Aug 2002 09:25:38 +0200)
From: Andrea Mariottini
> It seems obvious that some peoples experience with OSX is
> significantly worse than others due to the damnable beach ball. I'd
> really like to pursue this and figure out what was different between
> our two identical machines, but I have no idea where to start. His
> machine and mine both passed all hardware tests, our drive speeds
> were the same, although we had different drives. Very strange stuff
> indeed.

It seems to me that the beach ball appears more often if Classic
is in use.
For example when I create new folders in Finder and try to rename them
the beach ball appear for about 10-20 seconds.
If Classic is not started all works at normal speed.
(iMac TFT, 256Mb)

Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X
Date: 02.08.02 08:37 (Fri, 2 Aug 2002 09:37:46 +0200)
From: Totte Alm

fredagen den 2 augusti 2002 kl 09.25 skrev Andrea Mariottini:

> It seems to me that the beach ball appears more often if Classic
> is in use.
> For example when I create new folders in Finder and try to rename them
> the beach ball appear for about 10-20 seconds.
> If Classic is not started all works at normal speed.
> (iMac TFT, 256Mb)
>

The beachball (sometimes wrongly referred to as the "Spinning Pizza of
Death") has a much higher tendency of showing up in lowmemory
conditiions where you're swapping so much that your machine starts
trashing, and to say as they said on WWDC2001 (Your machine will run of
the speed of your harddrive, not the speed of your RAM).

I can verify that the 10-20 seconds Finder-SpinBall occurs when
something has allocated tons of RAM (compared to your built in RAM),
might be classic, might be something else ).

// Totte

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is against US Department of Agriculture regulations to advertise or
sell
as "Prime Rib" any cut of meat containing a non-prime number of ribs.

---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X
Date: 02.08.02 08:53 (Fri, 02 Aug 2002 09:53:03 +0200)
From: Andrea Mariottini
> The beachball (sometimes wrongly referred to as the "Spinning Pizza of
> Death") has a much higher tendency of showing up in lowmemory
> conditiions where you're swapping so much that your machine starts
> trashing, and to say as they said on WWDC2001 (Your machine will run of
> the speed of your harddrive, not the speed of your RAM).
>
> I can verify that the 10-20 seconds Finder-SpinBall occurs when
> something has allocated tons of RAM (compared to your built in RAM),
> might be classic, might be something else ).

Maybe, but I never saw the beachball for more than 2-3 seconds
if Classic is not in use, even when there are many application open...
But perhaps this is not the right newsletter to write about this.....

Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X
Date: 08.08.02 23:18 (Fri, 9 Aug 2002 00:18:10 +0200)
From: Tony Spencer
I have fairly low memory problems (128Mb RAM), and Classic can run very
slow. I don't exactly know how OS X deals with the memory for Classic.
Native OS X apps will obviously automagically use the spiffy new memory
handling, but I don't know how it handles memory for Classic apps. My
feeling would be that Classic and all it's apps are handed a huge chunk
of memory as if it were a single OS X app, since OS 9 can't dynamically
handle memory, but maybe there's something in the Classic environment
that allows Classic to also demand memory dynamically. Native apps will
also yield processor time better than Classic apps.

In any case I should imagine that with Classic running virtual memory
would be used much more, and there would therefore be much more, slower,
disk activity. Certainly with "low" RAM, there would have to lots more
virtual memory disk swapping bearing in mind that Classic will want
close to 60Mb alone without apps.

Although Apple says that OS X will run under 128Mb RAM, my experience is
only just, 256Mb is more realistic. I doubt 128Mb will be enough to run
Jaguar.

On Friday, August 2, 2002, at 09:53 am, Andrea Mariottini wrote:

> Maybe, but I never saw the beachball for more than 2-3 seconds
> if Classic is not in use, even when there are many application open...
> But perhaps this is not the right newsletter to write about this.....

Tony Spencer
St Etienne du Grès, (13) France
<email address removed>
http://homepage.mac.com/tonyspencer/

---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X
Date: 02.08.02 17:21 (Fri, 2 Aug 2002 09:21:24 -0700)
From: Roger Carlson

On Thursday, August 1, 2002, at 11:58 AM, James Sentman wrote:

> It seems obvious that some peoples experience with OSX is
> significantly worse than others due to the damnable beach ball. I'd
> really like to pursue this and figure out what was different between
> our two identical machines, but I have no idea where to start. His
> machine and mine both passed all hardware tests, our drive speeds
> were the same, although we had different drives. Very strange stuff
> indeed.

on wy wife's TiBook, I am convinced it's poor airport reception. The
signal strength meter sometimes supports this. I thing it's doing some
housekeeping or chatting with imap or something, and getting stuck in a
timeout situation.

I have nothing to back this up, though.

In general, os X takes a couple days for you to learn to love it. Ita
make a bad first impression. Only after a few days do you realize that
you can do a lot of things at once and never reboot.

On the other hand, when I drop back to 9, it makes an incredible first
impression. It is sooooo fast. But after a couple hours, you get stuck
behind a modal dialog, or you crash, and you start to think, maybe this
10 stuff is nice. Maybe you get less done in 5 minutes, but you get more
done in 8 hours.

---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X
Date: 08.08.02 22:57 (Thu, 8 Aug 2002 23:57:50 +0200)
From: Tony Spencer
I'm sure there is.

I have access to a 128Mb 250MHz PBG3 (year 1998), and a 320Mb 400MHz G3
iMac (year 2000), both running 10.1.5, so the iMac should always be
faster, right? Not always! Depends on the task.

Also there are various quirks, such as I don't get modem communication
tones on the PB but do on the iMac (both "Apple" internal 56k modems
that came with the machines) under OS X, but under OS 9 I get them on
both.

I've always wondered quite what the installer is doing when it says
"Optimising System"...

I assume of course you're both using the same OS X version and build
number (and since it's you James, I feel foolish asking that!). My only
other thought is that maybe one of you has an older Ti (they redesigned
the motherboard).

On Thursday, August 1, 2002, at 08:58 pm, James Sentman wrote:

> I'm convinced that something more than this is going on. A friend and
> I both purchased new 400mhz Ti powerbooks last year. While they were
> both pokey under OSX, his was constantly plagued by the spinning
> beach ball, while mine rarely if ever popped that up. He also had
> more memory installed in his machine, which should have made it run a
> little better, not worse.
>
> It would seem that there is something, either hardware wise or
> software wise that can affect one machine under OSX and not another.
> He is now running Yellow Dog linux on that machine and raves about
> the speed when it doesn't have to run Aqua, while I'm still happily
> (if somewhat slowly) running OSX on mine.
>
> It seems obvious that some peoples experience with OSX is
> significantly worse than others due to the damnable beach ball. I'd
> really like to pursue this and figure out what was different between
> our two identical machines, but I have no idea where to start. His
> machine and mine both passed all hardware tests, our drive speeds
> were the same, although we had different drives. Very strange stuff
> indeed.
>
> Something is definitely up about this!
> James

Tony Spencer
St Etienne du Grès, (13) France
<email address removed>
http://homepage.mac.com/tonyspencer/

---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X
Date: 08.08.02 23:25 (Thu, 8 Aug 2002 16:25:44 -0600)
From: Alex Rice

On Thursday, August 8, 2002, at 03:57 PM, Tony Spencer wrote:

>
> I've always wondered quite what the installer is doing when it
> says "Optimising System"...

I think I read somewhere that it's doing "prebinding". For
compiled apps which use frameworks or other shared libraries,
"prebinding" calculates the addresses of entry points into those
libs, supposedly making the app startup faster or something. If
you ask me, it's darn silly to take 0.25 hour to install the
latest version of QuickTime on OS X.

Alex Rice, Software Developer
Architectural Research Consultants, Inc.
<email address removed>
<email address removed>


---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X
Date: 08.08.02 23:51 (Fri, 9 Aug 2002 00:51:17 +0200)
From: Tony Spencer
Well that's interesting. I have many more apps on the PB than the iMac,
and it's usually slower installing on the Optimising System bit for OS
updates than the iMac, but not always...

On Friday, August 9, 2002, at 12:25 am, Alex Rice wrote:

>> I've always wondered quite what the installer is doing when it says
>> "Optimising System"...
>
> I think I read somewhere that it's doing "prebinding". For compiled
> apps which use frameworks or other shared libraries, "prebinding"
> calculates the addresses of entry points into those libs, supposedly
> making the app startup faster or something. If you ask me, it's darn
> silly to take 0.25 hour to install the latest version of QuickTime on
> OS X.
>

Tony Spencer
St Etienne du Grès, (13) France
<email address removed>
http://homepage.mac.com/tonyspencer/

---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X
Date: 08.08.02 22:13 (Thu, 8 Aug 2002 23:13:44 +0200)
From: Tony Spencer
I doubt it if it's too old. Jaguar wants a pretty hefty graphics card.
I'm wondering whether it'll work faster than treacle on my 4 year old
250MHz Wallstreet PBG3... Otherwise I'm stuck with 10.1.5 for the
foreseeable future.

On Wednesday, July 31, 2002, at 11:52 pm, Stéphane Pinel wrote:

> Maybe Jaguar will give you its supposed 25% fast more ?
>

Tony Spencer
St Etienne du Grès, (13) France
<email address removed>
http://homepage.mac.com/tonyspencer/

---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X
Date: 08.08.02 23:35 (Thu, 8 Aug 2002 15:35:32 -0700)
From: Will Leshner
In general, my experience is the 10.2 is much faster than 10.1.5 on my
B&W 400Mhz tower. In fact, now my 400Mhz tower feels faster than my
500Mhz pismo PB. I don't think either has a fancy graphics card to take
advantage of.

That's the thing I love about Mac OS X. It gets faster with each
release :)

On Thursday, August 8, 2002, at 02:13 PM, Tony Spencer wrote:

> I doubt it if it's too old. Jaguar wants a pretty hefty graphics card.
> I'm wondering whether it'll work faster than treacle on my 4 year old
> 250MHz Wallstreet PBG3... Otherwise I'm stuck with 10.1.5 for the
> foreseeable future.

---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X
Date: 09.08.02 00:53 (Thu, 8 Aug 2002 19:53:31 -0400)
From: Steve Sobek
Only for Quartz Extreme to render everything through graphics acceleration.
Machines that don't have the g-chips will work as they always have under
X, in fact, Jag's Finder actually should give older Macs a speed bump...

On Thursday, August 8, 2002, at 05:13 PM, Tony Spencer wrote:

> I doubt it if it's too old. Jaguar wants a pretty hefty graphics card. I'
> m wondering whether it'll work faster than treacle on my 4 year old
> 250MHz Wallstreet PBG3... Otherwise I'm stuck with 10.1.5 for the
> foreseeable future.
>
"There are many humorous things in the world: among them the white man's
notion that he is less savage than the other savages."
-- Mark Twain

Steve Sobek
<email address removed>
http://www.unitedmac.com

---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X
Date: 09.08.02 02:40 (Thu, 08 Aug 2002 18:40:06 -0700)
From: Seth Willits
On 8/8/02 2:13 PM, the NSA intercepted the following message from "Tony
Spencer" <<email address removed>>:

> I doubt it if it's too old. Jaguar wants a pretty hefty graphics card.
> I'm wondering whether it'll work faster than treacle on my 4 year old
> 250MHz Wallstreet PBG3... Otherwise I'm stuck with 10.1.5 for the
> foreseeable future.

For the record, Jaguar doesn't _want_ anything more than a computer that can
run OS X 10.0. Jaguar will run on a 233mhz Bondi Blue iMac for all it cares.

The hefty graphics card is only useful for taking advantage of Quartz
Extreme which will enhance the speed of the interface. If you computer has a
Rage Pro in it, then oh well, you won't see any speed gain, but it'll still
work.

Seth Willits
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
President and Head Developer of Freak Software - http://www.freaksw.com
Q&A Columnist for REALbasic Developer Magazine - http://www.rbdeveloper.com

"A computer without Windows is like a cake without mustard."
-- A Bringer of Truth
---------------------------------------------------------------------------


---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>

Re: Abandoning RB 4.5 on OS X
Date: 11.08.02 20:28 (Sun, 11 Aug 2002 21:28:31 +0200)
From: Tony Spencer
Thanks Seth. It wasn't clear from Apple's web site, where they do spec
the graphics card.

On Friday, August 9, 2002, at 03:40 am, Seth Willits wrote:

> For the record, Jaguar doesn't _want_ anything more than a computer
> that can
> run OS X 10.0. Jaguar will run on a 233mhz Bondi Blue iMac for all it
> cares.
>
> The hefty graphics card is only useful for taking advantage of Quartz
> Extreme which will enhance the speed of the interface. If you computer
> has a
> Rage Pro in it, then oh well, you won't see any speed gain, but it'll
> still
> work.

Tony Spencer
St Etienne du Grès, (13) France
<email address removed>
http://homepage.mac.com/tonyspencer/

---
Subscribe to the digest:
<mailto:<email address removed>>
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:<email address removed>>