Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 47
  1. #1

    Zoolook's Avatar
    Member Since
    Sep 24, 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, New York
    Posts
    2,756
    Specs:
    15" MacBook Pro, i7 2.66Ghz, 8GB RAM, 512GB SSD; iPad 3, iPhone 5
    Confirmed - Leopard is SLOWER than Tiger...
    ... at least on a G5

    If you have a C2D (i.e. 64-bit Intel), it will be quicker in 64-bit mode. Hardly a surprise eh?

    If you run Leopard in 64-bit mode on a G5, you lose a lot of performance, vs Tiger.

    http://arstechnica.com/journals/appl...-to-beat-tiger

    Thoughts?
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is stoned to death.
    - Joan D. Vinge


  2. #2

    Sobe's Avatar
    Member Since
    Aug 24, 2005
    Posts
    175
    Specs:
    17" 2.8ghz Macbook Pro, 32GB iPhone 4
    My CD Mini and G4 Powerbook feel much faster with Leopard.

    :shrug:

  3. #3

    Zoolook's Avatar
    Member Since
    Sep 24, 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, New York
    Posts
    2,756
    Specs:
    15" MacBook Pro, i7 2.66Ghz, 8GB RAM, 512GB SSD; iPad 3, iPhone 5
    Quote Originally Posted by Sobe View Post
    My CD Mini and G4 Powerbook feel much faster with Leopard.

    :shrug:
    Indeed, and if you read the full review of Leopard over at Ars, you will see why. OS X is very good at ensuring the user sees the maximum performance, only a benchmark will reveal the slower 'under-the-bonnet' performance.

    You have to love a GUI that appears faster slower over OS performance!
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is stoned to death.
    - Joan D. Vinge


  4. #4

    Kash's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 03, 2006
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    9,385
    Specs:
    Black Macbook C2D 2GHz 3GB RAM 250GB HD iPhone 4 iPad 3G
    New operating systems are expected to be slower than their predecessors, so I'm not entirely surprised at this news. Though you have to give credit to Apple for not making the slowdown apparent to the user, as is the case with Vista.

    June 2007
    July 2009

  5. #5

    Zoolook's Avatar
    Member Since
    Sep 24, 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, New York
    Posts
    2,756
    Specs:
    15" MacBook Pro, i7 2.66Ghz, 8GB RAM, 512GB SSD; iPad 3, iPhone 5
    Quote Originally Posted by Kash View Post
    New operating systems are expected to be slower than their predecessors, so I'm not entirely surprised at this news.
    Actually 10.0 through to 10.4 resulted in faster performance, so it's been expected that 10.5 would continue this.
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is stoned to death.
    - Joan D. Vinge


  6. #6

    Sobe's Avatar
    Member Since
    Aug 24, 2005
    Posts
    175
    Specs:
    17" 2.8ghz Macbook Pro, 32GB iPhone 4
    Quote Originally Posted by Zoolook View Post
    Indeed, and if you read the full review of Leopard over at Ars, you will see why. OS X is very good at ensuring the user sees the maximum performance, only a benchmark will reveal the slower 'under-the-bonnet' performance.

    You have to love a GUI that appears faster slower over OS performance!
    Quote Originally Posted by Zoolook View Post
    Actually 10.0 through to 10.4 resulted in faster performance, so it's been expected that 10.5 would continue this.
    1) My programs over faster, my searches are quicker, and even Frontrow is improved.

    I must be dreaming all of this, with a stop-watch in my hand.

    2) 10.0.0 or 10.0.* ?

    Biiiiiiiig difference

  7. #7

    Zoolook's Avatar
    Member Since
    Sep 24, 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, New York
    Posts
    2,756
    Specs:
    15" MacBook Pro, i7 2.66Ghz, 8GB RAM, 512GB SSD; iPad 3, iPhone 5
    Quote Originally Posted by Sobe View Post
    1) My programs over faster, my searches are quicker, and even Frontrow is improved.

    I must be dreaming all of this, with a stop-watch in my hand.

    2) 10.0.0 or 10.0.* ?

    Biiiiiiiig difference
    The GUI is very slick, agreed.

    If I meant 10.0.x I would have said that. 10.0.x to 10.4.x showed benchmark and GUI improvements for each major release. Leopard bucks the trend, but as far as I am concerned, this just shows that Leopard really is probably the biggest leap OS X has taken so far. It's a next gen OS.
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is stoned to death.
    - Joan D. Vinge


  8. #8


    Member Since
    Mar 30, 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,744
    Specs:
    12" Apple PowerBook G4 (1.5GHz)
    Quote Originally Posted by Zoolook View Post
    Actually 10.0 through to 10.4 resulted in faster performance, so it's been expected that 10.5 would continue this.
    I don't know that they necessarily did...certainly the user experience was more responsive, as with Leopard, but not necessarily the entire OS.

    The slow-but-steady upward march of the system requirements since 10.2 belies increasing bloat and complexity.

  9. #9

    Kash's Avatar
    Member Since
    Dec 03, 2006
    Location
    Irvine, CA
    Posts
    9,385
    Specs:
    Black Macbook C2D 2GHz 3GB RAM 250GB HD iPhone 4 iPad 3G
    Zoolook, did you read the Leopard review at Ars? Here's a quote from that article that may explain our Leopard experience:

    There's a big difference between being "fast" and being "responsive," and Apple's focus is on the latter.
    If what the author said is true, that could explain why Leopard "feels" faster but may not do as well in benchmarks.

    June 2007
    July 2009

  10. #10

    Zoolook's Avatar
    Member Since
    Sep 24, 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, New York
    Posts
    2,756
    Specs:
    15" MacBook Pro, i7 2.66Ghz, 8GB RAM, 512GB SSD; iPad 3, iPhone 5
    Quote Originally Posted by Kash View Post
    Zoolook, did you read the Leopard review at Ars? Here's a quote from that article that may explain our Leopard experience:



    If what the author said is true, that could explain why Leopard "feels" faster but may not do as well in benchmarks.
    Yeah I read the article, and I said what you've just said in my 2nd post...

    Quote Originally Posted by zoolook
    Indeed, and if you read the full review of Leopard over at Ars, you will see why. OS X is very good at ensuring the user sees the maximum performance, only a benchmark will reveal the slower 'under-the-bonnet' performance.

    You have to love a GUI that appears faster slower over OS performance!
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is stoned to death.
    - Joan D. Vinge


  11. #11

    dtravis7's Avatar
    Member Since
    Jan 04, 2005
    Location
    Modesto, Ca.
    Posts
    28,870
    Specs:
    iMac 2010 27" QuadI7 OSX10.11, iMac 2008 OSX10.11, MBP Late2011OSX10.11 , iPad Air, iPhone 3GS
    Quote Originally Posted by technologist View Post
    I don't know that they necessarily did...certainly the user experience was more responsive, as with Leopard, but not necessarily the entire OS.

    The slow-but-steady upward march of the system requirements since 10.2 belies increasing bloat and complexity.
    Agreed completely.

    Another point is, I really do not have much respect for Synthetic benchmarks at all. I have seen Xbench for one score lower after a major upgrade where the machine is clearly faster running real applications and timing the work being done. I wonder what would happen if say you compiled something, Converted a video, a Music file in itunes or something real world and see then how Tiger and Leopard would compare speed wise.

    I do know that many things are faster using Leopard that I have tried, but most like Time Machine is due to the improved design of TM itself.

  12. #12

    Sobe's Avatar
    Member Since
    Aug 24, 2005
    Posts
    175
    Specs:
    17" 2.8ghz Macbook Pro, 32GB iPhone 4
    Quote Originally Posted by Zoolook View Post
    The GUI is very slick, agreed.

    If I meant 10.0.x I would have said that. 10.0.x to 10.4.x showed benchmark and GUI improvements for each major release. Leopard bucks the trend, but as far as I am concerned, this just shows that Leopard really is probably the biggest leap OS X has taken so far. It's a next gen OS.

    I never said that a "slick" GUI was the reason my programs opened faster, and my experience was quicker.

    So there is nothing we agree on.

  13. #13


    Member Since
    Oct 28, 2007
    Posts
    136
    Specs:
    24" iMac, 2.4GHz C2D, 4 GB RAM, 320 GB hard drive, OS X 10.5.1
    Your Thread title is misleading. I have a Core 2 Duo therefore it will be faster on my mac.

  14. #14

    Zoolook's Avatar
    Member Since
    Sep 24, 2006
    Location
    Brooklyn, New York
    Posts
    2,756
    Specs:
    15" MacBook Pro, i7 2.66Ghz, 8GB RAM, 512GB SSD; iPad 3, iPhone 5
    Quote Originally Posted by Sobe View Post
    I never said that a "slick" GUI was the reason my programs opened faster, and my experience was quicker.

    So there is nothing we agree on.
    Slick is a poor word. The user experience is better and things do seem to open quicker, the GUI does appear faster. I think we do agree, and that's not such a bad thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by brian67 View Post
    Your Thread title is misleading. I have a Core 2 Duo therefore it will be faster on my mac.
    You're right, this is mentioned in the 1st sentence of the actual post.
    In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is stoned to death.
    - Joan D. Vinge


  15. #15

    baggss's Avatar
    Member Since
    Oct 10, 2004
    Location
    Margaritaville
    Posts
    10,311
    Specs:
    27" 3.4 Ghz i7 iMac-13" C2D Macbook-OSX 10.10.2 -64Gb iPad 2-64 Gb iPhone 6+-ATV 2-14Tb of Storage
    Maybe I'm missing something here, but did they do a test between a single core G5 (1.6Ghz) and a C2D Intel (2 Ghz)? Is anyone surprised at ALL that a dual core processor beat a single core processor?

    This is simply an unfairly lopsided test for any number of reasons:

    1) 1.67Ghz SINGLE core vs 2.0Ghz DUAL core.

    2) 333Mhz RAM vs 667Mhz RAM

    Maybe a 2Ghz Dual Core G5 vs a 2Ghz C2D would be a bit more realistic AND revealing.


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Upgrading to Snow Leopard Is Slower?
    By haste4 in forum OS X - Operating System
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-19-2010, 01:25 PM
  2. Yay! Snow Leopard Upgrade Price Confirmed!
    By iPod Nano in forum OS X - Operating System
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-12-2009, 02:58 AM
  3. Why is my eMac slower with Leopard?
    By jokumura in forum OS X - Operating System
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-16-2008, 09:32 PM
  4. computer running slower since Leopard
    By Panjabigator in forum OS X - Operating System
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-04-2008, 02:14 AM
  5. Is Leopard Faster, Same or Slower on G5?
    By mac57 in forum OS X - Operating System
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-30-2007, 04:24 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •