Confirmed - Leopard is SLOWER than Tiger...

Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Messages
2,766
Reaction score
232
Points
63
Location
Brooklyn, New York
Your Mac's Specs
15" 2014 MacBook Pro, i7 2.5Ghz, 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD; iPad 3, iPhone 6
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
175
Reaction score
4
Points
18
Your Mac's Specs
17" 2.8ghz Macbook Pro, 32GB iPhone 4
My CD Mini and G4 Powerbook feel much faster with Leopard.

:shrug:
 
OP
Zoolook
Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Messages
2,766
Reaction score
232
Points
63
Location
Brooklyn, New York
Your Mac's Specs
15" 2014 MacBook Pro, i7 2.5Ghz, 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD; iPad 3, iPhone 6
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! :D
 
Joined
Dec 3, 2006
Messages
9,383
Reaction score
417
Points
83
Location
Irvine, CA
Your Mac's 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.
 
OP
Zoolook
Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Messages
2,766
Reaction score
232
Points
63
Location
Brooklyn, New York
Your Mac's Specs
15" 2014 MacBook Pro, i7 2.5Ghz, 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD; iPad 3, iPhone 6
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.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
175
Reaction score
4
Points
18
Your Mac's Specs
17" 2.8ghz Macbook Pro, 32GB iPhone 4
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! :D

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
 
OP
Zoolook
Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Messages
2,766
Reaction score
232
Points
63
Location
Brooklyn, New York
Your Mac's Specs
15" 2014 MacBook Pro, i7 2.5Ghz, 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD; iPad 3, iPhone 6
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.
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2004
Messages
4,744
Reaction score
381
Points
83
Location
USA
Your Mac's Specs
12" Apple PowerBook G4 (1.5GHz)
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.
 
Joined
Dec 3, 2006
Messages
9,383
Reaction score
417
Points
83
Location
Irvine, CA
Your Mac's 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.
 
OP
Zoolook
Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Messages
2,766
Reaction score
232
Points
63
Location
Brooklyn, New York
Your Mac's Specs
15" 2014 MacBook Pro, i7 2.5Ghz, 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD; iPad 3, iPhone 6
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... :eek:

zoolook said:
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!
 

dtravis7


Retired Staff
Joined
Jan 4, 2005
Messages
30,133
Reaction score
703
Points
113
Location
Modesto, Ca.
Your Mac's Specs
MacMini M-1 MacOS Monterey, iMac 2010 27"Quad I7 , MBPLate2011, iPad Pro10.5", iPhoneSE
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.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
175
Reaction score
4
Points
18
Your Mac's Specs
17" 2.8ghz Macbook Pro, 32GB iPhone 4
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.
 
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
136
Reaction score
1
Points
18
Your Mac's 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.
 
OP
Zoolook
Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Messages
2,766
Reaction score
232
Points
63
Location
Brooklyn, New York
Your Mac's Specs
15" 2014 MacBook Pro, i7 2.5Ghz, 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD; iPad 3, iPhone 6
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.

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.
 
Joined
Oct 10, 2004
Messages
10,345
Reaction score
597
Points
113
Location
Margaritaville
Your Mac's Specs
3.4 Ghz i7 MacBook Pro (2015), iPad Pro (2014), iPhone Xs Max. Apple TV 4K
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.
 
Joined
Mar 2, 2007
Messages
148
Reaction score
11
Points
18
Location
In your closet
Your Mac's Specs
MacPro, MacBook Pro, iPhone 4
wow, i guess i should hate Leopard now! :Angry-Tongue:
 
OP
Zoolook
Joined
Sep 24, 2006
Messages
2,766
Reaction score
232
Points
63
Location
Brooklyn, New York
Your Mac's Specs
15" 2014 MacBook Pro, i7 2.5Ghz, 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD; iPad 3, iPhone 6
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.

I thought they also tested a CD vs a C2D, both of which are Dual Cores. :Oops: They didn't... my bad.

As for the other sarcastic replies, thanks, you all contribute the idea that Mac users are dimwits who cannot stand the idea that something from Apple isn't accepted as the holy grail. :Angry-Tongue:

I'm only bitter because I have an Intel CD, missed out on a C2D by about 5 weeks... surely you can allow me that? :D
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2005
Messages
175
Reaction score
4
Points
18
Your Mac's Specs
17" 2.8ghz Macbook Pro, 32GB iPhone 4
I thought they also tested a CD vs a C2D, both of which are Dual Cores. :Oops: They didn't... my bad.

As for the other sarcastic replies, thanks, you all contribute the idea that Mac users are dimwits who cannot stand the idea that something from Apple isn't accepted as the holy grail. :Angry-Tongue:

I'm only bitter because I have an Intel CD, missed out on a C2D by about 5 weeks... surely you can allow me that? :D

No, we just don't like people who reword things to fit their own agenda, and those who quote reviews that aren't 100% accurate.
 
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Messages
1,463
Reaction score
67
Points
48
Location
UK
Your Mac's Specs
Lenovo Z560 Hackintosh -:- '06 iMac -:- iPod Touch 2ndGen
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.

Yeah, I'd much prefer they left it at 10.1.0, packed up and went home. Who needs all these new features and improvements making use of newer, faster and cheaper components and technology?

Personally the only thing I give a monkey's about is how fast it responds to me, the user pulling levers and pressing switches - I couldn't care less about benchmarks.
 
M

MacHeadCase

Guest
No, we just don't like people who reword things to fit their own agenda, and those who quote reviews that aren't 100% accurate.

I think Zoolook made an honest mistake, in his haste to post the link, and he did say so in his last post. I can accept that fact: can you?
 

Shop Amazon


Shop for your Apple, Mac, iPhone and other computer products on Amazon.
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Top