Confirmed - Leopard is SLOWER than Tiger...

[Zoolook]

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.

What's my 'agenda'? I'm not going to filter information, people can decide for themselves if a review is accurate, or makes a good point. Don't they have freedom of expression down in Florida?

The review is accurate, within the limited scope it allowed itself. Pulling it apart because it didn't cover all the bases, is fair enough, I'd support that - the whole point of a discussion is to discuss things. You shoul dbe able to do it without being sarcastic and snippy, or simply replying to every thread with 'well mine worked, you must be weird' or words to that effect.

 

[Zoolook]

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?

Thanks - I also edited the original post slightly to take this into account.

/walks away with head hung, kicking an empty beer can...

 

[Sobe]

What's my 'agenda'? I'm not going to filter information, people can decide for themselves if a review is accurate, or makes a good point. Don't they have freedom of expression down in Florida?

The review is accurate, within the limited scope it allowed itself. Pulling it apart because it didn't cover all the bases, is fair enough, I'd support that - the whole point of a discussion is to discuss things. You shoul dbe able to do it without being sarcastic and snippy, or simply replying to every thread with 'well mine worked, you must be weird' or words to that effect.

I'm just going to drop it so words aren't being put into my mouth anymore, and my comments aren't changed/reworded.

++

 

[mac57]

Exactly baggss, I was wondering about the fairness of the test myself. Does anyone know if such a comparison has been done?

What is worth noting is the "same CPU" results - forget the comparison stuff. For "same CPU", on a G5 machine, Leopard is slower across the board, either 32 bit or 64 bit: this is what they seem to point out.

That is too bad. I had hoped that 10.5.x would continue the trend of performance improvements. Sigh...

 

[schweb]

I'm just going to drop it so words aren't being put into my mouth anymore, and my comments aren't changed/reworded.

++

Exactly which one of your posts was changed or reworded? I can guarantee that no one changed your posts.

That's a pretty big accusation to throw out there. I hope you will explain yourself.

 

[Stretch]

Exactly baggss, I was wondering about the fairness of the test myself. Does anyone know if such a comparison has been done?

What is worth noting is the "same CPU" results - forget the comparison stuff. For "same CPU", on a G5 machine, Leopard is slower across the board, either 32 bit or 64 bit: this is what they seem to point out.

That is too bad. I had hoped that 10.5.x would continue the trend of performance improvements. Sigh...

I have an unused machine to do that on. I'll wipe, and do a clean install of tiger, run xbench, then reinstall with leopard, then run xbench again and let you guys know what I get. It will be on a 2.1Ghz G5 imac with 1.5GB RAM.

 

[mac57]

EXCELLENT Stretch, thanks! I will look forward to the results.

 

[Sobe]

Exactly which one of your posts was changed or reworded? I can guarantee that no one changed your posts.

That's a pretty big accusation to throw out there. I hope you will explain yourself.

I said nothing of my posts and replies being changed.

Calm down Sparky.

 

[Zoolook]

I said nothing of my posts and replies being changed.

Calm down Sparky.

You accused me of putting word into your mouth, which is a metaphorical way of saying your posts were misread, misinterpreted or out-right changed.

Either way, almost all of your replies are either aggressive or dismissive in nature. I think you're the one who would most benefit from calming down.

 

[Sobe]

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.

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.



You're right, this is mentioned in the 1st sentence of the actual post.

You accused me of putting word into your mouth, which is a metaphorical way of saying your posts were misread, misinterpreted or out-right changed.

Either way, almost all of your replies are either aggressive or dismissive in nature. I think you're the one who would most benefit from calming down.

He was speaking as if I said that someone went and actually changed my posts.

All I was referring to (throughout the thread), is that I don't agree that the GUI is making me think that Leopard is faster, and that we don't agree that it's the GUI that is just pulling the curtain over everyone's eyes.

 

[Zoolook]

He was speaking as if I said that someone went and actually changed my posts.

All I was referring to (throughout the thread), is that I don't agree that the GUI is making me think that Leopard is faster, and that we don't agree that it's the GUI that is just pulling the curtain over everyone's eyes.

Now who's putting words into someone's mouth? I didn't say the GUI was pulling the curtain over people's eyes. I know that OS X is optimized in such a way that the user gets the minimum disruption possible. It's designed that way. I haven't said this is a negative trait, or this is some wild trick. It's actually a great GUI and a great OS because of this.

In fact, if you'd said what you've just said now, in your 1st reply, instead of snide sarcastic comments, we could have avoided 3 pages of bickering.

 

[mi6]

if thats the case, get a better computer...

 

[Sobe]

Now who's putting words into someone's mouth? I didn't say the GUI was pulling the curtain over people's eyes. I know that OS X is optimized in such a way that the user gets the minimum disruption possible. It's designed that way. I haven't said this is a negative trait, or this is some wild trick. It's actually a great GUI and a great OS because of this.

In fact, if you'd said what you've just said now, in your 1st reply, instead of snide sarcastic comments, we could have avoided 3 pages of bickering.

1) By replying to my post about everything in Leopard being faster with "the GUI is very slick," it implies that it's the GUI that gives you the impression things are faster.

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.

2) Yea that's wrong on my part. I shall include everything in my first post from now on, including things that pertain to future posts and replies.

 

[fedmax]

Aluminium Core2Duo IMAC remarks

Just a few remarks about waht I see on my new 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM IMAC: The switch feels like from Windows XP to Vista. The general experience is slower (UI) and there is a lot more harddisk activty heck I really know now that there is a harddrive in there because with Tiger I never had that much activity.

In my daily work I don't see the point of Leopard yet and why I had to spend 120 Euros (140$) for a few visual effects that I barely notice, for cover flow that is just funky but not business value, time machine yeah nice but with a simple drag and drop backup I don't need that much more...I could go on. I'll give it a month and then decide if I go back to Tiger.

 

[Zoolook]

1) By replying to my post about everything in Leopard being faster with "the GUI is very slick," it implies that it's the GUI that gives you the impression things are faster.
.

Sure, I get that. Slick is not a great word, because it's ambiguous, I did say that in a later post. I originally meant it in the informal or slang sense of 'wonderful' or 'first rate', but of course it has more meaning than that.

I am not American, and where I come from, it's usually meant in the informal sense, not the literal one. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Kash]

Just a few remarks about waht I see on my new 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM IMAC: The switch feels like from Windows XP to Vista. The general experience is slower (UI) and there is a lot more harddisk activty heck I really know now that there is a harddrive in there because with Tiger I never had that much activity.

In my daily work I don't see the point of Leopard yet and why I had to spend 120 Euros (140$) for a few visual effects that I barely notice, for cover flow that is just funky but not business value, time machine yeah nice but with a simple drag and drop backup I don't need that much more...I could go on. I'll give it a month and then decide if I go back to Tiger.

If you did a simple upgrade, that could explain the noticeable slowdown. People who did an Archive & Install or a Clean Install tend not to have any slowdowns.

 

[Stretch]

OK, I'm starting this now. I'm erasing the HD on my old iMac, and am going to reinstall a clean installation of Tiger. I'm only going to install the base system, no iLife, or iLife things. Once Tiger is installed, I'm going to download all the system updates to get it up to 10.4.10. Do 2 restarts, and time the second one. Then run xbench. Then I'll do a clean install of Leopard, and restart twice, timing the second one. Then run xbench again.

 

[Stretch]

Just finished the testing. Comparing 10.4.10 against 10.5 on a iMac G5 2.1Ghz 1.5GB RAM system. I restarted the system twice before taking times, and did the startup test 3 times, averaging it out. Start-up times are from the time I pressed the button to the time the desktop was up and fully loaded.

Tiger startup: 48sec
Leopard startup: 1min 24sec

xBench results
Tiger: 76.41
Leopard 40.45

Links to text document of full xBench results: 10.4.10 & 10.5

 

[dtravis7]

Leopard takes maybe 5 seconds longer on my Core Duo mini to get to the desktop than Tiger. More going on.

I have no trust for Xbench at all. It's given me a much lower score over and over when upgrading my G4 DA, yet in any other test like converting a video, or any real world task, the upgraded machine was so much faster.

Also XBench has not been upgraded for a long time now that I have seen unless it just happened and will be way off for a new OS. When Tiger came out the author did updates to Xbench as the scores were WAY off and much slower.

Just a thought as with everything I have done here Leopard is faster or as fast as Tiger except for the slightly slower boot up.

 

[Stretch]

I didn't do much on it other than run xBench, so I can't say if it feels faster while running Leopard or not.