Is Tiger's animation faster than that of Leopard?

I've installed mac os x 10.5.3 and I think Tiger's animation still being faster than that of Leopard. Why?

I was also curious about Javascript in Director, so I ran a
JS version of the same script:
function test() {
startTime = _system.milliseconds
for(potentialPrime=1;potentialPrime<=1000;potentialPrime++) {
isPrime = true;
for(i=2;i<potentialPrime;i++) {
n = parseInt(potentialPrime/i);
if (n*i == potentialPrime) {
isPrime = false;
break;
trace("Total Time: "+(_system.milliseconds - startTime))
test();
Well, it surprised me. And disappointed me too. This came in
at 5x slower than the same script in Lingo!

Similar Messages

Safari in Win7 is FASTER than in Snow Leopard

And this running Windows from Parallels!
When I load a page in Safari I check the network usage with iStat menus. It's often (but not always) stuck at 0.2-0.3KB/s. Or 0.0KB/s for few seconds. A page takes ages to load. Opening the same page in Windows 7, from a Parallel machine, it loads immediately. This site as well. And iStat shows that something is actually downloading. I already tried all the tricks I've found in Internet to improve Safari speed. Same result.
What bothers me is that in the 10.6.2 (beta) release notes there is no mention of Safari improvement. Does Apple recognize that something is pretty wrong with the new release?

Barry, thanks for your suggestions. But I already tried removing them. Let me list what's my Safari configuration:
0. It's a fresh new SL installation, with my old data migrated from the backup.
1. GlimmeBlocker: it's an HTTP local proxy for blocking ads. Not a plugin so one just needs to disable it and it disappears from the network configuration
2. Glims: I uninstalled it already and the problem was still there
3. 1Password: I disabled the browser extensions. Doing so Safari forgets about it. The problem persisted.
4. Safari defaults to 64 bits. I didn't change anything.
5. My MacBook having EFI32 can boot only in 32 bits mode. So that's not an issue either.
6. I already reset Safari cache, cookies and stuff few times.
7. Nothing else. It doesn't seem to me like a plethora of things since the installation is fresh.
What drives me nut is that it doesn't always happen. Sometime I can even load 10 pages in few seconds. Funny enough it happens very often with this forum (while, for example, Facebook or Wikipedia are usually - but not always - fast). I will try again with another account, w/o any plugin.
the other thing is while Leopard was running just perfectly (and I mean it), after upgrading I've got all kind of little nasty problems, common to others: Flickering screen, 1st key missing (this is an old MacBook 2007 problem. Apple released a fw update for it and now I've got this problem again), Finder eating 100% of CPU, overheating with the CPU below 10%. They are all random. Today indeed I just have a consistent Safari slowness on loading text web pages (Flash instead is pretty fast).

Can iphone with vodafone network unlocked faster than two days?

iphone 4 locked to vodafone. Already contacted vodafone but they said it takes 2 days. But need to do it faster than that as I am going abroad? Can any one help please?

Nobody can help. Vodafone are the only people who can initiate the unlock. If they say it takes 2 days, that's how long it takes.

Video in my flash presentation playing faster than the animation

I have a flash presentaion that contains flvs, devided to chapters,everytime a video ends (chapter ends) a flash animation runs (like title changing,and thunmbnails changing).
the prob i m having is that on a core2quad, animation is faster than videos,and on p4 video is slower than animation.
the best played presentation is on core2duo.
how can we solve this prob?
thanx

Try calling Apple - (1-800-MY-APPLE)
and/or you can try the online service assistant-
http://www.apple.com/support/serviceassistant/overview.html
Message was edited by: belovedjs

If i export my project, it runs much faster than in the canvas. How can I fix that?

If i export my project, it runs much faster than in the canvas. How can I fix that?
I'm from germany, sorry for my english!

When you export your project, it is "compiled" into video format. Any player will play it at its frame rate.
Motion is a compositing application. It has to make many more times the calculations needed to animate everything and 90% of the time, it's just not possible for Motion to keep up with "real time". It's to be expected. Learning to live with that fact will make life a lot easier for you, I promise.
There are a few things you can do to help speed up Motion:
Reduce temporary play ranges to no more than about 5 seconds at a time. You can move the Play Range In and Out markers from section to section. Motion does all of its real time rendering in RAM. The longer the play range, to more it has to work managing that memory.
Remove Preview Icons from the Layers list ( View menu > Layers Columns > Preview will toggle the views)
When you play your animation, turn off on screen guides: (command - / will toggle onscreen guides)
In Motion 5, reducing the quality of playback from the Render menu does not make a lot of difference anymore, so you might as well keep the default settings of Dynamic, Full and Normal on. However, Motion Blur, Frame Blending, Field Rendering, as well as the lighting options will affect playback, sometimes by quite a lot. So if you have Lights, turning off Lighting, Shadows, and Reflections will get back a lot of real time playback speed (just remember to turn on all that you need before rendering, or these things will be left out of the export!)
HTH

The logic in LEOPARD being faster than TIGER?

I'm still trying to grasp this concept. I have NEVER heard of an upgrade that goes faster than a previous version...
DISK SPACE
If I upgrade my MacBook from Tiger to Leopard using the "archive and install feature" on the disk, am I adding more system files to my existing ones? Or does the installation process of LEOPARD somehow remove more files than it installs?
In my world, less disk space = slower computer. Maybe there's a little logic in that.
Message was edited by: You Got Pwnd

You Got Pwnd,
Actually, every subsequent version of OS X has performed better, on every supported architecture, than the previous version. In some cases, quite a bit better and faster.
Leopard is a somewhat different story, though. On older, but still support machines, it can be very much slower than Tiger. The amount of available RAM has a lot to do with this (on some older machines, the maximum RAM "puts the squeeze" on Leopard), as does the presence (or not) of advanced graphics processors.
Certainly, many things are faster in Leopard than they are in Tiger, given a machine that meets certain requirements (enough RAM, advanced graphics, etc.). Leopard's Finder is now multi-threaded, so the apparent speed of the GUI is much improved. Also, the more advanced interaction of the CPU and the GPU provide increased response for many facets of the GUI.
Then, there is the potential full 64-bit aspect of Leopard. If it is being run on a 64-bit machine, it can be significantly faster than any previous version for many tasks.
Disk space only affects speed when it is insufficient for the current virtual memory usage, and in fact, some modern hard drives perform better when more disk space is being used (specifically, those that use the relatively new PMR technology). Up to a point, it is more RAM that has an affect on overall performance, not disk space.
"Archive and Install" moves every part of the current OS into a "Previous Systems" folder, and installs a brand-new, and complete, copy of the new OS. In other words, it uses at least twice the amount of disk space currently being used (by system files, at least). Only an "Upgrade" installation removes and replaces as needed to migrate from one in-place version to another, and only an "Erase and Install" formats the startup volume and installs the new OS, and only the new OS, to the erased volume.
Once you have migrated to Leopard, an additional option is available: "Restore from a Time Machine Backup." While your Time Machine backup, on an external/secondary drive, is not "bootable," the Leopard install disk can use it to completely "Restore" a bootable system, including all your applications and user data, to an erased startup volume. This is not fresh installation of OS X with your data and applications copied back, but a complete restoration of everything from the backup, and it takes much, much less time to perform than a normal installation (it is dependent only on the speed of your external drive. In my case, that is a Firewire 800 drive, and a ~50 GB system takes only 30 minutes to completely restore).
Scott

I recently upgraded my internet service to be faster on myIMac tiger 10.4.11 and that lasted about a day. Now not only do I get TBBFH but even opening up let's say Face book it loads very slowly . It's not the BBFH but next to the facebook it's a circle o

Even when I am using Safari or Firefox the spinning wheel of lines especially for face book just keeps spinning and it takes forever to load my pages. It was faster than this before I upgraded my internet service. I Check the speeds and those are fine (using a internet speed test). I have emptied all of my caches, cleaned my Mac with (Clean My Mac), I've taken out all old files, pictures, cleared my widgits, and I don't know what else to do. Is there some configuration I need to address some where inmy preferences? Do Ihave to just live with it? I do want to upgrade to Snow Leopard but, I can't afford that at this moment. Any ideas please forward. Another issue I have is that my IMac will not accept a DVD+Rdl but will accept any and all other DVD' and CD's what could cause that?
Sincerely,
Rochichi98

A warm welcome to Apple discussions!
A 2003 iMac cannot support Snow Leopard 10.6; you'd need an Intel processor and that cannot be retrofitted to your Mac. What does "About this Mac" in your Apple menu say for your processor speed? What does it say about how much RAM you have?
If the processor is 1ghz or faster, you can run OS 10.5; otherwise, you are maxed out at 10.4.11.
Also, are you running any commercial ("pay for") anti-virus or security software? They are notorious for slowing most Macs to a fraction of their speed potential.
A too-full hard drive can drag down performance, especially if you don't have a lot of physical RAM installed. If you single-click your hard drive icon and then do command i, you'll see the disk usage. Looks like this:
The value for "Used" should be no more than about 90 percent of "Capacity." In the example image, that drive has about 34 percent of its space used and 66 percent free--more than enough. Please post what you see for your Capacity and Used numbers
There are a few more things we might check but this is a good start.
Awaiting your information,
Allan

I read on the website that the update 4.0 was supposed to work faster than the last but I that since I updated (2 days ago) my work in firefox has become quite sluggish. Any suggestions?

Hi there. I upgraded to firefox 4 on Monday (two days ago) since I saw that the new version was supposed to run faster than firefox 3 that I was using. However, since I've started using it, I wait longer for a page to download than I had to before and the whole browser just is sluggish to respond. Any suggestions?

Sounds like it either believes that there are headphones plugged in, or the switch is broken.
Why in the world would you take it to Best Buy for service? Take it to an Apple Store. They can replace it on the spot if it's defective.

I want to buy an adobe product that cuts the background from a picture very fast. Faster than photoshop cs6

I Want to buy a photoshop product that can cut my background from a picture very fast. Faster than ps6

Quick Selection Tool | Understanding Adobe Photoshop CS6 | Adobe TV
Nancy O.

Ubuntu is booting up faster than Arch on my computer why would that be

So after about a year with ubuntu and just trying out different distros i went towards a challenge, Arch. Well it was for me at the time but after installing arch and learning how it all got built i am very content with this new distro for me. My primary objective was to have a really fast distro, thus Arch but since i am a noob for now I dont know all of the ins and outs of it yet. Right now Ubuntu boots up WAY faster than Arch does on my desktop and I would like to know why and how i can change that.

Arch doesn't do anything to increase boot time other than the ability to background some daemons on startup. There are initscript replacements like quick-init or finit-arc but in my experience they are a little flaky.
Ubuntu, IIRC, uses upstart which does some things (I don't know) to help increase boot time. You can try installing upstart on Arch if you want http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=24506

Could it be that a 5 year old Sun T3 is 2x faster than a new Sun 3320?

We just purchased a brand new system to replace a system that has been in production for over 5 years and I am finding very disappointing performance results.
The old system is a SunBlade 2000( 2x 900 MHz, 4 GB RAM, Solaris 9) with a Sun T3 fiber array (9 x 36 GB 10K RPM drives, RAID 5 with a hot spare).
The new system is a Sun T2000 ( 8-Core 1.2 GHz, 16 GB RAM, Solaris 10) with a Sun 3320 SCSI array (12 x 300 GB 10K RPM drives, RAID 5 with a hot spare) + Ultra 320 SCSI card.
I first moved over our applications and ran a few tests and found that jobs were taking about 50% longer to complete. So I decided to take the application out of the equation and just run some basic test to compare the 2 systems.
Using some basic dd tests, I could push about 90 MB/s through the T3 and only about 40 MB/s through the 3320. I also tried running IOZone and it showed the same results. The T3 was 40%-50% faster on all reads, writes and combination operations. I tried all sorts of configurations with the 3320 including single bus and split bus as well as different RAID levels. Nothing seems to help the 3320.
I've opened a support case with Sun but they are bouncing me around support from group to group, from hardware to storage to kernel and back again. My VAR is doesn�t seem too interested in helping either. I'm still hoping for the best because my upper management is not happy that we spent over $65K for new equipment and our applications are going to be slower.
Could it be that a 5 year old Sun T3 is 2x faster than a new Sun 3320?

Not sure if any of this will help. but it doesn't hurt to cover the basics. You might want to start by double checking the SCSI negotiation between the server and the array. Below is an example from our 3310 that we've deliberately misconfigured.
sccli> show channels
Ch Type Media Speed Width PID / SID
0 Drive SCSI 80M Wide 6 / 7
*1 Host SCSI ASYNC Narrow 1 / N/A*
2 Drive SCSI 80M Wide 6 / 7
*3 Host SCSI ASYNC Narrow N/A / 1*
6 Drive FC(L) 1G Narrow N/A / N/A
7 Host LAN N/A Serial N/A / N/A
sccli>
What we have here are host channels that have not negotiated UP to desired parameters. Please keep in mind that we've set this up purposely in our lab for training. As you can see the host connections never go into synchronous transfer and they also never negotiate to a wide bus width. This effectively throttles down the connection between the server and array. There are several causes for these types of symptoms.
- Faulty or incorrect termination.
- Mismatched hardware.
- Faulty cable
- HBA drivers
- Incorrect SCSI settings.
Since you mentioned that you have Ultra 320 HBAs and the array is capable of negotiating up to these speeds, I'd suggest you check the negotiated link speed between your array and server. If you find that the SCSI channel is not negotiating up to the desired value, one place you can check would be the "SCSI Options" in the /etc/system file.
Below is a bit mask for the various setting options
* SCSI subsystem options
* Following are applicable to all interconnects
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_LINK 0x10 /* Global linked commands */
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_TAG 0x80 /* Global tagged command support */
* Following are for parallel SCSI only
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_DR 0x8 /* Global disconnect/reconnect */
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_SYNC 0x20 /* Global synchronous xfer capability */
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_PARITY 0x40 /* Global parity support */
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_FAST 0x100 /* Global FAST scsi support */
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_WIDE 0x200 /* Global WIDE scsi support */
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_FAST20 0x400 /* Global FAST20 scsi support */
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_FAST40 0x800 /* Global FAST40 scsi support */
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_FAST80 0x1000 /* Global FAST80 scsi support */
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_FAST160 0x2000 /* Global FAST160 scsi support */
#define SCSI_OPTIONS_FAST320 0x4000 /* Global FAST320 scsi support */
Most systems have a setting of 7f8 which would only bring you to Ultra Fast Wide at 40MB per sec. Factor in the wide bus and your effective through put would be 80MB. If you find that the SCSI Options on your system are not set to support the Ultra 320 HBAs, you may want to bump up the settings here.
On the array side, you could also check to see if write cache is turned on and working.
sccli> show cache-parameters
mode: write-back
optimization: sequential
sync-period: disabled
current-global-write-policy: write-through
sccli>
In this array, the global cache setting is correctly set for write-back, but because of a fault in the array, the cache policy has defaulted to write-through. This is most common in single controller arrays (which this is). The array requires two operational controllers for write cache to be in effect.
Hopefully there is something here that you can use....

I understand that a XSL transformation is faster than JSP

Hi all
let's say the datasource solution provides data ,
I'm under the impression that you can make the XSL loop through the information do various logic on the data and represent the data much faster than can be accomplished with JSP
Is there anyone else out there that understands the same ?
stev

I tend to doubt it. The XSL is interpreted (well, usually) where as the JSP is compiled. Sure, you can write really bad JSP code that underperforms really good transforms, but I'd tend to believe that in general it would be faster than XSL.
That said, XSL can provide for greater flexibility than JSP rendering and that may be easily worth any small performance penalty it may have.
Chuck

The video sound faster than video ipad mini, this happen when I download the iOS 7.1 to my iPad mini, how can I fix that?

The video sound faster than video ipad mini, this happen when I download the iOS 7.1 to my iPad mini, how can I fix that? Or just wait till Mac release a new version update, also some game and apps doesn't open or when open they close, please help!!!

Start by closing all apps and resetting your iPad and see if that helps with any of your issues.
To close an app, drag the app up from the multitasking display. Double tap the home button and you will see apps lined up going left to right across the screen. Swipe to get to the app that you want to close and then swipe "up" on the app preview thumbnail to close it. Close all of the apps on the iPad this way.
Reset the iPad by holding down on the sleep and home buttons at the same time for about 10-15 seconds until the Apple Logo appears - ignore the red slider if it appears on the screen - let go of the buttons. Let the iPad start up.

Automatically Sync clock so that it is 5 minutes faster than actual time.

Is there a way to have Leopard Automatically sync the time AND have it be 5 minutes faster than the actual time?
I have all my clocks set 5 minutes fast and would like to have my Leopard (10.5.6) clocks automatically sync and be 5 minutes fast without me always having to check and make sure the time has not slipped to far behind or gotten more than "Actual Time" + 5 minutes fast.

There may be some 3rd party software, but if your other clocks are not synched, but running ahead, then why not simply unsynch the Leopard clock and set it manually as you are most likely doing with all your other clocks?

Can the WD Raptor make my 2.0 Dual faster than my new 2.3 Dualcore?

A few weeks ago I had asked what would make my machine at work - 2.3 Dualcore w/2GB of RAM - slower than my home machine; 2.0 DP w/2.5GB of RAM.
The new Dualcore was unreasonably slow and I followed the few suggestions to wipe the drive, which brought it up to snuff... but I still find it slower than my 2.0 at home. At simple tasks (contextual menu pop-ups, software loading, etc...) as well as more complex Photoshop and 3D tasks.
It's not the very last generation 2.0, but the one prior, e.g. 8GB of RAM capable, PCI-Express, and liquid cooling, etc...
I doubt the .5 of RAM can make that much difference, is the WD Raptor the difference and am I just spoiled by it?
Thanks for any suggestions.
-Vincent

So you have a Raptor as boot in your home based Dual Processor and it seems faster than the faster Dual Core you have at work.
That's understandable, especially since the Dual Core most likely has a 7,200 RPM 250 GB slow drive (and more filled being at work, using more fonts?), plus the Dual Core shares a fronside bus, unlike the Dual Processor which has one for each. Photoshop pre-CS2 swaps memory to disk, so a faster boot drive will help. (Tiger overrides CS2's RAM limit, so more RAM will give better performance)
At home you have the Raptor as boot and most of your user files on the second drive I'm assuming, allowing you to access two drives at once using two busses.
Of course CPU intensive tasks the Dual Core 2.3 should beat the Dual 2, but since Mac OS X is heavy boot drive speed dependant (caches, swaps etc) the "User Interface feel" should be more responsive on your Dual 2, giving you the impression it's faster.
Big fat filled slow boot drives really cripple Mac OS X performance (NAND RAM coming?)
I've written a better explaination here
click for text doc

Is Tiger's animation faster than that of Leopard?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for