Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OS X Mavericks Brings Not Many Performance Changes

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Maverick

    The Maverick was a cool car back in the 70's.

    Mostly what you're getting is the tool bar item that lets you see power hungry apps, iBooks, iMaps, and "Free Updates" to Apple products such as Pages. ie there is a trick where you install the demo of iWork and then you get updated to the full version for free.

    google and ye will find.

    All in all, the only other notable item of concern is the Cloud based junk.

    No way I'm putting my credit card or passwords in the icloud. n' es' a.

    Comment


    • #17
      I find this article disappointing. I hope you do better with the final version.
      If you're going to test Mavericks honestly, it would make sense to, at the very least, include tests of the features that Apple has specifically mentioned as changed and improved. These include
      - a variety of changes to VM, most notably compressed pages, so that a machine should (for most workloads) now behave like it has around 1.5x as much RAM as previously, before it starts swapping
      - improved battery life (or if you prefer, lower energy usage for most usage scenarios)
      - changed (and hopefully improved) networking, including both superior WiFi performance (for 802.11ac but hopefully also n) and use of smbX rather than AFP for default file sharing

      Are these improvements as good as Apple says? Well, that's the point of your benchmarking, isn't it? But it's flat-out dumb to run a bench of tests that are pure compiler/CPU tests (like MAFFT Alignment or SciMark), or that test things Apple probably didn't much touch (since they haven't mentioned it) like CompileBench, and conclude, or at least give the impression, that there is nothing much interesting or improved at the OS level.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by name99 View Post
        But it's flat-out dumb to run a bench of tests that are pure compiler/CPU tests (like MAFFT Alignment or SciMark), or that test things Apple probably didn't much touch (since they haven't mentioned it) like CompileBench, and conclude, or at least give the impression, that there is nothing much interesting or improved at the OS level.
        That would make sense, if this wasn't a linux oriented site. From the list of things you said should be tested, the only thing that could be done, given how Phoronix works and the tests that are available, is the power usage (and consequently battery life). I would also like to know if it has indeed improved or not. As for the other suggestions, although they are all good ideas, they just don't fit with the "quick test" nature of the article. That's something more appropriate for an in-depth review, and Michael doesn't even do that for Linux distros let alone OSX.

        Comment

        Working...
        X