Office 2001 isn't designed to run natively on OS X. It needs either OS 9 or some form of translation software. Apple used to provide this in the form of Rosetta, which was part of the OS X operating system until OS X 10.6 in 2009. It used to be available as an additional download by launching the App Store, or by installing it from the 'Extras' folder on the original 10.6 installer disks. Finally, on March 24, 2001, Apple released its new operating system Mac OS X with a retail price of $130. The X, enthusiasts have neurotically noted, stands for '10' to represent its version. MacOS Catalina 10.15; macOS Mojave 10.14; macOS High Sierra 10.13; macOS Sierra 10.12; Mac OS X El Capitan 10.11; Mac OS X Yosemite 10.10; Mac OS X Mavericks 10.9; Mac OS X Mountain Lion 10.8; Mac OS X Lion 10.7; Mac OS X Snow Leopard 10.6; Mac OS X Leopard 10.5; Mac OS X Tiger 10.4; Windows Server. Windows Server 2019; Windows Server. A library of over 125,000 free and free-to-try software applications for Mac OS. Mac OS X 10.0 (code named Cheetah) is the first major release and version of macOS, Apple's desktop and server operating system. Mac OS X 10.0 was released on March 24, 2001 for a price of US$129. It was the successor of the Mac OS X Public Beta and the predecessor of Mac OS X 10.1 (code named Puma).
Performance
Mac OS X 10.1 is all about performance. That's the hype, anyway. To examine the reality, I delved farther into the seedy underworld of benchmarking than I have in past articles. Let me establish up front that I am just one person with access to two Macs, Mac OS X 10.0.4, 10.1, and a stopwatch. The results described below should only be interpreted as broad indications of the relative performance of Mac OS X 10.1 vs. 10.0.4. They may be not suitable for comparisons between Mac OS X any other operating system, or even between other Macs and the ones I used in the test, due to the huge number of variables between those environments.
I think these tests work as a way to make broad comparisons between 10.0.4 and 10.1 because, within the context of the testing environment, I tried to make sure the OS version was the only significant variable. I'll be offering my own subjective account of performance as well. Get google now on desktop. These are mostly useful in combination with my performance observations from earlier articles.
Is 10.1 faster than 10.0.4? The answer is a resounding 'yes.' Is it as fast as the hype surrounding its release may lead you to believe? I don't think it is. Let's take a look.
Application Launching
I focused most of my heavy benchmarking on application launching. I did this because it's relatively easy to measure (just try 'measuring' window resize performance), it's likely to be significantly different across OS and application versions (as opposed to something lower-level like integer arithmetic, which presumably will not change that much on the same hardware), and because it was dreadfully slow in 10.0.x.
I measured launch times in two ways. The first, simplest measurement is the now-famous 'bouncemark' score. When an application is launched in Mac OS X, its icon appears in the Dock and then bounces up and down while it's launching. (This animation can be turned off in the Dock preferences, but it's on by default.) This is the most user-visible indication of launch speed.
Of course, it is also one of the most susceptible to trickery. The length of each bounce is variable, making a mere count of the bounces somewhat less useful than you might expect. Also, an application does not stop bouncing when it is actually 'finished' launching, but when it is ready to receive events. By combining the two, one can imagine a slower bounce speed and an ability to receive events earlier in the launch sequence resulting in an application that seems to launch much faster. 'Hey look, it only took two bounces in 10.1, instead of five in 10.0.4!'
This is not all bad, of course. If 10.0 taught us anything, it's that perceived performance is almost as important as actual performance. But to keep the bouncemarks honest, I also tested actual launch time. The stopwatch can't be tricked. Unfortunately, the person operating the stopwatch can! The difficult part about timing an application launch is deciding when the launch is complete.
Advertisement Obviously, waiting for the application to stop bouncing is not an accurate technique. Even though an application may be receiving my keystrokes, for example, it's not very useful to me until its entire user interface is up and running. The metric I used to pinpoint launch completion was the existence of a complete application UI. If an application creates a new blank document when it starts (like TextEdit, for example), I stopped the stopwatch when that window was fully visible and complete. If an application has a 'main window' (like Mail), I stopped when that window was fully visible and complete. The exact stopping point for each application was different, but the same stopping point was used for each application in each OS version. So the application-to-application times are comparable, but only broad comparisons can be made between different applications, or between the same application on another computer timed by another person. (See, isn't benchmarking evil? :-)
The testing technique was as follows:
2001 Mac Os X 10.10
- Arrange all the applications in the Dock, and on the desktop.
- Reboot and (auto)login as an admin user.
- For each application in the Dock (ordered as shown in the graphs, from top to bottom), repeat three times:
- Click the application icon in the Dock and wait for it to finish launching.
- Quit the application.
- Repeat three times:
- Select all the application icons on the desktop and select 'open' from the Finder's file menu to launch all of them simultaneously.
Although I repeated all the launches three times, the graphs only show two times since the third time never varied significantly from the second. All these tests were done on the G3/400, where Mac OS X was installed on the 5,400RPM 12GB hard drive. The tests were done immediately after each OS version was installed, and without any third party software added to the system (other than BBEdit, that is). Let's start with the bouncemarks:
Mac OS X 10.0.4 appears in the blue bars, and 10.1 is in red. Each set of bars includes the first launch on top, and the second launch on the bottom. As you can see, the icons are bouncing a lot less in 10.1. The only application that did not bounce significantly fewer times (especially on the second launch) in 10.1 was the previously maligned Terminal application. iTunes was the most improved, going from a second-launch of eight bounces in 10.0.4 to a mere one bounce in 10.1
But were any of these applications cheating by simply stopping bouncing earlier? Or was 10.1 itself lengthening the duration of each bounce? Have a look at the actual launch times:
The actual times are not quite as impressive as the bouncemarks, but there's still a clear improvement over 10.0.4. There are some puzzles, however. Check out the identical first and second launch times for iTunes in 10.1, which contrasts greatly with the 4-to-1 bouncemark scores in the same OS. I ran the entire 10.1 test cycle again to verify that time, and it turned out about the same. The only difference I could observe was in the amount of hard disk activity I heard.
Mac Os X 2001 Iso
AdvertisementIn general, second launches had a lot less disk activity than first launches. Some applications, like TextEdit, had no discernable disk activity at all on the second launch. Ah, the wonders of caching.
I think almost every application tested stops bouncing earlier in 10.1 than in 10.0.4. Of course, almost every application has changed since 10.0.4 as well. Apple's WWDC session on application launch performance specifically mentioned this 'perceptual optimization', and it appears that Apple's developers (and the MS IE team) are showing the way with the bundled applications.
The applications bundled in 10.1 also seem to incorporate other optimizations mentioned in the WWDC session: deferred loading of application components, decreased extraneous file access, etc. I'm basing this speculation on the apparent decrease in disk activity in 10.1 during application launch.
BBEdit, an application that did not change between OS versions, showed both decreased bouncemarks and launch times, so the OS itself must also be doing something right.
Finally, let's look at the launch times for the simultaneous launch test. (No, I didn't attempt to count the cumulative number of bounces!)
The bottom set of bars, labelled 'Launch All', show how 10.1 fared vs. 10.0.4. The improvement is clear and significant. While observing the bounce-fest of the simultaneous launch, I couldn't help but notice that two applications in particular were still bouncing when the others had long since settled down: Terminal and BBEdit. I decided to try the test without Terminal, and then without both Terminal and BBEdit to see how much the time would improve.
Chrome os 64 download. Dropping Terminal saved about 5 seconds, but dropping both cut the times by more than half! The second attempt launched eight application in about nine seconds—not too shabby for a 5,400RPM ATA/33 drive and a 400MHz G3 processor. Clearly, the world would be a better place if more OS X applications launched like Mail and Internet Explorer, and fewer launched like the new Terminal and BBEdit.
As developers update their applications, I suspect the OS X application launch experience will improve steadily. It's already at 'acceptable' levels, in my book. Mac OS 9 is still faster in many situations, particularly on the G3/400. But 10.1 has nothing to be ashamed of (with the possible exception of the new Terminal application, which is slower to launch than it's 10.0.4 counterpart, on top of the bugs described earlier.)
The 10.1 demos given by Steve Jobs, during which every application he clicks on launches in a single bounce (and less than three seconds), are entirely plausible, given a powerful system with a fast disk, lots of RAM, and a rigorous 'warm-up' session to prime the caches. (Like all magic tricks, software demos are all about preparation ;-)
The bottom line for application launch in 10.1: it's better, and you'll notice.
Industrial-Strength Server Delivers Increased Enhancements & Open Source Advancements
SEYBOLD SF 2001, SAN FRANCISCO, California–September 25, 2001–Apple® today announced the availability of Mac® OS X Server version 10.1, the first major upgrade to the company’s industrial-strength, UNIX-based server operating system. Mac OS X Server v10.1 delivers system-wide performance enhancements, increased reliability and substantially faster file transfer times.
The award-winning Mac OS X Server now delivers flexible storage options and data redundancy with software RAID support. Mac OS X Server provides educators with increased system reliability and responsiveness through enhancements to NetBoot and Macintosh Manager 2.1. Mac OS X Server v10.1 integrates the most recent and reliable Open Source components including Apache and Samba, as well as a new release of QuickTime® Streaming Server, version 3.0.2.
“With Mac OS X Server v10.1, we’ve delivered a modern UNIX-based server built on open standards,” said Philip Schiller, Apple’s vice president of Worldwide Product Marketing. “With Mac OS X Server, building a powerful network is easier than ever, setting a new standard in simplicity of installation and administration.”
IT administrators in education, print publishing, design and web publishing organizations will benefit from Mac OS X Server v10.1 enhancements including:
- system-wide performance enhancements that increase reliability, launch server-side applications faster, speed printing times, increase administration response and reduce file transfer times;
- the latest advancements from the Open Source community, with the most reliable releases of Apache, Samba, PHP, MySQL, Tomcat and OpenSSL;
- RAID support for disk striping (RAID-0) and disk mirroring (RAID-1) allowing flexible storage configuration, data redundancy and improved disk read performance;
- a new release of QuickTime Streaming Server, version 3.0.2 for streaming digital media over the Internet;
- improved reliability with enhancements to Apple file services, NetInfo and Directory Services; and
- Macintosh Manager 2.1 support for local administration from Mac OS X Server and support for the latest Apple Macintosh® systems with the inclusion of Mac OS 9.2.1 within NetBoot.
Pricing & Availability
Mac OS X Server v10.1 software and Macintosh Server G4 can be purchased now through the online Apple Store® (www.apple.com), at Apple’s retail stores and through Apple Authorized Resellers in the following configurations:
Mac OS X Server v10.1 software and Macintosh Server G4 can be purchased now through the online Apple Store® (www.apple.com), at Apple’s retail stores and through Apple Authorized Resellers in the following configurations:
- Mac OS X Server v10.1 (10-Client Edition), designed for professional web masters and small work groups with simultaneous file sharing to not more than 10 Macintosh clients, for a suggested retail price of $499 (US);
- Mac OS X Server v10.1(Unlimited-Client Edition), uniquely suited for classroom labs, creative professionals and medium-to-large work groups with high volume file sharing activity, for a suggested retail price of $999 (US);
- Mac OS X Server v10.1, 10-client to Unlimited-Client license upgrade for a suggested retail price of $499 (US); and
- Macintosh Server G4, with a 733MHz PowerPC G4 processor, 256K of L2 cache, 256MB SDRAM, 80GB Ultra ATA drive, CD-RW drive, Nvidia GeForce2 MX graphics, 10/100/1000BASE-T Ethernet, two USB ports, two FireWire® ports and Mac OS X Server Unlimited-Client Edition, for a suggested retail price of $2,799 (US).
2001 Mac Os X 10.8
The Mac OS X Server v10.1 software upgrade package is available for $19.95 (US) and includes the Mac OS X Server v10.1 upgrade CD, the Macintosh Manager 2.1 CD, the NetBoot CD and a Developer Tools CD. U.S. and Canadian education customers can receive the Mac OS X Server v10.1 upgrade free of charge by calling 1-800-800-2775.
Mac OS X Server is designed to run on Macintosh Server G4, Power Mac™ G4, Power Mac G4 Cube, iMac®, Macintosh Server G3 and Power Macintosh® G3 computers with 128MB RAM and 4GB of available disk space.
For additional press releases regarding Mac OS X v10.1 announcements today, please visit www.apple.com/pr.
Apple ignited the personal computer revolution in the 1970s with the Apple II and reinvented the personal computer in the 1980s with the Macintosh. Apple is committed to bringing the best personal computing experience to students, educators, creative professionals and consumers around the world through its innovative hardware, software and Internet offerings.
2001 Mac Os X 10.7
2001 Mac Os X 10.13
Apple, the Apple logo, Mac, Macintosh, Apple Store, FireWire, iMac, Power Mac, Power Macintosh and QuickTime are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Apple. Other company and product names may be trademarks of their respective owners.