dutchiee (= Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 hey i was reading through some tutorials and how-to's on how to get a retail apple image and *hack* it so it boots on intel hardware. the how-to was for the same line of motherboards (Gigabyte GA-P35-xxx) and showed it easily. my question is that would i notice any performance gain over using a slightly modded retail apple image and installing or using a kalyway/Leo4All dvd? ive had kalyway 10.5.1 installed before same as Uphuck 10.4.9 but the GUI performance just feels really poor for my hardware (Q6600 @ 2.4ghz, 3gb ddr2 ram, nvidia 7950GT 512mb flashed, 80gb sata 2 hdd, gigabyte ga-p35-dq6). i mean i dont wanna brag or anything its just vista *feels* more responsive, same as ubuntu. is it something i could have done? or just the natural feel between the different OS's? this brought up the question because in the how-to i looked at (lost link though ) the guy said that the computer felt more responsive; so if it is so then im just considering whether its worth all the hassle to get it running or just use a kalyway/leo4all premade/fixed disk? thanks for any help =] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gabe_ Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 I doubt there is any significant difference. I would guess it's the placebo effect... None the less, I will be attempting a retail install sometime in the near future (maybe this weekend?). I will post before and after Xbenches... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
komeet Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 I'm looking forward to your results. If there is a difference I think I'm gonna try the retail installation too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headrush69 Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 Like gabe mentioned highly unlikely there is any "noticeable" difference since you are still running the same kernel, extensions etc anyways. If Vista felt more responsive than OS X my guess is that Core Image and Quartz Extreme weren't running accelerated on your video card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shanus Posted March 19, 2008 Share Posted March 19, 2008 I have Vista and OS X running on my Hack Mac and Vista is DEFINITELY much slower on the same hardware. I ditto the post about your graphics driver or something is not working properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
©öñFü5íóÑ Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 I have Vista and OS X running on my Hack Mac and Vista is DEFINITELY much slower on the same hardware. I ditto the post about your graphics driver or something is not working properly. I second that comment too... coverflow on iTunes for Vista is a HELL of a lot slower than coverflow on iTunes for OS X. Not just that, the graphical transition effects of OSX don't get all choppy at times as Vista does. OS X certainly feels a whole lot snappier overall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchiee (= Posted March 20, 2008 Author Share Posted March 20, 2008 @Headrush69 I installed both NVinject and Natit. Ofcourse i installed them both at seperate times and both were never installed on the same OS, eg i would format cause i screwed it up (go me ) but yeah i mean in System Profiler under the graphics card section it said QE/CE was running/enabled. is that not what it means to be accelerateD? :S haha if not then how would i get it accelerated =]? other then that i cant see what it could be.. i mean my hard drives are performing about right and yeah. so no gain over retail. damn oh wellz was worth the shot thanks for the info =] Abstract Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
komeet Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Try XBench. This can help to figure out which component slows down the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazz38 Posted March 20, 2008 Share Posted March 20, 2008 Hmm i'm thinking about installing from a retail DVD, instead of Kalyway. I do think there's a speed advantage over Kalyway, because there are less modified kexts, and that means less errors i guess. I just think original kexts can only improve stability and compatibility... But looking forward to the Xbench scores! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts