Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #51423

Re: This myth no longer needs debunking

Show all headers | View raw

In article <slrnl71hol.fk4.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> In article <301020131951434725%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> 
> > > Uh, that windows is also displayed "directly in the finder". I think you 
> > > mean directly on the background or something like that. It makes no 
> > > difference to how the Finder displays icons though.
> > 
> >  The point was that folders open in a window that is updated as needed -
> >  close the window and it doesn't need to be updated by the OS.
> > 
> >  The files on the Desktop are constantly displayed and constantly need
> >  updating by the OS because the Finder is rarely, if ever, closed - the
> >  more files there are, the longer it takes. Even simply puttin, for
> >  example, the 100 Desktop files into five folders that are still on the
> >  Desktop can speed things up.
> 
> It is true that one difference between a finder window and the desktop is 
> that the desktop is always shown. But we're talking about showing it for 
> the first time, right? I mean, that's akin to opening a finder window with 
> many items. Sure, with large PDF files that need to have their thumbnails 
> updated, this may take a bit longer, but generally it's pretty quick.
> 
> Also, having that window open for an entire day wouldn't really slow down 
> the performance of the Mac, and neither should the Desktop. 
> 
> I haven't *tested* anything, just making logical assumptions here :)

An open window must be kept updated to check for new files, changed
files, etc., but when the window is closed the OS no longer needs to
check that folder's content (except of course when displaying it in
Open / Save dialog boxes).

The same happens with the Desktop, except the Desktop is never closed,
so has to be chacked constantly. The more icons there are, the more the
OS has to check. That's why once of the often suggested options to
"speed up" a slow computer is simply putting the Desktop files into
folders on the Desktop.

It is a slow process checking lots of files, but modern computers will
need a LOT of windows / icons to make a noticeable difference. It can
take a second or two for a window's contents to update on my ancient
PowerMac.



> > > >  I don't know how true it is, but I have read in various places that
> > > >  each icon on the desktop is supposedly treated in a similar way to an
> > > >  individual window by Mac OS X - LOTS of icons and / or open windows
> > > >  will cause the computer to be slow.
> > > 
> > > You're going to have to find a source for that information. That's highly 
> > > unlikely for the plain reason that there would be no reason.
> > 
> >  In terms of resources used by the OS, it makes some sense. A windows is
> >  a known entity that with known content that can be fairly easily moved
> >  around and updated. A Desktop with lots of files on the other hand is a
> >  different matter due to the way it is displayed (i.e. not a window).
> 
> Well, even if we assume that from a programming standpoint, icons on the 
> desktop is dealt with slightly differently than icons in a folder, that's a 
> far cry from each icon effectively being one "window". I see no reason why 
> this would be true. 

I'm only saying what I've read.  :)

Back to comp.sys.mac.system | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

This myth no longer needs debunking Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-29 12:27 -0400
  Re: This myth no longer needs debunking Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-29 19:27 +0000
    Re: This myth no longer needs debunking nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-29 16:01 -0400
    Re: This myth no longer needs debunking Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-30 09:38 +1300
      Re: This myth no longer needs debunking Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-29 20:50 +0000
        Re: This myth no longer needs debunking nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-29 16:58 -0400
        Re: This myth no longer needs debunking Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-30 19:51 +1300
          Re: This myth no longer needs debunking Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2013-10-30 00:24 -0700
            Re: This myth no longer needs debunking Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-30 08:40 +0000
              Re: This myth no longer needs debunking Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-31 09:33 +1300
                Re: This myth no longer needs debunking Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-30 21:07 +0000
                Re: This myth no longer needs debunking Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-31 13:34 +1300
                Re: This myth no longer needs debunking Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-31 08:36 +0000
          Re: This myth no longer needs debunking Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-30 08:38 +0000
            Re: This myth no longer needs debunking Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-30 09:25 -0400
              Re: This myth no longer needs debunking Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-30 19:58 -0400
              Re: This myth no longer needs debunking Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-31 13:29 +1300
                Re: This myth no longer needs debunking Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-31 00:10 -0400
                Re: This myth no longer needs debunking Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-31 18:39 +1300
            Re: This myth no longer needs debunking Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2013-10-31 13:26 +1300
              Re: This myth no longer needs debunking nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-31 03:02 -0400
                Re: This myth no longer needs debunking Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-31 09:30 -0400
                Re: This myth no longer needs debunking nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-31 15:36 -0400
                Re: This myth no longer needs debunking Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-31 15:47 -0400
                Re: This myth no longer needs debunking nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-31 16:17 -0400
              Re: This myth no longer needs debunking Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-31 08:35 +0000
                Re: This myth no longer needs debunking Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-31 09:35 -0400
                Re: This myth no longer needs debunking Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-31 14:38 +0000
                Re: This myth no longer needs debunking Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-31 13:37 -0400
                Re: This myth no longer needs debunking Sandman <mr@sandman.net> - 2013-10-31 18:03 +0000
        Re: This myth no longer needs debunking Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-30 12:50 +0000
          Re: This myth no longer needs debunking nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2013-10-30 11:38 -0400
    Re: This myth no longer needs debunking Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-29 17:41 -0400
  Re: This myth no longer needs debunking billy@MIX.COM - 2013-10-29 20:18 +0000
    Re: This myth no longer needs debunking Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-29 17:44 -0400
  Re: This myth no longer needs debunking Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2013-10-30 12:48 +0000
    Re: This myth no longer needs debunking Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> - 2013-10-30 09:36 -0400

csiph-web