Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #51452
| From | Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.sys.mac.system |
| Subject | Re: This myth no longer needs debunking |
| Date | 2013-10-31 18:39 +1300 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <311020131839202709%YourName@YourISP.com> (permalink) |
| References | (4 earlier) <301020131951434725%YourName@YourISP.com> <slrnl71hol.fk4.mr@irc.sandman.net> <l4r1ch$d5h$1@dont-email.me> <311020131329524716%YourName@YourISP.com> <l4sl7m$plt$1@dont-email.me> |
In article <l4sl7m$plt$1@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau
<Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> On 10-30-2013, 20:29, Your Name wrote:
> > In article <l4r1ch$d5h$1@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau
> > <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10-30-2013, 02:51, Your Name wrote:
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> As far as I'm concerned, this is (was) still a myth. This slowdown,
> >> alleged to occur many times in this newsgroup over the past few years,
> >> has never occurred for me until 10.9 And it doesn't occur now either
> >> _except_ during the FIRST desktop load after login.
> >
> > Nope. Folder contents of any open Finder window (including the Desktop
> > folder which isn't displayed as an actual window) needs to be
> > constantly checked for any changes by other applications.
>
> Read my lips. This delay to display MY account, which I am watching
> every time it happens, ONLY happens right after login. Whatever Finder
> or anything else is doing with the desktop after that is not detectably
> affected by the number of icons.
>
> And before 10.9, it wasn't affected at login either.
For you that's obviously true, but we moved on from that. :-)
This does not prove anything at all ... hmm, for the hard of reading
comprehension I'd better put that in capital letters:
* THIS DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING AT ALL *
but just for the sake of *fun and interest* I played around with
Process Viewer (Mac OS X 10.2, 266MhZ PowerMac G3).
After loading up Process Viewer (almost nothing else running) and then
letting Window Manager settle to 0% CPU time, I tried the following:
- drag and drop an already open Finder window randomly
around the screen (avoiding Process Viewer's window,
Dock, and Desktop icons), Window Manager jumped up to
the top few peocesses with over 60% CPU time (at one
point is was 98%, but it depends on when Process
Viewer updates it's list)
- close the Finder window and let Window Manager settle back
down to 0% CPU time
- drag and drop a Desktop icon around randomly around
the screen (avoiding Process Viewer's window, Dock,
and Desktop icons), Window Manager jumped up to the top
few peocesses with around 15% to 30% CPU time
- let Window Manager settle back down to 0% CPU time
- drag the mouse randomly around the screen (avoiding
Process Viewer's window, Dock, and Desktop icons),
Window Manager jumped up to the top few peocesses with
under 15% CPU time
There are of course numerous possible reasons for the differences in
CPU usage - only two of which are the possibilily of icons are treated
like windows (from a resource point of view) and / or the Desktop /
wallpaper is treated as one huge window.
Back to comp.sys.mac.system | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll 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