Re: This myth no longer needs debunking

From	Sandman <mr@sandman.net>
Newsgroups	comp.sys.mac.system
Subject	Re: This myth no longer needs debunking
Date	2013-10-30 08:38 +0000
Message-ID	<slrnl71hol.fk4.mr@irc.sandman.net> (permalink)
References	<l4onm0$82a$2@dont-email.me> <slrnl703df.e4s.mr@irc.sandman.net> <301020130938025709%YourName@YourISP.com> <slrnl7088b.ebu.mr@irc.sandman.net> <301020131951434725%YourName@YourISP.com>

Show all headers | View raw

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 :)

> > >  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. 

> > Needlesstosay, the FInder has no problems showing a multitude of windows 
> > either way.
> 
>  The more windows you have open the slower the computer gets ... of
>  course, it may have to be *LOTS* of windows on modern fast computers.

I don't know the specifications of the OP's computer, but the computer 
shouldn't get slower unless you're pressed for RAM. IN short, opening 200 
windows wouldn't continually use CPU power, but obviously occupy RAM.

And I dfind it hard to believe that 200 icons on the desktop would consume 
as much RAM as 200 open Finder windows, each contained tons of icons. 

-- 
Sandman[.net]

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