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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #51203 > unrolled thread

This myth no longer needs debunking

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  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

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#51203 — This myth no longer needs debunking

Over the years, someone occasionally posts that having a lot of icons on 
your desktop slows down the machine.

I always countered that I have trouble squeezing in one more and yet my 
machine runs fine.

Well, some of you will be happy to know that Apple seems to have sided 
with you.  Now that I have 10.9, my regular account takes ages to be 
ready to go.  But my admin account (ten icons) comes up instantly.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Is it an on-line compliment to call someone a Net Wit ?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#51226

In article <l4onm0$82a$2@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

>  Over the years, someone occasionally posts that having a lot of icons on 
>  your desktop slows down the machine.
> 
>  I always countered that I have trouble squeezing in one more and yet my 
>  machine runs fine.
> 
>  Well, some of you will be happy to know that Apple seems to have sided 
>  with you.  Now that I have 10.9, my regular account takes ages to be 
>  ready to go.  But my admin account (ten icons) comes up instantly.

The desktop is just another folder, and its icons are treated the same way. 
If one of the icons are, for instance, an image file as an alias to a 
remote server or an external drive, displaying that icon preview (thumbnail 
image) may take a while becuase it has to spin up the drive or mount the 
server. There can be other reasons as well.

OSX 10.9, as all versions before it, can handle more files in a folder than 
your desktop could ever handle.

Turn off icon preview for the desktop (click on desktop, cmd-J and uncheck 
file preview and show item info) and see if that makes a difference. If it 
does, then my above suspicion may just be correct. If not, then I'd still 
say it's something else than just the sheer number of icons you have on the 
desktop. 



-- 
Sandman[.net]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51228

In article <slrnl703df.e4s.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> The desktop is just another folder, and its icons are treated the same way. 
> If one of the icons are, for instance, an image file as an alias to a 
> remote server or an external drive, displaying that icon preview (thumbnail 
> image) may take a while becuase it has to spin up the drive or mount the 
> server. There can be other reasons as well.

the icon preview is inside the alias file. that's one reason why an
alias can be bigger than its target. 

> OSX 10.9, as all versions before it, can handle more files in a folder than 
> your desktop could ever handle.

but not as well as os 9 and earlier.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51237

In article <slrnl703df.e4s.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <l4onm0$82a$2@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau
> <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
> > 
> >  Over the years, someone occasionally posts that having a lot of icons on 
> >  your desktop slows down the machine.
> > 
> >  I always countered that I have trouble squeezing in one more and yet my 
> >  machine runs fine.
> > 
> >  Well, some of you will be happy to know that Apple seems to have sided 
> >  with you.  Now that I have 10.9, my regular account takes ages to be 
> >  ready to go.  But my admin account (ten icons) comes up instantly.
> 
> The desktop is just another folder, and its icons are treated the same way. 
> If one of the icons are, for instance, an image file as an alias to a 
> remote server or an external drive, displaying that icon preview (thumbnail 
> image) may take a while becuase it has to spin up the drive or mount the 
> server. There can be other reasons as well.
> 
> OSX 10.9, as all versions before it, can handle more files in a folder than 
> your desktop could ever handle.
> 
> Turn off icon preview for the desktop (click on desktop, cmd-J and uncheck 
> file preview and show item info) and see if that makes a difference. If it 
> does, then my above suspicion may just be correct. If not, then I'd still 
> say it's something else than just the sheer number of icons you have on the 
> desktop.

Not quite true.

The Desktop *is* just another folder in terms of storage, but in terms
of displaying the content it is different. The content of any other
folder is displayed in a window, whereas the content of the Desktop is
displayed directly in the Finder.

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.

Then again, I do know someone I help who has their Desktop filled to
over-flowing with files (to the point of them piling on top of each
other making it difficult to find anything!) on her 10.6 iMac, but it
never seems to be slow when I use it.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51240

In article <301020130938025709%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> > The desktop is just another folder, and its icons are treated the same way. 
> > If one of the icons are, for instance, an image file as an alias to a 
> > remote server or an external drive, displaying that icon preview (thumbnail 
> > image) may take a while becuase it has to spin up the drive or mount the 
> > server. There can be other reasons as well.
> > 
> > OSX 10.9, as all versions before it, can handle more files in a folder than 
> > your desktop could ever handle.
> > 
> > Turn off icon preview for the desktop (click on desktop, cmd-J and uncheck 
> > file preview and show item info) and see if that makes a difference. If it 
> > does, then my above suspicion may just be correct. If not, then I'd still 
> > say it's something else than just the sheer number of icons you have on the 
> > desktop.
> 
>  Not quite true.
> 
>  The Desktop *is* just another folder in terms of storage, but in terms
>  of displaying the content it is different. The content of any other
>  folder is displayed in a window, whereas the content of the Desktop is
>  displayed directly in the Finder.

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.

>  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.

Needlesstosay, the FInder has no problems showing a multitude of windows 
either way.

>  Then again, I do know someone I help who has their Desktop filled to
>  over-flowing with files (to the point of them piling on top of each
>  other making it difficult to find anything!) on her 10.6 iMac, but it
>  never seems to be slow when I use it.

The OP allegedly saw a change with 10.9 so that doesn't contradict his 
experience. 


-- 
Sandman[.net]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51241

In article <slrnl7088b.ebu.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> >  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.

it is true. every icon is a little window.

> Needlesstosay, the FInder has no problems showing a multitude of windows 
> either way.

now yes. 

on a g3 imac with 64 or 128 meg, no.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51310

In article <slrnl7088b.ebu.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> In article <301020130938025709%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> 
> > > The desktop is just another folder, and its icons are treated the same
> > > way. 
> > > If one of the icons are, for instance, an image file as an alias to a 
> > > remote server or an external drive, displaying that icon preview
> > > (thumbnail 
> > > image) may take a while becuase it has to spin up the drive or mount the 
> > > server. There can be other reasons as well.
> > > 
> > > OSX 10.9, as all versions before it, can handle more files in a folder
> > > than 
> > > your desktop could ever handle.
> > > 
> > > Turn off icon preview for the desktop (click on desktop, cmd-J and
> > > uncheck 
> > > file preview and show item info) and see if that makes a difference. If
> > > it 
> > > does, then my above suspicion may just be correct. If not, then I'd still 
> > > say it's something else than just the sheer number of icons you have on
> > > the 
> > > desktop.
> > 
> >  Not quite true.
> > 
> >  The Desktop *is* just another folder in terms of storage, but in terms
> >  of displaying the content it is different. The content of any other
> >  folder is displayed in a window, whereas the content of the Desktop is
> >  displayed directly in the Finder.
> 
> 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.




> >  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).



> 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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51311

In article <301020131951434725%YourName@YourISP.com>,
 Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> 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).

Everything is a window. Some windows take the entire screen except the menubar, 
and some take even that. Whether Finder implements its Desktop window the same 
way as other folder windows is up to Apple, but everything you see, including 
the menubar and desktop is a window.
-- 
Guajira Guantanamera: Hell hath no fury like a nation scorned.
:-<> Siri Seal of Disavowal #000-001. Disavowed. Denied. Deleted.
CIA  Constitution patriot terrorism freedom Snowden
Paid Maternity Leave NSA fodder Dirty Dozen 2 Bomb

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51316

In article <chine.bleu-B478C1.00245830102013@news.eternal-september.org>, Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > 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).
> 
>  Everything is a window. Some windows take the entire screen except the menubar, 
>  and some take even that. Whether Finder implements its Desktop window the same 
>  way as other folder windows is up to Apple, but everything you see, including 
>  the menubar and desktop is a window.

Right, the superclass used is NSWindow for the desktop, the menubar etc. 
But the claim was that NSWindow was used for each and every icon on the 
desktop. I found that unlikely. 

-- 
Sandman[.net]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51390

In article <slrnl71hqu.fk4.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:

> In article <chine.bleu-B478C1.00245830102013@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Siri Cruz <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> > > 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).
> > 
> >  Everything is a window. Some windows take the entire screen except the
> >  menubar, 
> >  and some take even that. Whether Finder implements its Desktop window the
> >  same 
> >  way as other folder windows is up to Apple, but everything you see,
> >  including 
> >  the menubar and desktop is a window.
> 
> Right, the superclass used is NSWindow for the desktop, the menubar etc. 
> But the claim was that NSWindow was used for each and every icon on the 
> desktop. I found that unlikely.

The "claim" was that Desktop icons are treatd as windows (nothing to do
with NSWindow) ... and as I originally said, *I don't know how true
that it*, simply something that has been mentioned in various places
when having "too many" icons on your Desktop and slowing the computer
down.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51395

In article <311020130933154133%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> > >  Everything is a window. Some windows take the entire screen except 
> > >  the menubar, and some take even that. Whether Finder implements its 
> > >  Desktop window the same way as other folder windows is up to Apple, 
> > >  but everything you see, including the menubar and desktop is a 
> > >  window.
> >
> > Right, the superclass used is NSWindow for the desktop, the menubar etc.
> > But the claim was that NSWindow was used for each and every icon on the
> > desktop. I found that unlikely.
>
>  The "claim" was that Desktop icons are treatd as windows (nothing to do
>  with NSWindow)

So.. uh, how can something be "treated" like a Window... programatically... 
And not use NSWindow? What exactly to you mean by "treated as"?

>  and as I originally said, *I don't know how true that it*, simply 
>  something that has been mentioned in various places when having "too 
>  many" icons on your Desktop and slowing the computer down.

Indeed - and I found it unlikely. I obviously don't *know* either :)

--
Sandman[.net]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51427

In article <slrnl72tjv.hgb.mr@irc.sandman.net>, Sandman
<mr@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <311020130933154133%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
> <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> > > >  Everything is a window. Some windows take the entire screen except 
> > > >  the menubar, and some take even that. Whether Finder implements its 
> > > >  Desktop window the same way as other folder windows is up to Apple, 
> > > >  but everything you see, including the menubar and desktop is a 
> > > >  window.
> > >
> > > Right, the superclass used is NSWindow for the desktop, the menubar etc.
> > > But the claim was that NSWindow was used for each and every icon on the
> > > desktop. I found that unlikely.
> >
> >  The "claim" was that Desktop icons are treatd as windows (nothing to do
> >  with NSWindow)
> 
> So.. uh, how can something be "treated" like a Window... programatically... 
> And not use NSWindow? What exactly to you mean by "treated as"?

I can only guess that they mean each Desktop icon is treated (in terms
of resources used) as a separate Finder entity, as are each Finder
window.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51466

In article <311020131334220940%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> > > > >  Everything is a window. Some windows take the entire screen except
> > > > >  the menubar, and some take even that. Whether Finder implements its
> > > > >  Desktop window the same way as other folder windows is up to Apple,
> > > > >  but everything you see, including the menubar and desktop is a
> > > > >  window.
> > > >
> > > > Right, the superclass used is NSWindow for the desktop, the menubar etc.
> > > > But the claim was that NSWindow was used for each and every icon on the
> > > > desktop. I found that unlikely.
> > >
> > >  The "claim" was that Desktop icons are treatd as windows (nothing to do
> > >  with NSWindow)
> >
> > So.. uh, how can something be "treated" like a Window... programatically...
> > And not use NSWindow? What exactly to you mean by "treated as"?
>
>  I can only guess that they mean each Desktop icon is treated (in terms
>  of resources used) as a separate Finder entity, as are each Finder
>  window.

Well, I would need more detailed information than that in order to be 
persuaded that each icon is "a window". :)

--
Sandman[.net]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51315

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]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51342

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.

On 10-30-2013, 04:38, Sandman wrote:
> 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.

Four gigabytes RAM, plenty of free disk space, 2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo
But until now I've never observed the alleged slowdown on any Mac,
not even the 350 Mhz G3 slot-loader with 128 MB RAM running 10.1,
and even on 10.9, it ONLY happens during the initial desktop load.

-- 
Wes Groleau

    You're all individuals!
           Yes, we're all individuals!
    You're all different!
           Yes, we are all different!
                                I'm not!
                      ("Life of Brian")

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51412

On 10-30-2013, 09:25, Wes Groleau wrote:
> and even on 10.9, it ONLY happens during the initial desktop load.

Hmmm, now that I think of it....

10.9 changed some preference files.  Maybe it also changed the login 
items. ....

-- 
Wes Groleau

   “Isn't embarrassing to quote something you didn't read
    and then attack what it didn't say?”

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51425

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.

On my ancient PowerMac it can take a second or two for new files (for
example) to show up in an open Finder window.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51449

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.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   Is it an on-line compliment to call someone a Net Wit ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51452

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#51423

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.  :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web