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 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#51457

In article <311020131326202029%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name
<YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> 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).

it doesn't check all that much when open. many times finder never
updates at all. 

> 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.

that's for reducing the number of items. 

any icon on the desktop is a window. the more you have the more memory
is used.

it doesn't make any noticeable difference now, but in the days of a g3
mac it did.

> 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.

it's not that slow. macs running classic mac os do it faster than macs
running os x, even when the ones running os x are significantly faster.

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

#51485

On 10-31-2013, 03:02, nospam wrote:
> it doesn't make any noticeable difference now, but in the days of a g3
> mac it did.

In the days of my slot-loading G3, it didn't.

-- 
Wes Groleau

    After the christening of his baby brother in church, Jason sobbed
    all the way home in the back seat of the car.  His father asked him
    three times what was wrong.  Finally, the boy replied, “That preacher
    said he wanted us brought up in a Christian home, and I wanted to
    stay with you guys."

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

#51521

In article <l4tm1l$fdk$4@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau
<Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> > it doesn't make any noticeable difference now, but in the days of a g3
> > mac it did.
> 
> In the days of my slot-loading G3, it didn't.

yes it did. you might not have noticed or had enough icons for it to be
noticeable.

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

#51523

On 10-31-2013, 15:36, nospam wrote:
> <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>
>>> it doesn't make any noticeable difference now, but in the days of a g3
>>> mac it did.
>>
>> In the days of my slot-loading G3, it didn't.
>
> yes it did. you might not have noticed or had enough icons for it to be
> noticeable.

When I get called a liar, the discussion ends.


-- 
Wes Groleau

    “A man with an experience is never
     at the mercy of a man with an argument.”
                       — Ron Allen

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

#51533

In article <l4uc47$se7$3@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau
<Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> >>> it doesn't make any noticeable difference now, but in the days of a g3
> >>> mac it did.
> >>
> >> In the days of my slot-loading G3, it didn't.
> >
> > yes it did. you might not have noticed or had enough icons for it to be
> > noticeable.
> 
> When I get called a liar, the discussion ends.

i didn't call you a liar, but you just called me one.

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

#51465

In article <311020131326202029%YourName@YourISP.com>, Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> wrote:

> > 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.,

It periodically syncs the GUI view with the filesystem, yes. But I doubt 
that it uses so many resources that you would actually fell that your 
computer had "slowed down".

Let's test it. My Finder in Mavericks now takes up 114MB of RAM, and then I 
open up the "All my Files" view in the Finder. The content of the Finder 
window comes upp instantaneously and the "folder" contains 23,579 files. I 
make the icons as small as possible and the window as large as possible, 
and I'm probably looking at at least 200 icons now. Finder takes a couple 
of seconds to update thumbnails to draw all the icons. The Finder RAM has 
"soared" up to 147MB! :) It is using 0,0% of CPU though.

>  The same happens with the Desktop, except the Desktop is never closed,
>  so has to be chacked constantly.

Which consumes at most a couple of hundred megs of RAM and may spike the 
CPU the first time around... It wouldn't actually "slow down" the computer.

>  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.

As my testing has shown, that probably isn't a very factual advice though. 

>  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 the specs of the OP's computer, and yes - the intial "update 
the thumbnail" process can take a couple of seconds, even on my machine, 
but when done, the CPU goes to 0% and memory is negligible.

> > 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.  :)

:)

--
Sandman[.net]

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

#51486

On 10-31-2013, 04:35, Sandman wrote:
> I don't know the specs of the OP's computer, and yes - the intial "update
> the thumbnail" process can take a couple of seconds, even on my machine,
> but when done, the CPU goes to 0% and memory is negligible.

Four gigabytes, 2.66 Ghz dual core 2

Your explanation is closer to my observations than any so far.
But still, this slow login has never occurred for me all the way back to 
a 350MHz G3 with 256 MB.  Started when I installed 10.9

-- 
Wes Groleau

    After the christening of his baby brother in church, Jason sobbed
    all the way home in the back seat of the car.  His father asked him
    three times what was wrong.  Finally, the boy replied, “That preacher
    said he wanted us brought up in a Christian home, and I wanted to
    stay with you guys."

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

#51492

In article <l4tmaq$jta$1@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> > I don't know the specs of the OP's computer, and yes - the intial "update
> > the thumbnail" process can take a couple of seconds, even on my machine,
> > but when done, the CPU goes to 0% and memory is negligible.
> 
>  Four gigabytes, 2.66 Ghz dual core 2
> 
>  Your explanation is closer to my observations than any so far.
>  But still, this slow login has never occurred for me all the way back to 
>  a 350MHz G3 with 256 MB.  Started when I installed 10.9

Easily tested though. Make a zip of all the files on your desktop, movie it 
to the admin account and unzip it on the desktop (or just copy it all from 
the admin account) then relogin and see if it's really the icons making it 
slow :)


-- 
Sandman[.net]

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

#51505

On 10-31-2013, 10:38, Sandman wrote:
> In article <l4tmaq$jta$1@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:
>
>>> I don't know the specs of the OP's computer, and yes - the intial "update
>>> the thumbnail" process can take a couple of seconds, even on my machine,
>>> but when done, the CPU goes to 0% and memory is negligible.
>>
>>   Four gigabytes, 2.66 Ghz dual core 2
>>
>>   Your explanation is closer to my observations than any so far.
>>   But still, this slow login has never occurred for me all the way back to
>>   a 350MHz G3 with 256 MB.  Started when I installed 10.9
>
> Easily tested though. Make a zip of all the files on your desktop, movie it
> to the admin account and unzip it on the desktop (or just copy it all from
> the admin account) then relogin and see if it's really the icons making it
> slow :)

I already said I'm not going to put forth that kind of effort.

Besides, breaking news: Today, unlike yesterday, the admin account takes 
ages to load its few icons.

However, in the regular account, the dock doesn't appear till the icons 
are loaded.  In the admin account, the dock appears right away and is 
able to launch apps.

Doing the same thing and expecting different results is called 
computing.  :-)

-- 
Wes Groleau

    After the christening of his baby brother in church, Jason sobbed
    all the way home in the back seat of the car.  His father asked him
    three times what was wrong.  Finally, the boy replied, “That preacher
    said he wanted us brought up in a Christian home, and I wanted to
    stay with you guys."

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

#51508

In article <l4u4hg$cja$1@dont-email.me>, Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@FreeShell.org> wrote:

> > Easily tested though. Make a zip of all the files on your desktop, movie it
> > to the admin account and unzip it on the desktop (or just copy it all from
> > the admin account) then relogin and see if it's really the icons making it
> > slow :)
> 
>  I already said I'm not going to put forth that kind of effort.

Ooops, sorry :)

>  Besides, breaking news: Today, unlike yesterday, the admin account takes 
>  ages to load its few icons.
> 
>  However, in the regular account, the dock doesn't appear till the icons 
>  are loaded.  In the admin account, the dock appears right away and is 
>  able to launch apps.

Sounds really weird!


-- 
Sandman[.net]

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

#51332

In message <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 Desktop *IS* a window. So is the menu bar. It's no different than
any other window, really, and it's been that way since... I think it
was Mac OS 8.


-- 
"Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead
soldiers" ~Carlin

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

#51362

In article <slrnl7204s.18sg.g.kreme@mbp55.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> The Desktop *IS* a window. So is the menu bar. It's no different than
> any other window, really, and it's been that way since... I think it
> was Mac OS 8.

nope. it's an os x only thing.

mac os 9 and earlier did not have everything be a window. you could
have as many icons on the desktop as you wanted, and it did not matter.

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

#51250

On 10-29-2013, 15:27, Sandman wrote:
> 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.

It may well be something else, but again:

1. 10.8 and earlier, both accounts came up in less than a second,
    contrary to the claims of certain experts in this group.

2. 10.9, the "busy" desktop takes around ten seconds to show dock
    or icons; the admin account is still within a second.

-- 
Wes Groleau

    ------
    “The reason most women would rather have beauty than brains is
     they know that most men can see better than they can think.”
                                — James Dobson

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

#51230

Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@freeshell.org> writes:

> 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.

My user account has many processes that run at startup; the admin
account has just about nothing.

Billy Y..
-- 
        sub     #'9+1   ,r0             ; convert ascii byte
	add     #9.+1   ,r0             ; to an integer
	bcc     20$                     ; not a number

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

#51251

On 10-29-2013, 16:18, billy@MIX.COM wrote:
> Wes Groleau <Groleau+news@freeshell.org> writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> My user account has many processes that run at startup; the admin
> account has just about nothing.

Both of my accounts have the same login items they had before the upgrade.

-- 
Wes Groleau

   “Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity.
    But I'm not so sure about the universe.”
                                — Albert Einstein

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

#51331

In message <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.

But they're wrong.

> 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.

There's something else going on.

Try putting the same number of icons on the admin desktop. Bet it
still comes up instantly.


-- 
What if there were no hypothetical questions?

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

#51343

On 10-30-2013, 08:48, Lewis wrote:
> In message <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.
>
> But they're wrong.
>
>> 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.
>
> There's something else going on.
>
> Try putting the same number of icons on the admin desktop. Bet it
> still comes up instantly.

That MIGHT come under my laziness threshold.  But probably not.

Perhaps I should revise my point to...

The 10.9 upgrade made the following unwelcome changes to my system. 
Some of them reportedly did not happen to everybody:

  - It now takes a long time for initial load of a desktop
    with many icons.  During the delay the Dock is also not shown.

  - A lot of preference files were altered, corrupted, or deleted;
    such that GraphicConverter and Office 2011 acted like they had
    just been installed without a license key; FireFox acted like
    it had been upgraded; other apps had reverted to defaults.


-- 
Wes Groleau

   “Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity.
    But I'm not so sure about the universe.”
                                — Albert Einstein

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

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

csiph-web