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

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #51465

Re: This myth no longer needs debunking

Show all headers | View raw

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]

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