or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Software Uninstallation :::
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Software Uninstallation :::

post #1 of 64
Thread Starter 
was wondering, on mac os x, software is installed neatly into their own folders, and when you want to uninstall them, you just toss them into the trash......

two questions:

was it also like this on previous mac os's?

if i install a os 9 application on mac os x [running it in classic], do i delete the program the same way [into the trash] without worrying about the program itself leaving "left overs" on my system?

post #2 of 64
In theory (and early on) it was the same thing with the Classic Mac OS. By the time we came to OS 9, you had to use uninstallers or comb your extensions and other spots in your system folder to find all the stuff that was installed.

Truth be told, you still have to do some of that in OS X, but the files are typically so small that unless you're just a neat freak, it won't make a difference. For example, applications in OS X create a preference file for each user, so you would have to go into your library folder and toss out the leftover preference file to erase all remnants of the app. Some apps also create license info, various kinds of application support, even their own folders in the user's library folder.

So like in System 6, ideally you can just toss the application icon and be done with it, but in reality there is still miscellaneous stuff left around, just not stuff that's as important/dangerous as extensions.
post #3 of 64
Thread Starter 
is that the only way to uninstall items, is to throw in trash? is there an "uninstall"? if so, where do i reach it? [i haven't received my mac yet, just randomly played with them @ the apple store].....

in mac os x, when the applications throw itself into various libraries & what not, are they easy to pick out & delete? [somewhat familiar with it, via linux]

post #4 of 64
Man, I'm getting a lot of use out of this little snapshot I made!

Watch this video clip (only 1 MB).
<a href="http://brad.project-think.com/movies/FinderSnap003.mov" target="_blank">http://brad.project-think.com/movies/FinderSnap003.mov</a>

The only apps that install other files are usually the big ones like Adobe Photoshop or Microsoft Office or LightWave or Cinema 4D... you know, the *big* apps. However, even with these, most of the related files are contained in just two places: the folder for the app itself and the Library folder. Adobe Photoshop, for example, puts the app together with a plugins folder and a presets folders, but it also puts some things like fonts and the spellcheck system in a folder called "Adobe" in your /Library/Application Support folder.

For the majority of the apps you encounter, though, uninstalling is as simple as that video clip. There won't be any ".DLL"-like libraries tossed anywhere and there's nothing like a registry to keep track of it all.

Welcome to Macintosh!

[ 05-30-2002: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</p>
post #5 of 64
The trickiest stuff to find are the preference files because most of them are called, for example, "com.stone.Create.plist" The tricky part is that it starts with com, then the company name (this can actually help because a suite's worth of preference files will all be in a row), then the application name. It's not too hard though.

And you don't have to worry about tossing anything in your library folder and breaking your system. Worst case: you can lose settings and sometimes customized stuff, but you won't kill your computer. For example, the app Create tossed a folder in my home library called, you guessed it, "Create." It has any custom items like blends or effects I saved in the app's resources widow. That's the worst case, and easily avoidable since everything is pretty logically marked, usually in their own folders or sub-folders.

Finally, some application installers (if the app even has one) also uninstall too. So if you deleted the installer, download it again and you might be able to choose "custom install" and "uninstall" as an option.

[ 05-30-2002: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
post #6 of 64
Thread Starter 
Thanks starfleet & BuonRotto for hte quick responses.......

for applications where it's not as easy as in the video above, how would you uninstall it? is the icon embedded in the application's folder?

When you install an application, do you run the application's installer or do you simply just move it's folder over to the folder you want to put it in, on your system?

Is there a program that can keep track of where an application spits it's application-related files to?
post #7 of 64
[quote]Originally posted by Badtz:
<strong>for applications where it's not as easy as in the video above, how would you uninstall it? is the icon embedded in the application's folder?</strong><hr></blockquote>It's as easy as this. (750K)
<a href="http://brad.project-think.com/movies/uninstalling-2.mov" target="_blank">http://brad.project-think.com/movies/uninstalling-2.mov</a>

[quote]<strong>do you run the application's installer or do you simply just move it's folder over to the folder you want to put it in, on your system?</strong><hr></blockquote>Usually it's a drag-and-drop process, but there are a handful of apps that (poor choice, in my opinion) require you to use an installer. Usually its the apps with installers that may put files in other locations.
post #8 of 64
Thread Starter 
was curious what's the best program to do video captures with? and which one do you use for your vid clips?

are all executable files on the mac have an .exe extension?

thanks starfleet! much help!
post #9 of 64
[quote]Originally posted by Badtz:
are all executable files on the mac have an .exe extension?</strong><hr></blockquote>

No, most don't have extensions at all. Neither do many files, and some would argue that this is the way it should be. Some programs have a .app extension, but you'll probably never see it. Applications are distinguished by their icons, which tend to be more descriptive and obvious than on Windows. And since apps are normally self-contained, you won't really have to worry about distinguishing between apps, readmes, data files, etc.
post #10 of 64
Just as an aside, in my 13 years on the mac I have never had to use an uninstaller program. It's always been drag-to-trash. Of course, I am fortunate enough to have never installed Office.
post #11 of 64
Thread Starter 
how are jpg/gif files distinguished?
post #12 of 64
JPEGs, GIFs and other graphic files: Look for dog-eared icons (they appear as a piece of paper with a corner turned over, most common), a miniature image of the file (this has the potential to be confusing but I've never found it to be), and/or the file type written on the icon. For example, here are some typical file icons:

[edit: better picture]

[ 05-31-2002: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
post #13 of 64
Thread Starter 
can you also use your own icons that can universally be the icon for "jpegs" for instance.


if i have an icon [let's say a picture of a sun], can I use that icon as the icon for ALL jpg files?

where do i make that the preference?
post #14 of 64
oops. Beat me to it.

[ 05-31-2002: Message edited by: Fluffy ]</p>
post #15 of 64
You have to open the Finder application bundle (select the Finder application, control click and select "Show Package Contents"), find the icon resource for jpeg files, gif files, etc. and replace it with your own .icns file of the the same name. In other words, it's a bit of minor surgery to do it. I think there are applications that let you do this too.

Someone else will have to fill you in on them since I don't know what they are.
post #16 of 64
Thread Starter 
I assume there's also an application out there that'll let you make your own .icns files?

Thanks for all the info. ;-)
post #17 of 64
Here is a run-down of how Mac OS X handles icons.
Get ready for a trip down memory lane...

For generic files that OS X just can't identify, it uses the plain doc icon.

That's the easy part. Now it gets tricky.

There are two ways you can identify a file: by the extension or by the type and creator codes. The type and creator codes are bits of data stored invisibly in files saved on a Mac (with an HFS or HFS+ formatted drive). The type code is a four-character code (similar to the DOS filename extensions) that identifies what kind of file it is (QuickTime movie is MooV, JPEG is JPEG, plain text is TEXT). The creator code is a unique four-character code that identifies what program created that file (Photoshop is 8BIM, GraphicConverter is GKON, Audion is Audn). These codes are supposed to be registered with Apple so that multiple apps won't use the same code.

What does all that mean? Well, I'll get to that in a minute...

The method you are familiar with is to choose the icon by the extension. Let's say I have a JPEG image. I have several apps that can open it though, including OmniWeb, GraphicConverter, Photoshop, Internet Explorer, Preview, QuickTime Player, and a dozen others. Well, like Windows, Mac OS will have a "preferred" app for opening these kinds of files (assuming there is no type/creator code) that you can set yourself. I have set GraphicConverter as the default app to handle jpg images, so this file inherits GC's icon.

Here you can also see where you can change the default handling. To get this window, simply select a file and choose "Show Info" from the File menu.

That's like what you're probably accustomed to with Windows.

For as long as I can remember, though, Mac OS has had a different approach to handling files. Macs have never had to deal with file extensions until recent years and the need to exchange Windows-based files from the Internet. How did it work? Well, each file was assigned a type and creator code as I mentioned before. The system dynamically kept track of what codes belonged to what apps (nothing dirty like the Windows registry). If I created a picture in Photoshop and saved it in the jpeg format, it would use Photoshop's jpeg icon. If I created it in GraphicConverter, it would use its icon. This was a boon for many users because it meant that you could have different files of the same type but they would open with their respective parent applications when double-clicked.

Of course, just because the default handler for the second file was Photoshop doesn't mean GK can't open it -- it's just that Photoshop is, well, the default for specifically that file.

This is the secondary method that Mac OS X uses to identify files and choose their icons. If a file was created by a Mac application, it will probably have the type and creator codes so it doesn't need an extension to determine how it will be handled.

However, in recent months, Apple seems to be abandoning the type/creator method. Cocoa apps, IIRC, do not have a default way of setting these codes. Thus, new apps have to rely on the clunky file extensions.

It's all quite a mess right now.

There has been an ongoing debate for quite some time. There are some people that want Apple to stick by the type/creator codes but there are others who want to give in to depending on DOS filename extensions. There are others still who insist Apple should build a new filesystem that uses MIME codes to identify files.

*whew* I hope that makes some sense...

[ 05-31-2002: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</p>
post #18 of 64
Thread Starter 
it completely made sense.......

for mac os x , does it still use hfs [hfs+]?

what filing system did mac os 9 use?

on a machine with os 9 and os x on it, how does the two filing systems work?

about the file types....

is the "show info" preference where i can make ALL file types have the same icon, despite having different creator/type codes?
post #19 of 64
By default, it still uses HFS+ like Mac OS 9 did. You can reformat your drive as UFS and a few others and still run OS X (with Classic layer) on it. gotta go...
post #20 of 64
[quote]Originally posted by Badtz:
<strong>is the "show info" preference where i can make ALL file types have the same icon, despite having different creator/type codes?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well... that's not really how the OS works. If there is a creator code, then the OS uses it. For generic types like jpgs or tiffs most files don't have a creator code, but many programs will add it. There is no way that I know of to guarantee that every file of a single type will have the same icon. This is just how the MacOS works... it is considered a benefit to know which program "owns" a particular file, regardless of type, and to assign different files of the same type to separate applications and to know which will open when the file is double-clicked.

If this bothers you then you can batch-change the default application for large groups of files, again using the "Get Info" command:

Once again, this system is currently in a state of flux, and nobody outside of Apple really knows how it will turn out.
post #21 of 64
Thread Starter 
hahaha, that was going to be my next question, was if there was a program that'll do batch file changes.......

for graphic files, i'd want all of my files to look the same & open the same.......


even if i put os9 [classic] on a separate partition, can I use UFS still?

is UFS the most advised for os x? [over hfs+]
post #22 of 64
[quote]Originally posted by Badtz:
<strong>even if i put os9 [classic] on a separate partition, can I use UFS still?

is UFS the most advised for os x? [over hfs+]</strong><hr></blockquote>Yes, you can use Classic as long as it is on an HFS+ formatted drive/partition.

However, I strongly recommend *against* formatting with UFS. Disk accesses and writes are reportedly much slower with UFS than HFS+, probably because Apple has optimized OSX for HFS+ since the vast majority of users are already formatted in HFS+.

Furthermore, files with resource forks are handled rather strangely with UFS (they are actually split into two different files!) and case sensitivity is different.
post #23 of 64
Thread Starter 
if you put boht os9 & osx on hte same partition [isn't recommended, but do-able], it has to be formatted in hfs+ then?

i'm thinking i might buy a separate small firewire HD to put classic/os9 on it, while i keep my complete hd with os x.....
post #24 of 64
Actually, Os 9 and OS x are usually on the same partition. Just don't do anything stupid like delete the "Mach" file when booted in to OS 9.

I think you can still use Classic on UFS, but HFS+ really is the best filesystem to use for OS X and Classic right now.

There's little reason to tinker with Apple's default installation methods unless you're just playing around.
post #25 of 64
[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>I think you can still use Classic on UFS, but HFS+ really is the best filesystem to use for OS X and Classic right now.

I believe that is incorrect. If you go UFS, you can't run classic (unless you're dealing with seperate drives/partitions), and I have heard (take this with a grain of salt) that some carbon apps don't behave well on a UFS partition.

Unless you have a definite need for UFS, I would stick with HFS+ for now until Steve announces we can move on

post #26 of 64
Okay, let's clear up a few issues.

1. Classic will not work on a UFS-formatted drive. Period. It is true that there have been reports of certain Carbon apps behaving strangely on UFS drives also, though I can't recall exactly what they are.

2. OS9 (Classic) can be put anywhere -- on the same partition as OSX, on a different partition, or on a different drive. Classic and OSX can happily sit together on the same partition with no troubles at all. In fact, that is how Apple ships their systems and is how I've had my main system setup since September of 2000.

If you are getting this computer brand new, you really shouldn't need to go to the trouble of reformatting and reinstalling everything unless you just want to partition your drive for organizational purposes.
post #27 of 64
Thread Starter 
c'mon starfleet, of course i want to start fresh! I'm getting it from a past user, don't want his/her settings/crap on there

i guess i don't want to deal with the mac os 9 and mac os x mixed on the same partition/drive. So I'll try & get a cheapy external usb/firewire drive to store os 9 on. or maybe even one of those nifty firewire keychains

or maybe even an iPod? ;-)

options options!

this way, when I want to delete os 9 forever, i don't have to mess with it all in the partition X is on
post #28 of 64
No sweat -- I didn't realize you were getting a used computer. By all means, format away then!

FYI, removing Classic is as simple as dragging the OS9 System Folder to the trash. Simple as that. Classic is contained entirely within the confines of the System Folder and won't be mixed with anything else (except for your Classic apps, which you can put wherever you want).
post #29 of 64
Do you need 9? If not, get rid of it entirely.
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch
"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox
post #30 of 64
Thread Starter 
OS 9 is completely in it's own system's folder? how about 9's bundled applications? are they in there also?

hmm, if my programs are carbonized, then i might as well NOT use os9 ryte? [assuming they ALL are carbonized]
post #31 of 64
Yes, the OS9 system files are contained within a single folder. The apps will, by default, be placed in a folder at the root of your drive called "Applications (Mac OS 9)". If you ever want to get rid of classic, simply drag both of these folders to the trash.

Aquatik is right, though, that unless you know there are some apps you'll need it for, you could go ahead and toss Classic. I don't have any full-time apps I need Classic for, but there are still a few really older programs I come across that will never be carbonized that I like to keep Classic for. By simply keeping Classic on your drive, you're not really using any of your system's resources -- it's just taking up space sitting idle on the hard drive.
post #32 of 64
Thread Starter 
ahh nice! well, if i find fault in filing with ufs, then i'll format in hfs+ & stick both on the same drive......

otherwise, i'll have to either split partition or put on separate drives........

thanks! nice knowing os 9 can easily be TOSSED out!
post #33 of 64
[quote]Originally posted by Badtz:
<strong>well, if i find fault in filing with ufs...</strong><hr></blockquote>I know I'm probably repeating myself (and this will be the last time, I promise!), but I thought I should mention again that UFS is *not* the suggested format to use for OSX. HFS+ is the default option and is reportedly much faster at disk accesses and writes. The only reason I can imagine you would choose UFS over HFS+ is for its case handling (meaning that "apple", "Apple", "ApPlE", and "APPLE" can all reside in the same directory as separate files). That's the only advantage I can think of that it has, and I know many people wouldn't even consider that an advantage.

Okay, I'll shut up now.

[ 06-01-2002: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</p>
post #34 of 64
Thread Starter 
thanks! hfs+ it is ;-)

post #35 of 64
Just FYI, I finally found some more issues regarding UFS:

* Main volume can only be named "/"
* Airport does not work
* Must actually copy "Classic" to "System Folder" in order to start up the Classic environment for the first time
* Finder seems to run more slowly
* Cannot access files or repair volume when booted up in OS 9
* Many Carbon apps will not work in UFS, including Photoshop 7.x, InDesign 2.x, and Netscape 6.x and later.
* Type and creator codes are not preserved.

There's also an Apple kbase article "Choosing UFS or Mac OS Extended (HFS Plus) Formatting."

<a href="http://kbase.info.apple.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/kbase.woa/101/wa/query?searchMode=Expert&type=id&val=KC.25316" target="_blank">http://kbase.info.apple.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/kbase.woa/101/wa/query?searchMode=Expert&type=id&val=KC.25316</a>

[ 06-02-2002: Message edited by: starfleetX ]</p>
post #36 of 64
Thread Starter 
Muchas Gracias! :-) is that correct espanol? ;-)

I appreciate very technical answers!!! Satisfy all my sub-questions before I ask them!
post #37 of 64
Thread Starter 
actually, one more : )

when you install os 9 second, does it install like normal, like Os X wasn't there? or does it detect os x & installation continues?

is there a chance it will overwrite any os x files?
post #38 of 64
[ 06-03-2002: Message edited by: CubeDude ]</p>
post #39 of 64
[quote]Originally posted by CubeDude:
<strong>Actually, when my drive had UFS, I never needed to do this. I just double-clicked on a Classic app, and everything started without a prob.</strong><hr></blockquote>Ah, but the very first time you ever launched Classic (not the first time since login, the *very* first time), you probably already had a System Folder with the necessary extensions and control panels installed, no? I think this step is necessary if you have an absolute bare-bones installation of OS9.
[quote]<strong>If you open HIToolbox.rsrc at /System/Library/Frameworks/Carbon.framework/Versions/A/Frameworks/HIToolbox.framework/Versions/A/Resources(make a copy by holding down Option and Command while dragging it to the Desktop) in Icongrapher, you will see a list of icons(long list).</strong><hr></blockquote>No, no, I think you misunderstood what he wants to do. HIToolbox only contains icons related to the system and Finder, not documents like JPEG. For those icons, you'd have to edit the resources of a parent app to the file type.
post #40 of 64
Yeah, your right starfleet, I had launched it before while my drive was HFS+, and I wasn't quite sure if my icon directions were correct, I tried to edit them, but all that appeared in the edit box was the first line.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Software Uninstallation :::