Will adding lots of Apps to my Mac slow it down?
My mate is new to Macs and he told me he is hesitant to add lots of appa to his computer as it slows down the performace of the machine. He said this was true in Windows Pc's and is also true for Macs.
I had never heard this and so didn't argue with him. But surely it is only if they are all running that it will slow it down.
I had never heard this and so didn't argue with him. But surely it is only if they are all running that it will slow it down.
Comments
If you run anything under Rosetta, emulation's never fast, it'll slow down noticeably.
Other than that, your computer shouldn't slow down too much
it's best to make sure that the apps u download r Universal
If you run anything under Rosetta, emulation's never fast, it'll slow down noticeably.
Other than that, your computer shouldn't slow down too much
Filling up the HD will only slow you down if you
a) Fill it up to nearly full.
b) Fragment it by adding, deleting, adding deleting, etc. in quick succession and with different filesizes.
Other than that, you'll be fine.
My mate is new to Macs and he told me he is hesitant to add lots of appa to his computer as it slows down the performace of the machine. He said this was true in Windows Pc's and is also true for Macs.
I had never heard this and so didn't argue with him. But surely it is only if they are all running that it will slow it down.
Yes, OS X will defragment the files on the fly.
The effect seen on Windows PCs with the slowdown is caused by the thousands of stupid applications which place a little icon bottom right, next to the clock icon. Every icon there has an application behind it which starts up at login. A fresh Windows installation boots in about 30 seconds, a PC filled with applications (and consequently all those stupid icons bottom right) takes up to 5 minutes...
This does NOT happen on a Mac, no matter how many Applications you have installed on the system. As long as they are not loaded at startup (which can easily be changed in System Preferences --> Accounts), there will be no slowdown at all.
When Applications are not loaded at startup (set in System Preferences --> Accounts) there will be no slowdown.
That was exactly my sentence, one post above yours...
But surely it is only if they are all running that it will slow it down.
You answered by yourself. Applications just sitting there and doing nothing do not slow down a computer. If they do run, then probably yes, depending on what they do.
It is a single-file database which holds configuration information for every program, user, driver and setting. This database grows like crazy and any and all programs can add or modify it without regard to others.
Registry cruft is often the cause for unstable, slow or unpredictable Windows problems.
This makes the invention of the registry possibly the single worst engineering decision of the 20th Century. And it is still there in Vista.
C
This makes the invention of the registry possibly the single worst engineering decision of the 20th Century. And it is still there in Vista.C
Oh man, the nightmares I had to solve using regedit, regcleaner and the like alone were enough to make me just loathe windows.
--off topic warning--
And now just this week a system administrator at work told me he could not install the driver for the new wireless network at work in my bootcamp xp install "because it wouldn't work with my dutch version of XP"
Yup, windows sucks...
If you run anything under Rosetta, emulation's never fast, it'll slow down noticeably.
I use MS Office for the Mac under Rosetta and it runs well. In fact I can't tell the difference between it and my universal apps.
XP also maintains the "Registry".
It is a single-file database which holds configuration information for every program, user, driver and setting. This database grows like crazy and any and all programs can add or modify it without regard to others.
Registry cruft is often the cause for unstable, slow or unpredictable Windows problems.
This makes the invention of the registry possibly the single worst engineering decision of the 20th Century. And it is still there in Vista.
C
it seemed like a good idea in windows 95. at least it seemed more sophisticated than the .ini files that preceded it... but at least they were separate and easily editable. the registry is probably THE thing i was most happy to see the back of when i switched. keeping it in good condition is essential for a smooth running system, but if it goes down you're up sh1t creek without a paddle