What about it isn't modern?? Guess What.. I just copied cut and pasted a file. Sometimes people would do well to check their facts before just saying something.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Do Mac computers need defragging?
- Thread starter saintforlife
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What about it isn't modern?? Guess What.. I just copied cut and pasted a file. Sometimes people would do well to check their facts before just saying something.
Do not defrag an SSD.
As far as HHDs are concerned, OS X handles "file" fragmentation well, so files are not spread all over the drive. OS X does not do "drive" fragmentation and is susceptible to large amounts of fragmentation. As long as there isn't much "drive" fragmentation, there won't be a performance hit. It becomes a problem when there are no longer any large areas of contiguous space on the drive for OS X to use virtual memory, swap files, save files, etc. That's when things will slow down and you should use iDefrag or something similar. With the size of HDDs these days though, (and the number of external drives people use) it shouldn't be often.
As far as HHDs are concerned, OS X handles "file" fragmentation well, so files are not spread all over the drive. OS X does not do "drive" fragmentation and is susceptible to large amounts of fragmentation. As long as there isn't much "drive" fragmentation, there won't be a performance hit. It becomes a problem when there are no longer any large areas of contiguous space on the drive for OS X to use virtual memory, swap files, save files, etc. That's when things will slow down and you should use iDefrag or something similar. With the size of HDDs these days though, (and the number of external drives people use) it shouldn't be often.
Unlike the Windows Registry, .plists left behind from deleted apps have zero effect on system performance. They simply take up very little space on a hard drive. The Windows Registry is read every time you boot, and can directly impact system performance, especially when it gets corrupted with left-over entries from removed/reinstalled apps.
None of which are required for a Mac to operate efficiently. Just because 3rd party apps exist doesn't mean they're necessary. They just want to sell software.
Quite true, but none of them impact Mac OS X performance. They only take up space on the hard drive.
Only a handful of trojans, which don't require any antivirus apps to defend against. Zero viruses that run on Mac OS X.
You don't "constantly" repair permissions. That's only required when you have a specific problem with permissions. I've never needed to repair permissions in 3 years on my current MBP.
Again, this is only done when needed to address a specific issue. I've never had a need to do it.
The fact is, there is absolutely no ongoing regular maintenance that is required on the part of the user to keep Mac OS X running efficiently, short of running Software Update, which any OS requires.
Fragmenting has to do with the underlying filesystem and with the type of storage. The filesystem controls if a file is going to become fragmented or not. NTFS results in lots of fragmentation, hence the tools that exist to defragment it. HFS (the fs used by OSX) attempts to limit fragmentation on-the-fly, and there should generally be no need to defragement it with something like iDefrag.
Also, fragmentation only matters when it's slow to read random parts of the disk, which is the case with a typical hard drive, spinning to random parts of the disk to piece together a single file takes time. It is MUCH quicker to read random parts of SSD, making fragmentation even less of an issue.
All said and done, HFS + SSD = no need to defragment. Even if you needed to, you wouldn't want to move that much data around a SSD that often, as it has a limited write life.
Hope this helps.
Jim
Also, fragmentation only matters when it's slow to read random parts of the disk, which is the case with a typical hard drive, spinning to random parts of the disk to piece together a single file takes time. It is MUCH quicker to read random parts of SSD, making fragmentation even less of an issue.
All said and done, HFS + SSD = no need to defragment. Even if you needed to, you wouldn't want to move that much data around a SSD that often, as it has a limited write life.
Hope this helps.
Jim
That's not true, there's no 16-bit code in Windows XP and there was no merger with DOS/Win95/98/ME. Windows XP ran DOS/Win95 code the same way NT and 2000 did, with a VM and WOW (Windows-on-Windows).
Over the various generations the kernel *has* been rewritten several times and XP was probably the most vigorous rewrite as far as compatibility (although many would argue it would be Vista). The big knock on NT and 2000 was that although they were great they weren't ready for the home as they weren't optimized for slow and low-resource computers, didn't work with enough games, etc. XP is the point where they put attention on finally making the "new" OS tree mainstream and finally doing away with the Windows 95 branch of the family tree for good.
Not only was XP the first version to go 64-bit on x64, it was also the first one to run on IA64 as a separate build (Intel's "Itanium" line of 64-bit processors that predates 64-bit in the Pentium/Core processors). Although by this time DEC Alpha, Mips, PowerPC, and an unreleased SPARC versions had fallen away and only the new Itanium version remained, don't mistake that to assume XP was no longer a multi-platform design.
If there were a significant competing processor architecture Windows 7 could support it (they still do IA64 builds, FWIW). The irony is that aside from occasional flare-ups from AMD, Intel has dispatched the alternatives and even Apple has gone Intel. Who would have guessed any of that in the early 90s?
He probably meant cut and paste, which you can't do for some odd reason.
Also when you try to merge two folders with the same name, it does a replace, which is not what Windows does and very inconvenient.
And all of that can be said about Windows, too. Everything you just said. The ONLY maintenance I do on the Windows 7 machine sitting next to my Mac Pro is to run chkdsk once or twice a month, and that's out of habit and preventative maintenance than necessity.
I constantly have to repair permissions on many of my Macs. The fact is after they are running for any significant amount of time permissions go haywire -- apps won't run, folder's can't be deleted, etc. It happens to me all the time. And worse you get stuck with items on the hard disk that can't be repaired, ever.
Last edited:
So how exactly did you manage to do that...do you mean....copy, paste then go back and delete original?
If not enlighten me...
Are you referring to a "cut" keyboard shortcut? I don't believe that exists. I'd imagine you could write one pretty easily if you wanted to, or find some third-party software that does it.
Or you could drag and drop the file, that moves it (i.e. cuts then pastes).
Or you could open a terminal (gasp!) and use the 'mv' command.
Obviously, the concept of "cutting" exists, Finder just lacks a keyboard shortcut for it AFAIK.
Jim
Not true at all. A corrupt Windows Registry can have a significant effect on system performance. The same is not true of .plists and other app-related files left behind after deleting an app on Mac OS X.
I didn't say anything about maintenance on Windows. I simply refuted your incorrect suggestion that Macs need regular maintenance.
If that's the case, you either have a unique problem with your specific Macs, or you are incorrectly assuming that permissions repair will fix the issues you're having. Repairing permissions is not something users normally have to do on a regular basis. Don't assume, because you have a particular issue or problem, that all users of Mac OS X have the same issues or problems. It's simply not true.
Thats exactly what I meant, except instead of doing a secondary click and selecting cut (because it isn't there) you select move to trash.. Same amount of work involved... Same result...
Thats not the same and not easier. On my PC, its cntrl-X to cut the files and cntrl-V to paste files. No going back and deleting files.
I cannot believe a OSX does not do that.
I use four different Macs on a regular basis, and they all have frequent and unfixable permissions problems. Perhaps you have these problems and aren't ware of it.
Now granted it takes a lot to get to the point where, for example, an app won't run, but it has happened and it's been due to permissions. Just as I run chkdsk on Windows machines as a force of habit, I do repair/repair permissions on my Macs fairly regularly. And if I'm not mistaken each and every machine has permissions that simply cannot be repaired. And far more often than I'd like, I've had items on my hard drives that cannot be deleted because the permissions are broken. I have to drop into a terminal window as super user to get rid of them.
You do know that cutting the file is the same as deleting it right? Yea, you're right about there not being fancy keystrokes for it, but that's where the right click comes in. you should try it sometime.... You can right click, hit copy, then right click and hit move to trash, and then paste it wherever you want...
How is it a problem if there are no symptoms of the problem and everything works as it should?
Mac OS X: Disk Utility's Repair Disk Permissions messages that you can safely ignore