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.
Will OS X get slower as more apps are installed?
- Thread starter Lastmboy
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No, it's real. Apple just mitigates it well enough that you won't experience it too much. Constrain your mac with less RAM, no SSD, and see how much it slows from when it's new to 5 years in age.
To recap:
Having a full system disk (of any sort) is likely to impair performance. Having not enough RAM will impair performance.
However, for a disk that is within acceptable degree of fullness, the mere existence of applications on the disk will NOT diminish performance in any way.
Assuming an infinitely large disk, OS X has no limit to the number of installed applications, and an increasing number of applications will not affect the OS in any way.
There is also no reason why a 5-year-old Mac should behave any slower than it did when bought. I have run many Macs for many years without them becoming decrepit.
Having a full system disk (of any sort) is likely to impair performance. Having not enough RAM will impair performance.
However, for a disk that is within acceptable degree of fullness, the mere existence of applications on the disk will NOT diminish performance in any way.
Assuming an infinitely large disk, OS X has no limit to the number of installed applications, and an increasing number of applications will not affect the OS in any way.
There is also no reason why a 5-year-old Mac should behave any slower than it did when bought. I have run many Macs for many years without them becoming decrepit.
Last edited:
You just described in the underlined what the problem was, too many apps running at startup (which is as simple as disabling them in startup items). Windows has the same "issue" (aka user issues) for startup programs, but it also degrades over time with all the registry crap that has nothing to do with startup programs.
If you read what you underlined, you would see this part as well.
Fun fact: Windows 7 on an SSD and a limited number of startup programs doesn't suffer from a perceivable OS rot either.
If is unclear if you linked to the Wikipedia page as a joke. Whether you did or not, the Wikipedia page makes it clear that bit rot is a joke explanation for problems that have other causes. Often the repair for this mysterious bit rot is to restart the computer.Come on! You've never heard of bit rot?
Oh, and another thing. Joke or not, bit rot is a RAM issue and has nothing to do with the hard drive.
Tell that to my dad's iMac. He doesn't update his programs to newer versions that require more RAM, doesn't use much hard drive space, and yet his mac is slow as molasses. If OS X doesn't suffer from OS rot, what would cause that?
The only explanation I can come up with is that, over time, there's something that is or is not happening which causes the OS to slow. This is pretty much the definition of OS Rot IMO.
The Wikipedia article specifically states "software bugs... bloatware, or disk fragmentation". Definitely not limited to a RAM issue.
An OS is nothing more than a collection of software programs, which cannot "rot" and will always do exactly what they are programmed to do.
While the programming could be altered, the primary cause of slower performance over time, barring hardware problems such as failing hard drives, is simply giving the system more work to do. Defragmentation is not a issue on OS X like it is on Windows. Lack of sufficient RAM to handle the workload or insufficient free drive space can certainly be factors. Other than those, it's a matter of increasing the workload on the system, which has nothing to do with fictitious "rot" or how many apps are installed.
Computers don't slow down. The CPU runs at the same speed, whether it's 1 or 5 years old. If it seems slower, it's only because you've given it more work to do by having more apps running or working with larger files.
Many users claim their Mac runs slower and claim they're not running more apps when they're simply unaware of all the processes they have running at one time. There are countless threads on this, where basic troubleshooting reveals more apps running or a runaway app that is affecting performance. If you have access to your dad's iMac, check Activity Monitor for processes that are consuming system resources. Rather than invent some fictitious explanation, some elementary troubleshooting is a more productive approach.
I'd also add perception as a common "problem." Take any computer, I don't care if it's a Mac or Windows PC, from 5+ years ago and run a fresh install of the original OS version on it. You'll swear it's slower than when it was brand-new. I still have a Powerbook G4 that works fine, but holy moly does it FEEL slow. Back when it was brand new it was plenty fast. So what changed? Perception.
I had a MacBook for 4 years and I didn't experience any progressive slowdown whatsoever, at least not the kind that's noticeable. The system always boots at the same speed, starts up at the same speed, and only becomes slow when I have like 20 programs running. It only became suddenly slower when I upgraded OSX 10.6 to 10.7, so I had to revert.
Unfortunately it's possible the perceived Windows 'rot' is there because of the antivirus. You have it on all the time, and it grows up into some monster that makes every user action lag. I don't know if these days just practicing 'safe computing' is enough on Windows. Several years ago it was not enough, because of drive-by worm downloads. Windows is also slower after an update, as it has to spend a lot of time on the harddisk to save the new data before (or after ) it logs in, but I wouldn't call that 'rot'. Anyway what I noticed in Windows, but not on Linux and OSX, is the long time to wait after I log in, before the desktop becomes responsive.
Unfortunately it's possible the perceived Windows 'rot' is there because of the antivirus. You have it on all the time, and it grows up into some monster that makes every user action lag. I don't know if these days just practicing 'safe computing' is enough on Windows. Several years ago it was not enough, because of drive-by worm downloads. Windows is also slower after an update, as it has to spend a lot of time on the harddisk to save the new data before (or after ) it logs in, but I wouldn't call that 'rot'. Anyway what I noticed in Windows, but not on Linux and OSX, is the long time to wait after I log in, before the desktop becomes responsive.
Nope, the amount of applications you have will not affect your performance, provided you don't have applications booting up on start up.
Make sure to remove all boot up applications in System Preferences>>Users & Groups>>Login Items. Click on the application and click the minus button to remove it..
GGJstudios, you and a few others have incredible patients with this subject. It's a ridicules argument. The user who adamantly insists on having OS Rot, is determined to have it even though it doesn't exist. It seems that this person needs to study how NIX OS's actually work. I realize that for many, Windows is required due to software availability but it has given a black eye to all other OS's. I haven't used windows for many years, and I'm new to OSX, but being that it's a UNIX variant I'm at home.
In my plane of existence, the outside edge of a disc travels faster than the inside edge. Regardless, in modern drives the difference is not likely to be noticeable - even a full-stroke seek to a file is measured in single milliseconds.
A.
That is also false. The location on the drive is irrelevant, and the difference in access speed from one location to another on a drive is so insignificant that it's not measurable. The reason performance suffers with an almost-full drive is there is less space available for paging, caching, log entries and app workspace. This is true for both HDDs and SSDs. As I said in my first response, "unless you're running out of disc space", which is not the case with the OP.
I have to disagree with the statement that the problem with an almost-full drive is related to space for paging, etc.
The problem is that as the drive gets full there is less contiguous space available for writing data. As a result, files become fragmented as they are broken up and written where space is available. This means that while you may be performing what you think is a sequential read or write it is actually causing the drive to perform like it's doing random reads and writes, slowing down disk I/O considerably.
I'm aware that OS X does batch writes so that smaller writes are grouped together to form larger writes, however the ability to do that lessens as the drive nears capacity.
Apple states this as well and has since archived this as I don't see how anything has changed.
With very few exceptions, you don't need to defrag on OS X, except possibly when partitioning a drive. About disk optimization with Mac OS X
Yes, one of those exceptions is when the drive nears capacity. You did read the actual KB article that you posted, right? Because that's the very same article that talks about disks nearing capacity as one case that could benefit from being defragmented.
Yes, one of those exceptions is when the drive nears capacity. You did read the actual KB article that you posted, right? Because that's the very same article that talks about disks nearing capacity as one case that could benefit from being defragmented.
Performance can suffer if the drive is near capacity, whether there is fragmentation or not, for the reasons already stated. Fragmentation may exacerbate the problem, but it's not the only reason why it's not advisable to let a drive run out of free space.
Even though HFS+ manages fragmentation on the fly, the ability to do so effectively decreases as the drive fill up. At the very least the management of free space becomes more involved.
Also, the outer edges of a mechanical disk is faster, and not by an insignificant amount. It's actively exploited by file systems.
It's the fragmentation that causes the performance to suffer. If the drive were near capacity but not fragmented then there would be no performance hit other than the minimal amount incurred due to increased seek times, which you stated were insignificant.
----------
No argument there!
That isn't true. If the drive is not fragmented, but there is not enough space for paging, caches, and app work space, performance will certainly suffer. Anyone who has run out of drive space has seen the error messageIt's the fragmentation that causes the performance to suffer. If the drive were near capacity but not fragmented then there would be no performance hit other than the minimal amount incurred due to increased seek times, which you stated were insignificant.
Note that the message doesn't say "Your startup disk is fragmented. Please defragment your drive"
If your drive runs out of space, performance will not only suffer, your Mac will stop working altogether.
Wow, really? You can't connect the dots on this one? Clearly you're set in your misunderstanding of why a nearly-full drive starts slowing down, we've tried to help fix that but you seem disinterested in learning WHY the drive slows down.
I don't care if your drive is only 5% full, if the OS starts paging to disk and actively having to page out then you're going to see horrible performance. The drive being nearly full has nothing to do with disk-bound app performance related to not enough memory. Excessive page outs mean you don't have enough memory for your workload and you're having to use disk as memory. Yes, performance will suffer more if the drive is nearly full but that is because those page ins are being fragmented.
So, let's wrap this up.
Excessive memory pags-outs from disk = Horrible performance due to not enough physical memory. Will suck regardless of drive being full or not. Will suck more when the drive is nearly full due to fragmentation.
Drive nearly full = poor disk I/O due to writes being fragmented in order to fit in the remaining, smaller contiguous areas available on the drive.