[Guide] Clean Mac is a Happy Mac

[OSXMan]

Guide Removed, fuck it.

 

[cheez]

OMG... thanks for the awesome guide. Bookmarked!

Thanks an oil tanker.

:thumbsup:

 

[cheez]

Question: I heard that Mac OS X is registry-less!!! That immediately makes Mac OS X superior to Windows. It's brilliant. It's work of art.

But still, I thought I heard somewhere on the net that uninstalling the program by simply moving the app to trash can doesn't remove everything clean. Is this true?? Or do I not need to worry about this? There's trash clean apps out there but I'm SKEPTICAL!

Yes I'm after speed.... I want bleeding edge speed / efficiency. Can you please advice.

 

[OSXMan]

Yes this is true, to an extent, seeing as how OS X is built from a Unix core and not the NT Kernel it is written in a way that it doesn't have a kernel, however it uses what is called a kext cache, which in a way is like the windows registry.

When you boot the system it loads this kext cache which loads all of the kexts in your /System/Library/Extensions folder, these are what make all your devices and services "start."

As for removing applications, yes and no, 95% of the time when you delete an application to the trash that is all you have to do as most applications you need you usually don't have auto starting, however in the rare case you have applications such as Parallels or VMWare etc that install things like virtual device drivers etc you will usually have an uninstaller file that you can run to remove the kexts and such to totally remove it. Most applications OS X has are self contained .app files that all you do is you run it from the application folder and it runs 100% self contained, basically anything that you will have to have an uninstaller for are things that access your hardware for another function other than normally used (i/e virtualisation.)

 

[PCTC2]

Yes this is true, to an extent, seeing as how OS X is built from a Unix core and not the NT Kernel it is written in a way that it doesn't have a kernel, however it uses what is called a kext cache, which in a way is like the windows registry.

When you boot the system it loads this kext cache which loads all of the kexts in your /System/Library/Extensions folder, these are what make all your devices and services "start."

As for removing applications, yes and no, 95% of the time when you delete an application to the trash that is all you have to do as most applications you need you usually don't have auto starting, however in the rare case you have applications such as Parallels or VMWare etc that install things like virtual device drivers etc you will usually have an uninstaller file that you can run to remove the kexts and such to totally remove it. Most applications OS X has are self contained .app files that all you do is you run it from the application folder and it runs 100% self contained, basically anything that you will have to have an uninstaller for are things that access your hardware for another function other than normally used (i/e virtualisation.)

I'm going to politely disagree and add that it does have a kernel (a micro-kernel), but also, upon deletion, MOST apps still have files lurking around. Apps have plist preference files, scripts, and other files that live in /Library and ~/Library. Most don't matter and only take up a little space, but after years of installing and uninstalling, there can be a noticeable amount of files from removed applications.

You can find files in:
/Library/Preferences
~/Library/Application Support
~/Library/Preferences
~/Library/Launch{Daemons,Agents}
and probably a few other folders like /Library/Scripts

 

[RavenSEAL]

Question: I heard that Mac OS X is registry-less!!! That immediately makes Mac OS X superior to Windows. It's brilliant. It's work of art.

But still, I thought I heard somewhere on the net that uninstalling the program by simply moving the app to trash can doesn't remove everything clean. Is this true?? Or do I not need to worry about this? There's trash clean apps out there but I'm SKEPTICAL!

Yes I'm after speed.... I want bleeding edge speed / efficiency. Can you please advice.

 

[cheez]

I'm going to politely disagree and add that it does have a kernel (a micro-kernel), but also, upon deletion, MOST apps still have files lurking around. Apps have plist preference files, scripts, and other files that live in /Library and ~/Library. Most don't matter and only take up a little space, but after years of installing and uninstalling, there can be a noticeable amount of files from removed applications.

I don't let OS run that long anyway as I just do C:\format, lmao.

Important question: Other than taking up spaces, will OS X slow down significantly like Windows XP does due to registry problems or fragmentations?

You can find files in:
/Library/Preferences
~/Library/Application Support
~/Library/Preferences
~/Library/Launch{Daemons,Agents}
and probably a few other folders like /Library/Scripts

Interesting things you've pointed out. I actually manually deleted all files including .plist files under /Library/Preferences directory yesterday.




As to RavenSEAL's response, I was serious, LOL.

 

[TheStu]

I don't let OS run that long anyway as I just do C:\format, lmao.

Important question: Other than taking up spaces, will OS X slow down significantly like Windows XP does due to registry problems or fragmentations?

Interesting things you've pointed out. I actually manually deleted all files including .plist files under /Library/Preferences directory yesterday.




As to RavenSEAL's response, I was serious, LOL.

Use AppCleaner to remove applications you don't want anymore.

 

[OSXMan]

Actually yes that is true, some do have .plist files however they are Preference list (.plist) files, and the link I posted to the application Applejack I posted removes those

Thank you I totally forgot about those.

 

[RavenSEAL]

I'm gonna setup a Mac VM and see what the big deal is, hopefully it doesn't blow up because of my AMD chip.

 

[Nothinman]

These folders are optimized for those types of files, making indexing and searching faster, this is why the OS X Spotlight search is faster than the Windows search, because the same folders in Windows aren't optimized for it

I really don't mean to thread-crap, but how in the hell do you optimize a directory for a specific file type?

Question: I heard that Mac OS X is registry-less!!! That immediately makes Mac OS X superior to Windows. It's brilliant. It's work of art.

But still, I thought I heard somewhere on the net that uninstalling the program by simply moving the app to trash can doesn't remove everything clean. Is this true?? Or do I not need to worry about this? There's trash clean apps out there but I'm SKEPTICAL!

Yes I'm after speed.... I want bleeding edge speed / efficiency. Can you please advice.

Early versions of OS X had NetInfo which is similar to a registry, but not identical and was removed eventually.

In theory, searching a registry database will be faster than opening and reading dozens or hundreds of files underneath of /etc. I think the major issue with the Windows registry is Windows' low level dependence on it. It's a single point of failure that is very hard to recover from when there is an issue. I would guess that if one were to do benchmarks of settings lookups in a db like the registry vs files they would find the registry is quicker.

Yes this is true, to an extent, seeing as how OS X is built from a Unix core and not the NT Kernel it is written in a way that it doesn't have a kernel, however it uses what is called a kext cache, which in a way is like the windows registry.

There most certainly is a kernel, it's called GNU Mach and while it's a micro kernel they don't really use it like that. The kext cache's job is just to make the loading of kernel extensions (or modules) quicker, it's nothing like a registry.

Important question: Other than taking up spaces, will OS X slow down significantly like Windows XP does due to registry problems or fragmentations?

XP doesn't slow down due to "registry problems or fragmentations."

 

[cheez]

In theory, searching a registry database will be faster than opening and reading dozens or hundreds of files underneath of /etc. I think the major issue with the Windows registry is Windows' low level dependence on it. It's a single point of failure that is very hard to recover from when there is an issue. I would guess that if one were to do benchmarks of settings lookups in a db like the registry vs files they would find the registry is quicker.

Registry may not have bad speed performance *when in good operating condition*. The problem is, they tend to go wrong easily. And that's where the system starts to lose responsiveness (other than hard drive data fragmentations)...

XP doesn't slow down due to "registry problems or fragmentations."

Yes it does. One of the biggest downside to Windows XP is the registry corruption and fragmentation. There seems to be greater potential for things to go wrong in the registry, especially in Windoz XP.

Are you defending Windows XP now? or just Windows in general? Nothingman.





Oh and great thanks to OSXMan. Your thread is very helpful. I will start using AppleJack.

 

[Nothinman]

Registry may not have bad speed performance *when in good operating condition*. The problem is, they tend to go wrong easily. And that's where the system starts to lose responsiveness (other than hard drive data fragmentations)...

You have conclusive proof of this? Because my previous XP machine, and now Win7 VM, have had zero issues. The Win7 install is coming up on 3 years without a reload or any other kind of 3rd party maintenance.

Yes it does. One of the biggest downside to Windows XP is the registry corruption and fragmentation. There seems to be greater potential for things to go wrong in the registry, especially in Windoz XP.

Are you defending Windows XP now? or just Windows in general? Nothingman.

Windows in general, because if you actually pay attention to what you install/uninstall there are no issues to speak of. Again, can you point to any real evidence that registry "corruption and fragmentation" even exist let alone have an appreciable affect on performance?

 

[manly]

I'm with Nothinman, the OP sounds to me like superstition rather than science.

Disclaimer: I've never used Applejack although I'm aware it's a good tool.

 

[copyrightz]

XP does slow down. But I think why Nothinman doesn't have these problems are due to a VM -> normally not the OS you use for regular day use. And in my opinion Windows slows only down if you are a non technical user who install/uninstalls programs like hell (I know some ppl in my area who complain all day long about these things (incl. Windows 7)).

About Mac OS X being better. Hm well good question. It's hard for me to tell as I'm using Mac since 2009 (so not a long time) and I'm very careful what I need and what I install.

 

[Nothinman]

XP does slow down. But I think why Nothinman doesn't have these problems are due to a VM -> normally not the OS you use for regular day use. And in my opinion Windows slows only down if you are a non technical user who install/uninstalls programs like hell (I know some ppl in my area who complain all day long about these things (incl. Windows 7)).

About Mac OS X being better. Hm well good question. It's hard for me to tell as I'm using Mac since 2009 (so not a long time) and I'm very careful what I need and what I install.

No, the XP installation I referenced was directly on hardware. In this case it was an older Dell Latitude. The Win7 VM I referenced is my work VM and I most certainly use it every day and usually leave it running for weeks at a time. According to "Programs and Features" I've got almost 100 programs installed, although that includes things like MySQL ODBC Connector and the MS VC++ redistributables so it's going to be a little bit high.

But I am very picky about what I install on it because I know some things will cause issues. I beat up the Linux host OS much more because I know its package management is light-years ahead of Windows and will clean up after itself.

 

[rivan]

In order to do this we do what is called "zapping" the PRAM.

I would imagine you're also the type to defrag every three days as well?

Under normal usage, you should never have to zap your pram. It's been literally years since I have on my work machines.

We love helpful people around here, but that sort of superstition should not be perpetuated.

 

[OSXMan]

I would imagine you're also the type to defrag every three days as well?

Under normal usage, you should never have to zap your pram. It's been literally years since I have on my work machines.

We love helpful people around here, but that sort of superstition should not be perpetuated.

I am not saying that is something you HAVE to do, it is however what I do.

Again, when I was working as the Junior Technician for my high school we had over 200 Macs and zapped the PRAM on every single one, as well as ran applejack.

Not all of those options are what you have to do, you can only do one or two, just saying that's what I do.

 

[Nothinman]

I am not saying that is something you HAVE to do, it is however what I do.

Again, when I was working as the Junior Technician for my high school we had over 200 Macs and zapped the PRAM on every single one, as well as ran applejack.

Not all of those options are what you have to do, you can only do one or two, just saying that's what I do.

From what I remember it only made a difference on OS 9 and earlier machines.

 

[JSt0rm]

I dunno about that first one. Do you have some links to back that up? I keep multiple TB of sound files not in the "music" folder and my computer runs fine.

 

[JSt0rm]

im talking sound library alone is about 500k individual files. Then there is the old projects and a multitude of other stuff.

 

[dave_the_nerd]

From what I remember it only made a difference on OS 9 and earlier machines.

It's also a quick and easy way to set the screen resolution back to default. If you plug / unplug external monitors a lot, sometimes the machine will get hopelessly confused and you end up with an unusable display setting. The other option is to remote desktop into the machine and fix it, but if you're already standing in front of the thing, well, yeah.

And besides, a restart never hurt anything.

Never heard of Applejack, but Macs have this annoying tendency to not get to run their automatic maintenance scripts. Probably because desktops, unlike servers, get turned off at night. So occasionally typing "sudo period daily weekly monthly" into the command line and going for coffee isn't a bad idea.

You shouldn't have to repair permissions unless something is broken, and even then it only really fixes your system folder, not applications or third-party software (which is usually what's screwed up.)

 

[cheez]

You have conclusive proof of this? Because my previous XP machine, and now Win7 VM, have had zero issues.

The Win7 install is coming up on 3 years without a reload or any other kind of 3rd party maintenance.

I am the proof. Very seriously speakin'.
This comes from the user experience not only for myself but hundreds of clients I have been dealing with.
And I was strongly referring to Windows XP, which is most notorious for registry corruption and performance is *ridiculously easily* affected by any registry fragmentations.

Windows 7 is of course more lame on other things. I'm sure the registry part has been improved some-what over the XP. But I am pretty dang sure it's nowhere as good as Mac OS X due to the difference in technology and programming techniques.

Windows in general, because if you actually pay attention to what you install/uninstall there are no issues to speak of. Again, can you point to any real evidence that registry "corruption and fragmentation" even exist let alone have an appreciable affect on performance?

I already told you I am the evidence, as well as hundreds of users I deal with. Plus millions of users out there on the globe are having the same issue as well. It seems like you came from the jungle, not realizing the registry problems going on all this time for years. Where have you been? Are you new?


Maybe you don't know what fast is when operating OPERATING SYSTEMS. Some people think it's fast while others think it's dog slow.

And if you didn't get error boxes well you either got lucky or you don't use Windows XP much.

Windows 7 I don't have too much to comment regarding registry cause like I said I'm sure it has made some improvements but of course it's still inferior to Mac OS X because it STILL uses registry.


Registry = FAIL

 

[VirtualLarry]

I've run Win98se, Win2K, WinXP, and now Win7 64-bit (skipped Vista), and I've never had any issues, corruption, or slowdown, due to the registry.

The only way that I can figure that you could get registry corruption that would cause errors, would be when operating the computer with flaky hardware, such as bad RAM or a bad HD.

During normal operation, on reliable hardware, the registry simply isn't an issue.

 

[cheez]

Nothingman, instead of defending your precious Windows OSes I suggest you read and learn about OP's suggestion on maintaining Mac OS X. If you don't own Mac computer nor do you use Mac OSes I suggest you go over to Operating System section of the forum. I can tell you more about how lame Windows 7 is... Don't go thread crapping the OP's thread here.