[cosmichobo]

G'day,

In dem olden type days of System 6 etc, we had wonderfully complex black and white patterns for our desktops...



These days, with such powerful advanced modern computers, we can easily pop a complex high definition picture on our desktops... such as the samples that Apple provides with their OS...



But... I recall someone somewhere suggesting that leaving lots of files sitting on your desktop was a sure fire way to slow your computer down... I didn't really hold much esteem in this comment, however, did then begin to notice, especially apparent when quitting Halo, that the image one chooses for their desktop is quite clearly "layered" on top of an existing blue screen.

So then I started to wonder, does indeed having lots of files sitting on your desktop, which thus need to be rendered on top of that image, cause your computer to slow down...?

Will the computer function faster with a plain blue screen? Can that apparent "default" screen simply be chosen?

[And on a side note, what fun would it be to choose a desktop pattern that was black and white, pixel-on pixel-off... in a 8x8 pattern... just like the oldem days]

Questions questions... to which I have no answers answers.

Cheers

cosmic

[snowleopard48]

i don't think you can get that default screen...
but you can make something that looks like it!

[dangelovich]

With the processing power of modern computers, the performance difference between having an image and not having one should be negligible.

Exceptions to this will be if you use excessively large files, or if the OS is poorly coded to handle such things.

Leaving files sitting on your desktop won't make your computer slower, unless your OS contains either a bug causing this, or is just generally poorly coded. And since we're all Mac users here, and the Mac OS is perfect, everything is sorted out and we can move right along cheerfully.

[cosmichobo]

Originally Posted by dangelovich

and the Mac OS is perfect, everything is sorted out and we can move right along cheerfully.

*laugh*

*laugh*

*laugh*

I'll have to go digging for that comment/belief about it slowing things up... see where its origins are rooted.

Maybe a lower res file is better... I don't think there'd be much point making a pattern that matches the "default" cos - the OS would still then be building it on top of the default... except that the default appears to be a solid blue colour, so presumably easier for rendering.

[Velociraptors]

Originally Posted by cosmichobo

So then I started to wonder, does indeed having lots of files sitting on your desktop, which thus need to be rendered on top of that image, cause your computer to slow down...?

Definitely, for some things. While it's fine most of the time, when I get over 600 icons on the desktop there are occasional moments when the finder takes a while to redraw them all. That's a lot less of an issue with OS X compared to the classic OS, as it doesn't affect any other running apps. On the Classic OS you could be sitting waiting for the redraw to complete before being able to load or switch to another app.

[Alex Morrow]

I don't know about the Desktop picture, but I was advised on this forum a while back that my habit of downloading everything and saving everything onto the Desktop first, then putting things away when I had had a while to decide where to place them, would slow down my computer. I googled the question, and found differing opinions. Since I very seldom would have more than, say, ten icons on the Desktop, and usually fewer than five, I felt that these were unlikely to make much difference. Indeed, after a tidy up, when there are only one or two, I have not noticed any difference in speed. Perhaps if the screen were covered in icons (as I have seen on some computers), a difference would be noticed.

[banjo]

Originally Posted by cosmichobo

I'll have to go digging for that comment/belief about it slowing things up... see where its origins are rooted.

It's a Windows thing, and it's also based on computers from years ago. The issue isn't just that it has to render lots of little images and text — the image only has to be rendered once — it's that it also has to register the hit area with the OS so you can click on it. It is this event hook which uses up memory. So the more icons you have, the more hit areas need to be registered, the slower your computer will become.

Not such an issue with gigabytes of RAM. You would have to have hundreds of icons to degrade system performance noticeably. Now, back when I had my first computer with 8 megabytes of RAM ...

Your desktop also tends to automatically refresh every so often, so this redraw would probably take a bit of time if you had a hell of a lot of icons as well.

Maybe a lower res file is better... I don't think there'd be much point making a pattern that matches the "default" cos - the OS would still then be building it on top of the default... except that the default appears to be a solid blue colour, so presumably easier for rendering.

An image is an image, even if that image is made only of one colour. A heavily patterned image is no different to a flat colour image (though you can compress low or single colour images more). Lower res isn't necessarily an issue either because the OS will upsize or downsize the image on startup, so they will both probably use the same amount of memory once loaded.

P.S. Under "Change Desktop Background" you can actually choose a solid colour. No need to make images or anything.

[iPirate]

I think I read somewhere that the finder treated every icon on the desktop like an open window with that image displayed there...

[cosmichobo]

Just trying out Aqua Graphite (solid colour)... kinda dark sky blue... Makes me feel like System 7.5.5 somehow.

[LarryH]

Originally Posted by cosmichobo

*laugh*

*laugh*

*laugh*

I'll have to go digging for that comment/belief about it slowing things up... see where its origins are rooted.

Maybe a lower res file is better... I don't think there'd be much point making a pattern that matches the "default" cos - the OS would still then be building it on top of the default... except that the default appears to be a solid blue colour, so presumably easier for rendering.

Was this the guy? The first tip says a cluttered desktop slows your mac down.

[cosmichobo]

zomg my desktop isn't THAT bad!! Not the article I'm referring to, but looking at his illustration, I could understand the computer running slow like that!!

[~Coxy]

Originally Posted by cosmichobo

So then I started to wonder, does indeed having lots of files sitting on your desktop, which thus need to be rendered on top of that image, cause your computer to slow down...?

Will the computer function faster with a plain blue screen? Can that apparent "default" screen simply be chosen?

[And on a side note, what fun would it be to choose a desktop pattern that was black and white, pixel-on pixel-off... in a 8x8 pattern... just like the oldem days]

1 - this is actually true, but the difference is very very slight. It was more of a problem with 10.0/10.1 (themselves being very slow and unoptimised OSes!) running on sub-1GHz G3s and G4s. If you remember, in those times the CPU had to do everything. The genie effect for minimising windows was actually quite laggy even on the best hardware.

2 - it will be 'faster' but I doubt you will notice any difference these days.

3 - With the huge DPI figures of today's monitors, the old school checkerboard pattern will hurt your eyes really badly. Squares of 4 pixels off/on in the same checkerboard might be OK though.

[cosmichobo]

Found a nostalgic wallpaper to use...

http://dir.agosto.nl/design/wallpape...-Macintosh.png

Just want the welcome box about double the size... tried halving the pixels, but it didn't change... and it's too late in the.. morning to think about it enough to do it...