10.1 Speed Not Acceptable

Beef ("bum", "drunk", whatever you call yourself), what's your freakin' problem? I just posted something that I discovered seemed to speed up my -- and many others systems (I'm not the only one who figured this out (and this is NOT the only vBulletin board -- try MacRumors.com) -- and thought I'd let people know so they can DECIDE FOR THEMSELVES if it is something that works (or causes problems). If you don't want to do it or read about it THEN DON'T! Figures that your name is "beef" because you don't seem to have anything better to do than to have a 'beef' with others. Pathetic (of course you'll respond to this post too ... watch everybody ...)
 
just do this... find the process ID of the LaunchCFMApp from Process Viewer. Go to therminal and do 'ps NumberYouJustFound'

are you trying to tell me that while the carbon app and LaunchCFMAPP share same process ID, they're 2 different thing? If so, tell me how I kill just LaunchCFMAPP.

IF IT'S AN APP YOU STARTED, WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO KILL IT?

I RESPOND BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO CLARIFY THIS THING. IF I WANT THINGS LEFT CONFUSING, I WOULDN'T BOTHER READING ANYTHING. What is frustrating is that you dont' give me any clear explanation on how this thing works, you just keep saying "it works".

IF this is actually something that improves the performance of OSX AND let me run my carbon apps, then I'll gladly accept I'm wrong and I'll use this. I'd even write a script that'll kill all LaunchCFMApps as soon as they're run (imagine how productive that will be... :p) But all this seems to me is killing carbon apps.
and I want you to respond... but besides telling me that I have problems, and making Miss Cleo like prediction (that I will respond), please give us something more useful.
 
I don't care who it is...

if someone can kill LaunchCFMAPP without killing an App you started, please let me know.
 
Originally posted by beef
I don't care who it is...

if someone can kill LaunchCFMAPP without killing an App you started, please let me know.
Click to expand...

Beef, I don't think you're getting it... I'm not saying that it won't launch when you launch a carbon app or that its not related to a carbon app. What I'm saying is that if you quit your carbon apps, this little bugger seems to still stay active (sometimes) and that it takes more more processor cycles, etc. than other apps. So, if you then quit it's process (and let it be so until the next time you run a carbon app) it seems to speed up the performance of OS X 10.1. Now, I don't claim (and never have) to say that I know this information for a fact, blah blah, just that it SEEMED to work for me (and others). And I, too, am trying to figure out if and (if so) why/how it works. I don't really have any more answers than you do, ok? I just posted the info because I discovered it and thought others might like to try it for themselves.

Nuff said. :)

Cheers.
 
ah.. actually, 2...

first of all, did you actually go to terminal and find out that the carbon app and launchCFMApp have the same process ID?

and question number 2

by default, I think process viewer will UPDATE ONLY EVERY 20 SECS... If you haven't changed this, then, yea... LaunchCFMApp will stay there till the list is updated... in 20 secs.

CHANGE IT TO 1, then launch a carbon app (and do you realize that the name of the app don't show up...?)

then just QUIT the app. wait for the list to update.

Is LaunchCFMApp still there?

they all go away here.

If you actually have a LaunchCFMApp that stays active after you quit the app, please let us know.
 
Originally posted by beef
I don't care who it is...

if someone can kill LaunchCFMAPP without killing an App you started, please let me know.
Click to expand...

Actually what we killed was LaunchCFM, not LaunchCFMApp. LaunchCFMApp is a carbon framework application. I believe what we killed was some sort of carbon/classic monitor. If most people tried to kill launchCFMApp when they read this thread it would kill Internet Explorer, if that is what you were using to view MacOsX.com. Since I've killed it, LaunchCFM hasn't restarted, I haven't tried a cold boot yet though. I have experienced problems since then with Classic applications and Carbon applications, so it appears it was doing something important. My belief is that it handels passing information back and forth from classic to X such as copy/paste, drag-n-drop, and video. Which is kind of refreshing, but bad for now, because that means that it's only older apps, and support for them that is slowing X down. If you look into you CFM support folder in System/Library/CFM Suport you can see it has lib's for OpenGL, Disk Recording, C, Bridge, and few others. My machines is still running much quicker, and I did confirm this with my bench for Text Edit that was 6 bounces in 10.04, 3 in 10.1 stock, and now 1 since I killed LaunchCFM. The question is will it start back up again?
 
just ran Classic, Classic Apps (some adobe, macromedia) then some carbon apps.

I'm yet to see LaunchCFM (without Apps) in process viewer. Is there such a process?

All along I thought GadgetLover meant LaunchCFMApp since I've never seen LaunchCFM. I went to Macrumors.com (where GadgetLover pointed) and searched for the thread, and the guy who started the thread is talking about LaunchCFMApp.

So now I'm confused again.:confused:

GadgetLover: did you mean LaunchCFMApp or LaunchCFM...

if it's LaunchCFM, how do you get it to run?
 
Originally posted by beef
just ran Classic, Classic Apps (some adobe, macromedia) then some carbon apps.

I'm yet to see LaunchCFM (without Apps) in process viewer. Is there such a process?

All along I thought GadgetLover meant LaunchCFMApp since I've never seen LaunchCFM. I went to Macrumors.com (where GadgetLover pointed) and searched for the thread, and the guy who started the thread is talking about LaunchCFMApp.

So now I'm confused again.:confused:

GadgetLover: did you mean LaunchCFMApp or LaunchCFM...

if it's LaunchCFM, how do you get it to run?
Click to expand...

Hmm, I beleive 85% sure that what I quit was the Code Fragment Manager, not a Code Fragment Manager App, but I did do this very fast, and no LaunchCFM has returned after booting, yet their is still obvious speed increases, and problems with carbon, and classic apps that were not their prior. With a little more knowledge on CFM now, it seams that CFM sould speed things up, but theoretically if it's passing more fragments between OS9 and OS 10 with classic and carbon apps, it could slow things down. I'm not sure what just happened, but my machine is definately much faster, and now the stability has returned after rebooting.
 
I still can't find out how to get LaunchCFM. It doesn't seem to be running at startup, not when carbon apps run, and not when classic's running... and not when cocoa apps are running either.

And since I haven't killed it, there really isn't a reason why it shouldn't be there... it's almost like listeting to a UFO story.

...if LaunchCFM is actually out there, I think you're talking about somethin else though. GadgetLover didn't point out the fact that I don't read well, and the site he mentioned had something about LaunchCFMApp, but not LaunchCFMApp... so my guess is he was actually talking about LaunchCFMApp... but we wouldn't know about this one until he tells us...

"Obvious speed increase"? I'm interested to know more... I don't care how you describe it... (like how many bounces to launch what, etc). Problem with carbon/classic? since I can't find LaunchCFM, can't really help there, but what kinda problems anyway? I think you should ask others who killed LaunchCFM (assuming they weren't killing LaunchCFM) to see if they have similar problems. I managed to turn classic to crap in 10.0.4 without doing much, so I'm not sure if this is a direct result of killing LaunchCFM. Now I have 2 OS9, so I'll have OS9 to go back to even if I turn classic to crap again.
One thing I noticed is that when my network goes crap (cable... during the peak hour, their server is just shitty), the system seems to slow down. I'm not looking at the cable modem all the time, but when I feel something slowed down and look at the modem, the light's usually off. And modifying Netinfo database, and restarting netinfo with mistake in it, will result in... long wait.

So there're things that can slow down the system... and naturally, when the cable modem's light's on again, the system's speed goes back to normal...

so if you're making modifications to improve the performance... I think you shouldn't be doing anything else... and maybe go offline, too...

haha, I can finally get the hell out. so I'm done annoying you all:cool:
 
If it work, I would rather to remove it from startup. Launch CFM is stupid process. But I think some programme will not run if launch CFM is not load.

I don't like other programme lik IE to launch without any process name. It just give us another Launch CFM. Don't know why.
 
Please don't flame me for contributing an unverifiable rumor, but this is what I heard, and I am passing it along for what it is worth.

My friend's cousin is a developer at Apple and told him that OS X is slow mainly because the kernal they built OS X on was chosen primarily because it was the topic of some big shot at Apple's phd thesis. Of course, development was not happy with the choice and made numerous solid arguments against it, but this wouldn't be the first time a top executive caused havoc by sticking to a bad ego-based decision. He went on to tell me that 10.1 involved a major rewrite of the kernal and this is where the root of the performance problems come from.

I'm no developer, but from a managerial perspective this makes a lot of sense to me.
 
On th RAM question with OS X, Apple recommends 128 Meg, which is probably conservative; so anything over 128 should run well. I know that Classic doesn't take a gig of ram for itself. I have a gig in my machine and I have been booted in X and have run Photoshop in Classic with a 200 meg app size as well as having other apps open in both Classic and X without problems.

Some (all) the suggestions mentioned should help with slow situation. My windows resize rapidly. I haven't noticed any slow downs.

I have a son who will break almost any machine or application if he can and he hasn't had any problems on a G3400 with 768 megs.
:)
 
Hey gang everyone keeps talking about clean installs. Are we still doing that routine with OS X.1? I thought we were done with that?

And as long as i am asking questions...Does the 10.1 disk actually give you the option of doing a clean install? AND...if so does it leave all the nifty stuff you have installed or wipe all the stuff off?

I installed on a separate hard disk thinking I would fool around with it and try some different things (like re-installing) and got so involved in how cool it was that I never did any of the tech stuff. Now I have built up a significant number of programs and such that I don't want to go back to square one.

I am not seeing the slowness either. But then again I am lucky enough to be using an 867 Mhz/256MB ram. Wish I had more ram though.

So anyway what about those clean installs...Anyone?

Thanks in advance ...jon
 
I guess speed is relative. I was doing some housekeeping in OS 9 earlier this week and while the finder and web browser did seem a little faster, I soon went back to OS X.

I have had few problems with X. The biggest problem I have had has been with permissions set by the OS to keep we UNIX newbies from trashing our machines. I do think Apple does need to modify the permissions scheme in future releases.

Guess my point is that I am happy with the speed of the OS. I also run it as the primary system on my Powerbook G4/500.
 
Interesting...what permissions limitations do you find frustrating? Are you referring to all the operations that require an administrator password?
 
i like the permissions set by the os , keeps things nice and secure , as far as speed goes , ive found os 10.1 very very nice , its fast and rock solid , its unix based , what more can i ask of a OS i honestly do not know , i love the development tools , i just love everything about this OS
 
Emptying trash of system items. I had a back-up on an external drive and I could not delete the old data. The drive is also formatted with a bastard driver and the Apple Drive formatter will not recognize it as a drive (firewire).

I had another problem with permissions trying to install Stuffit Deluxe. Someone else on this forum helped me with that.

I finally resolved the trash on the Firewire drive by going into OS 9 and deleting everything. I need to back up again but just haven't done so.
 
Hmm, yes, I've run into problems deleting trashed items like that. It's a pain. There were some instances where files were locked from OS 9 and there was absolutely no way to delete them in X.

I wouldn't call these problems with OS X's permissions scheme, however. These situations are just bugs in the OS, and fall out of any premeditated scheme. Almost every aspect of X's permissions scheme is consistent with that of other *nix-based systems. I'm glad, for instance, that Apple decided to use the sudo scheme for install permissions and for distinguishing normal-level users from administrative-level users (i.e., users on the sudoers list). That made me happy.

The main areas where I see permissions getting really messy in X are (1) in that case I described above with OS 9-locked items, and (2) Apple file sharing "share points" (ugh) in OS X Server. That stuff drives me bonkers. I've seen some really buggy behavior in Server when, for instance, you mount a new drive and make it available to a group that has a particular kind of access to other AFP-side share spaces. Drives will start showing up all over the place.

But these are bugs, not schemes. The scheme is sound; the bugs are bugs.
 
Reading through this post, I'm wondering one thing:

How does one do a clean install of 10.1.5, if the cd you purchased is 10.0.x? I've installed since the 10.1.5 update, and ran through the software update stuff to do all the updates. But how would I do a clean install of 10.1.5, would I have to go buy another copy of OS X??

By clean install, are you all referring to a 10.1.5 cd, or merely whiping the drive, installing 10.0 and then installing the updates?

Just wanted to clear that up for my own benefit, and hopefully the benefit of anyone else who reads this thread!

J5
 
Search for BATCHMOD at versiontracker.com. It's a nice app that will reset permissions and unlock files for trash deletion. It's still a silly way to do it, but it works a lot easier than other solutions unless you're really familiar with the terminal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top