At another forum Mac users are going nuts (as so many so often do) over the idea of "trimming" the system to make window redraws, window resizing, and other functions happen faster.
I understand the philosophy of trimming extensions in OS 9: fewer extensions = faster bootup and less variables compromising stability. Also the issue of small drives.
Do the same principles extend to performance generally in OS X? Drive sizes and memory should no longer be an issue.
So as far as I can figure, you can get it to boot faster. But when I look at memory and cpu usage, I see so few of my 180 or so kext extensions being used ... so why move them to a "disabled" folder? I wonder if this is not Mac-repair mania carrying over from OS 9 to OS X (geez, whatever happened to the idea of a computer that "just works"? somehow it turned into computers that are fun to trim and the peristent Mac-pursuit for more and more utilities to add to the forever obsessive concern of a "maintenance routine").
In short I'm skeptical that there is the 25% boost in performance that is being claimed by some. And I'm just waiting for the complaints to come pouring in: "the latest update just messed up my system!" because it looked and couldn't find the needed kext files to update. Of course Apple will be blamed when really it is "I just can't do work, I must mess with the system folder!" that is actually to blame.
Anyone with or without technical knowledge have facts, conjectures or opinions on whether lightening the /System/Extensions folder will somehow boost "performance" (however you want to define that vague term)?
I understand the philosophy of trimming extensions in OS 9: fewer extensions = faster bootup and less variables compromising stability. Also the issue of small drives.
Do the same principles extend to performance generally in OS X? Drive sizes and memory should no longer be an issue.
So as far as I can figure, you can get it to boot faster. But when I look at memory and cpu usage, I see so few of my 180 or so kext extensions being used ... so why move them to a "disabled" folder? I wonder if this is not Mac-repair mania carrying over from OS 9 to OS X (geez, whatever happened to the idea of a computer that "just works"? somehow it turned into computers that are fun to trim and the peristent Mac-pursuit for more and more utilities to add to the forever obsessive concern of a "maintenance routine").
In short I'm skeptical that there is the 25% boost in performance that is being claimed by some. And I'm just waiting for the complaints to come pouring in: "the latest update just messed up my system!" because it looked and couldn't find the needed kext files to update. Of course Apple will be blamed when really it is "I just can't do work, I must mess with the system folder!" that is actually to blame.
Anyone with or without technical knowledge have facts, conjectures or opinions on whether lightening the /System/Extensions folder will somehow boost "performance" (however you want to define that vague term)?
