# my macbooks running slow.....



## ianFRST (Sep 19, 2006)

its noticable getting slower

what can i do to speed things up again? not really put anything on it, so its not using memory / hdd space

any help mucho appreciated :thumb:


----------



## Cornish (Jun 20, 2008)

More Ram, More Ram, More Ram........


----------



## beardboy (Feb 12, 2006)

Give the permissions a repair - always helps things and you could download iDefrag - that also helps quite a bit :thumb:


----------



## byrnes (Jul 15, 2008)

As beardboy said run a check on the permissions, even if it doesnt need doing, repair them anyway :thumb:

I assume you know how to do it.

If not. Go to Finder/Applications/ find the Utilities file. Find 'Disk Utility' Open it. Select your HD then give Verify disc permissions a click, let it run then repair. Jobs a goodun!

If your Trash can is full give it an empty clear some more disc space too.


----------



## ianFRST (Sep 19, 2006)

Cornish said:


> More Ram, More Ram, More Ram........


its already got the max in it i think, lol 4gb


----------



## hudson0804 (Jun 6, 2007)

ianFRST said:


> its noticable getting slower
> 
> what can i do to speed things up again? not really put anything on it, so its not using memory / hdd space
> 
> any help mucho appreciated :thumb:


Get a PC :lol::lol::lol::lol:


----------



## nick_mcuk (Jan 4, 2008)

hudson0804 said:


> Get a PC :lol::lol::lol::lol:


What and have something that runs even slower after 2 days :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Cornish (Jun 20, 2008)

nick_mcuk said:


> What and have something that runs even slower after 2 days :lol::lol::lol:


Oh no, not the macs are better than pc's argument


----------



## PJS (Aug 18, 2007)

Grab OnyX - http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/11582 and use it to rebuild/delete/turn off various things, and that should sort you out.
Do the crons - daily/weekly/monthly scripts, chances are it's not been done in a while.


----------



## adamjackdrew (Jun 2, 2008)

I second the grabbing OnyX solution! Excellent tool!

Also, make sure that you have all the software updates. Click the apple, Software Update. I know that there were some new patches for the MacBook and MacBook Pro recently.

Oh, and Mac's ARE better than PCs! Can a PC LEGALLY run OSX? No, but a Mac CAN run Windows, Linux etc. etc. LEGALLY!!! Case closed.


----------



## nick_mcuk (Jan 4, 2008)

adamjackdrew said:


> I second the grabbing OnyX solution! Excellent tool!
> 
> Also, make sure that you have all the software updates. Click the apple, Software Update. I know that there were some new patches for the MacBook and MacBook Pro recently.
> 
> Oh, and Mac's ARE better than PCs! Can a PC LEGALLY run OSX? No, but a Mac CAN run Windows, Linux etc. etc. LEGALLY!!! Case closed.


.....and I thank yaaaaoooouuuuu!


----------



## Cornish (Jun 20, 2008)

adamjackdrew said:


> Oh, and Mac's ARE better than PCs! Can a PC LEGALLY run OSX? No, but a Mac CAN run Windows, Linux etc. etc. LEGALLY!!! Case closed.


So lets understand your argument here, Pc's are no good, but you like Mac's because they can run Windows

Mac officianado shooting himself in foot. CASE CLOSED:thumb:


----------



## adamjackdrew (Jun 2, 2008)

LOL. OKOK!! But I still like my iMac. 

I work with PCs all day every day. I have a Mac at home. If the office had a budget and willing staff, I would let them all have Macs. Thankfully they haven't, which means that I am always putting Windows/PC's right. LOL

Why oh why is there this ever lasting argument between PC heads and Mac heads?? I don't like it - they both have their good and bad points. Can you imagine what the world would be like it Apple and Microsoft (a) were not about or (b) joined forces to make one truly amazing product?


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

beardboy said:


> Give the permissions a repair - always helps things and you could download iDefrag - that also helps quite a bit :thumb:





byrnes said:


> As beardboy said run a check on the permissions, even if it doesnt need doing, repair them anyway :thumb:
> 
> I assume you know how to do it.
> 
> ...


Cheers guys, repaired the perms on mine last night and it seems to be quicker - not seen the beach ball since. What confuses me is how they get screwed. A lot of the wrong ones were iTunes related (I stopped the verify once it found wrong perms and ran repair) - most seemed to be symlinks with 755 instead of 655, i.e. lrwxr-xr-x instead of -rwxr-xr-x - so what screws them up? 

Also, anyone got linkys to OnyX and iDefrag?



adamjackdrew said:


> their good and bad points. Can you imagine what the world would be like it Apple and Microsoft (a) were not about or (b) joined forces to make one truly amazing product?


Hmm, M$ joined forces with IBM to create OS/2 - infinitely better than Win95 - but M$ threw their toys out of the cot because IBM refused to use the ****ty (at the time) Windows interface (Win3.1 style, Program Manager/File Manager) instead of Presentation Manager.


----------



## PJS (Aug 18, 2007)

Type them into Google - you'll get them on the top of the first page!
iDefrag is paid for, and if you're stumping up money for something, you may as well do it on TechTools Pro 5 or DiskWarrior 4, the former better value for your money.


----------



## PaulGTI (Oct 21, 2006)

ianFRST said:


> its noticable getting slower


Actually, whats happend is we have entered another dimension where everything else runs twice as fast, giving the impression that your mac book has slowed down.

Well, thats more likely than something with an apple logo not working as it should, surely? Especially after all those windows bashin threads.


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

^^^ PMSL - quality :lol:


----------



## PaulGTI (Oct 21, 2006)

parish said:


> ^^^ PMSL - quality :lol:


Thanks!

Im now in a bunker awaiting the "the Steve Jobs" army to correct me.


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2009)

hudson0804 said:


> Get a PC :lol::lol::lol::lol:


You sir, can have a thanks for that comment.

There was me thinking Macs couldn't go slow!


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

PaulGTI said:


> Thanks!
> 
> Im now in a bunker awaiting the "the Steve Jobs" army to correct me.


If you know you're wrong then there's no need :lol:



G220 said:


> You sir, can have a thanks for that comment.
> 
> There was me thinking Macs couldn't go slow!


Ah, but it's all relative - a slow Mac is still faster than a PC


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2009)

parish said:


> Ah, but it's all relative - a slow Mac is still faster than a PC


Prove it


----------



## jamest (Apr 8, 2008)

parish said:


> Ah, but it's all relative - a slow Mac is still faster than a PC


Lets boot up Call of Duty WaW and see which one performs better for the same price...


----------



## jamest (Apr 8, 2008)

adamjackdrew said:


> Oh, and Mac's ARE better than PCs! Can a PC LEGALLY run OSX? No, but a Mac CAN run Windows, Linux etc. etc. LEGALLY!!! Case closed.


That is wrong for many many reasons.


----------



## Janitor (Feb 14, 2006)

jamest said:


> Lets boot up Call of Duty WaW and see...


Nah, lets not, I'm too busy pulling off my toenails with a pair of molegrips


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

jamest said:


> Lets boot up Call of Duty WaW and see which one performs better for the same price...


Ah, the old price argument. When it all comes down to it, that's the only thing that people can put Macs down for. Of course any comaprison, especially based on price, between PCs and Macs is pointless as M$ don't sell turnkey systems so it's apples and pears. Also numerous threads here (and elsewhere) testify to Apple's vastly superior Customer Service compared to that of M$, Dell, _et.al._ and CS costs. Also, while new Macs might be expensive compared to PCs (but that that much if you look at business PC systems) Apple s/w is far cheaper than the MS equivalent.

Strange that people who use the price argument don't also say to people with Audis, BMWs etc. "why waste £30k on an Audi/BMW when you could buy a Ford that does the same job for less than half the price".

FWIW, my "allegiance" to Macs is objective based on years of experience having used computers since before the (IBM) PC was invented, used every version of DOS and Windows (except ME and server versions) from DOS 1 through to XP, numerous Linux distros, FreeBSD, and proprietary Unix systems from Sun, IBM, HP, SGI.


----------



## jamest (Apr 8, 2008)

parish said:


> Ah, the old price argument. When it all comes down to it, that's the only thing that people can put Macs down for. Of course any comaprison, especially based on price, between PCs and Macs is pointless as M$ don't sell turnkey systems so it's apples and pears. Also numerous threads here (and elsewhere) testify to Apple's vastly superior Customer Service compared to that of M$, Dell, _et.al._ and CS costs. Also, while new Macs might be expensive compared to PCs (but that that much if you look at business PC systems) Apple s/w is far cheaper than the MS equivalent.
> 
> Strange that people who use the price argument don't also say to people with Audis, BMWs etc. "why waste £30k on an Audi/BMW when you could buy a Ford that does the same job for less than half the price".
> 
> FWIW, my "allegiance" to Macs is objective based on years of experience having used computers since before the (IBM) PC was invented, used every version of DOS and Windows (except ME and server versions) from DOS 1 through to XP, numerous Linux distros, FreeBSD, and proprietary Unix systems from Sun, IBM, HP, SGI.


I did buy a Ford over a BMW because it was as fast if not faster and a lot cheaper...

I haven't needed to contact Microsoft over anything other than Windows activation which was sorted out in less than a minute from dialling. Most software can be found with extremely decent freeware alternatives.

Apple fan boys get annoyed when price is bought up the same way Windows fan boys get wound up when "slowness" is brought up. Yet I don't suffer from this. I know how to use a computer, I build my own, I know how to look after it. Apples just don't need as much attention down the smaller base it has. Building a car to work on a normal road surface is relatively easy, building a car to drive on a normal road, up hills, grass as well being able to drive under water on the other hand is a fair bit harder and likely to be more problems.


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

Janitor said:


> Nah, lets not, I'm too busy pulling off my toenails with a pair of molegrips


:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

jamest said:


> I did buy a Ford over a BMW because it was as fast if not faster and a lot cheaper...


My comment was a general observation, not directed at you personally :thumb:



jamest said:


> I haven't needed to contact Microsoft over anything other than Windows activation which was sorted out in less than a minute from dialling. Most software can be found with extremely decent freeware alternatives.


Neither have I, but then IIRC you, like me, are an IT pro so we're atypical users. You need to look at the experience of Joe Average PC User



jamest said:


> Windows fan boys get wound up when "slowness" is brought up. Yet I don't suffer from this.


Don't believe you. OK, so they aren't *inherently* slow(er) but every time I've done a clean install of Windows it boots up and runs like greased weasel sh1t, but as soon as I install AV s/w (which is the first thing I do) then it slows down noticeably.


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2009)

parish said:


> Don't believe you. OK, so they aren't *inherently* slow(er) but every time I've done a clean install of Windows it boots up and runs like greased weasel sh1t, but as soon as I install AV s/w (which is the first thing I do) then it slows down noticeably.


 1) this is not a windows problem, AV is not compulsory (as much as the general public want to believe) and 2) you are not using a good AV program if this is the case.


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

G220 said:


> 1) this is not a windows problem, AV is not compulsory (as much as the general public want to believe)


It is if you don't want your PC infected - how long did it take in that test some university ran? 20 seconds or something from being connected to the 'net unprotected to getting infected?



G220 said:


> and 2) you are not using a good AV program if this is the case.


It happens with any AV - if you think about it, it's to be expected.

Which raises a good point; M$ have created this mindset in their end users that having to buy 3rd party products to deal with the shortcomings of their s/w is not only acceptable, but the norm (OK, there is free stuff, but a lot of people pay for it). How many of those people would buy a house or car and accept having to buy and fit their own locks? about 10% of FA I reckon. And how many people ask the question I do, "If Norton _et.al_ can write s/w to protect Windows against malicious s/w, why can't M$?"?


----------



## jamest (Apr 8, 2008)

parish said:


> It happens with any AV - if you think about it, it's to be expected.
> 
> Which raises a good point; M$ have created this mindset in their end users that having to buy 3rd party products to deal with the shortcomings of their s/w is not only acceptable, but the norm (OK, there is free stuff, but a lot of people pay for it). How many of those people would buy a house or car and accept having to buy and fit their own locks? about 10% of FA I reckon. And how many people ask the question I do, "If Norton _et.al_ can write s/w to protect Windows against malicious s/w, why can't M$?"?


Look at the lawsuit against them from EU with Internet Explorer which is competing with other free browsers.

There would be anarchy if they shipped Windows with an A/V that competed against commercial products.


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

jamest said:


> Look at the lawsuit against them from EU with Internet Explorer which is competing with other free browsers.
> 
> There would be anarchy if they shipped Windows with an A/V that competed against commercial products.


I didn't mean for them to ship AV s/w I meant for them to make Windows inherently secure, i.e. the OS does what the AV s/w does. It ain't rocket science. Of course, there's always conspiracy theory


----------



## jamest (Apr 8, 2008)

parish said:


> I didn't mean for them to ship AV s/w I meant for them to make Windows inherently secure, i.e. the OS does what the AV s/w does. It ain't rocket science. Of course, there's always conspiracy theory


They do patch security holes, but an active scanner would be an AV. They are coming up with an AV solution replacing their OneCare solution which fell on it's a**e I believe.

The problem is you can't make it completely secure, look at OSX and Linux, they are also prone.

I think it's best the conspiracy theories are not discussed, will have the CEO of Symantec at your door with a shotgun. :lol:


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2009)

parish said:


> It is if you don't want your PC infected - how long did it take in that test some university ran? 20 seconds or something from being connected to the 'net unprotected to getting infected?


That only applied to an unpatched XP machine behind no NAT. Any version with windows firewall would stop that, same if you are behind NAT.

The main reason MS had no AV was simply because of the anti-competition pressure I believe, coming from the same people who call windows insecure and a monopoly ;-) (and of course the other AV companies)

Though you don't HAVE to have an AV, no more than you have to put one on a mac.


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

G220 said:


> That only applied to an unpatched XP machine behind no NAT. Any version with windows firewall would stop that, same if you are behind NAT.


Except that it wouldn't be able to compromise a Mac or *nix box - unless the user was stupid - as you would need to enter a password, unlike Windows - at least up to XP, although so many people turn off UAC on Vista as it seems to be to complicated to enter your password every now and then that many Vista boxes would be no better.

FWIW, M$ did go a bit OTT with UAC in that they didn't make it session based meaning you may have to enter your password several times for the same operation.



G220 said:


> The main reason MS had no AV was simply because of the anti-competition pressure I believe, coming from the same people who call windows insecure and a monopoly ;-) (and of course the other AV companies)
> 
> Though you don't HAVE to have an AV, no more than you have to put one on a mac.


I'd like to know how you work that one out if you don't want your PC to become infected  I agree that it is possible *in theory* but you would severely restrict what you could do with your PC in order to achieve it, e.g. in relation to removeable media.

Also, M$ would appear to disagree with that too as if you don't install AV then Windows Security Centre keeps popping up warning that your PC is at risk.


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2009)

parish said:


> I'd like to know how you work that one out if you don't want your PC to become infected  I agree that it is possible *in theory* but you would severely restrict what you could do with your PC in order to achieve it, e.g. in relation to removeable media.


It's easy, I did it for 3 years  (I did have a firewall though)

Win7 relaxes the old UAC a bit more, which is handy, but it still doesn't address much because people click "OK" anyway. I always disable it on most of the family (+co) members' computers because they would click "Yes" even if it said "Do you want to allow piece of spyware permissions", the only thing UAC does is prevent me from quickly sorting out their problems when everything goes **** up anyway.

Ahh the ignorance of computer users.

Security centre was really brought out in relation to all the criticism, MS figured they just had to sort out the whole "Windows is insecure" thing so they brought out all this stuff. I don't actually like things like security centre, I find that the people who know enough don't require it, and the people who don't know enough are just confused by it. The trouble is more and more people have started to read computer magazines and start to think that they "know it all", you know, people who go and run a chkdsk and defrag and then feel all smug with themselves because they think they know everything. . Give me a total idiot computer users PC to fix any day.

Thing is, even if you read the whole "computers for dummies" books, they don't actually educate you at all on how to avoid spyware and such, they spout a lot of trivial crap for several pages to fill up the book, but it really is just that, trivial.

Also the majority of spyware this and last year is actually scareware (spoof security programs). This shows what damage the constant pushing of "you must have AV and this and that" etc etc has done.

Totally unpatched Windows XP is definitely unsecure, but would a first release unpatched version of a previous Mac OS also be if you plugged it into the internet? (that's not a rhetorical question btw... I actually don't know). I reckon it would be in certain ways. But what is for sure that Win XP SP3 (or SP2) with the majority of updates is perfectly fine. Computer user ignorance is no excuse, they know full well that these versions are old.

One thing I would critisise MS about is that previous IE versions were admittedly quite insecure on the social-engineering side of things, one press of "OK" and spyware would have been downloaded, as well as the default "Run this program" by default rather than "Save to disk", took out another step needed for users to get spyware on the computer.

I don't think it is the AV program alone, but more the fact that the security product companies feel compelled to bundle as much **** into the product as possible, again just increasing CPU and memory usage, as well as sloppy programming of the malware engine when they try and add bits on to accomodate the additional functionality (instead of rewriting it from scratch). The amount of notifications and popups that you get from Norton and McAfee is just criminal, all these popups telling you that you only have 100 days left of your subscription, even the splash screen when logging on, it's just more CPU overhead at the end of the day.

Not having a go, just felt like having a good rant


----------



## jamest (Apr 8, 2008)

Totally agree with everything you said. I have had numerous people asking me how to stop Norton etc from popping up messages saying it "had stopped something", they say that is all very well but why do I need to know about it. On the otherhand if it never popped up with anything they may argue what the worth is with buying an AV.

With NOD32 you used to have just that, something that sat in the background didn't alert you that it was doing it's job, it just did it.

UAC is just a waste of time.

1 group of people will just click Yes anyway, another group will click No and moan that the program they just bought doesn't work and the other group that panics and gets on the phone because they don't know what to click.

Education is the best solution to security and virus/malware protection.

Like yourself G220, the problems that I have mostly faced have been scareware, mainly antivirus, but a few disguised as anti-malware. But I would say 90-95% of those computers had something in common. Limewire.


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

I think you guys (G220 and Jamest) are missing the point. Yes, we know that it is possible to lock down Windows tighter than a camel's ar5e in a sandstorm, but you have to assess it in its out-of-the-box configuration and in that situation it's about as secure as a tent in a hurricane.

There's a saying in the Unix world "To err is human; to really f*ck things up requires the root password" and OOTB M$ have given every idiot the root password.

This all boils down to M$ being so late (by a decade) in making the mainstream version of Windows a multi-user OS, by which time PCs had degenerated to consumer electronics and the concept of having to enter a username and password was alien to most users, plus just about all of the (then) current s/w wasn't designed to run in a multi-user environment therefore wouldn't run as a normal user (or not without a lot of frigging about) and rather than have legacy stuff run in a sandbox or virtual machine environment - which would have confused users as they wouldn't have access to all their disk(s) etc. - they took the easy way out and just had all users created as members of the Administrator group :wall:

G220, you've reminded me that UAC is even worse than I remember (not done much messing with Vista) as it doesn't even require a password, just click OK :wall:


----------



## Guest (Aug 18, 2009)

parish said:


> G220, you've reminded me that UAC is even worse than I remember (not done much messing with Vista) as it doesn't even require a password, just click OK :wall:


Why does that make it worse (aside from physically present unauthorised computer access)? UAC runs in a protected environment that it requires human input to click "OK", nothing automated can get round it (so far). Requiring a password would be worse as it would cause severe popup fatigue and everyone would disable it.


----------



## PJS (Aug 18, 2007)

G220 said:


> Totally unpatched Windows XP is definitely unsecure, but would a first release unpatched version of a previous Mac OS also be if you plugged it into the internet? (that's not a rhetorical question btw... I actually don't know). I reckon it would be in certain ways. But what is for sure that Win XP SP3 (or SP2) with the majority of updates is perfectly fine. Computer user ignorance is no excuse, they know full well that these versions are old.


No, OS X requires the Admin password and username before letting anything get installed into the System folders.
Due to the architecture of *NIX, a lot of Apps are self contained, and as advised, running as a normal user, you're not ever likely to compromise the OS as a whole, just your Account, if you're daft enough.

Also, the main ports for internet access and e-mail are only open, once you've set up your Mac, the first time you turn it on, whereas with Windows, the reality (aside from the perception of EVERY port being open) is more ports are open by default.

Bear in mind too, that MS could really, really, REALLY put out a "proper" OS if it so wanted, but with the sheer volume of people employed in IT depts to look after that business's needs/problems, there'd be an almighty outcry if that ever happened - major job losses.
Coupled with the training aspect for supporting all MS's various products, and there's another avenue of "money for old rope" that can't be ignored/turned off.
Cynical? No, just realistic and pragmatic.


----------



## jamest (Apr 8, 2008)

http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2008/03/28/mac_hack/


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

G220 said:


> Why does that make it worse (aside from physically present unauthorised computer access)? UAC runs in a protected environment that it requires human input to click "OK", nothing automated can get round it (so far). Requiring a password would be worse as it would cause severe popup fatigue and everyone would disable it.


Because just clicking OK becomes a reflex reaction, having to type a password *should* make people think first - more likely to think, "what's this doing". I agree about "pop-up fatigue" but then UAC should be session/task-centric, i.e. you enter a password *once* to install something. IIRC, it asks for confirmation at every step - running the self-extracting ZIP, when that auto-runs setup.exe, then when setup wants to write to C:/WINDOWS, again when it wants to write to /Program Files, and to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE, etc.


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

jamest said:


> http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2008/03/28/mac_hack/


The exploit involved *getting an end user to click on a link*, which opened up a port that he was then able to telnet into.

So, it's more like phishing.

No-one is claiming that OS X - or any OS - is totally secure but, as PJS explains very well, OS X (and all *nix based OSes) are better than Windows.

As I, and PJS, both point out, it isn't so much that Windows isn't, or can't be made, inherently secure, but rather that in its ootb state they've unlocked the doors and thrown away the key, largely as a result of M$'s obsessoin with backward compatibility; they never seem to be willing to draw a line in the sand and say that from hereon in your legacy (i.e. non multi-user) apps won't work except in a sandbox/VM.

As G220 says, properly configured - which isn't really that difficult, but probably beyond the average user - can be very secure but, as I said, you need to do comparisons between OSes in their ootb state as that is how the average user will run them, and the average user is the one most likely to be hit by malware.


----------



## jamest (Apr 8, 2008)

parish said:


> largely as a result of M$'s obsessoin with backward compatibility; they never seem to be willing to draw a line in the sand and say that from hereon in your legacy (i.e. non multi-user) apps won't work except in a sandbox/VM.


If they didn't people would be up in arms complaining that their old software doesn't work. Look at the end of support date for XP, it's old software that should be dropped but it keeps getting extended. Microsoft can't do anything right, even if they wanted to.


----------



## parish (Jun 29, 2006)

jamest said:


> If they didn't people would be up in arms complaining that their old software doesn't work. Look at the end of support date for XP, it's old software that should be dropped but it keeps getting extended. Microsoft can't do anything right, even if they wanted to.


They can't go on supporting legacy stuff forever, they need to bite the bullet and be tough. The solution they have seriously compromises the security of the OS; that is very bad. Anyone who really needs to run legacy stuff can dual boot or use something like VMWare.

Apple can do it. The upcoming OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard drops support for PowerPC Macs and there are quite a few people moaning about it, but they'll just have to stick with Leopard. Everyone running Intel Macs will benefit, not only because nearly everything is now 64-bit but due to the dropping of PPC (and 32-bit stuff) they will get back ~6GB of disk space due to the much small footprint.

It's also a self-perpetuating problem because as long as M$ supports it there is no need for the s/w vendors to rewrite their products as multi-user. Plus, I doubt that there is really very much of it about these days.


----------

