![how to defragment mac hard drive how to defragment mac hard drive](https://wethegeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/What-is-Disk-Defragmentation.png)
- #How to defragment mac hard drive for mac os
- #How to defragment mac hard drive mac os x
- #How to defragment mac hard drive mac os
in this case, you are your own 3rd party. but i now stand steadfastly by my assertion that it is not apple that sucks, but 3rd party implementations of osx that suck. you have, and have had, osx set up to defeat itself.
![how to defragment mac hard drive how to defragment mac hard drive](https://www.igeeksblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/How-To-Defrag-Mac-Hard-Drive.jpg)
What i find hard to believe is that myself and others argued with you for so long about this speed issue when in fact both sides were right all along. defragging is both a blessing and a curse that is part of mac file systems, not 'nix.
#How to defragment mac hard drive mac os
Why, oh why, do you want to run a ufs file system in the face of all evidence that says it does you more harm than good? is this some sort of carry over from being a 'nixer? want to see a mac os zip? run it on the current mac file system.Īs for defragging, there are no defraggers for ufs. i absolutely agree that osx speed sucks on your mac. George - all i can say after reading your posts in this thread and your install thread is that i now understand why you are screaming so loudly about speed issues in osx.
#How to defragment mac hard drive mac os x
The only time Apple has suggested using UFS that I am aware of is when using Mac OS X as a web server (Apache and the internet work better with files that are not tied to resource forks). There is still the problem of allocation blocks (which get bigger as drives get bigger), HFS+ is good at dealing with larger drives, but even better if the drives are partitioned to more manageable sizes (any where from 5 to 20 GB). For those of you with Beige G3s or Wallstreet G3 PowerBooks, installing on a partition that is the first one on the drive and no larger than 8 GB is still something of a requirement. This is why Apple does not install Mac OS X on any UFS formatted system.Īs for installing on partitions, for most this is simply a judgment call.
![how to defragment mac hard drive how to defragment mac hard drive](https://www.lifewire.com/thmb/2FWGNte_3N0AIWQPWeYYqgfWzwk=/1333x1000/smart/filters:no_upscale()/DriveGenius4Defrag-580a6ed43df78c2c739e0fe5.jpg)
![how to defragment mac hard drive how to defragment mac hard drive](https://nektony.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/disk-defragmenter-mac.png)
In all the Unix hype, we seem to be forgetting that HFS+ is where many of the features that we know and love are rooted. Installing Mac OS X on UFS is worse than installing Windows 2000 on FAT32 because Mac OS X is designed to take advantage of HFS+. George is right about the comparison with Windows 2000 and NTFS/FAT32, only he got the file systems for the Mac OS backwards. If this was just another version of the Workspace Manager, we wouldn't be able to have aliases (something special to the Mac OS) and custom icons that can just be assigned with cut and paste (yes I have tons of custom icons in my pre-Mac OS X systems, but they are all tiff files that I had to physically put into place). The Finder of Mac OS X is much like the Finder in the old Mac OS, it relies on information stored in hidden files and resource forks to move from directory to directory. Even if you no longer use Classic apps, and enjoy Cocoa apps more than Carbon, the Finder is still a Carbon app. Mac OS X has three different application environments (Carbon, Cocoa, and Classic), and two of them (Carbon and Classic) are designed for HFS+, not UFS.
#How to defragment mac hard drive for mac os
All the parts of those operating systems were designed to work on UFS, their applications were designed (in what is now Cocoa) to work with UFS, but this is not the case for Mac OS X. Mac OS X is not like any of the other operating systems that came before it (Mac OS X Server 1.x, Rhapsody, OPENSTEP and NEXTSTEP). For anyone considering George's suggestion, I would like to point out a few things about Mac OS X first (after that, if you still want to use UFS, don't blame Apple for system performance and problems).