Especially since Apple re-wrote the Finder for the OS X release right after the one that introduced Core Animation. Maybe they were trying to be a bit conservative with the Cocoa Finder rewrite and were focused on simply ditching the Carbon APIs while preserving as much of the application's behavior and internal structure as possible, rather than more thoroughly modernizing the app. But the fact that it still hasn't been modernized in this way for more than a decade sounds like Apple's macOS developers a Microsoft-style fear of touching core components of the OS.
Does the extra CPU use typically cause any visible issues to the user, though? User impact is what's most important here. I don't particularly care if my CPU works a little harder than it needs to for a few seconds, as long as I can still do what I want on the machine without issue.
Using half a core for 10 mins per hour will likely have a material effect on battery life. Unless someone instruments exactly how much, it’s hard to say, but this doesn’t seem like a hand-wave.
It would make the fans come on occasionally, which was annoying. But in general I am of the opinion that apps shouldn’t be using processor time when they’re not doing anything useful. This is why I always have a CPU monitor open: it quickly lets me know when something starts doing unexpected things.
Ya so I've been anti-Mac for a while but had to use it for work but now I have really developed a hatred of Mac. I had to do the Big Sir 11.2.3 upgrade and it took 4 flipping hours, which okay fine whatever that happens. The issue however is that it was stuck on 15 minutes for 3 hours. I only was patient because a coworker said that he heard the update took 4 hours.
I was always told that Mac "just works" but at least with Linux I can see what the heck is going on and what needs to happen to fix it, here I am just at the whims of whatever Apple pushes out.
Additionally my internet now randomly breaks on the Mac and requires a restart and I've been noticing significant slow downs. At the point the only reason I can imagine people would defend Macs is Stockholm Syndrome.
Or because their experiences don’t match yours? I’ve used a lot of operating systems extensively and they all have unique pain points that make me want to rip my hair out. If you go in with a negative prejudice and then find anything wrong you’re just confirming your bias without acknowledging any of the positive traits. Of course you hate it. You don’t even want to like it.
> I was always told that Mac "just works" but at least with Linux I can see what the heck is going on and what needs to happen to fix it, here I am just at the whims of whatever Apple pushes out.
True, but even if the fix is known, I have zero time to read the dsmeg log to send a bug report, try temporary workarounds that may break later, installing beta versions or editing .config files in separate apps and then diving into system files to replace the component my self.
> At the point the only reason I can imagine people would defend Macs is Stockholm Syndrome.
I use my Macbook (Intel) to just 'get things done' and not to end up diving into a sea of hidden config files or replacing system components. Big Sur is stable enough for me on Intel.
I guess the ones that you mention that have this 'Stockholm Syndrome' with the Mac are those who are hyping and got the M1 Macs which have very interesting limitations which they won't tell you. I'd rather wait until the software ecosystem is mature and the second or third generations of these ARM Macs have been released before updating.
There’s nothing in that thread that supports the assertion that this is taking ‘half a core’.
The Finder sample shows it taking less than 10% of the wall-clock time of one (mostly idle) thread, and it doesn’t seem likely that WindowServer is spending another 40%+ of a core in response.
The thread focuses on the problematic code, not the performance impact it has. The second (collapsed) __CFRunLoopRun in the sample screenshot contains all the resultant drawing happening in-process, with which Finder used about 20% of the CPU. WindowServer was using about ~25% to keep up.
When they still had iTunes the same thing happened with the colored bar that spins showing sync activity, using 40% of a cpu. I’ve filed bugs on it, they don’t seem to care.
20 comments
[ 4.0 ms ] story [ 62.8 ms ] threadIn which case not animating may be the correct response.
Does the extra CPU use typically cause any visible issues to the user, though? User impact is what's most important here. I don't particularly care if my CPU works a little harder than it needs to for a few seconds, as long as I can still do what I want on the machine without issue.
Good on you for digging in and finding the issue, by the way.
Seems like an intern's first task that wasn't double checked(in arguably one of the most important parts of the OS).
I was always told that Mac "just works" but at least with Linux I can see what the heck is going on and what needs to happen to fix it, here I am just at the whims of whatever Apple pushes out.
Additionally my internet now randomly breaks on the Mac and requires a restart and I've been noticing significant slow downs. At the point the only reason I can imagine people would defend Macs is Stockholm Syndrome.
True, but even if the fix is known, I have zero time to read the dsmeg log to send a bug report, try temporary workarounds that may break later, installing beta versions or editing .config files in separate apps and then diving into system files to replace the component my self.
> At the point the only reason I can imagine people would defend Macs is Stockholm Syndrome.
I use my Macbook (Intel) to just 'get things done' and not to end up diving into a sea of hidden config files or replacing system components. Big Sur is stable enough for me on Intel.
I guess the ones that you mention that have this 'Stockholm Syndrome' with the Mac are those who are hyping and got the M1 Macs which have very interesting limitations which they won't tell you. I'd rather wait until the software ecosystem is mature and the second or third generations of these ARM Macs have been released before updating.
And how do I make this change? What setting do I have to check or un-check? Or is it a defaults(1) thing?
Proviso: I would like to keep my "Hard disks" and "External disks" visible.
The Finder sample shows it taking less than 10% of the wall-clock time of one (mostly idle) thread, and it doesn’t seem likely that WindowServer is spending another 40%+ of a core in response.