Recommended Posts

Last I checked your comment was about how messing about with system files isn't likely to do anybody any harm which is a load of crap. He might not be doing brain surgery but he could be using his machine to make money - an easily avoidable screw-up caused by his own negligence can cost him his job or damage his company.

585886831[/snapback]

I was commenting to someone who said you shouldn't mess with system files because it might do harm to your system.

This thread is about someone who tries to mod his own personal system. I wasn't saying at all that it won't do any harm when a whole corporation is involved, which is not the case here. So wtf are you talking about?

If it's your own personal system you like to mess with, who cares?

How much does all this screwing around take? 20 minutes? An hour? 3 hours?

How much is the data on the computer worth?

What are the costs of not being able to meet a deadline because he was trying to delete a system file?

585886831[/snapback]

I would never try doing things like this on one of the servers I have setup, but on my personal computer it is well worth the risk to make things the way I like them and to speed things up, even if it is just a little. I do a pretty good job backing things up, and am much more likely to loose data due to hardware failure then screwing with system files.

I realize that this sort of modification is not for everybody, but I enjoy seeing what I can do with my system and I know that there are at least a few others on this board who feel the same way.

And where exactly does apple keep many of their vital system files? It's not in the system folder is it?

I dont want to try this now, but I am guessing that you can delete almost every file from /System/Library except for /System/Library/CoreServices/BootX and System and still boot into single user mode.

that's kinda dumb how it's pretty much impossible to disable it, it's like windows and not being able to get rid of IE or Windows Media Player

585886858[/snapback]

Because it's considered a feature and not an application. To Apple, it's on the same level as Expos?. Do you want to remove Expos? from your system? Would you ever have to? No, because it's a feature.

By the way, quitting every widget in Dashboard does just about the same thing as not letting Dashboard load at all. The Dashboard server uses barely any resources. It's the widgets that take up memory and, when loaded, CPU.

By the way, quitting every widget in Dashboard does just about the same thing as not letting Dashboard load at all. The Dashboard server uses barely any resources. It's the widgets that take up memory and, when loaded, CPU.

585894575[/snapback]

Which is exactly what I said earlier. Quit all the widgets, turn off the hot key for Dashboard in System Preferences, and you have effectively disabled it.

Which is exactly what I said earlier.  Quit all the widgets, turn off the hot key for Dashboard in System Preferences, and you have effectively disabled it.

585894585[/snapback]

Agreed. Once Dashboard starts getting some organizing features (like Lock to Grid, as someone previously mentioned) and some better looking widgets, I'll be a lot more interested in it.

Agreed.  Once Dashboard starts getting some organizing features (like Lock to Grid, as someone previously mentioned) and some better looking widgets, I'll be a lot more interested in it.

585896193[/snapback]

I actually LIKE the fact that widgets don't "lock to grid" because sometimes I want them exactly where I put them, not where some artificial grid tells me they can be (this is one thing that annoys the hell out of me about the desktop in OS X). As for "better looking widgets", have you looked at some of the new stuff available at Apple's site or the Dashboard Widget site?

I actually LIKE the fact that widgets don't "lock to grid" because sometimes I want them exactly where I put them, not where some artificial grid tells me they can be (this is one thing that annoys the hell out of me about the desktop in OS X).  As for "better looking widgets", have you looked at some of the new stuff available at Apple's site or the Dashboard Widget site?

585896407[/snapback]

They can easily make a preference of it. You can lock them to grid, or don't. Just like Finder icons.

And I'm really anything but impressed with the 3rd party widgets that are available on the Apple site right now, same goes for the Dashboarder. The only ones I like so far are those Mini game widgets from VanillaSoap.

Once again, I really really want the ability to somewhat organize the whole thing. It's just too messy for me right now. :pinch:

I actually LIKE the fact that widgets don't "lock to grid" because sometimes I want them exactly where I put them, not where some artificial grid tells me they can be (this is one thing that annoys the hell out of me about the desktop in OS X).? As for "better looking widgets", have you looked at some of the new stuff available at Apple's site or the Dashboard Widget site?

585896407[/snapback]

It's a preference for the Finder, what makes you think Apple wouldn't do the same for Dashboard?

And yes, I have found plenty of widgets, none of them look very refined, clean, minimal, etc.

What I meant about the desktop is that you can't (easily) configure the size of the grid; I know you can turn it off. I would imagine this would be the same if they implemented it in Dashboard. Is it so hard to line the widgets up where you want them when you place them on the Dashboard?

What I meant about the desktop is that you can't (easily) configure the size of the grid; I know you can turn it off.? I would imagine this would be the same if they implemented it in Dashboard.? Is it so hard to line the widgets up where you want them when you place them on the Dashboard?

585896876[/snapback]

Yes it is, very hard. I just want them to stick on one side of the screen or something. Just some way to organize it properly (3rd time), like the Dock, Finder icon location options, scalability etc. Make them behave more like icons when it comes to that.

Edited by PureLogic
Yes it is, very hard. I just want them to stick on one side of the screen or something. Just some way to organize it properly (3rd time), like the Dock, Finder icon location options, scalability etc. Make them behave more like icons when it comes to that.

585896944[/snapback]

That might be difficult or impossible given the freeform nature of Widgets. They can be an size or shape. Even though it doesn't seem like it, icons are all square, so it's easier to force them to certain locations. Personally, I wish that you could selectively size individual icons on the desktop instead of all of them being the same size.

Dragging the dashboard icon off of the dock seemed to remove it from the dock for good.

I like dashboard, and I'm probably the only one who likes the fact that it is in a "separate screen." If all those widgets were on my desktop, it would be too clutter.

My only real complaint about dashboard so far is: there is no spell checking options on notes or when you are looking up a word in the dictionary/thesaurus. And the dictionary doesn't pick up misspelled words very well either.

Apple should have provided a way to turn Dashboard off, IMO. If people want to conserve resources let them. For some reason that seems counter-intuitive for Apple.

"Ok gang, in this next release, lets see if we can make 512MB of ram completely obsolete!"

-Steve Jobs

That might be difficult or impossible given the freeform nature of Widgets.  They can be an size or shape.  Even though it doesn't seem like it, icons are all square, so it's easier to force them to certain locations.  Personally, I wish that you could selectively size individual icons on the desktop instead of all of them being the same size.

585896983[/snapback]

Well it shouldn't be too difficult to make widgets scalable.

Apple should have provided a way to turn Dashboard off, IMO.  If people want to conserve resources let them.  For some reason that seems counter-intuitive for Apple. 

585897056[/snapback]

If you remove all the widgets from your Dashboard and turn off the hot key for Dashboard it uses no more resources than the Dock(which it is part of) would anyway.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • My father still uses a programme written in dbase3. Still manages to work with a little help from dosbox. 
    • Microsoft hides these secret Windows 11 performance boost settings available on every PC by Sayan Sen Windows enthusiasts often look for ways to extract as much performance out of their systems as possible, and it's often the case that they try and do so while trying to minimize the heat and power consumption. This is especially relevant in the case of mobile Windows PCs since laptops and notebooks tend to get hot and management of that heat and power is harder in such a form factor. As such users often turn to techniques like under-volting which can be used to squeeze out the maximum capabilities of a chip while also maintaining lowered power levels. There are official apps from AMD and Intel with the likes of Ryzen Master and XTU (Extreme Tuning Utility). While these are quite handy, most enthusiasts probably prefer to dig into the BIOS and play around with settings there like Curve Optimizer on Ryzen, which lets users set various frequency-voltage scaling values. These are essentially called P-States. If you are not familiar with them, Processor Power Management is done through Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) P-states and C-states. While P-states or performance pwoer states handle CPU voltage-frequency scaling, C-states deal with CPU sleep states so that some of the CPU functions, which are not necessary at that moment, can be disabled. The P-states and C-states work together to make the processor run more efficiently. It helps the OS and apps determine which cores can be parked and which should be boosted. Of course not every user is an enthusiast or knows the technicalities and integrities of how things like overclocking or undervolting work. Thankfully for them Windows itself offers something pretty cool, though it is hidden by default on all systems. By default, Windows only has two P-States, "Minimum Processor State" and "Maximum Processor State." However, this can be changed with a Registry trick to expand the options under a secret "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown. This essentially enables the HWP or hardware P-States available on a device, and these are not controlled just by the OS itself as the underlying hardware gets involved too. In total there are five Processor Performance Boost Mode profiles that control how Windows requests and allows CPU turbo/boost behavior under the different power policies. They are: Disabled: In this mode, processor boosting is effectively turned off. The CPU will avoid entering turbo or boost frequencies and instead operate closer to its base frequency ceiling. This can significantly reduce power consumption and heat output, but at the cost of reduced burst performance and responsiveness in short workloads. Enabled: This is the standard behavior where boost functionality is allowed under normal conditions. The processor can opportunistically increase frequency when workload demands it, balancing performance gains with power and thermal constraints as managed by the system. Aggressive: Aggressive mode favors performance more heavily, allowing the CPU to enter higher boost states more readily and sustain them longer. This should in theory improve responsiveness under bursty or heavy workloads but increases power draw and thermal output compared to the default enabled behavior. Efficient Enabled: This mode still allows boosting, but with a stronger bias toward energy efficiency. The system attempts to use boost more selectively, avoiding unnecessary frequency spikes when the performance gain is marginal. Efficient Aggressive: This is a hybrid approach where boost is still performance-responsive, but the system continuously weighs efficiency more heavily than in Aggressive mode. It aims to deliver noticeable performance improvements while reducing wasted power in less demanding scenarios. Here's how to enable the Processor performance boost mode: Open Registry Editor: Press Win+R, type regedit, and click OK. Go to: HKLM\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\Power\PowerSettings\54533251-82be-4824-96c1-47b60b740d00\be337238-0d82-4146-a960-4f3749d470c7 (where HKLM stands for HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE_) Modify the value of Attributes from 1 to 2 (you can find modify option by right-clicking) After that, exit Registry, you should now be able to see the new "Processor performance boost mode" dropdown menu: As you can see there are now five new P-States or CPPC states or power profile available that help define the boost mode processor setting on your PC. Wrapping it up here's a quick run-down of the settings as defined by Microsoft itself. Setting Description Disabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is disabled. Collaborative Processor Performance Control (CPPC) behaviour is disabled. Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is enabled. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Efficient Enabled The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Efficient Enabled. Efficient Aggressive The corresponding P-state-based behaviour is Efficient. CPPC behaviour is Aggressive. Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows calculates the desired extra performance above the guaranteed performance level, and asks the processor to deliver that specific performance level. Efficient Aggressive At Guaranteed Windows always asks the processor to deliver the highest possible performance above the guaranteed performance level. In the next part we shall be comparing these settings to explore how much of a benefit or regression they can provide in terms of performance and power efficiency. If you decide to change the values on your system and are experiencing problems like crashes or an overheating PC, make sure to revert the steps back to the original state.
    • I think he means you haven't reviewed previous UFC games. Of course it doesn't matter... Every time you just report on something that involves the President even if just simply what happened you guys usually get accused of being anti-Trump. We live in fun times.
    • So how did you solve the problem? Disabling Secure Boot isn’t a solution.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      Leroy Jethro Gibbs earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Conversation Starter
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • One Month Later
      AndreaB earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      agatameier earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      agatameier earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      518
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      198
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      147
    4. 4
      ATLien_0
      93
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      77
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!