Can you install and uninstall programs on a Mac and not clutter or slow down the comp

[Redrazor39]

I would really like to try Opera 9.5 but I've also installed and reinstalled firefox 3 about 4 times after hedging on if I want it or not.

Can I safely install and uninstall these programs without cluttering up the data on this computer or is it like Windows in which this clutters up the equivalent of a registry or the filesystem, etc.?

Also, when I drag the application to the trash from the applications folder, where can I find all the preferences and stuff to drag to the trash if they are not already deleted?

[bashveank]

If "installing" is just dragging the .app into the applications folder, than you'll be fine. If you have to install the program from an installer, you'll probably still be fine, but there's a chance the installer is putting stuff on your system in other places as well. I just use AppCleaner (http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/32740) to uninstall everything to be safe.

[Redrazor39]

most of it is just dragging, with the occasional installer. All I know is to drag the application to the trash and to go to Macintosh HD > Library > Application Data (or Support or osmething) and delete the folder of the company.

I hope that's all there is to it. If it is, then it's a hell of a lot better than using a program to delete registry keys in Windows.

[handy]

The Mac install/delete routine is miles ahead of the Windows mess.

Rarely will you miss anything with the knowledge that you have, & there is no registry to corrupt, or that just keeps growing & slowing, you also won't get all of the dill.dll files & other associated symbols of poor system design.

Use AppCleaner if you are still concerned.

[Foster Grant]

Many OS X "applications" are rather more than that — they're folders containing the files the application itself needs to run. Takes care of the dependency-hell problem quite nicely.

[Redrazor39]

Thanks for explaining that. I feel so good about being a mac owner now :)

That Vista VAIO will be the last Windows Computer I purchase....

[LaRoza]

Takes care of the dependency-hell problem quite nicely.

But I see a lot of wasted space with that method.

[Redrazor39]

I guess that's made up for by slimming of the OS itself, but I'm no expert. This computer has a 320GB HDD and 280GB were free, so that's about the same as Vista's percentage with 140GB free from a 160GB HDD.

[LaRoza]

I guess that's made up for by slimming of the OS itself, but I'm no expert. This computer has a 320GB HDD and 280GB were free, so that's about the same as Vista's percentage with 140GB free from a 160GB HDD.

It is a working solution, but hardly elegant. I prefer Slackware's solution to reduce the "hell" problem.

[Redrazor39]

what exactly is slackware's solution?

[LaRoza]

what exactly is slackware's solution?

There is no dependency checking and you have to do everything manually.

It gives you the ultimate control over what is on your system.

[Redrazor39]

Ultimate control, yes, but annoys lazy people, YES.

Getting back to basics (e.g. manual work) is always a great solution, but it's not always the smart solution.

Still allows you to step back and reconsider for a new way that does certain things automatically but gives you full control.

Why is it called slackware if it requires manual configuration to this extent for installation?

[LaRoza]

Why is it called slackware if it requires manual configuration to this extent for installation?
It is the oldest distro you know.

The name "Slackware" stems from the fact that the distribution started as a private side project with no intended commitment. To prevent it from being taken too seriously at first, Volkerding gave it a humorous name, which stuck even after Slackware became a serious project.[2] The "Slack" in Slackware is a reference to the term "Slack" as used by the Church of the SubGenius.[3]

[handy]

I prefer Arch's install/uninstall method, it is really fast & thus far reliable. Entire system upgrade is only one command away. & if you use it weekly or fortnightly it is quite quick.

The Mac method may waste disk space, (which gets cheaper all the time) but it is so far ahead of the opposition in the Windows world that it is not funny. The Mac method which usually is quite self contained is also simple & most especially reliable when compared to the clumsy Windows system.

My favorite of all was the AmigaOS, which installed its software in an even more self contained form than the Mac. On rare occasions you needed to add a library file.

That was back in the pre-internet days...

[Frak]

I prefer Arch's install/uninstall method, it is really fast & thus far reliable. Entire system upgrade is only one command away. & if you use it weekly or fortnightly it is quite quick.

The Mac method may waste disk space, (which gets cheaper all the time) but it is so far ahead of the opposition in the Windows world that it is not funny. The Mac method which usually is quite self contained is also simple & most especially reliable when compared to the clumsy Windows system.

My favorite of all was the AmigaOS, which installed its software in an even more self contained form than the Mac. On rare occasions you needed to add a library file.

That was back in the pre-internet days...
+1 on all points.

[Redrazor39]

Thanks for explaining all that to me :)

Arch seems very promising with all the good things I hear about it around here... I might check it out

[Frak]

Thanks for explaining all that to me :)

Arch seems very promising with all the good things I hear about it around here... I might check it out
You might want to print off some Wiki guides from their site.

Arch is a difficult OS to setup for beginners using it for the first time..

[Redrazor39]

ya, that's what I concluded after checking out the wiki. Good philosophy, but more for advanced users.

[Frak]

ya, that's what I concluded after checking out the wiki. Good philosophy, but more for advanced users.
After you set it up the first time, its a breeze 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. time through.