Clean install vs. Time machine backup - Performance?

[mrblack927]

Hi all,

I recently bought an intel x25 160gb for my uMPB. I have a time capsule backing up my system so I just swapped in the new SSD and hit "restore from time machine backup".

About an hour later, the install was finished and everything looked exactly how I left it. I can't understate how impressive that feature is by the way. However, I wonder if it might be better to do a clean install to really get best performance here. I say that because I also installed a clean copy of win7 via bootcamp and it actually seems faster than OSX. For example, every common app; firefox, chrome, microsoft office, etc. launches faster in win7 than it does in OSX.

My OSX installation is about 18 months old without any clean installs, and I'm wondering if anyone here has noticed significantly better system performance with a clean install rather than a time machine backup. Thoughts?

 

[Tyrion]

Well, in my experience Firefox, Chrome and Office will always launch faster on Windows than on OS X, so you really picked the wrong software to gauge your SSD's performance

But I'm interested in this as well. It would be a giant hassle to reinstall all my software after a clean install, but if there's any speed advantage over the TM-backup, I might actually do it. Anyone know more about this?

 

[fehhkk]

I've reinstalled plenty of times, and to be honest I don't notice any difference by doing a clean install + time machine restore, than doing a clean install + re-installation.

Unless you have disk permission issues and stuff like that, I wouldn't worry about re-installing everything to be honest.

 

[iLog.Genius]

I've reinstalled plenty of times, and to be honest I don't notice any difference by doing a clean install + time machine restore, than doing a clean install + re-installation.

Unless you have disk permission issues and stuff like that, I wouldn't worry about re-installing everything to be honest.

+1. If you're not feeling any difference, I wouldn't worry about it and Time Machine did what it was advertised to do. When it comes to Time Machine restores, there really isn't an in-between. With most users using Time machine to restore their OS, it either works and your system is running smoothly or you'll notice a difference and your computer will not act right.

 

[mrblack927]

+1. If you're not feeling any difference, I wouldn't worry about it and Time Machine did what it was advertised to do. When it comes to Time Machine restores, there really isn't an in-between. With most users using Time machine to restore their OS, it either works and your system is running smoothly or you'll notice a difference and your computer will not act right.

Cool, that's what I was hoping. I love the idea of keeping my system perpetually backed up using time machine, but I wouldn't weigh the convenience of that over the speed losses of a cluttered system. If that were the case, I would probably end up doing a clean install once I year like I used to on windows and my time capsule would go to waste.

I am still bothered by the startup performance of firefox though. Does anyone know why it takes so long to start up on OSX only? I reinstalled both chrome and firefox... chrome now starts *instantly*, but firefox still takes a few seconds...