 |
Purity
|
| Click to MacZOT | 
|
|
|
|
;)
|
Purity is the new MacDust. The website and name have changed but the safe, reliable, strong backend has not. Users who loved MacDust will love Purity! Purity has been trained over the years to hone in on files and caches that collect over time and start eating up your harddrive space. Purity helps you clean out many unnecessary files. The files Purity removes aren’t necessary to application function, so when you clean with Purity you aren’t going to make an application unusable. Purity is safe and easy to use, it won’t ever ask for Administrator Authorization because it doesn’t need it to perform. Purity cleans out your files, not system files, safely saving you space. Purity has helped many people:
System Requirements: Mac OSX 10.4 or later. Snow Leopard ready Please, visit the website! |
December 29th, 2009 at 1:17 am
So I’m a bit confused by the relationship between MacDust and Purity. I already have a MacDust license, does that mean I already have a Purity license? I’m not seeing a whole lot of difference between Purity and MacDust in terms of the UI.
December 29th, 2009 at 5:41 am
Hi John W: If you own a MacDust license you should be getting an email any moment from the dev with a link to get your Purity license automatically and with no fee. I did yesterday. If you don’t, contact the dev. They’re the same app. It has just been renamed in the latest iteration, for some reason.
There’s a lot of competition for these housekeeping apps these days, but this is clean, easy to use and has a lot of options, more than most. Definitely worth adding to the toolbox at this price.
December 29th, 2009 at 9:32 am
How is this different from MacCleanse?
December 29th, 2009 at 10:06 am
Could we get a better list of all of what it does? Neither this page nor purityapp.com provides much information.
December 29th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Tried this out and it looks like a great idea. I think it would be even more helpful if it told you how much disk space was taken up by the item(s) so that you could weigh whether the risk of deleting the item (and slowing down your app and/or possibly messing it up) is worth the disk space savings.
December 29th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Purity cleans up old files that applications don’t use, it cleans up large files, and it’s designed to make cleaning these things regularly a breeze. Purity currently has 101 cleaning functions, so the best way to discover them is to download and give it a try =)
Mark, MacCleanse is made with REALBasic so it’s not actually a native Mac app. That’s where it fails the most. Purity is native, made with Cocoa, so it runs faster and doesn’t waste anywhere near as much disk space. I do my best to respond to everyone, so I like to think Purity covers way more of the user needs than MacCleanse. I encourage anyone who has a request to email me so I can include it right away!
December 29th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Brad, Purity is designed to never mess an app up. If something is being messed up, please let me know right away!
December 29th, 2009 at 6:54 pm
I gave it a try and it promptly hung trying to clean up Quicktime caches. It never froze, but I force quit it after 30 minutes of running without success. MacCleanse is much faster than that. I would love to try it further, but time is running out for the Zot.
December 29th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Apps made with REALbasic ARE native Mac OS X apps. They are just as native as iTunes (which is a Carbon app) or the Finder up until Snow Leopard. Having said that, Apple has made it clear that Cocoa is the framework of choice moving forward and as a result, we are switching over our underlying Mac framework to Cocoa. At that point, REALbasic users can simply recompile their apps and they will then be Cocoa apps.
December 29th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Geoff, I, and many others that have been working this debate for a while, don’t consider Carbon apps “native”.
On a side note, is iTunes still written using the Carbon libraries? Not that it matters much (for the RealBasic vs. Cocoa debate either), but I am curious.
December 29th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Mark, sorry about the delayed response – try unchecking VLC cleaning.
Purity does not take 30 minutes to clean at all, it got stuck and sometimes it mislabels the vlc cleaning as quicktime.
Geoff, REALBasic is as far from native as anyone could possibly get (aside from runtime revoloution) because REALBasic makes a binary for your app that must be translated by some other library which is included in the application, which is in part why REALBasic apps are so big and slow. If you haven’t noticed iTunes is crappy and slow as your library gets larger.
Native means it’s coded to run on the system, not that it was made with some arbitrary script language through some faux development suite and then pumped through a translator. When I see some REALBasic made application that is actually native and runs nicely, I’ll give you some credit. But until pigs fly, I will continue to inform people about how bad REALBasic made applications are.
December 29th, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Also Mark, if you decide Purity is right for you I’d be happy to provide you with the same discounted deal the ZOT users were offered due to my over-delayed response (I was out enjoying my birthday). Feel free to send me an email and I will provide the offer.
December 30th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Tim:
REALbasic apps are just as native as apps written in Obj-C/Cocoa. Both call into the same underlying functionality in Mac OS X. The only difference (at the moment) is that one uses the Carbon API and the other uses Cocoa. But, generally speaking, they call the same functions. REALbasic doesn’t “translate” anything. When you call a REALbasic API, that API calls the appropriate Mac OS X API or APIs. If you compile for Windows or Linux, it calls the appropriate APIs on those platforms. This results in the developer saving huge amounts of time because they don’t have to learn the thousands of APIs of each operating system.
Regarding apps made with REALbasic being “huge” a very simple app will be bigger than a simple app written in Cocoa. But that is only because the Cocoa frameworks are already installed in Mac OS X. Once you create a reasonably complex app, the size difference between one written in REALbasic versus Objective-C/Cocoa becomes unnoticeable.
For example, Mail is 77 MB, iTunes is 157 MB, iMovie is 261 MB, iPhoto is 429 MB. REALbasic itself is in the middle of all of those at 261 MB or the same size as iMovie.
REALbasic doesn’t use an “arbitrary scripting language”. It’s a modern, object-oriented language that is compiled to PowerPC and X86 machine code. There is no translator nor has there ever been. It produces native, mach-o apps (just like XCode) using native UI widgets and native machine code.
REALbasic does lower the bar significantly for creating software for Mac OS X, Windows and Linux. And just as the Mac lowered the bar for publishing, that means that since more people can do it, there will be variance in terms of quality. but this is NOT a reflection on REALbasic anymore than the Mac poor quality of a lot of early desktop publishing was on the Mac.
REALbasic developers don’t advertise the tools they use any more than Objective-C/Cocoa developers do. But I guarantee you have used quality apps made with REALbasic. You just didn’t know it. You can check out some examples at our web site at http://www.realsoftware.com/community/casestudies.php
December 31st, 2009 at 8:07 pm
@Tim
“MacCleanse is made with REALBasic so it’s not actually a native Mac app. That’s where it fails the most.”
Tim: Are you suggesting that MacCleanse does not do the job because of some underlying fault of Realbasic? If so what job does it fail to do? And: Why cant this be done in Realbasic?