Mac Leopard becoming extremely slow when RAM begin to swap with harddrive
Summercool
can become extremely slow when Firefox together with Safari start to
hog 200MB and 300MB respectively and the RAM seems to start to swap to
hard drive... first, isn't it 1GB RAM, so swapping should start around
700 or 800MB? why does it start at 500MB?
second, why do Safari 3 and Firefox 2 both hog so much memory...
Microsoft's IE turn out to be much less of a memory hog.
Not only that... when Leopard starts to swap RAM with hard drive
space, then I can't even quit Safari or Firefox.... it will keep on
being "Application Not Responding" for 20 minutes until I do a force
quit...
hm... hope that will be fixed....
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article
<91fce43c-36db-4ed5-a6b0-
854ab9...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
> So much as I like Mac, how come Leopard on a new Macbook with 1GB RAM
> can become extremely slow when Firefox together with Safari start to
> hog 200MB and 300MB respectively and the RAM seems to start to swap to
> hard drive... first, isn't it 1GB RAM, so swapping should start around
> 700 or 800MB? why does it start at 500MB?
If you really can ask this question with a straight face, I
suspect you won't understand the answer either. Fire up
activity monitor and look at what is going on.
> second, why do Safari 3 and Firefox 2 both hog so much memory...
Probably because you're running two browsers at the same time,
most of us would probably run or the other if we were low on
memory.
> Not only that... when Leopard starts to swap RAM with hard drive
> space, then I can't even quit Safari or Firefox.... it will keep on
> being "Application Not Responding" for 20 minutes until I do a force
> quit...
Strange, I just started up Firefox, Safari, Shiira, and Camino,
(four different web browsers), iMovie, iDVD, Xcode, Photoshop,
GarageBand, this newreader, iTunes, Thunderbird, activity
monitor, and Adobe Bridge, simultaneously. Not only is the
world not coming to end, I can do a cmd-Q on any or all of them,
no problem, without any errors or a force quit being required.
I don't have a mac with only 1GB (mine have 2GB or more), so I
fired up 7X as many apps to try and make it fair.
--
Lefty
All of God's creatures have a place..........
.........right next to the potatoes and gravy.
See also: http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/iProduct.gif
Jim
<91fce43c-36db-4ed5...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
Summercool <Summerc...@gmail.com> wrote:
You sound like a troll.
--
Jim
J.J. O'Shea
(in article
<91fce43c-36db-4ed5...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
> So much as I like Mac, how come Leopard on a new Macbook with 1GB RAM
> can become extremely slow when Firefox together with Safari start to
> hog 200MB and 300MB respectively and the RAM seems to start to swap to
> hard drive... first, isn't it 1GB RAM, so swapping should start around
> 700 or 800MB? why does it start at 500MB?
Hmm... I have both Safari and Firefox open on my Mac, and no such problems.
Hmmm. I just launched both, opened a few large sites (CNN in one, loaded a
video, Adobe's Flash site in the other...) and neither shows any signs of
bogging. I'm using an old iMac G5, 2.1 GHz single-processor, 2.5 GB RAM. You
might, just might, consider adding some RAM and seeing what happens to your
speeds. Just a thought. Another, cheaper, thought: don't run two large apps
at the same time.
>
> second, why do Safari 3 and Firefox 2 both hog so much memory...
> Microsoft's IE turn out to be much less of a memory hog.
You're joking, right? Are you _really_ comparing MSIE 5.2.3, last modified 3
June 2003 17:14:27, and abandoned by Microsoft literally _years_ ago, to any
version of Safari or FireFox currently supported? Have you actually tried to
_use_ MSIE 5.2.3 to surf to a modern website, including Microsoft's own?! You
_have_ noticed that MS is up to MSIE _7_ in Windows, have you not? You think
that there may be a reason why? Would you like to compare and contrast
resources used by MSIE 5.x on Windows to MSIE 7, and MSIE 5.x on Mac to
Safari 3 or FireFox 2 or 3 beta? Go on, check it out...
>
> Not only that... when Leopard starts to swap RAM with hard drive
> space, then I can't even quit Safari or Firefox.... it will keep on
> being "Application Not Responding" for 20 minutes until I do a force
> quit...
That doesn't happen here either.
>
> hm... hope that will be fixed....
As your problems appear to be located on your system, any such fixes are
entirely within your power. And, indeed, cannot be performed by anyone else.
Good luck.
--
email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.
-hh
> So much as I like Mac, how come Leopard on a new Macbook with 1GB RAM
> can become extremely slow when Firefox together with Safari start to
> hog 200MB and 300MB respectively and the RAM seems to start to swap to
> hard drive... first, isn't it 1GB RAM, so swapping should start around
> 700 or 800MB? why does it start at 500MB?
What Software application are you running that's supposedly telling
you this information? Does it also tell you how many page in/page out
are occurring? If so, post that data.
-hh
Steve Carroll
Lewis <gkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In article
> <91fce43c-36db-4ed5...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> Summercool <Summerc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So much as I like Mac, how come Leopard on a new Macbook with 1GB RAM
> > can become extremely slow when Firefox together with Safari start to
> > hog 200MB and 300MB respectively and the RAM seems to start to swap to
> > hard drive... first, isn't it 1GB RAM, so swapping should start around
> > 700 or 800MB? why does it start at 500MB?
>
> What's your evidence of the swapping?
>
> > second, why do Safari 3 and Firefox 2 both hog so much memory...
> > Microsoft's IE turn out to be much less of a memory hog.
>
> You mean IE that was last updated in,,, what was it, 2001?
That's the big clue;)
>
> > Not only that... when Leopard starts to swap RAM with hard drive
> > space, then I can't even quit Safari or Firefox.... it will keep on
> > being "Application Not Responding" for 20 minutes until I do a force
> > quit...
>
> Swapping would not cause this. Something else is wrong.
You mean... like the fact that he's trolling?
--
"Apple is pushing how green this is - but it [Macbook Air] is
clearly disposable... when the battery dies you can pretty much
just throw it away". - Snit
Benchmarks generally say very little about productivity. - Snit
Summercool
> In article
> <91fce43c-36db-4ed5-a6b0-854ab93b8...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > So much as I likeMac, how come Leopard on a new Macbook with 1GB RAM
> > can become extremelyslowwhen Firefox together with Safari start to
> > hog 200MB and 300MB respectively and the RAM seems to start to swap to
> > hard drive... first, isn't it 1GB RAM, so swapping should start around
> > 700 or 800MB? why does it start at 500MB?
>
> > second, why do Safari 3 and Firefox 2 both hog so much memory...
> > Microsoft's IE turn out to be much less of a memory hog.
>
> > Not only that... when Leopard starts to swap RAM with hard drive
> > space, then I can't even quit Safari or Firefox.... it will keep on
> > being "Application Not Responding" for 20 minutes until I do a force
> > quit...
>
> > hm... hope that will be fixed....
>
> You sound like a troll.
You also sound like a troll.
Summercool
>
> What Software application are you running that's supposedly telling
> you this information? Does it also tell you how many page in/page out
> are occurring? If so, post that data.
yes, it is the Activities Monitor telling me this. I usually leave my
Macbook on at night, so I hope the self-righteous people won't
consider that a crime.
If I leave both Safari and Firefox running for 2, 3 days, they start
to consume close to 200, 300MB of RAM. Why do I need both browsers?
It is because I need to run a Gmail for work and a Gmail for personal
emails.
When I force quit, I already press the "Send Information to Apple", so
why is the hope that it can be fixed "excessive"? This is a brand
new computer, and I installed nothing but the major apps like
RealPlayer and TextMate.
In terms of IE, what I mean is IE on the Windows platform. It is a
generally known fact that at least Firefox 2 is eating up a lot of RAM
so people cannot run Meebo on Firefox for too long but need to run it
on Windows. So if IE on Windows doesn't eat up a lot of memory with
Meebo or Gmail with just 1GB of memory, then why would Firefox and
Safari do so on Leopard?
Tom Stiller
<2f79a720-e78b-4840...@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
Summercool <Summerc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If I leave both Safari and Firefox running for 2, 3 days, they start
> to consume close to 200, 300MB of RAM. Why do I need both browsers?
> It is because I need to run a Gmail for work and a Gmail for personal
> emails.
Do you know that Gmail interfaces quite nicely with Apple's Mail
application and that you can have more than one account in that
application?
--
Tom Stiller
PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article
<2f79a720-e78b-4840-a3ea-
88e229...@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>):
> On Jan 24, 7:31 am, -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>>
>> What Software application are you running that's supposedly telling
>> you this information? Does it also tell you how many page in/page out
>> are occurring? If so, post that data.
>
> yes, it is the Activities Monitor telling me this. I usually leave my
> Macbook on at night, so I hope the self-righteous people won't
> consider that a crime.
I've done similar with my mbp, but bear in mind that if you do
this habitually with the battery installed, you will wind up
with a battery that hits end of life prematurely. For example,
Apple says that the battery in the mbp should have 80% of it's
capacity left after 300 charge cycles. Mine is at 121 cycles,
and it's capacity is only 81%. I have gone through the full
process they recommend, including the 5+ hours of down time
before recharging numerous times, it won't improve past that
point now.
If you leave it plugged into the brick for extensive periods, do
yourself a favor and remove the battery when it is around 50%
charged (Apple's recommendation) and store it that way until you
plan to go mobile again.
> If I leave both Safari and Firefox running for 2, 3 days, they start
> to consume close to 200, 300MB of RAM. Why do I need both browsers?
> It is because I need to run a Gmail for work and a Gmail for personal
> emails.
Yeah, it is sort of broken that gmail doesn't have a better way
to handle this than browser-wide sign-in/sign-out.
The "over days" thing is seemingly related to the use of a lot
of tabs. Also, some pages that seem to be static on first look,
actually refresh page contents on intervals. If you have
multiple tabs, or a lot of tabs open in a browser, you can have
a lot of CPU load (and pageins) as a result of this minor stuff
happening even for tabs not currently selected.
> When I force quit, I already press the "Send Information to Apple", so
> why is the hope that it can be fixed "excessive"? This is a brand
> new computer, and I installed nothing but the major apps like
> RealPlayer and TextMate.
RealPlayer? I installed that once several years ago, and had no
end of problems with it, and removed it. If I had to bet, I'd
experiment with not running RealPlayer and seeing if you can
reproduce the issue.
Dave Fritzinger
> In article
> <2f79a720-e78b-4840-a3ea-88e2291e9...@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > If I leave both Safari and Firefox running for 2, 3 days, they start
> > to consume close to 200, 300MB of RAM. Why do I need both browsers?
> > It is because I need to run a Gmail for work and a Gmail for personal
> > emails.
>
> Do you know that Gmail interfaces quite nicely with Apple's Mail
> application and that you can have more than one account in that
> application?
>
Firefox or Safari, one with each account.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Honolulu, HI
MuahMan
"Summercool" <Summerc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2addf956-f501-4692...@l32g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Jim is a troll.
Jim Lee Jr.
"MuahMan" <mua...@cumcast.net> wrote:
Hallucinating again? Os is your obsession with Jim talking?
--
Posted from my 1999 Apple G4 Sawtooth
A 450 MHz G4 running OS X 10.4.11
kennet...@gmail.com
>
> > Do you know that Gmail interfaces quite nicely with Apple's Mail
> > application and that you can have more than one account in that
> > application?
>
> Not to mention that you could have 2 different tabs open in either
> Firefox or Safari, one with each account.
is that the case? I thought if you log in to gmail in one tab, then
the other tab also treats you as that same user.
-hh
> > What Software application are you running that's supposedly telling
> > you this information? Does it also tell you how many page in/page out
> > are occurring? If so, post that data.
>
> yes, it is the Activities Monitor telling me this. I usually leave my
> Macbook on at night...
And your page in/out counts? In general, this is a fairly good
indicator of if you should buy more RAM.
> If I leave both Safari and Firefox running for 2, 3 days, they start
> to consume close to 200, 300MB of RAM.
Lets see...(checking Activity Monitor); BTW I'm on a PM G5 with 3.5GB
RAM
I've had Safari up for 5 days now and its consuming 213M real; 421
virtual.
I just brought up Firefox ...its staring at 48M/223M
My page in/out is currently 273072 / 170284 ... a ratio of 1.6:1 which
is extremely high, but reflects that I had been doing some heavy
Photoshop work (its currently using 1.58GB Real & 2.12GB virtual)
> Why do I need both browsers? It is because I need to run a Gmail
> for work and a Gmail for personal emails.
Reading other responses, it sounds like there may be other
alternatives. Personally, I just use Apple mail and set it up to
support multiple accounts.
> When I force quit, I already press the "Send Information to Apple", so
> why is the hope that it can be fixed "excessive"? This is a brand
> new computer, and I installed nothing but the major apps like
> RealPlayer and TextMate.
Dump RealPlayer if you can.
> In terms of IE, what I mean is IE on the Windows platform. It is a
> generally known fact that at least Firefox 2 is eating up a lot of RAM
> so people cannot run Meebo on Firefox for too long but need to run it
> on Windows. So if IE on Windows doesn't eat up a lot of memory with
> Meebo or Gmail with just 1GB of memory, then why would Firefox and
> Safari do so on Leopard?
It sounds like you're running some flavor of Windows at the same time
then too? If so, you have two OS's that each want easily 1GB, plus
Applications on both sides...and naturally, the machine's hitting the
HD for virtual memory. Since you're on a laptop instead of a
desktop, your power-frugal hard drive's I/O performance is less, so it
becomes more noticeable.
Looking quickly at crucial.com, it looks like you could bump to 2GB of
RAM for only $50. I'd drop that in a heartbeat...even my old 12" G4
powerbook has more RAM in it than what you're running.
-hh
Bob Harris
<2f79a720-e78b-4840...@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
,
Summercool <Summerc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 24, 7:31 am, -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> >
> > What Software application are you running that's supposedly telling
> > you this information? Does it also tell you how many page in/page out
> > are occurring? If so, post that data.
>
> yes, it is the Activities Monitor telling me this. I usually leave my
> Macbook on at night, so I hope the self-righteous people won't
> consider that a crime.
>
> If I leave both Safari and Firefox running for 2, 3 days, they start
> to consume close to 200, 300MB of RAM. Why do I need both browsers?
> It is because I need to run a Gmail for work and a Gmail for personal
> emails.
If you are swapping, then you will experience slowness. If you
really over commit memory you can get into a paging death grip.
As for why they use some much memory. Well in the case of
Firefox, it has historically had memory leaks. Not sure if the
most recent is without memory leaks, but it does consume lots of
memory over time.
Some of the memory being consumed by both browsers is web
page/image cache. Some maybe java apps running in the browser
context.
And as others have mentioned, there is more running than just the
2 browsers, even if you do not know it. Mac OS X has several
background daemons running.
Also the file system uses memory as its cache.
As others have mentioned, there are other ways to access gmail.
You can use Mac OS X Mail, you can use Thunderbird, etc... You
can choose to use just one mail application with multiple
accounts, or just run one for personal stuff, and one for work
stuff. You might find using say Thunderbird to access your gmail
work account faster than working through a browser. Yes, you may
want to access gmail from a browser from time to time in order to
modify some gmail setup options, but the bulk of your access could
be via a mail application.
Another option is to just switch over to 1 browser for everything.
For example, just use Firefox full time. Or maybe Camino. Then
you only have 1 browser running.
> When I force quit, I already press the "Send Information to Apple", so
> why is the hope that it can be fixed "excessive"? This is a brand
> new computer, and I installed nothing but the major apps like
> RealPlayer and TextMate.
Apple will only be able to address Safari memory issues, but
giving feedback is always good.
> In terms of IE, what I mean is IE on the Windows platform. It is a
> generally known fact that at least Firefox 2 is eating up a lot of RAM
> so people cannot run Meebo on Firefox for too long but need to run it
> on Windows. So if IE on Windows doesn't eat up a lot of memory with
> Meebo or Gmail with just 1GB of memory, then why would Firefox and
> Safari do so on Leopard?
There are a lot of browsers available for the Mac. Why not
experiment with some others if you are dissatisfied with Firefox
and Safari. Camino, Opera, iCab, SeaMonkey, OmniWeb, Flock, ...
If you can afford to increase your memory, then it would be a
valuable addition to your Mac.
Bob Harris
Timberwoof
Look at the line that looks like this:
PhysMem: 81.6M wired, 130M active, 216M inactive, 429M used, 722M
free
(It's the fifth one.) If your "free" amount is less than 10MB, then you
should install more physical RAM for your computer. In my case I have
plenty at 722M free, 1.12GB total. :)
Virtual memory was invented as a stop-gap measure for expensive RAM; it
was always a trade-off of program size over performance. Nowadays RAM is
cheap enough that installing the full Moby is the most cost-effective
thing you can do for your admin workstation.
If you're running video and DVD authoring apps on a high-zoot Mac G4,
G5 or Mac Pro, it could be even more important because of how big the
datasets can be.
--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." 気hris L.
Lefty Bigfoot
wrote
(in article
<72fabbb5-8e36-46c9-9b25-
707f7b...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
Yeah, unless something has changed very recently, I don't think
Dave actually tried it before posting.
David Fritzinger
Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 18:03:35 -0600, kennet...@gmail.com
> wrote
> (in article
> <72fabbb5-8e36-46c9-9b25-
> 707f7b...@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com>):
>
> > On Jan 24, 2:18 pm, Dave Fritzinger <dfrit...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Do you know that Gmail interfaces quite nicely with Apple's Mail
> >>> application and that you can have more than one account in that
> >>> application?
> >>
> >> Not to mention that you could have 2 different tabs open in either
> >> Firefox or Safari, one with each account.
> >
> > is that the case? I thought if you log in to gmail in one tab, then
> > the other tab also treats you as that same user.
>
> Yeah, unless something has changed very recently, I don't think
> Dave actually tried it before posting.
Yeah, that's true. Sorry. My Bad...
Jeffrey Goldberg
In <0001HW.C3BE1200...@newsgroups.comcast.net>, J.J. O'Shea wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:54:44 -0500, Summercool wrote
>> So much as I like Mac, how come Leopard on a new Macbook with 1GB RAM
>> can become extremely slow when Firefox together with Safari start to
>> hog 200MB and 300MB respectively
> Hmm... I have both Safari and Firefox open on my Mac, and no such problems.
> Hmmm. I just launched both, opened a few large sites (CNN in one, loaded a
> video, Adobe's Flash site in the other...) and neither shows any signs of
> bogging. I'm using an old iMac G5, 2.1 GHz single-processor, 2.5 GB RAM.
Just for testing, I started up Firefox, Safari and Opera on a Macbook
(2GHz, Intel Core 2 Duo) with 1.5GB RAM. All are perfectly usable.
Activity Monitor is telling me that that I've got 812MB free. I'm sure
that the if I use the browsers more, I'll see some more memory usage.
Hold on, let me start Mail.app which is always a memory hog, and a few
more things ... OK, now I'm down to 640MB free.
Cheers,
-j
--
Jeffrey Goldberg http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/
I rarely read top-posted, over-quoting or HTML postings.
http://improve-usenet.org/
David Empson
> Summercool <Summercooln...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>
> > > What Software application are you running that's supposedly telling
> > > you this information? Does it also tell you how many page in/page out
> > > are occurring? If so, post that data.
> >
> > yes, it is the Activities Monitor telling me this. I usually leave my
> > Macbook on at night...
>
> And your page in/out counts? In general, this is a fairly good
> indicator of if you should buy more RAM.
I almost never pay attention to the "page in" count. Page in is used as
a method of loading files into memory (even if there is plenty of free
memory), so it is never zero.
The "page out" count is the significant one. If it is zero, then you
have never needed to swap anything out to virtual memory and have plenty
of RAM for whatever you have done since startup.
If "page outs" is nonzero then at some point since last startup you
didn't have enough RAM and the system had to resort to virtual memory.
If "page outs" is increasing as you watch it then you don't have enough
RAM for whatever the computer is doing right now. You will probably see
"inactive" memory being replaced by "active" or "wired" memory, and
"free" memory is zero or near zero.
If both "page outs" and "page ins" are constantly increasing while you
are watching them, then your system is probably thrashing and is
seriously short of memory - having to page out memory which is in active
use to make room for something else, then having to bring the other
memory back in again. Another clue to this is if your "inactive" and
"free" memory fall to zero, and everything is either "wired" or
"active".
> > If I leave both Safari and Firefox running for 2, 3 days, they start
> > to consume close to 200, 300MB of RAM.
>
> Lets see...(checking Activity Monitor); BTW I'm on a PM G5 with 3.5GB
> RAM
>
> I've had Safari up for 5 days now and its consuming 213M real; 421
> virtual.
>
> I just brought up Firefox ...its staring at 48M/223M
>
> My page in/out is currently 273072 / 170284 ... a ratio of 1.6:1 which
> is extremely high, but reflects that I had been doing some heavy
> Photoshop work (its currently using 1.58GB Real & 2.12GB virtual)
The "virtual memory" figures for individual processes or the entire
system are rarely useful. Virtual memory for a process might not exist
anywhere (there is no swap space allocated for it and it has never been
accessed by the process). A process might decide to allocate memory by
declaring an enormous array (e.g. 2 GB) but never accesses anything
beyond the first 5% of it.
On my MacBook Pro with 2 GB of RAM, running Mac OS X 10.5.1, with 11
days uptime and about 20 applications running, Activity Monitor is
currently reporting a VM size of 70.53 GB (which is the total of all the
individual Virtual Memory figures). Despite this, it has 362 MB of free
memory and is only using 2.11 GB of swap space.
If I could be bothered upgrading my laptop to 4 GB RAM then I probably
wouldn't need any swap space in normal operation.
I could also reduce my dependence on swap space by not running so many
applications at the same time.
My biggest processes for VM size are Apache2 (which I'm only running for
occasional test purposes): I have two httpd processes each allocated
2.59 GB of virtual memory.
If I stop web sharing, VM size drops by about 5 GB and swap used drops
by about 200 MB.
Safari is almost always my largest application as far as real memory
usage is concerned, followed by the kernel.
--
David Empson
dem...@actrix.gen.nz
zara
lot of resources.
"Summercool" <Summerc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:91fce43c-36db-4ed5...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
jimblu
i noticed you made this post from a g4 sawtooth. 10.4.11 is sure to run
slowly on that machine. but you say you have a new macbook--congrats!
you need @ least 2 gig of ram, preferably 4, to run leo. third party
ram's pretty cheap, esp. ddr2 sdram @667 mhz, and you could have up'd
your ram to 2 gig for $150 more from apple. best bet now is
crucial.com. they will set you up w/ 4gb (2gbx2) for $129.99--money
back, lifetime warrenty--read the fine print though. i don't know what
kind of vram comes w/ a macbook but i recommend no less the 256 vram to
help things along. to get a quick look @ what's going on w/ your
ram--page-ins, page-outs, etc-- try the islayer.com iStat pro widget.
also try looking fro ram-saving tips @ http://www.apple.com/pro/tips/
more still run macjanitor--the daily, weekly and monthly scripts hardly
get ran on macbook. if your are feeling adventurous try oynx. both
macjanitor and oynx are available as freeware @ versiontracker.com.
to be thorough look in computer/hd/library/internet plug-ins folder and
make sure there are no powerpc plugins in there. do this by doing a get
info on them and it will say Universal or PowerPC at the top of the get
info window by Kind--trash the powerpc ones because safari can't use
these on an intel mac and it slows things down. do the same in
computer/hd/library/quicktime. might as well check these in your home
folder too.
lastly use apple's System Profiler--Software/Applications and trash
anything powerpc if not essential.
and as always throw away anything/everthing microsoft--every component,
preference, piece and part.
hope this helps,
jim
George Graves
(in article <2008012512483116807-jb83mailchat@yahoocom>):
I don't know where you get this from. My 17" MacBook Pro runs Leopard fine
with just 1.5 Gig, My G4 iBook runs Leopard fine with 1 Gig, and my G5 Tower
Desktop runs Leopard well with just 2 Gigs. Please get your facts straight
before posting. What you posted, above, is just drivel.
jimblu
yeah i'm on tiger and use photoshop and many other memory hungry apps @
the same time. guess the ram usage thing just applies to me. i'm sorry
about that. anyway i hope i helped somewhat.
jim
Summercool
> PS: Leopard runs better with at least 2 - 4 GB of ram. The GUI sucks up a
> lot of resources.
yeah i feel that way too. Just hope that Apple sold Macbook with 2GB
preinstalled... if I get the 2GB RAM from BestBuy it was only $59...
and I can sell the 1GB. Apple would charge $150 for the 2GB, saying
that it would cost $300 for the 2GB but they take back your old 1GB
RAM and credit $150 so they only take $150. still substantially
higher than $59.
Summercool
>
> People even asked for further information, presumably to help you
> identify the cause of the issue, but instead of answering those
> questions you became hostile.
This is your post down below. How friendly were you? saying that
"You just answered your own question" -- implying what? that I didn't
know that and dumb, and "excessive" and not right. You may not know
about it -- you make rather condescending implications. Look at your
own paragraphs:
> You've just answered your own question. Hard drives - epecially notebook
HDs - are *much* slower than RAM. We're talking several orders of
magnitude.
> *That's* excessive. You can hope that it "will be fixed" but it's going
to take some effort on your part to diagnose and correct because it's
not a normal (mis)behavior of Leopard, Safari or FireFox. Whatever's
going wrong that's causing lags that long is about your machine, not
inherent in the software you're using.
Tim Murray
> Microsoft's IE turn out to be much less of a memory hog.
You give away the lie within the troll right there.
nospamatall
>> i noticed you made this post from a g4 sawtooth. 10.4.11 is sure to run
>> slowly on that machine. but you say you have a new macbook--congrats!
>> you need @ least 2 gig of ram, preferably 4, to run leo. third party
>> ram's pretty cheap, esp. ddr2 sdram @667 mhz, and you could have up'd
>> your ram to 2 gig for $150 more from apple. best bet now is
>> crucial.com. they will set you up w/ 4gb (2gbx2) for $129.99--money
>> back, lifetime warrenty--read the fine print though. i don't know what
>> kind of vram comes w/ a macbook but i recommend no less the 256 vram to
>> help things along. to get a quick look @ what's going on w/ your
>> ram--page-ins, page-outs, etc-- try the islayer.com iStat pro widget.
>
> I don't know where you get this from. My 17" MacBook Pro runs Leopard fine
> with just 1.5 Gig, My G4 iBook runs Leopard fine with 1 Gig, and my G5 Tower
> Desktop runs Leopard well with just 2 Gigs. Please get your facts straight
> before posting. What you posted, above, is just drivel.
>
My old iMac, a g4 1gHz with 3/4GB ram is fine running browsers along
with a number of other programs open. These posts always make me think
that the poster has other problems but is putting it down to the wrong
cause.
Andy
Tim Murray
> I almost never pay attention to the "page in" count. Page in is used as
> a method of loading files into memory (even if there is plenty of free
> memory), so it is never zero.
>
> The "page out" count is the significant one. If it is zero, then you
> have never needed to swap anything out to virtual memory and have plenty
> of RAM for whatever you have done since startup.
>
> If "page outs" is nonzero then at some point since last startup you
> didn't have enough RAM and the system had to resort to virtual memory.
>
> If "page outs" is increasing as you watch it then you don't have enough
> RAM for whatever the computer is doing right now. You will probably see
> "inactive" memory being replaced by "active" or "wired" memory, and
> "free" memory is zero or near zero.
>
Thanks for the info. After reading -hh I was worried, but after reading your
post I feel better. After being on for five hours and running a number of
apps (in two user log-ins concurrently) and one of the loading up tens of
thousands of newsgroup posts, I was at 48102:502. When -hh referred to
"extremely high", I freaked.