This discussion is archived
1613 Views 21 Replies Latest reply: Apr 16, 2006 8:10 AM by Randall Schulz
Currently Being ModeratedApr 16, 2006 12:15 AM (in response to Randall Schulz)wow...I wasn't fretting at all, I was curious about the high numbers so I was just asking you if you had any knowledge about this subject...I see know that I asked the wrong person. I'll try to find somebody with experience next time.iMac G5, Mac OS X (10.3.9)
Currently Being ModeratedApr 16, 2006 2:46 AM (in response to Randall Schulz)I have got to agree with RandyS here: to understand OS X's memory management you have to understand UNIX' memory management - free memory is wasted memory. It is supposed to eat up all your memory, even if it seems a bit scary
Currently Being ModeratedApr 16, 2006 2:55 AM (in response to EricChunky)To further clarify the results coming out of Activity Monitor, I would suggest you subscribe to The Mac Observer's Mac Geek Gab and grab Episode #42. They have a nice ling 30 minute discussion about memory usage in the activity monitor and helped me understand my Mac's memory usage considerably.Mac Mini Core Duo, 1 GB, 80 GB; 14.1" iBook G4 (1 GHz), 640 MB, 60 GB, APX, Mac OS X (10.4.6), 4 GB iPod Nano (Black)
Currently Being ModeratedApr 16, 2006 3:49 AM (in response to Randall Schulz)
Since when are Macs prized for efficiency? Apple does
not tout their efficiency. This thread is one of the
few that take issue with memory consumption.
What are they prized for?...maybe efficiency is the wrong word here. Macs are suppose to "just work" aren't they?....well in the original posters case (amongst many MBP owners) this doesn't seem to be the case.
And for someone who thinks a few thousand dollars is
too much to spend on a computer that is wasteful, it
seems odd that you'd give it away.
My machine was a gift and is techinically still mine, i just loaned it to my sister, however i dont think i'll be taking it back from her...she'll make better use of it than i will.
Tell me, have you made a similar analysis of Windows
programs? How do they compare?
Yes i have made an analysis of windows programs ( i use windows at work) and i sure as h e l l know my programs never pass the 600MB mark but then again i will admit i'm not a UNIX guru hence you're probably right about the difference in memory management. I however, do not want ONE program to take up all my system resources (no one/thing is that special).
By all means i am not a mac hater (which most people seem to think is the case when any criticism about macs abound), i love em...i've used alot of macs but like my original statement said..the MBP IMHO is a rushed/prematurely released product of which it and safari both need to be tweaked...thats all.15" AL PB G4 | 1.67GHz | 2GB RAM | 100GB 7.2RPM HD | SD |, Mac OS X (10.4.6), | 5G 30GB iPod
Currently Being ModeratedApr 16, 2006 6:40 AM (in response to Exposay)Thanks to all the replies...
1. I admit that i did not know much about the "OS X MEMORY MANAGMENT SCHEME", however, i only discover this while the system told me "Too many applications are running" and did not allow me to mount a 8.3 MegaByte .dmg!!
2. On the contrast, I made Windows XP flying on my MacBook Pro! I've run Photoshop CS2, Word 2007 (Pre-release) , Frontpage 2003, Outlook 2007 and Firefox openning 10+ tabs at the same time and the memory consumption is still below ONE GIG. There is no reason that i'll do any photoshop jobs under Mac OS X because despite the fact that windows might load the pretty thing with virus ( so sad i never really get one during my pc experinces dated back from 1995 ) it is simply SUPER FAST.
3. YES it runs cool at battery, of course, firstly it's not charging, so will be reasonably cooler, secondly all core duo cpu (despite the top speed) will drop their speed to 998Mhz (or 1ghz) to save power while you are on battery and not using the computer intensivly, hence the lower temperature... but whats the point? £2000+ for 998Mhz on lap? gee....
4. For those who claim there's no issues of their MBP , well yes true. It depends on how and when you call an issue an issue ! for many people i knew they did not care about the whine, so that's not an isuse (even to me). it also depends on how lucky you are. i did not use every single MBP that came out from apple so i guess it might be a few MBP that's perfect without flaws, but that'll be quite "a few".
i'm using it... i'm not returning it... it cost me 4 entire days to load the system twice (for the replacement) and 1 more days to back up the files, that process worth a lot more than the machine itself, and there's no point that i shall get a new computer and do this all over again.PowerBook 17", Mac OS X (10.4.4)
Currently Being ModeratedApr 16, 2006 6:34 AM (in response to fvives)
I have an iMac g5 in my house as a personal computer.
I love it and I am very happy with it, I think I made
a great decision buying it.
G5 is too good !
For my work, I use a PC with windows 2000, a Dell
I need to upgrade my work computer, so, I do not know
if moving to MBP is the best decision. Is a very
expensive computer and reading all the messages,
noise, temperature, rosetta not working as it
should... makes me a little bit no very convinced
about going again to DELL or moving to MBP. The
theory is that MBP has everything I need, only need
to make sure that it works.
Yes indeed. Boot Camp make most of the intel mac unresistable.
and windows does fly on every macbook pro i've seen ( i live in a geek enviroement and 4 of my mates book their mbp on the release day).
On the other hand, I think that maybe Apple needs to
work a little bit more the product, and that a good
Idea would be to wait till september when they have a
new release of MBP.
Any comments, ideas, suggestions, based on your
personal experience? what should I do? Is the risk
My suggestion is, get the lowest config aka 1.83 stock for lowest price, then add the memory to 2G (a must). If you want to save a few more bucks, don't upgrade your memory from Apple and buy yourself 2 x 1024 DDR2 5300 or 667 Mhz RAM online for £140 (say 200 euros?) and sell the original 512 on eBay.
As you said "for work", i guess you will generally leave the laptop on a desk so the heat issue won't be a problem. Afterall this is a fast and expensive computer should be cope with most of your needs.
However, if you want to use it extensively "on the go", i guess you'd better wait for the up coming 13.3" MacBOok, which also features a coreduo cpu and leave the MBP.
thanks from Spain.
hope this helpsPowerBook 17", Mac OS X (10.4.4)
Currently Being ModeratedApr 16, 2006 8:10 AM (in response to El Presidente)
What are they prized for?...maybe efficiency is the
wrong word here. Macs are suppose to "just work"
aren't they?....well in the original posters case
(amongst many MBP owners) this doesn't seem to be the
Aesthetics and ease-of-use, I'd say. Ease-of-use ends when you watch the sausage being made, if you will…
Yes i have made an analysis of windows programs ( i
use windows at work) and i sure as h e l l know my
programs never pass the 600MB mark but then again i
will admit i'm not a UNIX guru hence you're probably
right about the difference in memory management. I
however, do not want ONE program to take up all my
system resources (no one/thing is that special).
The point is that comparing that number to a comparable number displayed in the Task Manager on Windows is an invalid comparison. They're not measuring the same thing.
I think perhaps I see the problem. You think that if you have a Mac with 1 GB of RAM and you see a process that's shows as taking 600 MB, then it's using 60% of your system's RAM. That's very far from the truth. Look at the physical RAM allocation. That's how much RAM is being used by that application.
Probably Apple should have chosen a different metric to display in an end-user monitoring utility to keep people from panicing about how much RAM is in use.
iMac 20" Core Duo; MacBook Pro Mac OS X (10.4.6)