Mavericks and memory (Ram)

lostindc wrote:

That was my point, it is all guessing in terms of numbers, but it is not guesswork that there are many threads on this board,

Yup, 359 to be precise (as of this writing) about half of which are unique, and about half of that are in agreement with you.

That's about 90 people.

Strange, I just found a far greater number and then a quick google displayed many sites/forums dedicated to this very issue. I will be happy to count each poster and site discussing this issue with you but I don't think you're grasping this, rather you want to sweep it under the rug. Please tell me what the cause of this particular maverick issue is that many are complaining about. Is it user error or operating system error?

From my own experience it is user error, often, but not always predating the upgrade to Mavericks.

lostindc wrote:

Strange, I just found a far greater number

Then please, provide that number, and the rationale that led you to it.

I stopped counting at 90. I searched maverick, memory, etc and went through and counted posters stating they had/have this issue. I attempted to not double count, no guarantees.

Below are some links found on the first results page of a google web search - edit, message board will not let me link! Why?

Look, I want to believe in the way maverick uses memory. I am a diehard mac fan but it is obvious many are having the same issues. Most wont bother going to this message board because their products are under warranty and they rather discuss with tech support than a community. Tech support offered me a new macbook, I said no because I know I have a perfectly good macbook with just some OS bugs.

I wholeheartidly believe that apple will fix this issue. Perhaps the latest update I installed yesterday did in fact have a fix in the package, we shall see.

Csound1 wrote:

From my own experience it is user error, often, but not always predating the upgrade to Mavericks.

lostindc wrote:

Strange, I just found a far greater number

Then please, provide that number, and the rationale that led you to it.

lostindc wrote:

I stopped counting at 90.

That's a shame.

But even if it were 363, it's a vanishingly small percentage.

But why debate, make you complaint in the correct place, I already know why the issue exists if not the specifics for every machine.

Good luck with your endeavor.

Do you want to post here to prove a point or would you like help looking at your system? I come here to try to help people with Mac issues, are you looking for some help?

I don't deny some people are seeing problems who knows if it's 10.9 alone or related to older software, failing hardware, known hardware issues…?

Some people also spent time clearing out old software & found things get better. Since you took a look around here I suspect you have seen people using EtreCheck to try to resolve their issues…

If your system is clean then it simply points toward your hypothesis that 10.9 is bad. If the hypothosis is wrong your Mac will be working better, it's a win-win situation!

Post a report or just keep telling us how your anecdotes are better than someone elses anecdotes, franky I care for neither.

http://www.etresoft.com/etrecheck

Fair point, I had the memory issue yesterday, updated os right after, so far no issues.

It should be noted that after initial migration to mavericks I found things got better in many areas. Drew, I believe you have helped me a bunch before, so much respect and thanks.

Drew Reece wrote:

Do you want to post here to prove a point or would you like help looking at your system? I come here to try to help people with Mac issues, are you looking for some help?

I don't deny some people are seeing problems who knows if it's 10.9 alone or related to older software, failing hardware, known hardware issues…?

Some people also spent time clearing out old software & found things get better. Since you took a look around here I suspect you have seen people using EtreCheck to try to resolve their issues…

If your system is clean then it simply points toward your hypothesis that 10.9 is bad. If the hypothosis is wrong your Mac will be working better, it's a win-win situation!

Post a report or just keep telling us how your anecdotes are better than someone elses anecdotes, franky I care for neither.

http://www.etresoft.com/etrecheck

I'm not reading 25 pages, but has anyone mentioned that "purge" still works?

You just have to use "sudo purge" now, and enter the admin password. Completely dumps the file cache part of the RAM and starts over.

http://osxdaily.com/2013/11/14/use-purge-command-os-x-mavericks/

falkenjeff wrote:

I'm not reading 25 pages, but has anyone mentioned that "purge" still works?

I don't recall whether it was mentioned here or not, but in another forum it has been discussed for a considerable amount of time, along with the utilities that use it. In no case did any user experience any long term benefit from the use of purge. As far as I know none of those folks still use any of the automated RAM purge software any more as it seemed to be causing more issues than it solved.

Does the purge command cause issues? Or just the automated programs that abuse it?

I still kinda like the idea of using purge if I haven't rebooted for a day or two, and my "file cache" has decided to grow to 3 GB. Or if I accidentally click something like GIMP (which I rarely use) or X-Code (which I haven't even paid for this year - I think I finally unpinned the stupid thing).

I just discovered that command. I don't have to use purge unless the file cache is moronically occupying more RAM than it should when I have no apps are open.

You can tell when you need to destroy the file cache when (using top) you see the difference between wired and used memory is greater than 1 gb and you're not running anything.

If it were up to me, anything that's not wired memory (that is under the auspices of the kernel itself, i.e. normal RAM usage) should always be removed but I can't seem to kill off 512 mb that is not wired and I'm not rid off with purge.

For some odd reason the file cache doesn't seem to diminish with a reboot, so it gets parasitic every once and a while. Purge is a must to reclaim healthy empty RAM back (all that useless caching of other unloaded program's routine be ******)

(oh and I got rid of that rubbish file compression...I need my 8gb far more than the system needs it for speedy eyecandy loading)

falkenjeff wrote:

Does the purge command cause issues? Or just the automated programs that abuse it?

The issues experiences were with the automated programs, but since that was what these folks were using, they no longer used the purge comand.

I still kinda like the idea of using purge if I haven't rebooted for a day or two, and my "file cache" has decided to grow to 3 GB.

OK, but the Memory Management process knows exactly where the file cache is and will free it up automatically once it's gotten all it can out of compression. The theory being that it's better to leave the file cache in case you ever need it rather than having to read it all back in from the hard drive.

dreammjpr wrote:

I just discovered that command. I don't have to use purge unless the file cache is moronically occupying more RAM than it should when I have no apps are open.

Have you read anything in this ridiculously long thread about the new approach to Memory Management? Free RAM is wasted RAM. There has been extensive speed and energy testing to prove that keeping RAM loaded and using compression is far more efficient than the ancient process OS X has been using for years. They are actually one of the last to move out of the dark ages on this. When and if additional RAM is needed, it will be freed up instantaneously to allow anything new to be added.

falkenjeff wrote:

Does the purge command cause issues?

Your Mac ill run a little slower until the caches are refilled, which they will be fairly quickly.

dreammjpr wrote:

I just discovered that command. I don't have to use purge unless the file cache is moronically occupying more RAM than it should when I have no apps are open.

How do you know when something is "occupying more RAM than it should be" Please explain?

Free RAM being wasted RAM is just some misleading marketing term someone invented here. The way memory has been managed for the last 40 years (since Unix' inception) is totally and absolutely fine. That we need to recourse to these horrible schemes of recycling program routines into memory is a reflection of the sad state of affairs we have in software bloat.

I do not care for energy savings nor to see speedier loading of menu items and such, I want control of my RAM so that the programs I need in that moment can safely load themselves entirely into RAM which is what I need to have them respond faster (I also switched off virtual memory some two MacOS versions ago)