amholl said:Why do some apps, such as activity moniter and firefix, take up somuch virtua memory? Is there a way to stop that? Is it bad? BTW, I have 768 MB of RAM and the most intensive thing i do is play jedi academy multiplayer. THX
mad jew said:it's just the way OSX works.
dmw007 said:There is usually no need to question Mac OS...it knows what its doing.
Now windows on the other hand...
mad jew said:I suppose a better way of putting it is that OSX allocates Virtual RAM before it is needed (if it ever is needed). I agree, it's a pretty strange system.
MacsRgr8 said:It even caches the memory used by an app. So, whenever you have used an app that has used up alot of VM and quit it, alot of that RAM has been "reserved" as inactive, so that if you would like to use that app again, it can use that RAM it has accessed before again. This results in faster loading times etc.
yellow said:Don't forget.. "Free" and "Inactive" should be slapped together and relabeled "Free".
yellow said:Don't forget.. "Free" and "Inactive" should be slapped together and relabeled "Free".
1)Why? What problems have you had with virtual memory before 10.4.3?bousozoku said:It would be nice if you could set certain applications as frequently used as a hint to the VM system to release memory for less frequently used applications immediately.
I haven't really found a problem with VM since 10.4.3 but I'm running a dual 800 with 1.5 GB of RAM and free memory is almost always below 500 MB now.
Soulstorm said:1)Why? What problems have you had with virtual memory before 10.4.3?
2)Actually, even physical RAM is reallocated when an intense process takes place.
I had worries too, until I tried this thing: On a 1GHz iMac G4 with 768 mbytes RAM I opened unreal tournament 2004, safari, photoshop, and iMovie. I run them simultaneously. I put Safari to download a huge file. Photoshop was left inactive (but still open) I put iMovie to do an export and I played Unreal Tournament 2004. Although the game was sloooooooooooooow, it did run, and I played a whole level of it, even if it performed slow.
When I closed UT2004, I noticed that none of these programs had quit unexpectedly. Every program was still continuing it's process. So, my worries about OS X's memory management were gone. I did that in OS X 10.3.7.
And my personal advice to all who worry about VM: If your machine doesn't quit unexpectedly or hung up, there is absolutely no reason to question OS X's virtual memory management!
bousozoku said:Inactive perhaps should be labeled "nearly free" "potentially free" "separated" or "could get back together" since it's still preferred memory.
yellow said:Touche <-- accented
mkrishnan said:Come on, Option-e + e. You can do it. You're better than that.
Touché.
Oh, snap.
yellow said:Not on a Windows XP box, smartguy.
mkrishnan said:XP? Now I know you're better than *that*.