viniciusc Posted December 25, 2007 Share Posted December 25, 2007 I'm surprised most programs wont go for more than 30mb of ram. But whats the matter with safari? I had only 3 tabs open. (Core 2 Duo MacBook/ 1gb RAM, Leopard) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hazkid Posted December 25, 2007 Share Posted December 25, 2007 Safari is a terrible RAM hog. I only have 41 tabs in 3 windows, and its using 600MBs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sg Posted December 25, 2007 Share Posted December 25, 2007 it caches everything you go to and keeps it in RAM. this is what price you pay for with the fastest browser. it will page itself to disk eventually if its unused RAM. your solutions are 1) get more ram 2) stop looking at activity monitor and understand that OSX will automatically page things to disk after a while 3) quit safari and restart it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Konami® Posted December 25, 2007 Share Posted December 25, 2007 Safari in my machine use 227MB, wonder if you can tweak this to make use less memory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alicheusz Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 it caches everything you go to and keeps it in RAM. this is what price you pay for with the fastest browser. That's right but caching my all youtube videos and divx films played through Web divix plugin don't make my system any faster it dug it down or crash safari That is bug not feature Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glassJAw Posted December 26, 2007 Share Posted December 26, 2007 That's right but caching my all youtube videos and divx films played through Web divix plugin don't make my system any faster it dug it down or crash safari That is bug not feature I'm pretty sure it doesn't cache youtube stuff because I have to reload it everytime I watch a video. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark67 Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 I have a better solution for you all....use Firefox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headrush69 Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 I have a better solution for you all....use Firefox. God no. Firefox is so damn slow compared to Safari 3 on both my machines. Safari 3 has been incredibly stable for me and I haven't had any issues with memory usage that some have had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~pcwiz Posted December 27, 2007 Share Posted December 27, 2007 I'm surprised most programs wont go for more than 30mb of ram. But whats the matter with safari? I had only 3 tabs open. (Core 2 Duo MacBook/ 1gb RAM, Leopard) Why are all your programs using 500+MB of Virtual Memory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viniciusc Posted December 27, 2007 Author Share Posted December 27, 2007 Why are all your programs using 500+MB of Virtual Memory? that's a good question btw, I noticed it and asked about it on a forum, no one knew so I thought it was normal. I even did a fresh install on my MacBook and nothing changed. Do you guys running Leopard are having the same "issues"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naddy69 Posted December 28, 2007 Share Posted December 28, 2007 Yes, it's normal. Even on my MDD Dual 1.25 Ghz PPC G4 "real Mac", every open app uses 600 to 900 megs virtual memory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~pcwiz Posted December 28, 2007 Share Posted December 28, 2007 Maybe it displays the virtual memory usage wrong because if all your programs use like 900MB of virtual memory then you'd be losing a good portion of your hard drive space. I've never seen something like that on real Macs nor hackint0shes, although I admit that was on computers running Panther and Tiger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tavis Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 According to my Imac , Ive got a 23 GB virtual Ram file Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sg Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 the virtual memory listing/column has nothing to do with swap space. it's simply all the memory that could get allocated to a single application and other shared memory, but it really isnt allocated to the app. you also cant just go an add all the numbers in that column and come up with something meaningful, its virtual (doesnt exist). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Headrush69 Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 the virtual memory listing/column has nothing to do with swap space. it's simply all the memory that could get allocated to a single application and other shared memory, but it really isnt allocated to the app. you also cant just go an add all the numbers in that column and come up with something meaningful, its virtual (doesnt exist). Exactly correct. I've never seen something like that on real Macs nor hackint0shes, although I admit that was on computers running Panther and Tiger I have on both including my current Leopard machine. You'll get more useful info in the System Memory tab of Activity monitor rather than the process list. Things like swap file size, Used, Active, VM Size, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berzerker Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 Activity Monitor is seriously screwed up. It tells me on all of my applications with the Inspector that the shared memory size goes from 5.35MB to 16.7TB, then back to 5.35MB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sg Posted December 29, 2007 Share Posted December 29, 2007 Activity Monitor is seriously screwed up. It tells me on all of my applications with the Inspector that the shared memory size goes from 5.35MB to 16.7TB, then back to 5.35MB. there's really nothing important or significant with the virtual memory number, it doesnt mean anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berzerker Posted January 1, 2008 Share Posted January 1, 2008 there's really nothing important or significant with the virtual memory number, it doesnt mean anything. If it didn't mean anything, then why would that be in there? If they're going to put it in there, it should, at least, show the correct value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megamixman Posted January 4, 2008 Share Posted January 4, 2008 It doesn't mean anything in terms of your performance. All that really is, is the total address space allocated to that app. Remember Leopard = 64bits = 2147483648 GB of Address space. So whether or not the app is assigned REAL memory to those VIRTUAL addresses or not is the issue and can not to be seen by total Address space used by the app. Why is it listed? No clue, maybe Apple has had address clash bugs in the past and it is just a general way of seeing if any single app is using way too much address space? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sg Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 i think people are confused with virtual memory being swap memory. the thing that starts using your hard drive space when you run out of memory is called 'swap' and the stuff that gets assigned but doesnt actually get used is 'virtual'. when you start to actually think of what 'virtual' means you understand that its infact _nothing_. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts