- Status
aryayush
Aspiring Novelist
305MB for me right now (and it hasn't been quit even once for the past two days or more). But that's just the way applications work on Mac OS X. It does not necessarily mean that there is something wrong.
When I launch some other RAM intensive applications, Safari's usage declines but it still performs just as well.
When I launch some other RAM intensive applications, Safari's usage declines but it still performs just as well.
goobimama
Macboy
Well the windows users of Safari at least.
Like I said in my blog post, this is not for those who like to customise stuff. Most people I know don't use any customisations or plugins or anything (partly why I like to hang out here). Safari gives an amazing out of the box experience. If you want more, Firefox or Opera would be better...
Like I said in my blog post, this is not for those who like to customise stuff. Most people I know don't use any customisations or plugins or anything (partly why I like to hang out here). Safari gives an amazing out of the box experience. If you want more, Firefox or Opera would be better...
ring_wraith
=--=l33t=--=
Actually, safari stays at 75MB even after an hour.
@Aayush, how is that possible? If it can use less RAM and perform the same, then why doesn't it do that in the same place.
@Everyone else, now that I read the thread in retrospect, I see what you all mean. I do apologize, and I for one am completely for giving up all use of flames!
@Aayush, how is that possible? If it can use less RAM and perform the same, then why doesn't it do that in the same place.
@Everyone else, now that I read the thread in retrospect, I see what you all mean. I do apologize, and I for one am completely for giving up all use of flames!
aryayush
Aspiring Novelist
Seriously, I wish I could explain this to you, but my geek quotient just isn't that high. But I do know that every single Mac developer (type) I've ever talked to has had the same thing to say. When I'd just switched, I used to get pretty frustrated by the fact that even after having 2 GB of RAM, my Mac used to gobble them all up within fifteen minutes of my booting it up.
I enquired about this on Apple centric forums and not one person ever told me that this was something to be worried about. They told me that even people who had 16GB of RAM installed would find their Macs using it all with just a few applications running. That's the way it's supposed to work, apparently. Mac OS X uses the entire RAM available to it but if some other application launched that needs it, it immediately frees some for it.
Again, I have no idea why this is better but I sure know that my Mac almost never slows down.
Since I was worried that it might be a problem with the third-party RAM module I'd installed (I'd initially toyed with the idea of blaming the OS but no sooner had I suggested it on those forums that everyone closed in on me, backed me into a corner and said, "Mac OS X ain't something to joke about, kid. It's perfect."), I did what they suggested and took it out of the machine. To my surprise, and like they'd told me, Mac OS X was just as happy with 1GB of RAM as it was with two, as long as I didn't run any virtual machine.
Does any of it make sense?
Thank you!
ring_wraith
=--=l33t=--=
Does any of it make sense?
Yes, actually. But I don't see how it could possibly speed up performance. In fact, it should technically deteriorate the performance a bit, considering the fact that some CPU cycles will be wasted in freeing up RAM.
It's kinda like blowing up balloons to store them, and when you get more balloons, reducing the size of the ones you already have in order to make room for the others.
goobimama
Macboy
-------------
And that balloon example doesn't really apply to computers. To the best of my knowledge, and I could be waaaaay off, RAM is not like the hard drive. It has to be updated every Hz with power. Like a basket ball being bounced (of course, in this case, the basket ball goes flat the moment you stop tapping it). A '1' is a RAM 'thing' with 5 volts of power, while a '0' is a RAM 'thing' with no power. So the machine goes on filling the required '1s' with power and the '0s' with no power.
Now you might say, every time a new application is launched, the earlier application has to lose some power over RAM and must be written on to the hard drive. OS X compensates this by keeping a double copy of the running app on the pagefile. Each app (even one that is 2MB in size) has a minimum virtual memory size of around 200MB with apps like Photoshop having virtual memory going up into GBs. The entire page file can sometimes be like 60GB or so.
Not sure what else happens in there, but this pretty much explains for the use of extra RAM by OS X. Hope that explains it.
And that balloon example doesn't really apply to computers. To the best of my knowledge, and I could be waaaaay off, RAM is not like the hard drive. It has to be updated every Hz with power. Like a basket ball being bounced (of course, in this case, the basket ball goes flat the moment you stop tapping it). A '1' is a RAM 'thing' with 5 volts of power, while a '0' is a RAM 'thing' with no power. So the machine goes on filling the required '1s' with power and the '0s' with no power.
Now you might say, every time a new application is launched, the earlier application has to lose some power over RAM and must be written on to the hard drive. OS X compensates this by keeping a double copy of the running app on the pagefile. Each app (even one that is 2MB in size) has a minimum virtual memory size of around 200MB with apps like Photoshop having virtual memory going up into GBs. The entire page file can sometimes be like 60GB or so.
Not sure what else happens in there, but this pretty much explains for the use of extra RAM by OS X. Hope that explains it.
It was purposely written like that btw, you know, one of those things.
Last edited:
Doesn't it have something to do with your RAM size and paging file system? For me, I have a 1 GB ram and my system affords to give about 170 MB for safari even when there is only 1 tab open. I remember reading this way back in the operating systems course. And, aryayush has a 2GB ram and it allocates arnd 300 MB (even though, I dint expect and wouldn't expect it to take more than this). I would bet that ring_wrath is < 1GB of ram, 512 may be?? and when the memory allocation is exceeded, it goes to the paging file?? and whether you can see it or not, the performance will be relatively diminished.
you can see this distinctively in adobe illustrator CS3.
you can see this distinctively in adobe illustrator CS3.
din
Tribal Boy
Downloaded and tested, seems lil faster now. Still prefer to stick with FF as I am addict ! I mean with lot of add-ons I am using, not easy to switch.
Goobi N Arya - Does Safari provide add-ons / extensions like FF ? Or it is use-it-as-it-is ?
Hmm, I see some sites like this but only for mac I guess ?
Goobi N Arya - Does Safari provide add-ons / extensions like FF ? Or it is use-it-as-it-is ?
Hmm, I see some sites like this but only for mac I guess ?
Last edited:
goobimama
Macboy
To one and all, Safari is NOT for customisers. Even on the mac, there aren't many plugins (compared to the millions that firefox has). Windows currently has nil.
Memory usage is not a problem on my end. I go by how fast a browser performs. I never noticed any lags or hangups while using Safari so I use it on the PC. On the mac I use Inquisitor (check this one out!) and an adblock thing though I don't really care about blocking ads.
Memory usage is not a problem on my end. I go by how fast a browser performs. I never noticed any lags or hangups while using Safari so I use it on the PC. On the mac I use Inquisitor (check this one out!) and an adblock thing though I don't really care about blocking ads.
- Status