| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mabaker
New Member
Joined: 09 Dec 2009
Posts: 10
|
 Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:18 pm Post subject: How much RAM is your 2009 mini using at startup? |
 |
|
I’m asking this question cuzz I find SL’s RAM managament pretty wacko, at least compared to Tiger or Leo.
At startub it’s using 1006 MB, high Wired values (about 700 MB) are also there.
Thanks in advance, guys.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TonyMontana
Veteran Member
Joined: 24 Jul 2006
Posts: 1945
Location: Missoula, MT
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
SL's RAM usage is very high in my opinion. Mine Idles at 680-700MB after start up. It creeps and creeps from there. On another note My hackintosh netbooks run 10.6.2 with 1GB of memory fairly well.
_________________
MacMini 2.0GHz C2D (2009)
MacMini 2.16GHz Intel Core Duo
Dell Mini 10v *OSX 10.6.4* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Undo
Member
Joined: 22 Nov 2009
Posts: 151
Location: Colorado
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mine's using 1.01GB after startup and launch of Activity Monitor. I never noticed it was so high until now. Doesn't the first 256MB get gobbled up for graphics on a 2-4GB system? That would mean the OS is using 750MB, which seems like a lot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Voyager
Member
Joined: 03 Feb 2010
Posts: 128
Location: Somerset, UK.
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
This much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mabaker
New Member
Joined: 09 Dec 2009
Posts: 10
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 7:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks guys.
Nice to see some comparisons. Unfortunately I don’t have my early 2009 Leo mac mini to compare it to BUT I can tell you that the RAM usage was not nearly as high at the startup. This much I can remember.
I’m at it cuzz I was unbelievably extatic when Apple decided to go 4GB standard on the high end mini model and now we know the reason why it did what it did - SL is far from “leaner Leopard”. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MacDSmith2
Veteran Member
Joined: 17 Aug 2009
Posts: 779
Location: Phoenix
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Voyager, that firefox is using 100 MB more memory than safari.
_________________
Retired: Altair 8800, PET, TI 99/4A, Apple II
Mac Plus, Mac II, Mac SE/30, Quadra,
20th Anniversary Mac, iMac Purple, G4 Blue & White, iBook Clamshell
Active: Mac Mini (OCT 09) 4 GB RAM, 2.66 GHz, 500 GB HDD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Voyager
Member
Joined: 03 Feb 2010
Posts: 128
Location: Somerset, UK.
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 12:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MacDSmith2 wrote: | | Voyager, that firefox is using 100 MB more memory than safari. |
What's your point? I still seem to have plenty of free memory (and I can't remember what it was doing at the time - running it's usual 14 extensions and this web page for a start)
In reality, to answer mabaker's question, it would not be running either a web browser or email at start-up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
philiparcario
Veteran Member
Joined: 19 Jun 2006
Posts: 4567
Location: Howell NJ USA
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
I can tell you snow leopard is slower then leopard when you run xbench and geek bench tests.
If you have seen operating systems for 30 plus years new ones eat more ram and more cpu. This is to sell new computers. Plain and simple. It is business. Making a computer go out of date in a year is good for computer sales. Software is how you outdate computers.
_________________
2010 Mm 2.4 C2D oem 320gb hdd 8gb ram
2012Mm base 2.5 with 16gb ram diy fusion drive
2012Mm quad with 8gb ram oem 1tb hdd
promise pegasus r6 3x 3tb + 3x 4tb =21tb hdds
lacie little big disk 2x 512gb ssds
synology 2tb disk station |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Memberlist 
Photo Gallery
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
