|
|
9.1 is sweet, better memory handling
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
I hardly lost memory anymore. With all previous versions of the MacOS, RAM disappears when you open and close apps, but with 9.1, the memory stays constant no matter what I do. The system feels smappier as well. Go 9.1!
|
I like systems, their application excepted. (George Sand, translated from French), "J'aime les syst�mes, leur application except�e."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Pullman, WA USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
My system only eats a little over 50mb of the 768 I have!
And if feels alot snappier too!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Sar Chasm
Status:
Offline
|
|
I've had 9.1 running about and hour, glitch free.
9.1 does seem to manage memory better, so far. I opened apps until I was down to 34k free memory, and photoshop started to slow down. then I quit everything but PS and netscape. Snapped right back into shape.
Went to about this computer... and memory in use + largest unused block actually added up to 256!
With those apps open, and a large picture covering the desktop (warning! picture may cover the desktop ) 9.1 is using 78 mb of ram- not much different from 9.0.
I'm happy.
|
When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jun 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
speaking of memory management, there is something new in the memory control panel. "Disk Cache" size is no as longer limited! with 196 MB of RAM, my limit is now 32 MB, up from 8 MB.
------------------
be happy!
-mac freak
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Salvador, BA - Brazil
Status:
Offline
|
|
Hummm, 9.1 just running... and it's going sweet. Maybe it is nonsense (you guys with more Macxperience tell me), but after a clean install of 9.0.4 and then updated to 9.1, my internet navigations is very good again... and the whole system seems more fast too...
------------------
Think Diferente!
|
Think Diferente!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status:
Offline
|
|
It still is a RAM-hungry OS, however.
Even though RAM is cheap, I shudder to think that the Mac seems to take more RAM as you put in more memory. It seem to grow proportionally. What ever happened to the "lean, mean OS" which required somewhere between 16-24MB RAM? The price you pay for features, I guess. Sigh. :
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Sar Chasm
Status:
Offline
|
|
Quote:
What ever happened to the "lean, mean OS" which required somewhere between 16-24MB RAM? The price you pay for features, I guess. Sigh. :
I was thinking about that last night- My first Mac was a centris 610 with 8 mb of memory. It ran system 7.5 & photoshop, although if you wanted a gaussian blur, you had better plan luch around it. I'm a little put off by the fact that my Cube is using more memory for the system than it originally shipped with. I think for the premiuns that Apple is charging for these systems, it would be nice if we didn't have to upgrade them just to use them, but hey, ram IS cheap.
CV
|
When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Koen.
|
|
Hmmm, in my experience so far with 9.1, I have the feeling that the free memory is decreasing after opening a few apps, and then closing them all, although it's only 2-3 MB. I never noticed this with 9.0.4.
- Koen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Montclair, NJ USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
You should have Virtual Memory on in OS 9... it runs better (hard to believe but true)! And uses far less memory! I notice that apps launch faster and I have less memory fragmentation also.
|
G4/466, 1 GB RAM, 60 GB, 30 GB, OS X 10.3.5
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Upper Black Eddy, PA
Status:
Offline
|
|
Anyone have experience with VirtualPC 3 and OS 9.1 with Virtual Memory on? VPC has always had problems with VM in OS 9.0.4 and earlier. I've ordered 9.1 but haven't got it yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TriPhaze
|
|
9.1 has given my old 8500/180 (233MHz 604e) a new lease on life. Awesome speed!
Internet got a nice speed boost also.
Looks like I don't need a new machine after all and I can do without DSL for a bit longer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: New York, NY
Status:
Offline
|
|
Remember that you can disable a lot of 9.x to save some megs, if you're not using them:
Multiple Users cp & extension
Speech
Remote Access (if you have any type of Ethernet connection)
ColorSync
File Synchronization cp
ATI Radeon extension, if you only have a Rage 128
FireWire extensions
Software Update
etc etc.
I have no trouble creating and using multiple sets in the Extensions Manager; probably saves a few crashes this way, too.
As always, if you're not sure, leave it alone.
-p
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Just north of Hell---Okla.
Status:
Offline
|
|
well, crap-
I stand alone again. Everyone is enjoying improved memory handling, but me. 9.1 leaks worse than a US Navel warship at dock in port of Aden. I have 256Mb and when I open and quit apps it NEVER adds up to that. M$ and Eudora are the most troublesome, probably because I use them the most-duh. Is there a way to get that memory back without a re-start? Thanks for any info on this. Please resist the urge to suggest I use diff. program. I know M$ is bloatware, but I relish the self-inflicted pain--it's just a thing--you know
Kay Autic
*Advice to Pres.-select Bush: Jot it down.*
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: London.
Status:
Offline
|
|
You've all convinced me. I'm goin to go for it (9.1). But is it neccesary to restore or reinstal 9.0, to ensure a clean upgrade. I'm also suffering with conflicts/crashes, is 9.1 likley to help or hinder
------------------
Soul Sauce
Mac Addict
|
Soul Sauce
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Hey Guys,
OS 9.1 is a big improvment in memory department. I have been losing memeory for years with the other OSs. With 9.1 I lose almost nothing no matter how meany times I open and close an application. Very nice improvement! I prefer not to use virtual memory, but I understand it's much better since OS9 came out. Maybe I'll give it a try.
Lloyd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jul 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
i'm with all of you on this. the system now takes up only (!!!) 70mb of ram, as compared to >90-95mb under 9.04. wake from sleep is faster, apps open a tad faster, general handling is snappier. etc.
my only small problem has been that self mounting images (specifically, those created using stuffit compression) will no longer mount. please see my thread on that subject, and provide insights, if any, there...
http://forums.macnn.com/cgi-bin/Foru...ML/002426.html
[This message has been edited by ged (edited 01-21-2001).]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: England
Status:
Offline
|
|
DavidRavenMoon
>You should have Virtual Memory on in OS 9... it runs better (hard to believe but true)! And uses far less memory! I notice that apps launch faster and I have less memory fragmentation also.
I thought that virtual memory was always worse than real memory, or has it improved so much that it's actually better *on* now under 9.1?
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: In a maze of twisty tunnels all alike
Status:
Offline
|
|
You'll find that older Mac Users (pre-8.0) will usually run with virtual memory off. This is a hangup to the poor VM implementation pre-8.0. It used to cause all sorts of incompatibilities.
Since 8.0 VM has been steadily getting better (I've always run with VM on since 8.5), however the older Mac Users like to cling to the "VM is bad" mantra (it's hard to teach an old Macite new tricks :-) ).
I've always run with VM on on my Pismo PowerBook and have no problems with the performance, even when importing Video from my DV camera (or playing it back).
Mick
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Vienna
Status:
Offline
|
|
I've been using RAM Doubler since System 7. But as you said before, the MacOS VM got better since 8.0 . Is there still any need for RAM Doubler?
[This message has been edited by sushu (edited 01-21-2001).]
|
g3/315/320mb
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: San Diego, CA, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
I installed the downloaded 9.1 upgrade this afternoon. After pulling the "OpenTptSerialArbitrator" extention things speeded up. Now it is running with more speed that an hour ago. Right on!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: England
Status:
Offline
|
|
"OpenTptSerialArbitrator" what's that do then?
So does anyone have the definitive as to whether it's better with VM or without?
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Greensboro, NC USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
nking...
I think you can forget the idea that there are definitive answers.
You may have to try it both ways on YOUR system/hardware combo.
Some applications' Help Depts may tell you NEED VM on (but my experience has often contradicted it).
Some folks apparently have NO audio/video probs with VM, but in 9.0.4 on MY 400Pismo it disrupts playback of CD's with certain system events.
And if you look at Retzner's experience... the system performance can vary widely with the disabling of one little extension (and you'll not find that hint in any Apple documentation I warrant - and prob not in any Mac book in that'll come out within 6 mos of 9.1).
That's the great thing about the forums... When you have to do some experimenting around with your system to max its performance, here's where you'll get likely places to starts.
Thanks to everybody for sharing yours!
|
Pismo 400 192M Sys 9.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: A mile high, Denver, Colorado, USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
A simple rule of thumb, not the definitive answer, might be: if you have less than 128 MB physical, use VM and double or triple your setting. If you have 256 or more, leave VM off unless you open many memory-hungry programs at once. If you have upward of 512, leave it off, and do anything you want.
|
Who are the Brain Police?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Wirral, Merseyside, UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
I have found that with VM on, DVD playback is inferior to when it is turned off. I have 192 physical memory, and have VM set to 193, just to keep the amount required by the OS down. (VM reduces OS memory use by 10 -12 mb). As I dont often watch DVDs this isnt a major problem, I just remember to turn it off when I want to see a film.
Other than playing with extensions, are there any other ways of pulling a little more performance out of my iMac DV/400/192/OS9.1?
(Replies including the term 'G4' not accepted ;-)))
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Gotham City
Status:
Offline
|
|
Can someone help? I upgraded to 9.1, which is great, but only then realized one of my apps won't work with it. What is the easiest way to "down"grade to 9.0.4. I did not make a separate folder for the new one. Yes I know ... "and scarecrow what would you do if you had a brain?"... Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: St. Louis, MO
Status:
Offline
|
|
I had one minor problem when I upgraded to 9.1. EnterNet, the DSL software I use, would not start. I got a message saying the app was not installed. I uninstalled EnterNet, reinstalled it, and everything worked perfectly. No complaints, although I am not sure that there is a big performance increase that many seem to experience. Still takes a long time to start up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: London, UK
Status:
Offline
|
|
the memory the macOS uses, does go up proportionaly with available ram, things like disk cache go up the more memory you have installed.
am i the only one to notice this or has 9.1 taken away the 999mb per application limit on alocating ram??
not that i have over 1gb of ram.
wish i did.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: England
Status:
Offline
|
|
Richard Pinneau...
Hmmm, maybe I shouldn't have used the word *definitive* there.
Personally, I've always been a tinkerer. I've always had vm off where possible, because it slowed the responsiveness of my various systems noticeably.
Now with a G4 450MP, with 576Mb of ram, I'm not concerned about the memory requirements of my apps, but only with the *speed* of the machine.
My experience, then and now, vm slows yer system
Bye the way, *OpenTptSerialArbitrator* anyone? What is it?
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Regular
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: big round blue place
Status:
Offline
|
|
>>>>>Bye the way, *OpenTptSerialArbitrator* anyone? What is it?
Well that extension is for use with Remote Access and dial-up connections only. It allows the ARA to take over the internal serial port whenever the modem needs to dial out, and then release it when not connected. If you are not on dial-up, disable it and all the ARA components, but NOT any of the other OpenTransport ext's..
HTH
|
You can have me mac when u pry me cold, dead fingas off da mothabowd :eek:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Greensboro, NC USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
nextlevel...
You didn't say what software wasn't working, but...
are you sure you haven't given up too early?
There shouldn't be much that's absolutely incompatible if it run under 9.04.
You might want put a query in the Third Party Softoware forum and ask if any user of (whatever application) has found a way for it to work w/ 9.1 (lots of times it just a trashing of preference file)
Good Luck
|
Pismo 400 192M Sys 9.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Portugal/Algarve or Lisbon
Status:
Offline
|
|
Im using the 9.1 and When my G4 freezes, because the bad handle of applications such Internet Explorer and Outlook Express (ARRG MS), i can't try the force quit... the cursor stops and a white-box (without text, and the ok,cancel buttons) appears.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
i did the downloadable update and it went very smooth. no software conflicts so far, but i have noticed that the memory handling is just as bad as OS 9.0.4 if not worse. with 256mb of ram i had programs open using only 40mb, and yet the OS was using up to 69mb. not only that but when i quit those programs, not only did the ram not free up, but i was left with only 100mb free, with the OS now using 56mb (total:156!). how did 100mb suddenly go missing in action? much worse fragmentation than 9.0.4!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Greensboro, NC USA
Status:
Offline
|
|
With such diverse experiences, we need a tally of experiences for different hardware and software. MacFixit seems also to report generally positive experiences but with a few sufferers. Go figure...
|
Pismo 400 192M Sys 9.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
OS 9.1 is less stable than 9.04. A tiny bit faster. I haven't noticed a difference in memory management.
OS 9.1f6 was much much faster. Zero crashes. Dunno about memory for it either... I don't pay much attention.
So far theres still some work to do with it...
PowerMac G4 400 (Sawtooth), 128 RAM (250 with VM). I'll chuck it on the Dual 500 soon and see what differences there are on a duallie...
Cipher13
[This message has been edited by Cipher13 (edited 01-26-2001).]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
using b/w G3 400mhz 256kb ram, fragmentation is same if not worse, but not much instability.
cipher13 - what is 9.1f6?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
It was a pre release of 9.1 - final candidate 6.
Its a fairly old one. Not released to the public.
Like a beta, sort of. Except not the beta stage. Know what I mean?
Cipher13
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Nov 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
aha, i see, thanks. (damn these double posts)
[This message has been edited by bezoar (edited 01-29-2001).]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Hello All,
Well, time will tell! It did for me anyway.
As it turns out, memory is the same as before under 9.0.4.
When I first installed the 9.1 update my memory seemed to not be fragging after opening and closeing applications. However, now that I've been up for a couple weeks now, memory is the same.
Damit!
Don't know what is was at first that my free memory was doing great. I had an issue with my cable internet provider and thought maybe it was my browser or my system a few days after installing OS 9.1. So, it reinstalled both and zapped the PRAM. Guess what, it was the internet providers server (which had been fixed now) and not my system.
Did a new clean install of OS 9.1 after I got my CD and things are still the same with free RAM dissapearing. Guess I'll give VM a try and see if it help to prevent this loss.
Lloyd Francis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Hey Guys!
OK, after turning on virtual memory things seem to be just fine and just as fast.
The free memory does not seem to be disappearing anymore either after opening and closeing applications.
So, I'm going to be running on for a while.
I'm happy,
Lloyd Francis
6500/225 Sonnet L2 G3/400, OS 9.1, 128 RAM (with VM on now)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: "Joisey" Home of the "Guido" and chicks with "Big Hair"
Status:
Offline
|
|
I just noticed this...........It actually seems that Virtual Memory actually WORKS now under OS 9.1
I had a system at work upgraded, and it was running sweetly for several weeks before I noticed that I'd not turned VM OFF as I would normally do
I noticed that My own mac here was hogging-up alot of RAM for OS 9.1, but with VM on it's at a steady 30-32 MB, and the VM seems to handle very very well now (which could also be partially due to the addition of a 19 GB Hard Drive as-well).
It's funny that Apple has finally fixxed the VM problems of old with thier possibly last "Classic" OS. Of course maybe it's also due in part because the new Macs aren't "sporting" 1-4 GB hard drives anymore
But then there's the Photoshop versus Virtual memory ON issue. They've never played very well together from what I've heard anyway. Supposedly this is due to the fact that Photoshop has a sort of "Built-in" virtual memory system, that conflicts with having VM on in the OS
Also I have 352 MB Physical RAM on here, but OS 9.1 seems to hog up wayy too much without VM on
Mike
[This message has been edited by MikeM32 (edited 02-04-2001).]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: "Joisey" Home of the "Guido" and chicks with "Big Hair"
Status:
Offline
|
|
I just noticed this...........It actually seems that Virtual Memory actually WORKS now under OS 9.1
I had a system at work upgraded, and it was running sweetly for several weeks before I noticed that I'd not turned VM OFF as I would normally do
I noticed that My own mac here was hogging-up alot of RAM for OS 9.1, but with VM on it's at a steady 30-32 MB, and the VM seems to handle very very well now (which could also be partially due to the addition of a 19 GB Hard Drive as-well).
It's funny that Apple has finally fixxed the VM problems of old with thier possibly last "Classic" OS.
Mike
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2000
Status:
Offline
|
|
Hello again,
Well, as it turns out, I loose free memory even with VM turned on. Now I don't know what to do. Probable an Internet Explorer thing, but damit I like Internet Explorer. Not to mention I just spent all this time converting over to IE and trashing Netscape. Sounds like I'll be puting a daily restart on my to do list.
Lloyd Francis
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|