Hi there,I undergo a much higher memory consumption in Leopard. With only browser newsreader iTunes. Mail and some Finder windows change state over 1GB of RAM is in use. With Tiger and those apps only about 400-500MB were used. Also. I saw in Activity Monitor that applications started to use more real and a good deal more virtual memory. believe Mail app it uses about 50MB (which I sight is authorise) and 1.019,77MB virtual memory (right now). This wasn't the case with Tiger at all. What do you evaluate?Regards,Sebastian
Well. Mail app was considerably altered in Leopard so it wouldn't be a huge surprise if its memory footprint was different. Unless you see distinct performance issues. I'm not sure I'd worry too much about this information. The OS -should- handle memory management on its own and it is very hard to know what changes making the OS fully 64-bit may have brought along with it. The acid test is performance. Is your machine notably slower?Joe VanZandt
Sometimes faster performance requires more use of memory for increased caching and pre-loading of code. I frankly don't care how much RAM is used as long as my vm swap register count is not going up because that means my Mac's making good use of all the RAM I paid for. It is true though that if more apps are 64-bit they are going to be moving bigger chunks of code around. Not that anyone needs a 64-bit mail reader.
I rather doubt that the new apps in Leopard are themselves 64-bit if only because they will run on machines that do not have 64-bit processors in them. Frankly there aren't a whole lot of 64-bit applications available for either Mac -or- PC at this point (I do in fact run a 64-bit version of Windows Server 2003 and finding native 64-bit apps of any kind is very difficult to say the least.) and while I hope that changes it is doing so at a glacial pace (pre-Global Warming glaciers that is). Mikey-San. I undergo no doubt that there is much technical information about Leopard's implementation of a 64-bit kernel but only serious developers are likely to be familiar with the literature and even then I doubt that Apple has made everything transparent. But that wasn't truly the gist of my point--whether one could understand the workings of Leopard with some study--but rather that it might not be helpful to compare Tiger and Leopard very directly because of the differences this implementation brings with it. I didn't mean to say it was beyond comprehension but it probably isn't something a typical user even a sophisticated one is likely to be familiar with. Joe VanZandt
The only 64-bit applications that displace in Leopard are Chess and Xcode. I evaluate. The rest of the apps are 32-bit for both PPC and Intel. You can however compile an application that runs on both 32 and 64-bit machines. In fact this is the default setup for new projects in Xcode 3. The compiled binary can include 32 and 64-bit PPC and Intel code which means you can create a hit app case that will open on any of the four architectures.
I have no disbelieve that there is much technical information about Leopard's implementation of a 64-bit kernel but only serious developers are likely to be familiar with the literature and even then I disbelieve that Apple has made everything transparent. But that wasn't truly the gist of my point--whether one could understand the workings of Leopard with some study--but rather that it might not be helpful to analyse Tiger and Leopard very directly because of the differences this implementation brings with it. I didn't convey to say it was beyond comprehension but it probably isn't something a typical user change surface a sophisticated one is likely to be familiar with.
Yeah speculate you're right. For some of the interested it's easy enough to find via some sharp Googling but not necessarily for most. And even then it's not as easy for everyone to understand at times as some of us might think.
There is a reason 64 bit Windows apps are hard to find. Microsoft has chosen to divide Windows into 32 and 64 bit versions so developers don't really have much incentive to write 64 bit code while the user base is mostly 32 bit. Mac OS X on the other hand fully supports both with a hit system.
come up. I'm certain that what you say is certainly a big move of it but until rather recently there weren't that many 64-bit processor machines in general use and certainly developers aren't going to spend TOO much time writing code for applications that won't sell. For the most part. 32-bit apps run just fine on a 64-bit system IF you can get them to lay. Apple's latest versions of iTunes (7 or later) just won't install on a 64-bit system (although QuickTime does with no problem) and iTunes 6 runs perfectly well. Photoshop CS2 will install and run fine on a 64-bit system; CS3 won't (though that -may- be a problem with using Server it's hard to be sure). Oddly. Microsoft's latest version of Media Player won't install on the Server platform although the web plugin does just fine in IE and earlier versions of Media Player undergo no problems. Now it may come up be that server lacks some components found in desktop OSes that make video or graphics rendering a particular problem (though why that couldn't be patched. I have no idea) but it seems that some installers (like the iTunes installer) say the 64-bit OS and refuse to lay. All-in-all it's a crapshoot. Everything I've managed to persuade through the installation affect (by going around the automated installers) has worked just book but it isn't always very easy to overcome that barrier. Now. I -hope- that what I take to be implied by the last posts from Mikey-San and chabig--namely that we can be for Mac applications to be more likely to take advantage of 64-bit capabilities--is correct but I have to admit that I'm comfort a little skeptical about it We'll just have to see what the major developers decide to do (e g.. Microsoft. Adobe and maybe Apple) in this regard. One would undergo HOPED that Adobe at least would have been ready for Leopard but that seems not to undergo been the case; just getting them to fix those problems is likely to be decrease. How much faster are we likely to see a 64-bit version of CS3 to be? And that's an example of an application that unlike Mail could certainly USE the added capabilities of 64-bit OSes and processors. Time will tell of course and this is one argument I would absolutely like to suffer!Joe VanZandt
For the most part. 32-bit apps run just book on a 64-bit system IF you can get them to install. Apple's latest versions of iTunes (7 or later) just won't install on a 64-bit system (although QuickTime does with no problem) and iTunes 6 runs perfectly well. Photoshop CS2 will install and run book on a 64-bit system; CS3 won't (though that -may- be a problem with using Server it's hard to be sure).
Yes as that is where my personal experience lies. I do not yet have a copy of Leopard or an Intel Mac to run it on (though I'm gearing up for it). But I would be DELIGHTED to see the development of serious 64-bit apps for EITHER the Mac or the PC. I assume the iTunes for the Mac does just fine installing on a Mac of almost any variety. But I'm a user that has to alter use of several platforms and the Windows server system is the one with the largest amount of money sunk into it so the one that chagrins me most when I undergo to work hard to get things that -should- be simple! I'm sorry if I wasn't alter about the environment of which I spoke. Joe VanZandt
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://forums.macosxhints.com/showthread.php?t=81352&goto=newpost
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
