Apple OS uses less memory then vista?

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: TheStu
Ah, fair enough. I am assuming then that Vista has some magical algorithms that can determine over time what is going to be called upon, and if that is the case, then that is good.

Indeed. It boils down to frequency of use, although itll also depend on the time of day or week - ie. if you game a lot around the same time of the day, like after work, itll preload parts of that game before you get there.

I would also assume that Superfetch will rapidly relinquish its RAM should another program call for it, so if Firefox needs more RAM or something, then Superfetch will give up what it was allocating so that an actively running application can get it. If that is the case, then I can see your argument and say that it is a good thing.

Pretty much. Its no different than XP - cache is always considered free memory, just Vista can preload and manage that cache more effectively.

However, I still stand by my original claim that OS X loads apps faster, if I were to use Vista as my primary OS, would I see those load times go down as it comes to realize what programs I use more often? That is not me saying that I would use Vista as my primary OS, simply a question.

Your noticing of OSX loading apps faster has more to do with the way it deals with apps - closing the last window does not necessary close the app. You have to go to the menu and select exit. If the app never closes, it doesnt ever really have to reload, so when you click on the icon, it snaps right up. Its more like closing all the tabs in your browser and then being shocked that opening a new tab is a zillion times faster than opening the whole program.

I've always liked that behavior though, but its problematic when you dont have a lot of ram. XP has relied on the file cache to keep stuff like that in memory, but it rarely stays there for long. Superfetch has the advantage of preloading the app before you've actually started it the first time, keeping it there when other less important things might push it out, and carefully managing the cache rather than just leaving pretty much everything open like OSX does.

 

[TheStu]

Originally posted by: BD2003

Originally posted by: TheStu
Ah, fair enough. I am assuming then that Vista has some magical algorithms that can determine over time what is going to be called upon, and if that is the case, then that is good.

Indeed. It boils down to frequency of use, although itll also depend on the time of day or week - ie. if you game a lot around the same time of the day, like after work, itll preload parts of that game before you get there.

I would also assume that Superfetch will rapidly relinquish its RAM should another program call for it, so if Firefox needs more RAM or something, then Superfetch will give up what it was allocating so that an actively running application can get it. If that is the case, then I can see your argument and say that it is a good thing.

Pretty much. Its no different than XP - cache is always considered free memory, just Vista can preload and manage that cache more effectively.

However, I still stand by my original claim that OS X loads apps faster, if I were to use Vista as my primary OS, would I see those load times go down as it comes to realize what programs I use more often? That is not me saying that I would use Vista as my primary OS, simply a question.

Your noticing of OSX loading apps faster has more to do with the way it deals with apps - closing the last window does not necessary close the app. You have to go to the menu and select exit. If the app never closes, it doesnt ever really have to reload, so when you click on the icon, it snaps right up. Its more like closing all the tabs in your browser and then being shocked that opening a new tab is a zillion times faster than opening the whole program.

I've always liked that behavior though, but its problematic when you dont have a lot of ram. XP has relied on the file cache to keep stuff like that in memory, but it rarely stays there for long. Superfetch has the advantage of preloading the app before you've actually started it the first time, keeping it there when other less important things might push it out, and carefully managing the cache rather than just leaving pretty much everything open like OSX does.

I don't mean that, I mean opening an app that is not currently running at all. Like if I were to open up Coda right now, it takes almost no time at all, at least not any noticeable time. I too like the behavior of the difference between closing and quitting. My main thing is that OS X just feels faster on the same hardware as compared to Vista, but you are saying that it is possible that if I were to use Vista for an extended period of time, I would notice that it would be just as quick if not quicker. Well that is always a good thing, though I guess it would be nice if it was snappier out of the box rather than over time.

 

[Nothinman]

Right, as I said, but the working set might not drop immediately. Since the process object is gone, he can't be looking at the process' memory in order to determine that it isn't being freed, so he must be looking at a global number.

You probably mean Commit Charge since Working Set is per-process, but otherwise yea.

I don't mean that, I mean opening an app that is not currently running at all. Like if I were to open up Coda right now, it takes almost no time at all, at least not any noticeable time. I too like the behavior of the difference between closing and quitting. My main thing is that OS X just feels faster on the same hardware as compared to Vista, but you are saying that it is possible that if I were to use Vista for an extended period of time, I would notice that it would be just as quick if not quicker. Well that is always a good thing, though I guess it would be nice if it was snappier out of the box rather than over time.

That depends heavily on how big the app is and it's dependencies. My initial guess would be that OS X apps have less external dependencies and since the core shared libraries (i.e. Cocoa, libc, etc) are already paged in you only see the time required to page in and start the app itself. OS X probably comes with ldd so you can see what shared libraries any binary depends on but I don't have any OS X machines to look at.

 

[Markbnj]

You probably mean Commit Charge since Working Set is per-process, but otherwise yea

Yeah, that's the right number. Thanks for the correction.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Don't some of the libraries stay mapped in after the process terminates, in case you run the process again?

The file may stay cached in memory just like any other file but it won't be mapped into that process's VM since that process doesn't exist any more.

What ultimately killed it was a print driver from Savin that was incompatible with OSX. Yeah go figure, a big multi function color printer doesnt work with a Mac. Anyways sent it back and got a Dell that was more powerful and less money and had it running and on the employee's desk in 4 hours once I opened the box.

If your big expensive printer doesn't speak Postscript you got ripped off.

It speaks postscript, unfortunately there was no OSX driver available for it that worked for our needs. This printer is used for print jobs which require customer codes so we can bill our customers. The OSX driver did not have this functionality enabled and thus was impossible for us to print to the printer.

I was very surprised and worked with their driver team. But I had a small window of return on the machine and had to pull the plug on the last day and get an RMA.

 

[juktar]

Originally posted by: TheStu

I don't mean that, I mean opening an app that is not currently running at all. Like if I were to open up Coda right now, it takes almost no time at all, at least not any noticeable time. I too like the behavior of the difference between closing and quitting. My main thing is that OS X just feels faster on the same hardware as compared to Vista, but you are saying that it is possible that if I were to use Vista for an extended period of time, I would notice that it would be just as quick if not quicker. Well that is always a good thing, though I guess it would be nice if it was snappier out of the box rather than over time.

I am just curious if the systems you are comparing are the ones in your sig.

Does the AMD system have Vista?

 

[TheStu]

Originally posted by: juktar

Originally posted by: TheStu

I don't mean that, I mean opening an app that is not currently running at all. Like if I were to open up Coda right now, it takes almost no time at all, at least not any noticeable time. I too like the behavior of the difference between closing and quitting. My main thing is that OS X just feels faster on the same hardware as compared to Vista, but you are saying that it is possible that if I were to use Vista for an extended period of time, I would notice that it would be just as quick if not quicker. Well that is always a good thing, though I guess it would be nice if it was snappier out of the box rather than over time.

I am just curious if the systems you are comparing are the ones in your sig.

Does the AMD system have Vista?

The AMD system has XP Pro, I was comparing OS X on my MacBook to Vista Business on my MacBook (Ain't BootCamp a peach?) which lets me have the OSes installed on an identical system without having to buy another MacBook.

 

[Nothinman]

t speaks postscript, unfortunately there was no OSX driver available for it that worked for our needs. This printer is used for print jobs which require customer codes so we can bill our customers. The OSX driver did not have this functionality enabled and thus was impossible for us to print to the printer.

Sounds like you just needed a better PPD for the thing.

 

[soonerproud]

Originally posted by: TheStu
The AMD system has XP Pro, I was comparing OS X on my MacBook to Vista Business on my MacBook (Ain't BootCamp a peach?) which lets me have the OSes installed on an identical system without having to buy another MacBook.

From what I have heard, running Vista on BootCamp is a little slower than on a regular notebook with similar specs. It could just be an issue with the drivers not giving Vista optimal performance on the Mac.

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: TheStu

Originally posted by: juktar

Originally posted by: TheStu

I don't mean that, I mean opening an app that is not currently running at all. Like if I were to open up Coda right now, it takes almost no time at all, at least not any noticeable time. I too like the behavior of the difference between closing and quitting. My main thing is that OS X just feels faster on the same hardware as compared to Vista, but you are saying that it is possible that if I were to use Vista for an extended period of time, I would notice that it would be just as quick if not quicker. Well that is always a good thing, though I guess it would be nice if it was snappier out of the box rather than over time.

I am just curious if the systems you are comparing are the ones in your sig.

Does the AMD system have Vista?

The AMD system has XP Pro, I was comparing OS X on my MacBook to Vista Business on my MacBook (Ain't BootCamp a peach?) which lets me have the OSes installed on an identical system without having to buy another MacBook.

Only mac user would buy 2 computers to run 2 operating systems.

 

[TheStu]

Um, I bought 1 computer to run as many OSes as I like (MacBook) I was given the AMD system since my friend felt bad that I couldn't play any real games anymore.

 

[Nothinman]

Only mac user would buy 2 computers to run 2 operating systems.

Most Mac users buy 1 computer to run at least 2 OSes. Since you can't legally run OS X on non-Apple hardware your only choice is to buy from Apple if you want to use OS X for anything. I don't think I know a single Mac user without a Windows installation in Parallels...

 

[postmortemIA]

well, MAC OSX is so great that you have to install Windows too!

 

[Nothinman]

well, MAC OSX is so great that you have to install Windows too!

Windows is just as bad, the first thing I do when I have to use a Windows box is install cygwin, Cooperative Linux or Linux in VMWare.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
well, MAC OSX is so great that you have to install Windows too!

I love bootcamp! It lets Microsoft make more money on the Mac than Apple does

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: TheStu
[superfetch]
See, I just don't understand that concept. Vista is primarily using the memory for indexing and SuperFetch right? Well, once indexing is complete, then I guess all spare RAM gets diverted to SuperFetch, but doesn't that make things that are not preloaded into SuperFetch open all the slower?

Wanna know a secret? It makes literally no speed improvements over XP. I've had Vista for a few months now and I can say with confidence that it's not any faster than XP. The automatic update system is better, and the kernel is more secure, but it sure as hell isn't faster. There was nothing wrong with the Prefetch XP had; Superfetch in Vista is just a gimmick. Sort of like Miller beer and "cold filtered" (google it to see what "cold filtered" actually means).

 

[nerp]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: TheStu
[superfetch]
See, I just don't understand that concept. Vista is primarily using the memory for indexing and SuperFetch right? Well, once indexing is complete, then I guess all spare RAM gets diverted to SuperFetch, but doesn't that make things that are not preloaded into SuperFetch open all the slower?

Wanna know a secret? It makes literally no speed improvements over XP. I've had Vista for a few months now and I can say with confidence that it's not any faster than XP. The automatic update system is better, and the kernel is more secure, but it sure as hell isn't faster. There was nothing wrong with the Prefetch XP had; Superfetch in Vista is just a gimmick. Sort of like Miller beer and "cold filtered" (google it to see what "cold filtered" actually means).

I disagree, based on my own experiences on my opteron workstation and celeron laptop. Both machines have 2GB and are remarkably faster for general use than XP. In games, I notice no difference on the workstation. I don't play games on the laptop.

The difference is remarkable to me, especially when it comes to loading apps. XP, based on my years of use, has a tendency to stutter during extremely serious bogging (multiple super heavy CPU tasks) and that decade-old effect of leaving trails and smearing window elements when the OS is busy (a la solitare winner celebration) which never happens in Vista. This adds to the overal responsiveness effect. I can hop around and fire up apps and zip between loaded apps while the system is bogged in ways that bring XP to its knees.

 

[BD2003]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: TheStu
[superfetch]
See, I just don't understand that concept. Vista is primarily using the memory for indexing and SuperFetch right? Well, once indexing is complete, then I guess all spare RAM gets diverted to SuperFetch, but doesn't that make things that are not preloaded into SuperFetch open all the slower?

Wanna know a secret? It makes literally no speed improvements over XP. I've had Vista for a few months now and I can say with confidence that it's not any faster than XP. The automatic update system is better, and the kernel is more secure, but it sure as hell isn't faster. There was nothing wrong with the Prefetch XP had; Superfetch in Vista is just a gimmick. Sort of like Miller beer and "cold filtered" (google it to see what "cold filtered" actually means).

I easily notice the difference.

Comparing prefetch and superfetch is like comparing apples and oranges btw, theyre really barely related.