Any one ever try/use IFreeMem?
in [Mac Applications]
|
From: Tom Stiller on 16 Feb 2007 08:15 In article <C1FB55E5.98D4%jon(a)no-reply.invalid>, John W <jon(a)no-reply.invalid> wrote: > On 16/2/07 12:08, in article > tomstiller-2FA60F.07080716022007(a)comcast.dca.giganews.com, "Tom Stiller" > <tomstiller(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >> > >> What? > >> > >> "memory of the RAM", "RAM becomes less useful" where exactly are you > >> plucking these statements, I did not say such things as they don't even > >> make > >> sense. > > > > But you _did_ say: > >> Also I usually get a new Mac every few months and performance is > >> better at the beginning when Mac is new. I wanted to prevent the > >> just-in-time clean-up that occurs when I am in the middle of doing > >> some work, I personally find this frustrating. > >> > >> The aim was to have the memory footprint of a new mac, that is uncluttered > >> with cached items, on demand. > > > > and we wonder just how the performance of the "memory" on a new Mac > > degrades over time, as you imply. > > > > Tom, > > Again, memory does not degrade, as that too does not make sense. > > I'm pretty sure many readers are able to conclude that's not what I have > said, which is specific to a particular performance issue surrounding a > particular cluttered memory condition that is less noticeable in a new mac. OK, exactly what did you mean by "The aim was to have the memory footprint of a new mac (sic), that is uncluttered with cached items, on demand."? Exactly how does a "new" Mac differ from an old Mac at startup time? > > You seem to be implying that yours and everybody else mac run's just a sweet > as the day they took it out the box, if that's the case for you great, > nobody should ever need to worry about defragmentation, uninstalling apps, > closing applications or reboot or re-install ever again, its all just run > smoothly forever. Well. I don't de-fragment my drives, nor do I "uninstall" applications (other than to drag them and their preferences to the trash) unless they install kernel extensions. I close applications when I'm finished with them. I shut down once a week to do a full system backup, and I have never done a reinstall. although I have done upgrades from 10.1 through 10.4.8. It might be useful to measure accumulated pageouts over a "typical" day with and without invoking iFreeMem. -- Tom Stiller PGP fingerprint = 5108 DDB2 9761 EDE5 E7E3 7BDA 71ED 6496 99C0 C7CF
From: Dave Balderstone on 16 Feb 2007 09:12 In article <C1FB55E5.98D4%jon(a)no-reply.invalid>, John W <jon(a)no-reply.invalid> wrote: > On 16/2/07 12:08, in article > tomstiller-2FA60F.07080716022007(a)comcast.dca.giganews.com, "Tom Stiller" > <tomstiller(a)comcast.net> wrote: > > >> > >> What? > >> > >> "memory of the RAM", "RAM becomes less useful" where exactly are you > >> plucking these statements, I did not say such things as they don't even > >> make > >> sense. > > > > But you _did_ say: > >> Also I usually get a new Mac every few months and performance is better at > >> the beginning when Mac is new. I wanted to prevent the just-in-time > >> clean-up > >> that occurs when I am in the middle of doing some work, I personally find > >> this frustrating. > >> > >> The aim was to have the memory footprint of a new mac, that is uncluttered > >> with cached items, on demand. > > > > and we wonder just how the performance of the "memory" on a new Mac > > degrades over time, as you imply. > > > > -- > > Tom Stiller > > -- > > Tom, > > Again, memory does not degrade, as that too does not make sense. > > I'm pretty sure many readers are able to conclude that's not what I have > said, which is specific to a particular performance issue surrounding a > particular cluttered memory condition that is less noticeable in a new mac. Please explain how memory gets "cluttered" over time so that it's more noticeable when a Mac is older, and less so when a Mac is new. This makes absolutely no sense to me. Does RAM collect dust bunnies? > You seem to be implying that yours and everybody else mac run's just a sweet > as the day they took it out the box, if that's the case for you great, > nobody should ever need to worry about defragmentation, uninstalling apps, > closing applications or reboot or re-install ever again, its all just run > smoothly forever. He's implying no such thing. You, OTOH, seem to be inferring it. Why would you think anyone who knows anything about computers would believe such a thing? Well, except the defragmentation bit. Mac users actually don't need to worry about that, usualy. -- You can't PLAN sincerity. You have to make it up on the spot! -- Denny Crane
From: Jolly Roger on 16 Feb 2007 10:51 On 2007-02-16 06:35:52 -0600, John W <jon(a)no-reply.invalid> said: > Again, memory does not degrade, as that too does not make sense. > > I'm pretty sure many readers are able to conclude that's not what I have > said, which is specific to a particular performance issue surrounding a > particular cluttered memory condition that is less noticeable in a new mac. > You seem to be implying that yours and everybody else mac run's just a sweet > as the day they took it out the box, if that's the case for you great, > nobody should ever need to worry about defragmentation, uninstalling apps, > closing applications or reboot or re-install ever again, its all just run > smoothly forever. To which "particular cluttered memory condition" are you referring? How is this "cluttered memory condition" effected by the age of a computer exactly? It's put up or shut up time. If you value your credibility, you'll explain to us exactly what problems your application supposedly addresses - in detail, not in general terms. -- JR
From: James Glidewell on 16 Feb 2007 11:33 Tim Lance wrote: > On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 11:04:53 -0600, Clever Monkey wrote > (in article <Vo0Bh.51138$43.38061(a)nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca>): >> Without a clear explanation of what this app is doing, or published >> source, my feelings are that this is 100% snake-oil. > > Thank you for this. I get most of it - well, all, as far as it goes. Just > don't ask me to explain it yet again to someone else. > > Along those lines, may I quote some of this to the developer when I write him > later? > Why bother? Do you strike up technical discussions with the sellers of "magic" crystals or healing magnetic insoles? No doubt the developer has seen *some* case where it _appeared_ that forcing idle pages out had a positive effect on performance. And then went to the trouble of packaging it up for others to use. Without *really* knowing your stuff here, you are unlikely to convince him/her of the futility of this effort. This is very reminiscent of the "separate swap partition" incantation, where people whose Macs *never* paged anything out to that device were reporting performance improvements due to the swap partition. In that case, most of the benefit appeared to be from the dump and restore of the disk contents during the partitioning, which has the effect of both defragmenting files and optimizing the directory structure. This utility is almost certainly harmless, albeit useless. I'd simply let it go.
From: Paul Sture on 16 Feb 2007 12:30
In article <zsudnWcgBvvSQUjYnZ2dnUVZ_t3inZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Tim Lance <see.sig(a)bottom.com> wrote: > And to show you all how ignorant I can be re: all this: When did swap file > creation go back to same sized files? I have 2 @ 64 MB, 1 @ 12, and the rest > all @ 256. I know once upon a time they grew in size with each file. > > - With the transition from Panther to Tiger. Under Panther, each time there was a request for more swap file, the total swap file space doubled. One thing I haven't seen the software author mention here is whether his utility can work on Panther or previous versions of OS X. -- Paul Sture |