Prev: Mobile accounts in AD, any fixed duration?
Next: Used Car Sri Lanka
From: dorayme on 4 Aug 2010 21:20
In article
<michelle-665258.16520804082010(a)reserved-multicast-range-not-dele
gated.example.com>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote:

> between an application that has no open windows, but is running in the
> background, and an application that has no open windows, but is hidden?
> How about an application with an open window that's hidden (other than the
> memory used by that window, that is)?

You can get data on this.

1. Get a memory listing on your menu bar.

2. Get a CPU % listing on your menu bar.

3. Put up the situations you mention and log the results.

Personally, I would rather not know. It is this sort of detail
that can spoil one's experience with computers, like sometimes
too much analysis does a joke or film or poem. Best to leave
great big areas as *mysteries* - this allows one to read less
poetry and so save time in life.

--
dorayme
From: Kevin McMurtrie on 4 Aug 2010 22:36
In article
<michelle-665258.16520804082010(a)reserved-multicast-range-not-delegated.e
xample.com>,
Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote:

> between an application that has no open windows, but is running in the
> background, and an application that has no open windows, but is hidden?
> How about an application with an open window that's hidden (other than the
> memory used by that window, that is)?

Hidden or not isn't likely to make any difference, though it depends on
how the application was written.

It seems that the memory consumed by a window's pixels may be purged in
10.5 and later. A window that has been obscured for a long time may
show brief flickering when revealed, especially on machines with little
RAM. I don't know if that's swap, compression, or asking the app to
redraw.
--
I won't see Google Groups replies because I must filter them as spam
From: David Empson on 5 Aug 2010 01:49
Michelle Steiner <michelle(a)michelle.org> wrote:

> between an application that has no open windows, but is running in the
> background, and an application that has no open windows, but is hidden?
> How about an application with an open window that's hidden (other than the
> memory used by that window, that is)?

I can't think of any practical difference between the three states
(apart from memory usage by the open but hidden window, as you noted).
Memory usage and performance overhead will be identical, apart from
random variation due to paging activity or whatever.

With no windows open, you can't activate the application by clicking on
any window, only by using the Dock, the task switcher or some third
party equivalent. Being hidden won't affect the user interface
behaviour, apart from where the application's icon appears in the task
switcher (hidden applications are listed last).

If the hidden application has a window open, there is a subtle
difference: clicking its Dock icon will make the application visible and
show the existing window, whereas an application with no windows open
would typically open a new window if you click on its Dock icon.

--
David Empson
dempson(a)actrix.gen.nz
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Mobile accounts in AD, any fixed duration?
Next: Used Car Sri Lanka