Prev: Google-analytics optout
Next: Time Machine Error.
From: George Kerby on 26 May 2010 09:59



On 5/26/10 7:58 AM, in article
9cfdd3f0-eea7-4ecb-a2fa-ce8c02a508bd(a)a16g2000vbr.googlegroups.com,
"frankenstein" <klohmuschel(a)yahoo.de> wrote:

>
> Not sure, though, did I miss something here

Yes you did. It's called cranial matter...

From: frankenstein on 26 May 2010 11:50
On May 26, 4:27 pm, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
> In article <70fa808a-8690-42d6-acb5-a72efb80a...(a)q23g2000vba.googlegroups..com>, frankenstein <klohmusc...(a)yahoo.de> writes:


> I have an iMac (24" circa 2007) in the bedroom which doubles as the TV in
> the evening.  It has only 2GB of memory and works like a charm.  Besides,
> there's nothing worthwhile broadcast on TV.  You're probably much better
> off if you can't watch it.  Take the spare time and learn to use your Mac
> and OSX. ;)

Please could you be more specific here. What software do you use
watching TV? As already said I use a plug-in to watch TV within
Safari.


> Therefore, the only conclusion, Frankenstein, is that your brain is Abby-
> Normal or you are simply a WEENDOZE teet-sucking troll.

The problem is I have no direct easy comparison handy since haven't
used Windows for 15 years (only using Mac starting with Mac OS 6 or 7
and Unix/Linux) and use my Linux desktop machine for scientific work
only. So I have got no idea whether Windows would chuck at the
particular tv/radio stations too. All I could do installing Windows
through bootcamp and check it out.

Guess what there would be no point in setting up Linux for doing
multi media stuff because Linux is even more shitty than Mac OS X when
it comes to multi media.

So it is really in my interest to find a way listening/watching tv
without spilling my main memory. Could be due to my Abby-Normal brain
but I think it is not unreasonable to expect from Mac OS X doing well
on new media stuff. If it fails at that level chore what else is left
where it would shine (no chance to win as a scientific programming
platform here, sorry)?



From: Rick Jones on 26 May 2010 18:41
What limits, if any does OSX place on how much of memory can be
consumed by file cache if nothing else is demanding memory?

As I understand it, Linux (OK, perhaps that is an OTMNBN (Os That Must
Not Be Named) :) will quite happily allow the filecache to consume all
the otherwise free memory on the system. The premis was/is that if
nothing else is asking for the memory, might as well cache the files
on the off chance there will be another access. If an application
actually wanted more memory, it would reclaim some of the filecache.
Makes the system look like all the "free" memory is gone, but it isn't
really under serious memory pressure. Did/does confuse a lot of
people though.

It would also allow - at least ages ago - the contents of any one file
to consume great gobs of cache and cast other things out via LRU -
something I had to get a web browser to work around it by making some
"posix_fadvise()" calls to tell the system it was not interested in
keeping parts of the log cached... so they wouldn't cast URLs out of
the cache. So, what limits does OSX place on file cache?

rick jones
--
firebug n, the idiot who tosses a lit cigarette out his car window
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
From: Tim McNamara on 26 May 2010 19:00
In article
<9cfdd3f0-eea7-4ecb-a2fa-ce8c02a508bd(a)a16g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
frankenstein <klohmuschel(a)yahoo.de> wrote:

> I am using the "Flash Player" plug in.

Here's your problem.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Google-analytics optout
Next: Time Machine Error.