Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

pwolfe1 · Oct 21, 2003, 12:51 PM

Why is it that at first boot, I have used only 115 megs of ram, but 4 hours later, even if I close all running prograns that number is at almost 300? Why does OSX not reclaim that memory? I'm coming from linux where when I close an app, I recover that memory. It seems no matter what I do, I always have to rebot after about 4-5 hours. Am I doing something wrong here? Is there any way to solve this short of going in there and cracking the kernel open and performing surgery? And yes, I am closing the application completely, not just cicking the X in the upper-left hand corner...

JLL · Oct 21, 2003, 12:55 PM

Where are you lookin? Active is what counts - not used.

Developer · Oct 21, 2003, 12:58 PM

Free memory is wasted memory.

superlarry · Oct 21, 2003, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by Developer:
Free memory is wasted memory.

yeah, OSX and all the BSD's (i'm pretty sure) use this memory scheme, where they put as much stuff into RAM as possible because RAM is way fast compared to accessing from the hard drive. it'll take stuff out of RAM if it has to, don't worry. lots of people (most?) will say that this is the most efficient memory scheme. the other people are linux people :c) but i'd rather have the stuff i use often cached and ready to go.

Ganesha · Oct 21, 2003, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Developer:
Free memory is wasted memory.

They should change the output of top from:

PhysMem: 69.2M wired, 120M active, 217M inactive, 406M used, 234M free

to

PhysMem: 69.2 M wired, 120M active, 217M inactive, 406M allocated, 234M wasted

ZackS · Oct 21, 2003, 01:27 PM

Agreed.

Hydra · Oct 21, 2003, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by ZackS:
Agreed.

Why do people go out and buy gobbs of memory? Just so you can see a big unused number in TOP? Right now I have 2.5 GB in my G5 and "only " have 594MB free and 1300 MB Inactive. I can't remember the last time I had the HD grind away swapping. As I see it I still need to use up another 594MB to get my money's worth

-Jerry C.

WombatPredator · Oct 21, 2003, 02:03 PM

I find the way OS X manages memory very elegant. Only do things when you need to. Give the user a good chance that things are still in the cache so you get better responsiveness.

It's all good, really (unless you have OCD and need to see cycles spent flushing all that RAM when it's not in use).

nforcer · Oct 21, 2003, 02:13 PM

As I understand things correctly, Wired memory is memory being used by the core processes of the system, and cannot be reclaimed. Active memory is memory being used by user processes (primarily applications). Inactive memory is memory that was once active, but is now up for grabs should anything need it (OS X is "lazy" with it's memory management and does not de-associate it until needed). And free memory is "unassociated" memory that can be used at any time.

Wired + Active + Inactive + Free = the amount of RAM your computer has. The total memory being used at any given time is Wired + Active memory. And the amount of unused memory is Inactive + Free memory.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, and I would love to be explained exactly why applications that take up 5 MB of "real memory" (RSize column in the top process, is this the actual actual RAM consumption by the app?) can take upwards of 100 MB of "virtual memory" (VSize column in the top process? Why is so much needed and where is it taken from?)

nforcer · Oct 21, 2003, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Hydra:
Why do people go out and buy gobbs of memory? Just so you can see a big unused number in TOP? Right now I have 2.5 GB in my G5 and "only " have 594MB free and 1300 MB Inactive. I can't remember the last time I had the HD grind away swapping. As I see it I still need to use up another 594MB to get my money's worth

-Jerry C.

This is something I've wondered about myself. There seems to be an idea that if you throw RAM at something, you'll always make it run faster, and that simply isn't the case. Every situation needs to be analyzed carely, before determining if RAM will help prevent swapping and speed things up. There's no need to have a gigabyte of RAM if one is only going to use 256 MB worth under the most stressful of situations. It seems few users actually examine the top process and see how much free memory they have under a heavy workload. Newer Macs with 512 MB of RAM and more, currently have more than enough RAM for what most people use their computers for (unless they do super-gosu graphics and video stuff). Older Macs are burdened when they run OS X not only because they have a slower system components, but because they have little RAM to begin with, and they are the systems that tend to benefit more from RAM upgrades, for the reason that it eliminates frequent swapping to their already slow hard drives.

But I guess I shouldn't be complaining, since users who unnecessarily buy RAM have also helped to drive RAM prices down, somewhat, making it easier for me to have more of something I'll use

3.1416 · Oct 21, 2003, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by nforcer:
Someone correct me if I am wrong, and I would love to be explained exactly why applications that take up 5 MB of "real memory" (RSize column in the top process, is this the actual actual RAM consumption by the app?) can take upwards of 100 MB of "virtual memory" (VSize column in the top process? Why is so much needed and where is it taken from?)

VSIZE isn't really meaningful, because it includes all shared libraries that the application is using, like Cocoa and/or Carbon. Each of these libraries is only loaded once into memory, but its size is included in the VSIZE of every app that uses it.

Hop Pocket · Oct 21, 2003, 04:36 PM

Well, to make things easier, you could set the free and inactive memory in Activity Monitor to display in the same color:

parsec_kadets · Oct 21, 2003, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by pwolfe1:
Why is it that at first boot, I have used only 115 megs of ram, but 4 hours later, even if I close all running prograns that number is at almost 300? Why does OSX not reclaim that memory? I'm coming from linux where when I close an app, I recover that memory. It seems no matter what I do, I always have to rebot after about 4-5 hours. Am I doing something wrong here? Is there any way to solve this short of going in there and cracking the kernel open and performing surgery? And yes, I am closing the application completely, not just cicking the X in the upper-left hand corner...

Why is it that you proclaim from the roof tops that the memory management "blows" when you don't understand the memory management in OS X? Instead of just complaining (and loudly I might add) why don't you try to educate yourself first? Not everything is like Linux.

I should cut you some slack though. You're not the first one to fall into this trap, and I doubt you'll be the last. I really think Apple should add some info on this into the help file.

ThisGuy · Oct 21, 2003, 08:17 PM

i have noticed that on my 12" powerbook (384 MB RAM) i can NEVER go below 112 MB of free ram. i have no idea why. i can open up every sigle app that i have and it will not go below 112 MB. on my G4 tower (1.5 GB RAM) i can go down to about 30-40 MB.

King Bob On The Cob · Oct 21, 2003, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by ThisGuy:
i have noticed that on my 12" powerbook (384 MB RAM) i can NEVER go below 112 MB of free ram. i have no idea why. i can open up every sigle app that i have and it will not go below 112 MB. on my G4 tower (1.5 GB RAM) i can go down to about 30-40 MB.

Do something with all those Apps and it will. (Burn a CD, Encode a DVD, surf the web, and read E-Mail.)
(OS X is writing stuff you aren't using out to cache and as you open more stuff, it will write more out to cache to maake sure that the top most program will always have availible memory.

ThisGuy · Oct 21, 2003, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by King Bob On The Cob:
Do something with all those Apps and it will. (Burn a CD, Encode a DVD, surf the web, and read E-Mail.)
(OS X is writing stuff you aren't using out to cache and as you open more stuff, it will write more out to cache to maake sure that the top most program will always have availible memory.

even if i do some of those things it still won't go below 112 MB. (minus encoding a DVD)

wataru · Oct 21, 2003, 10:43 PM

Originally posted by 3.1416:
VSIZE isn't really meaningful, because it includes all shared libraries that the application is using, like Cocoa and/or Carbon. Each of these libraries is only loaded once into memory, but its size is included in the VSIZE of every app that uses it.

I always wondered about that. Thanks for the info!

absmiths · Oct 21, 2003, 11:47 PM

Originally posted by parsec_kadets:
Why is it that you proclaim from the roof tops that the memory management "blows" when you don't understand the memory management in OS X? Instead of just complaining (and loudly I might add) why don't you try to educate yourself first? Not everything is like Linux.

I second that. It is typically arrogant of some new Mac user, switched from another platform (including Mac OS 9, BTW) to jump to some conclusion that Mac OS X must SUCK!! because they don't understand how it works. Pretty pathetic, but predicatble.

DannyVTim · Oct 22, 2003, 08:08 AM

The original poster and never responeded. I think he's trolling.

Hop Pocket · Oct 22, 2003, 08:16 AM

Here's the deal guys --> The memory management information that is exposed through Activity Monitor and the base UNIX OS is very un-mac like, and by that I mean very unintuitive.

Granted, generally mac users will not be to worried about the RAM usage at runtime with OSX, and will instead generally be concerned with how much is installed (i.e. In order for me to run everything smoothly, I generally need 1-1.5 GB of ram).

Apple should wrap this information in a manner that is digestible to those who don't have the technical background to understand these numbers.

HP

Spheric Harlot · Oct 22, 2003, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by Hop Pocket:
Here's the deal guys --> The memory management information that is exposed through Activity Monitor and the base UNIX OS is very un-mac like, and by that I mean very unintuitive.

As opposed to what? OS9?

Originally posted by Hop Pocket:
Apple should wrap this information in a manner that is digestible to those who don't have the technical background to understand these numbers.

Agreed.

-s*

Horsepoo!!! · Oct 22, 2003, 08:38 AM

Originally posted by DannyVTim:
The original poster and never responeded. I think he's trolling.

Yup, looks to me like it was a post-and-run. Or drive-by posting.

Might as well just close or ignore the thread because the original poster isn't interested at all in answers.

LightWaver-67 · Oct 22, 2003, 08:38 AM

Bottom line, for me:

Regardless of what the "Numbers" say on any readout... the ACTUAL handling of memory on my machine has made the OSX experience the greatest. I don't give a rat's-a-hole HOW it allocates the memory, as long as it is used where necessary, when necessary... and so-far... I have had NO issues with apps slowing-down due to memory management.

From what I understand, OSX is NOTHING like OS9 in how it deals with memory. It's not like the "old days" where it needs to reclaim memory in order for other apps to function... in OSX, whatever needs it... GETS it... period. Who cares if it's all allocated...? That's a GOOD thing... it means it's all being UTILIZED to make things more efficient.

Am I wrong here...?

Hop Pocket · Oct 22, 2003, 08:40 AM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
As opposed to what? OS9?

Well, OS9 did not really make sense to me, as the paradigm of having the user allocate memory to processes made no sense to me at all.

So, the answer might be as opposed to nothing in general.

Hop Pocket · Oct 22, 2003, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by LightWaver-67:
Bottom line, for me:

Regardless of what the "Numbers" say on any readout... the ACTUAL handling of memory on my machine has made the OSX experience the greatest. I don't give a rat's-a-hole HOW it allocates the memory, as long as it is used where necessary, when necessary... and so-far... I have had NO issues with apps slowing-down due to memory management.

From what I understand, OSX is NOTHING like OS9 in how it deals with memory. It's not like the "old days" where it needs to reclaim memory in order for other apps to function... in OSX, whatever needs it... GETS it... period. Who cares if it's all allocated...? That's a GOOD thing... it means it's all being UTILIZED to make things more efficient.

Am I wrong here...?

OSX memory management is clearly superior to that of OS9. One thing that people should keep in mind, is that when OSX 'gets' the RAM, if there is no free RAM, the RAM allocated to some other processes gets written out to the hard disk, creating quite the processing bottleneck (in the scenario where there is no more free physical RAM available).

pwolfe1 · Oct 22, 2003, 09:31 AM

Jeez people, I never meant to start a religeous debate here! The post was worded and titled to get some people in here and help me understand it. I think it succeeded admirably. I now understand a hell of a lot more than I did before. I'm sorry I offended all you softies that think I was trolling, but for gods sake, I made the post yesterday and haven't a chance to log in until today.

THANK YOU to all those that genuinely tried to help me understand. I appreciate it.

pwolfe1 · Oct 22, 2003, 09:36 AM

and just as a side note, regardless of caching my memory or not, how would one clear that cache out? Say for instance for whatever reason, you did not care for the way it leaves everything cached even after you close the app. Regardless of that, for my personal user preference, I want it to return a state akin to a fresh reboot when I walk away from it for the night. If I close all the apps, I want to reclaim that memory without a reboot. I'd rather walk up to the computer and see I have 300megs free than see 100megs free and no active processes.

May be I'm a fool, but that just makes more sense to me.

absmiths · Oct 22, 2003, 10:12 AM

Originally posted by pwolfe1:
and just as a side note, regardless of caching my memory or not, how would one clear that cache out? Say for instance for whatever reason, you did not care for the way it leaves everything cached even after you close the app. Regardless of that, for my personal user preference, I want it to return a state akin to a fresh reboot when I walk away from it for the night. If I close all the apps, I want to reclaim that memory without a reboot. I'd rather walk up to the computer and see I have 300megs free than see 100megs free and no active processes.

May be I'm a fool, but that just makes more sense to me.

Well, a machine will never be in the state it was just after boot. Memory gets fragmented, process ID's get used up, etc., etc. Don't worry about it. Do you get upset about how your engine distributes it's oil? As long as it runs smoothly, who cares?

My linux machine here with an uptime of 29 days shows this for it's memory usage: 512524k av, 476096k used, 36428k free

Only 36 Meg free and the system has been completely idle since yesterday!

For what it's worth, here is what it looks like just after boot: 512524k av, 57572k used, 454952k free

So even linux behaves this way.

DannyVTim · Oct 22, 2003, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by pwolfe1:
Jeez people, I never meant to start a religeous debate here! The post was worded and titled to get some people in here and help me understand it. I think it succeeded admirably. I now understand a hell of a lot more than I did before. I'm sorry I offended all you softies that think I was trolling, but for gods sake, I made the post yesterday and haven't a chance to log in until today.

THANK YOU to all those that genuinely tried to help me understand. I appreciate it.

Titled to get people in here? Please. Us softies aren't stupid.

pwolfe1 · Oct 22, 2003, 10:50 AM

good god people, I just tried to make a catchy title. I feel like I've made some horrible crime against the internet community. sorry I asked in the first place.

Hop Pocket · Oct 22, 2003, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by pwolfe1:
good god people, I just tried to make a catchy title. I feel like I've made some horrible crime against the internet community. sorry I asked in the first place.

Pwolfe1 -- don't sweat it. MacNN is great, but you cannot be overly critical of Apple in these forums because of the knee-jerk tendency on the part of some to dismiss it outright.

Don't be sorry you asked. I want to see more threads that are critical of Apple because I end up learning a lot, once the information has been sifted through. Otherwise, it digresses into I heart Apple this and that which gets old.

SMacTech · Oct 22, 2003, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by pwolfe1:
If I close all the apps, I want to reclaim that memory without a reboot. I'd rather walk up to the computer and see I have 300megs free than see 100megs free and no active processes.

May be I'm a fool, but that just makes more sense to me.

I don't understand why you need to see free memory. You would rather that the programs you run daily be loaded off your hard drive instead of coming from RAM?
Why not just reboot your computer then and get everything you want out of RAM?

chris v · 11:41 AM

Originally posted by pwolfe1:
If I close all the apps, I want to reclaim that memory without a reboot. I'd rather walk up to the computer and see I have 300megs free than see 100megs free and no active processes.

May be I'm a fool, but that just makes more sense to me.

The point is, the OS will reclaim that inactive memory for you automatically as soon as a new app needs it. there's no need to manually "clear" the memory in OS X, like there was in 9. inactive is essentially the same thing as free, except the system is holding on to it in case you use the same app again, thus speeding things up a bit, say if you quit Photoshop, then five minutes later, relaunch it. If you quit Photoshop, then five minutes late, launch inDesign, the OS will assign that "inactive" memory left over to inDesign automatically.

It's a whole new paradigm.

Edit: my uptime is 40+ days, and here's my RAM stats, from top: 115M wired, 332M active, 852M inactive, 1.27G used, 237M free. My newest swapfile (pageout to hard-disk) is dated 10/1/03. Not too shabby.

CV

pwolfe1 · Oct 22, 2003, 11:48 AM

Thank you chris v. that is the best explanation I have heard. so if it came down to it, the OS would take one of those apps out of its dormant state if the need arose? I still don't get why it reports usage the way that it does. I end up with tons of running applications at the same time, and just don't like seeing the memory usage reported as it is. Its hard for me to get a bearin on how bad I'm throttling the system. its just something new to me and I'm trying to understand it.

SomeToast · Oct 22, 2003, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by pwolfe1:
good god people, I just tried to make a catchy title.

I'm sure that "A question on OS X memory management" would have still gotten people in the door.

chris v · Oct 22, 2003, 12:09 PM

Keep a tab on your swapfiles, if you feel like you're maxed out on RAM. The system will write a 72 MB virtual memory file whenever it runs out of RAM. When it uses that 72 MB, it'll write another. More than 3 or 4 swapfiles means something's gone wrong, and you've got some sort of memory leak, or app hogging your RAM.

The folder that contains them is hidden, but you can view it by using Finder>Go>Go to folder... and entering /private/var/vm

I added that to my favorites, so I don't have to type it over every time I want to check.

CV

ihobson · Oct 22, 2003, 02:15 PM

I have read this thread and I think there is a very valid question here. Yes OS X is way better than OS9 and we can run for days and days. However, on a Powerbook I definitely notice a point is reached when the fan starts coming on a lot even when I'm not doing much. If I look at my free memory it's not very much. Even if I quit all processes, I'm still left with a lot of active and inactive memory, and the fan will still come on. A reboot fixes this. My guess is that there are some apps which do have memory leaks, and that this memory cannot be reclaimed even after the application is quit. Only a reboot will clear this out.
I have not witnessed performance degrading, but this situation with fan does cause battery drain to be quite a lot faster.
I only use standard apps - Office v.X, Safari, Mail, iCal etc, so it is in one or more of these (or the OS itself).

Brass · Oct 22, 2003, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by ihobson:
I have read this thread and I think there is a very valid question here. Yes OS X is way better than OS9 and we can run for days and days. However, on a Powerbook I definitely notice a point is reached when the fan starts coming on a lot even when I'm not doing much. If I look at my free memory it's not very much. Even if I quit all processes, I'm still left with a lot of active and inactive memory, and the fan will still come on. A reboot fixes this. My guess is that there are some apps which do have memory leaks, and that this memory cannot be reclaimed even after the application is quit. Only a reboot will clear this out.
I have not witnessed performance degrading, but this situation with fan does cause battery drain to be quite a lot faster.
I only use standard apps - Office v.X, Safari, Mail, iCal etc, so it is in one or more of these (or the OS itself).

If an application has a memory leak, and you quit that application, the memory WILL be reclaimed by the system. Memory leaks are only a problem while the leaky application is running.

Groovy · Oct 22, 2003, 05:15 PM

Originally posted by Ganesha:
They should change the output of top from:

PhysMem: 69.2M wired, 120M active, 217M inactive, 406M used, 234M free

to

PhysMem: 69.2 M wired, 120M active, 217M inactive, 406M allocated, 234M wasted

LOL exactly! I use XP at work and it caches like crap so it always hits the HDs. It is so crazy to see 500+ megs free and XP just will not cache into it and hit the disk over and over.

Groovy · Oct 22, 2003, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by Hop Pocket:
you cannot be overly critical of Apple in these forums because of the knee-jerk tendency on the part of some to dismiss it outright.

You must be kidding. IMHO you are way off and we trash
apple all the time when they deserve it.

Look at the subject title of this thread. What did he expect by using

"OSX memory management blows!"

Then going on a clueless rant?

What is worse he admitted he titled it that to provoke a response then
complains when he gets one at the level of his title and rant.

he should have titled it

"Does OSX memory management blow?"

He didn't and he got exactly the response he knew he would get by
wording it like that and using an exclamation point to top it off

Hop Pocket · Oct 22, 2003, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by Groovy:
You must be kidding. IMHO you are way off and we trash
apple all the time when they deserve it.

Look at the subject title of this thread. What did he expect by using

"OSX memory management blows!"

Then going on a clueless rant?

What is worse he admitted he titled it that to provoke a response then
complains when he gets one at the level of his title and rant.

he should have titled it

"Does OSX memory management blow?"

He didn't and he got exactly the response he knew he would get by
wording it like that and using an exclamation point to top it off

Ok, I can understand what you are trying to say, and I agree with you that the OP should have worded his post more thoughtfully, but I stand by my statement in general.

Of course, it IS a Mac forum, and some of that is of course to be expected, as it would be with any fan site.

CatOne · Oct 22, 2003, 06:24 PM

Originally posted by pwolfe1:
and just as a side note, regardless of caching my memory or not, how would one clear that cache out? Say for instance for whatever reason, you did not care for the way it leaves everything cached even after you close the app. Regardless of that, for my personal user preference, I want it to return a state akin to a fresh reboot when I walk away from it for the night. If I close all the apps, I want to reclaim that memory without a reboot. I'd rather walk up to the computer and see I have 300megs free than see 100megs free and no active processes.

May be I'm a fool, but that just makes more sense to me.

If you run the cron jobs it will clear it out.

Do 'sudo periodic daily weekly monthly" and enter your (admin) password. This will rotate the logs, re-build the locate database, and a bunch of things. This will flush all the unused RAM and make it "look" like you have more free space.

If you don't want to do this from the terminal, MacJanitor does the same thing from a GUI.

pwolfe1 · Oct 23, 2003, 12:53 AM

thanks CatOne, the CLI will be fine.

LightWaver-67 · 07:31 AM

Originally posted by pwolfe1:
good god people, I just tried to make a catchy title. I feel like I've made some horrible crime against the internet community. sorry I asked in the first place.

Oh, C'mon now...

If you're gonna bash Apple, do it... If you're gonna troll, do it... If you just want to vent, do it... but don't try to back-pedal like that.

If you put 2 + 2 together, anyone can clearly see that at the time, you meant what you said... no biggie! But don't come back after the fact and try to say: "Aw c'mon, I was just kidding" or that it was just tongue-in-cheek. Stand your ground. A lot of us... myself included... have ranted about something incorrectly in here. If you feel you were right... state your case. If you feel you were wrong... admit it and move-on... but don't cave and say that people were misundersatnding your "OSX Memory Management Blows!" title, and that it was just something "catchy".

Standing on the fence is a crime far-worse than jumping to the wrong side.

----

Correction: I just re-read your initial question and it, on it's own, is not inflamitory... I think when you preface a legitimate question, with an inflamatory and incorrect assesment using a sweeping generalization... some people (again, myself included) will marry a "tone" or inflection to the words that appear.

As I advised to you, I will aslo conceed, I was wrong.

pwolfe1 · Oct 23, 2003, 08:47 AM

you guys ever feel like you're beating a dead horse? this post was not meant to vent, bash apple, troll, or start a "my OS is better than your OS thread." I had some genuine questions about OSX memory management, and selected the words I did for a reason. I have made no recants, I just didn't think I would need to don a flame suit

Can we move past that?

LightWaver-67 · Oct 23, 2003, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by pwolfe1:
I have made no recants, I just didn't think I would need to don a flame suit

Can we move past that?

Nope!

no... you're right about it going off-topic... so to swing it back around... and restate my earlier position, In my experience... Mac OSX's memory management and usage... REGARDLESS of what the statistics show in the about box... has never been an issue. Everything just gets what it needs when it's needed and it tries to use as MUCH as it can whenever it can to make things faster by keeping certain data in RAM, and flushing it when something ELSE needs it.

I'd RATHER see 1.4GB of 1.5 GB Installed memory used. It means I'm getting my money's worth. It'd suck to have 1.5 GB of ram and see only 735 MB in use constantly (or some other rediculously low number).

cowerd · Oct 23, 2003, 10:05 AM

I had some genuine questions about OSX memory management, and selected the words I did for a reason. I have made no recants, I just didn't think I would need to don a flame suit

Try looking at the title of thread and if you can't figure out why you got flamed, then take an ESL course.

cdhostage · Oct 23, 2003, 11:59 AM

I only know about the faster feel of my system going from 256 MB to 512 MB to 640 MB to 1024 MB. I tried all with my Pismo when I got two 512 MB sticks. It may have been that the newer non-Apple memory was of higher quality; I don't know. In any case, with everything else the same, the time to start OS X after the memory test decreased by about 5 seconds going from 256 to 512, and another 3 from 512 to 640. No difference in startup between 640 and 1024. Of course, the memory test before the actual OS starts up is longer with more memory

Having Mail, Safari, QuickTime Player, iTunes, PS, and Dreamweaver all at my beck and call (all open and hidden) and able to work at a moment's notice is very useful for me.
Performance-wise it only gets better with more RAM. I've never worked with a G5, haven't seen one in the.. aluminum, so I don't know if there's any difference

pwolfe1 · Nov 11, 2003, 12:20 AM

UPDATE:

I have not had the same problems with panther at all. When I completely close an app, any monitoring program instantly shows that memory as reclaimed and unallocated...free. well, thats what I wanted.