[rambo47]

Wow! This is getting out of hand. My normal RAM usage is in the low 60 MB range, but when I open apps the Finder's RAM usage goes through the roof. Check this out:


------------------
"There is no spoon."
iDisk: rseijas
Homepage: homepage.mac.com/rseijas

[Gregory]

Or.... Why to not use Microsoft Office 2001???

I have the Disk Cache set to 16MB and use 68MB - also with VM off. The default for 9.0/9.1 is like 8MB Disk Cache.

You've got 2x the RAM I have and it would seem that while I agree with giving Microsoft apps lots of memory (I have defaults at 64/32 for IE and 22/11 for OE) it seems that what matters - if this is about 9.1 - is what it uses at startup and how it compares using IE/Entourage if those change.

And then, so what? you have the ram, you've showed us your system is probably fully loaded (sortof like 4 duces and a hemi 425 was 35 years ago).

Do you have 15k Cheetahs on dual Ultra 160's? Boots in under 10 seconds?

I think 9.1 is a step in the right direction that 9.5 will take a step further (and 9.2 between now and then and maybe 9.1.1 also).

You can create a RAM Disk > 256MB now, which was all 9.0 allowed ;(

I thought this was going to be one of those 5-10MB more of (limited) 128MB systems and the "cost" in memory ($2-5) to have better performance.

I'm sure 9.5 will use even more, and that OS X will gladly use real memory to improve performance and reduce dependence on VM swap files taking a hit once they are created.

Gregory

[Jsnuff1]

why the hell you complaining, hehe u got 1 gig of ram, wish i had that much

[Fredo]

The more RAM you have, the more the OS uses.

[sushu]

Originally posted by Gregory:
I think 9.1 is a step in the right direction that 9.5 will take a step further (and 9.2 between now and then and maybe 9.1.1 also).

Everybody is saying this was Apple's last update to the classic MacOS. Also I don't think it would make sense if they would release another update since X is just weeks away from being shipped. 9.1 has made 9.x stable, fast, simply awesome. It will be the default classic environment in X and the alternative for users who don't switch because it provides an excellent basis for Carbon and X compatibility.

merci apple

[This message has been edited by sushu (edited 01-21-2001).]

[Gregory]

Originally there was suppose to be a 9.5 last summer. Features that were suppose to make it into 9.1 didn't in order to focus on getting something stable and ready they had to cut back. And thanks to 5x the feedback and users buying OS XPB they had tons of feedback to go through, $250k income, and realized how much interest and hard work had to get done to get OS X ready.

There are enough bugs in 9.1 to require updates to fix it. And OT 3.0 will be a major improvement. OS X may ship a "1.0" but that is a marker, and to kick start developers and others holding off shipping or finalizing drivers and software. Expect OS X 1.1 to be the 'real' version you'll want to have and that will have more complete support.

Apple wants OS 9 to deal with all non-OS X hardware and users. And they need that.

OS 9 is end, but 9.1 definitely is not the last release and was never so stated, anywhere.

[b]Everybody is saying this was Apple's last update to the classic MacOS[/b/]

Everybody as in....? MacWeek? posted on Apple's Hot News? TIL? AppleInsider? And they are all saying "jump" too. Or jump to OS X. Quark won't have an OS X version, only Classic/Carbon compatible.

CarbonLib 1.3 isn't out. The 9.1 CD I got last week is already superceeded by updates.

After OS X is out, I think we'll see updates to OS 9 and Classic to improve both.

QuickTime 5 is still "Preview" and there are other features that are at incomplete stages of development to enahnce the Mac OS experience under OS 9/Classic.

Gregory

[Fred CHOTTIN]

I was first afraid of the RAM print before jumping to OS 9.1 as i have only 64M RAM (extended to 128M with VM) on my iMac rev.B. I was cautious enough to copy my previous system system file as i knew that, with OS 9.1, you can boot on any system on your hard disk even without partition (this is great). So when i upgrade, i was happy to find that there is only 2M more RAM needed (that's 28 M) but it is more stable in use. On 9.04, after some use, RAM use was getting greater and greater, so on the long run OS 9.1 is memory savy(i can keep my iMac on for several weeks as it crunches SETI at night)
I am very happy with it, more responsive and stable.
The only problem i have so far is colors in Alpha Centauri. For Epson and Umax drivers i have no problems at all since both devices are switched on only after i start the computer.
I am waiting a couple of weeks more before putting to the trash my old system copy to get 200 M free on my small 4 G HD.(but as it goes, i will do it)

------------------
Fight against the Dark Force (Microsoft)

[bunge]

> You can create a RAM Disk > 256MB now, which was all 9.0 allowed ;(

Gregory, how do you do this?