Just slide the adjustable bar over until it "snaps" into the place that fits only the icons themselves.
well, son of a... i had no idea.
you know, there was a day when i would chalk this up to the mac os' "discoverability," but i'm annoyed that there are things like this that, if i hadn't been lucky enough to hear about, i might never know.
mac rumors is reporting that there is indeed a 10.3.3 update that has been seeded.
Here it is from mac rumors:
Apple has seeded a new version of Mac OS X to developers. Seed 7F24 has been posted with major changes to "Graphics, OpenGL games, USB devices, printing, browsing networks, Cocoa applications".
Of most interest is the inclusion of Safari 1.2 (current released version is 1.1.1).
The newest version of Safari includes a number of significant improvements:
- Ability to "tab" to form elements (buttons, checkboxes, submit buttons)
- The option (on/off) to "tab" to hyperlinks
- Improved download manager with resume
- View dimensions of an image
- Custom cursor support
- Option to open links from applications "in a new tab in the current window"
Sounds like another substantial update with core service changes and fixes, though I wonder if Safari will simply be a separate SU download rather than bundled in with 10.3.3. Boot speed should definitely get a look from Apple. While it's not terrible on my G5, it is slower than the previous dot release.
The 10.3.3 (build 7F24) seed required 275MB of space on my Powerbook! And I know everything on my Albook was up to date before I installed this update. As it happens, the new version of Safari (1.2 v125) is indeed included with the 10.3.3 update. And the good news is that it no longer seems to be gobbling copious amounts of available memory! Yippie!
That's very good news, because at present the amount of RAM this thing eats is ridiculous for such basic functionality. One thing I don't get though, is why, on a machine with 2GB of RAM, Panther assigns so much virtual memory to so many processes. Hundreds of MB in some cases. Why?
No, seriously, tally up the total RAM use, and you'll see that it is more than 2GB. That VM amount is the *actual* amount of RAM that the application has requested. It gets paged in/out so cleanly that most of the time you'll never notice it.
No, seriously, tally up the total RAM use, and you'll see that it is more than 2GB.
Why would just the system itself (what I was running at the time of my last post) and a couple apps like Safari and iTunes for example, require more the 2GB of physical RAM?? It shouldn't be anywhere close to that, though I understand your point about smooth page-outs.
1) At some point in the past, you had >2GB of VM allocated. The VM isn't compacted as you quit applications. Restart the machine, log in again, start up Safari and iTunes, and see what all is being used then.
2) Safari cache. You can keep a lot o' crap in memory.
1) At some point in the past, you had >2GB of VM allocated. The VM isn't compacted as you quit applications.
This memory management system is something I find strange. Perhaps it would help performance, but I doubt, since it results to unnecessary generation of swap files, where the system often "forgets" some applications (according to circumstances) that would and could be populating the main memory for best performace. Add to that the fact that under Jaguar the swap files are generated in 80 MB chunks (I think Panther changed this). All that may easily leave you with more than 1 GB of real disk space taken by the swap system even when this is not necessary. Doesn't looks good to me.
Doesn't really matter, to be honest, disk space is cheap now.
And yes, Panther changed this... swapfile0 is 64MB, as is swapfile1. swapfiles larger than that double at each stage, so 2 is 128MB, 3 is 256MB, 4 is 512MB, and so on.
Dynamic libraries and frameworks are frequently shared across apps - even ones you haven't launched yet. It behooves the system (and you) if it keeps, say, the Cocoa framework sitting in VM rather than going and unfreezing it from disk every time an app launches.
Could it be compacted? In theory, sure. But then the next time you launched an app that needed a library that you *just* had in memory swap, well... you'd feel silly.
And yes, Panther changed this... swapfile0 is 64MB, as is swapfile1. swapfiles larger than that double at each stage, so 2 is 128MB, 3 is 256MB, 4 is 512MB, and so on.
At least this is something. It seems to me it would help somewhat the system performance, since, instead of having 8-10 swap files, you have now 3-4 only.
Quote:
Could it be compacted? In theory, sure.
How are Linux and other Unix systems in that respect?
Doesn't really matter, to be honest, disk space is cheap now.
You are right, it is not a serious issue with today's disk spaces. But "forgetting" an application in the swap files when there is already free available memory, is a big performance hit. I think the system sould be, following some kind of priority hierarchy, compact some VM and drag out of the swap files some applications, once physical memory becomes available. I am not suggesting to compact everytime all VM, but some portions of it that makes sense to, so that the most frequently accessed applications for example, be immediately in main memory when system usage makes that possible.
Comments
Originally posted by Brad
Yes, you CAN already do this.
Just slide the adjustable bar over until it "snaps" into the place that fits only the icons themselves.
well, son of a... i had no idea.
you know, there was a day when i would chalk this up to the mac os' "discoverability," but i'm annoyed that there are things like this that, if i hadn't been lucky enough to hear about, i might never know.
Originally posted by chilleymac
mac rumors is reporting that there is indeed a 10.3.3 update that has been seeded.
Here it is from mac rumors:
Apple has seeded a new version of Mac OS X to developers. Seed 7F24 has been posted with major changes to "Graphics, OpenGL games, USB devices, printing, browsing networks, Cocoa applications".
Of most interest is the inclusion of Safari 1.2 (current released version is 1.1.1).
The newest version of Safari includes a number of significant improvements:
- Ability to "tab" to form elements (buttons, checkboxes, submit buttons)
- The option (on/off) to "tab" to hyperlinks
- Improved download manager with resume
- View dimensions of an image
- Custom cursor support
- Option to open links from applications "in a new tab in the current window"
- Improved performance
Originally posted by tman
The newest version of Safari includes a number of significant improvements:
- Ability to "tab" to form elements (buttons, checkboxes, submit buttons)
- The option (on/off) to "tab" to hyperlinks
- Improved download manager with resume
- View dimensions of an image
- Custom cursor support
- Option to open links from applications "in a new tab in the current window"
- Improved performance
Still no print preview. How disappointing.
Originally posted by fred_lj
Anybody think an update will come where they'll offically offer support for third-party expansion bay CD-RW drives (for Pismo) in iTunes?
let's hope so, cuz i got a pismo, and i'd like that support
Originally posted by Aquatic
Do you now?!
yes kevin, i do!!!!!!
No, seriously, tally up the total RAM use, and you'll see that it is more than 2GB. That VM amount is the *actual* amount of RAM that the application has requested. It gets paged in/out so cleanly that most of the time you'll never notice it.
Originally posted by Kickaha
No, seriously, tally up the total RAM use, and you'll see that it is more than 2GB.
Why would just the system itself (what I was running at the time of my last post) and a couple apps like Safari and iTunes for example, require more the 2GB of physical RAM?? It shouldn't be anywhere close to that, though I understand your point about smooth page-outs.
1) At some point in the past, you had >2GB of VM allocated. The VM isn't compacted as you quit applications. Restart the machine, log in again, start up Safari and iTunes, and see what all is being used then.
2) Safari cache. You can keep a lot o' crap in memory.
3) It's a bug, Dave.
Originally posted by Frank777
Still no print preview. How disappointing.
Huh? The "File -> Print -> Preview" method works fine for me.
Originally posted by Kickaha
A few reasons:
1) At some point in the past, you had >2GB of VM allocated. The VM isn't compacted as you quit applications.
This memory management system is something I find strange. Perhaps it would help performance, but I doubt, since it results to unnecessary generation of swap files, where the system often "forgets" some applications (according to circumstances) that would and could be populating the main memory for best performace. Add to that the fact that under Jaguar the swap files are generated in 80 MB chunks (I think Panther changed this). All that may easily leave you with more than 1 GB of real disk space taken by the swap system even when this is not necessary. Doesn't looks good to me.
And yes, Panther changed this... swapfile0 is 64MB, as is swapfile1. swapfiles larger than that double at each stage, so 2 is 128MB, 3 is 256MB, 4 is 512MB, and so on.
Dynamic libraries and frameworks are frequently shared across apps - even ones you haven't launched yet. It behooves the system (and you) if it keeps, say, the Cocoa framework sitting in VM rather than going and unfreezing it from disk every time an app launches.
Could it be compacted? In theory, sure. But then the next time you launched an app that needed a library that you *just* had in memory swap, well... you'd feel silly.
Originally posted by Kickaha
And yes, Panther changed this... swapfile0 is 64MB, as is swapfile1. swapfiles larger than that double at each stage, so 2 is 128MB, 3 is 256MB, 4 is 512MB, and so on.
At least this is something. It seems to me it would help somewhat the system performance, since, instead of having 8-10 swap files, you have now 3-4 only.
Could it be compacted? In theory, sure.
How are Linux and other Unix systems in that respect?
Originally posted by Kickaha
Doesn't really matter, to be honest, disk space is cheap now.
You are right, it is not a serious issue with today's disk spaces. But "forgetting" an application in the swap files when there is already free available memory, is a big performance hit. I think the system sould be, following some kind of priority hierarchy, compact some VM and drag out of the swap files some applications, once physical memory becomes available. I am not suggesting to compact everytime all VM, but some portions of it that makes sense to, so that the most frequently accessed applications for example, be immediately in main memory when system usage makes that possible.