PDA

View Full Version : Mavericks and RAM


Valkyre
Jun 11, 2013, 02:58 AM
So to the people who have installed Mavericks, what is your impression regarding RAM usage and such?

I know it is a BETA still and there is a lot of work to be done, but are the Mavericks more RAM hungry than ML or are they looking to require less ram, have less memory leaks etc?

They said that safari will not be as memory hog as it was in ML.

Please give us your impressions. ;)

leman
Jun 11, 2013, 03:31 AM
My impressions: 10.9 seems to use the free RAM more aggressively for caches. Overall the system seems more responsive. Safari definitively uses less RAM. Funnily enough, kernel_task uses 0 (zero) RAM at my system, no idea if its a bug or a feature ^^

I also tried starting some very memory-intensive calculations just to see how the system responds under such circumstances. The RAM compression feature is just amazing. My script quickly grabbed over 17GB of RAM, but the swap area remained under 1GB and the system was still responsive (I could switch to Safari, open new tabs, navigate the Finder, even write some of this message) - of course slower, but still really responsible.

Overall conclusion: They seem to have made some massive changes to the RAM system.. and it appears to work quite well. I really like the new Activity Monitor btw!

Bear
Jun 11, 2013, 07:31 AM
As a side note, the recent security update for 10.7.5 seemed to have some changes around memory that improved performance. I expect what is in Mavericks is more of the same and a good thing.

w0lf
Jun 11, 2013, 09:32 AM
Funnily enough, kernel_task uses 0 (zero) RAM at my system, no idea if its a bug or a feature.


If you show real memory it uses pretty much the exact same amount of ram as ML. 677.9MB for me right now.

Overall conclusion: They seem to have made some massive changes to the RAM system.. and it appears to work quite well. I really like the new Activity Monitor btw!

Hard for me to say with only a few hours use but I will agree that it definitely appears to have improved memory usage/handling over ML.

Dalton63841
Jun 11, 2013, 09:39 AM
Here's what I have going on with a mid-2009 13" MBP. When I took this screenshot I was running TextWrangler, Mail, iTunes, Safari open with 6 tabs, and Quicktime X playing a 1080p movie.

leman
Jun 11, 2013, 10:00 AM
If you show real memory it uses pretty much the exact same amount of ram as ML. 677.9MB for me right now.



Hm, what is the difference between 'real memory' and 'memory'? I assume that 'real memory' is the amount of memory allocated by the process and 'memory' is the amount physical RAM currently mapped to it?

Edit: no, it appears that 'real memory' is actually the amount of physical RAM in use. But what is 'memory', then? :confused:

w0lf
Jun 11, 2013, 10:17 AM
Hm, what is the difference between 'real memory' and 'memory'? I assume that 'real memory' is the amount of memory allocated by the process and 'memory' is the amount physical RAM currently mapped to it?

Edit: no, it appears that 'real memory' is actually the amount of physical RAM in use. But what is 'memory', then? :confused:

I really have no idea what the memory column is supposed to indicate but here they are side by side:

http://i.imgur.com/LpqiJZF.png

JohnDoe98
Jun 11, 2013, 01:29 PM
I really have no idea what the memory column is supposed to indicate but here they are side by side:


Off-topic, but W0lf can you check to see if all the Apple processes are 64bit now? In 10.8 Safari typically loads something called QTKit Safari Web Content as a 32 bit process in Activity Monitor, has that changed?

w0lf
Jun 11, 2013, 01:52 PM
Off-topic, but W0lf can you check to see if all the Apple processes are 64bit now? In 10.8 Safari typically loads something called QTKit Safari Web Content as a 32 bit process in Activity Monitor, has that changed?

QTKitServer-(1463) Safari Web Content is still 32bit. Appears as though everything else is 64bit though.

Here is all the 32bit process running (pretty much all Chrome):

JohnDoe98
Jun 11, 2013, 01:54 PM
QTKitServer-(1463) Safari Web Content is still 32bit. Appears as though everything else is 64bit though.

Here is all the 32bit process running (pretty much all Chrome):

Thanks for checking for me.

raxz
Jun 11, 2013, 01:56 PM
With 16GB I don't feel like there is any difference at all.

w0lf
Jun 11, 2013, 02:10 PM
With 16GB I don't feel like there is any difference at all.

If you weren't running out of memory before, you won't be running out now. The changes are really there to benefit people who are using all their ram. For example the memory compression feature is not really going to be noticed if you weren't using swap before, it's not going to make your existing ram faster.

iMikeT
Jun 12, 2013, 01:19 AM
With 16GB I don't feel like there is any difference at all.

If you weren't running out of memory before, you won't be running out now. The changes are really there to benefit people who are using all their ram. For example the memory compression feature is not really going to be noticed if you weren't using swap before, it's not going to make your existing ram faster.


I have 16GB on my 2011 iMac and running 10.7.5. I constantly run into page-ins due to OS X and other apps cacheing things and not releasing it. From a fresh boot and a couple hours of normal usage, I'll see more than half of my RAM eaten up and a lot of it stuck as "inactive" RAM and after a day or two, it will get to the point of paging-in. Better memory management in Mavericks will be a more than welcome addition to the inner workings of OS X.

maflynn
Jun 12, 2013, 04:57 AM
Not being off topic, but I see the lack of color for the activity monitor (the bottom quadrant) is a bit surprising.

The13thDoctor
Jun 12, 2013, 05:15 AM
I keep busting my limit for ram...Not sure if I should do a clean install

gpmarco
Jun 27, 2013, 02:09 PM
so.. i want to buy a MBA 13" with i5, and i would like to run lightroom and photoshop (casual use, nothing harcore), is it ok if i stay with the 4gb of ram right now with Mountain Lion?... i mean.. once that Maverick goes out it should be just fine those 4 gigs of ram on my MBA, right?

thanks

nutmac
Jun 27, 2013, 04:09 PM
DP1 wasn't much better than 10.8.4 but DP2 made a significant stride in reducing the possibility of page outs (swap used in Activity Monitor).

Lukeit
Jun 27, 2013, 10:09 PM
My memory situation seems so much different... how can it be?
I'm on a retina MBP 15...

meeks
Jun 27, 2013, 10:31 PM
I have it running on a 2008 iMac C2D 2.8 with 4GB Ram and a 256GB SSD and it's running fine. No lag whatsoever. I'm sure the SSD plays a big part in that but I'm amazed how well it works. I will be upgrading this machine to 10.9 when it's out no question.

Eithanius
Jun 28, 2013, 03:03 AM
I missed the pie charts on all the Tabs on Activity Monitor...

Can't see Wired memory
Can't see Active memory
Can't see Inactive memory
Can't see Free memory

The only pie chart I can find is the one on the Dock when Activity Monitor is active, but it looks dead. It stays at the same percentile whether or not I use RAM-hungry apps...

Apple had just increased my level of noob-ness on OS X... :mad:

anupash
Jun 28, 2013, 03:39 AM
How does your Safari take so less memory? I only have LastPass as my extension enabled and I have a very high memory usage.


Here's what I have going on with a mid-2009 13" MBP. When I took this screenshot I was running TextWrangler, Mail, iTunes, Safari open with 6 tabs, and Quicktime X playing a 1080p movie.

Dalton63841
Jun 28, 2013, 07:05 AM
How does your Safari take so less memory? I only have LastPass as my extension enabled and I have a very high memory usage.

No idea. I don't really do anything "special". The only extension I use is Adblock, and I don't have flash installed. If I need to view flash content(more rare than you would think) I jump over to Google Chrome.

talmy
Jun 28, 2013, 08:59 AM
Apple had just increased my level of noob-ness on OS X... :mad:

That's only because you aren't being nerd enough to use "top" in Terminal.

ElectricSheep
Jun 28, 2013, 10:51 AM
That's only because you aren't being nerd enough to use "top" in Terminal.

top no longer reports out statistics on the various page-lists (Active, Inactive, Wired) in 10.9, just Memory Used and Memory Free.

To find this information, you either use vm_stat or the new memory_pressure tool.

To be honest, the way memory accounting and demand paging has been reworked in 10.9 means that keeping close table on the inactive list really isn't as meaningful as it once was. As long as you aren't using any swap, you're fine even if it looks like you have no "free" memory. 10.9 seems to have a higher affinity towards stealing pages that are backed by the v_node pager (read: memory mapped files) now; you can see this by simulating high memory pressure on the system with the memory_pressure tool and watching the size of the "File Cache" drop down to zero before App Memory is impacted and the swap file grows.

talmy
Jun 28, 2013, 11:22 AM
To be honest, the way memory accounting and demand paging has been reworked in 10.9 means that keeping close table on the inactive list really isn't as meaningful as it once was. As long as you aren't using any swap, you're fine even if it looks like you have no "free" memory.

IMHO, that's always been true, at least since IBM invented virtual memory ~50 years ago -- swapping is what's bad. "Free" memory isn't particularly good either because that's memory that's going to waste. And while "inactive" is better than free, it still can be considered memory thats going to waste. Seeing how poorly people have been judging their needs (or lack of them) for adding memory, as seen on many threads here in the forums, I see merit in throwing out these old misinterpreted metrics for memory "pressure".

richsadams
Jun 29, 2013, 11:23 AM
In my experience with an '08 iMac, 6GB RAM, 256GB SSD performance is fine.

HOWEVER...I noted that with DP1 memory usage was higher than 10.8, particularly after all applications were closed. It seemed to improve initially with DP2, however after a few days of normal use it's back to being a memory hog even with only one application running, Activity Monitor (excluding Dropbox, Finder, etc.)

Here are examples after about 72 hours of uptime then one minute of uptime. Again, the only app running is Activity Monitor.

http://i43.tinypic.com/eejh3.jpg

http://i42.tinypic.com/jh6gci.jpg

There doesn't seem to be any one or combination of apps that drive the memory up and then remain after it closes.

The one thing I see is that the file cache is very high and remains there until I reboot. The purge command no longer works so rebooting is the only way to get it down to "normal" now.

Anyone else seeing something similar?

Any advice about how to address it would be most welcome. TIA!

ElectricSheep
Jun 29, 2013, 12:00 PM
In my experience with an '08 iMac, 6GB RAM, 256GB SSD performance is fine.

HOWEVER...I noted that with DP1 memory usage was higher than 10.8, particularly after all applications were closed. It seemed to improve initially with DP2, however after a few days of normal use it's back to being a memory hog even with only one application running, Activity Monitor (excluding Dropbox, Finder, etc.)

Here are examples after about 72 hours of uptime then one minute of uptime. Again, the only app running is Activity Monitor.

Image (http://i43.tinypic.com/eejh3.jpg)

Image (http://i42.tinypic.com/jh6gci.jpg)

There doesn't seem to be any one or combination of apps that drive the memory up and then remain after it closes.

The one thing I see is that the file cache is very high and remains there until I reboot. The purge command no longer works so rebooting is the only way to get it down to "normal" now.

Anyone else seeing something similar?

Any advice about how to address it would be most welcome. TIA!

This is entirely normal behavior, and you shouldn't have any concerns as long as Swap Used remains zero.

richsadams
Jun 29, 2013, 03:12 PM
This is entirely normal behavior, and you shouldn't have any concerns as long as Swap Used remains zero.

Thanks for that. It's entirely different than what I was seeing with 10.8 (or 10.7, etc.) wherein when no apps were in play I'd have about 4GBs of free memory at idle. Now it's often less than 1GB.

I'm seeing similar readings on my late 2010 MacBook Air (OS X 10.9, 4GB RAM) and without any apps running it's showing 3.8GB of used memory and a swap file of 700MB. Again, that never happened with v10.8.

Obviously something has changed (memory compression or whatever)...just not sure if it's for the better or worse but when the swap file is being used it doesn't seem like it's for the better.

writevli
Jul 7, 2013, 01:22 PM
http://oi42.tinypic.com/2h2dz5c.jpg

Hi guys,

Regarding unexpected RAM usage, since I've installed Mavericks I've realised a big decrease in performance, which is quite annoying using simple tasks. My activity monitor shows a kernel_task that I may not quit and takes up all the memory. Anyway to terminate this? And what is this?

Thanks for your replies

joyless
Jul 7, 2013, 02:43 PM
Image (http://oi42.tinypic.com/2h2dz5c.jpg)

Hi guys,

Regarding unexpected RAM usage, since I've installed Mavericks I've realised a big decrease in performance, which is quite annoying using simple tasks. My activity monitor shows a kernel_task that I may not quit and takes up all the memory. Anyway to terminate this? And what is this?

Thanks for your replies
I'm having exactly the same issue. System is sometimes almost unresponsive or very laggy at best. Kernel_task eats ~2.5GB of ram (and I have only 4GB installed).

w0lf
Jul 7, 2013, 03:20 PM
Image (http://oi42.tinypic.com/2h2dz5c.jpg)

Hi guys,

Regarding unexpected RAM usage, since I've installed Mavericks I've realised a big decrease in performance, which is quite annoying using simple tasks. My activity monitor shows a kernel_task that I may not quit and takes up all the memory. Anyway to terminate this? And what is this?

Thanks for your replies

Kernal_task is basically what runs everything else on the system. You can not kill kernal_task because the system can not run without it, everything is launched under the kernal_task.

However what you've show is not normal at all. Clearly something is going wrong, you need to do a re-install. kernal_task should generally run around 600mb - 1gb on a system with 8gb of ram.

richsadams
Jul 7, 2013, 04:44 PM
Kernal_task is basically what runs everything else on the system. You can not kill kernal_task because the system can not run without it, everything is launched under the kernal_task.

However what you've show is not normal at all. Clearly something is going wrong, you need to do a re-install. kernal_task should generally run around 600mb - 1gb on a system with 8gb of ram.Agreed. Kernel task averages around 600MB on my Late '10 MacBook Air (1.6GHz, 4GB RAM) and things are running normally if not a little faster with Mavericks.

However with Mavericks on my '08 iMac (3.06GHz, 6GB RAM) kernel task was considerably higher...as much as 2.5GBs to 3GBs IIRC.

Due to Mavericks incompatibility with several third-party applications I use regularly I did a fresh install of Mt. Lion on my iMac yesterday. FWIW kernel task is running around 360MB's now (again, under Mt. Lion).

writevli
Jul 7, 2013, 05:33 PM
Due to Mavericks incompatibility with several third-party applications I use regularly I did a fresh install of Mt. Lion on my iMac yesterday. FWIW kernel task is running around 360MB's now (again, under Mt. Lion).

Thanks for all the reply guys. However backing up my system might take quite some time. Is it possible just to launch the Mt Lion app installation and install it over Mavericks? Does this replace OS mavericks or does it add it upon it still keep traces of Mavericks? Meaning, will the kernel_task high RAM issue be resolved without doing a fresh Mt Lion install?

w0lf
Jul 7, 2013, 05:57 PM
Thanks for all the reply guys. However backing up my system might take quite some time. Is it possible just to launch the Mt Lion app installation and install it over Mavericks? Does this replace OS mavericks or does it add it upon it still keep traces of Mavericks? Meaning, will the kernel_task high RAM issue be resolved without doing a fresh Mt Lion install?

You really should just make a backup of all your data and do a clean install. Regardless of the time it takes, it will be worth it, whatever you're experiencing now is not how the system should be working.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1601972
http://osxdaily.com/2013/06/12/make-boot-os-x-mavericks-usb-install-drive/

If you have extra space (like 30-40GB) you could just make a new partition and do a clean install on that to test if things work out better for you on a fresh install.

richsadams
Jul 7, 2013, 08:28 PM
Thanks for all the reply guys. However backing up my system might take quite some time. Is it possible just to launch the Mt Lion app installation and install it over Mavericks? Does this replace OS mavericks or does it add it upon it still keep traces of Mavericks? Meaning, will the kernel_task high RAM issue be resolved without doing a fresh Mt Lion install?IIRC if you try to install an older OS over a newer one you'll just get an error message. So as w0lf recommends, you'll need to do a clean install. You could try a fresh install of Mavericks or if you want to revert to Mt. Lion:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=17494037&postcount=8
http://www.cultofmac.com/180925/how-to-make-a-bootable-disk-or-usb-drive-of-os-x-mountain-lion/
http://liondiskmaker.com

Whenever I perform a fresh installation I use SuperDuper (http://www.shirt-pocket.com/SuperDuper/SuperDuperDescription.html) to clone my computer's drive, make a Time Machine backup as well and then perform a fresh install and import content from TM and my cloned drive.

me43
Jul 8, 2013, 10:27 PM
I have watched my kernel_task climb throughout the day from about 700mb this morning to currently 2GB. My computer is a 2011 iMac base model with 4Gb of ram. I am sure that this can not be normal considering it is using half of the ram installed in the computer. Does anyone know a fix for this?

Watabou
Jul 8, 2013, 11:10 PM
If anyone has Flux installed and running, try quitting it.

When I ran Flux, I had the memory pressure bar turning yellow and the kernel taking up 2GB+ memory. When I quit it, kernel_task returned to around 1.3GB. Made a huge difference but I'm not sure why though

w0lf
Jul 8, 2013, 11:44 PM
If anyone has Flux installed and running, try quitting it.

When I ran Flux, I had the memory pressure bar turning yellow and the kernel taking up 2GB+ memory. When I quit it, kernel_task returned to around 1.3GB. Made a huge difference but I'm not sure why though

You running flux 22? flux 21 leaks memory on Mavericks so the longer you leave it running the higher the ram useage gets.

MAVERICKS users should use this newer version: f.lux v22 (https://justgetflux.com/mac/Flux22.zip).

Read more: http://justgetflux.com/#ixzz2YWKQM8kf

Watabou
Jul 8, 2013, 11:47 PM
You running flux 22? flux 21 leaks memory on Mavericks so the longer you leave it running the higher the ram useage gets.

Nice, looks like they fixed it. I can go back to using one of my favorite apps again.

joyless
Jul 9, 2013, 12:33 AM
Can anyone report if kernel_task is fixed in DP3?
I downgraded to Mountain Lion because my MBP was unusable.

w0lf
Jul 9, 2013, 01:26 AM
Can anyone report if kernel_task is fixed in DP3?
I downgraded to Mountain Lion because my MBP was unusable.

I don't believe kernel_task was ever broken. If it was your system probably would run. If you were having problems it was most likely a sub process and most likely due to a bad install or a specific service gone haywire.

writevli
Jul 10, 2013, 05:14 AM
Can anyone report if kernel_task is fixed in DP3?
I downgraded to Mountain Lion because my MBP was unusable.

I've updated to DP3. It's not fixed, but one thing I did realise is that it's stays at 700MB when using normal apps (Mail, iMessage, Safari, iTunes, etc.)

However, every time I use a graphical app, like Photoshop or FCPX, the kernel rises like before. Even when shutting down those apps, the kernel remains its memory until restart.

Spikestrip
Jul 24, 2013, 02:08 PM
I really have no idea what the memory column is supposed to indicate but here they are side by side:

Image (http://i.imgur.com/LpqiJZF.png)

As far as I can tell, the Memory column is for RAM usage. The Real Memory column looks like it includes file caching. This is the only way I can think of to explain the disparity between the total amount of memory used when I add up the Memory column as compared to the Memory Used value in the chart at the bottom.

itsmeaf
Oct 23, 2013, 06:38 AM
if you want the purge command to work:
sudo purge will do

At least it did for me!

tualatinweb
Oct 24, 2013, 05:15 PM
if you want the purge command to work:
sudo purge


Thank you, the "sudo purge" worked great, now I have enough RAM again in Mavericks.

gumblecosby
Oct 24, 2013, 06:29 PM
There is definitely some memory leaking with kernel task. Attached a pic from a fresh install on a 4gb system. I amazed that there is still no disk paging. That RAM compression is working well.


EDIT:
Its definitely impacting performance. This is a bug. It normally idles around 300mb and the system is much faster when kernel_task does not leak.

Ian Joyner
Oct 27, 2013, 08:04 AM
IMHO, that's always been true, at least since IBM invented virtual memory ~50 years ago

IBM certainly did NOT invent virtual memory. It was invented at the University of Manchester (where Turing had worked) for the Atlas I. The first commercial implementation was in the Burroughs B5000 in 1964. IBM did not 'invent' virtual memory for another 10 years. For the story, see the 'Virtual Memory' section in the following article about half way down.

http://www.ianjoyner.name/Files/Waychoff_Appendices.pdf

In fact, Burroughs did it right, something that has been lacking in most subsequent implementations.

Cheers
Ian

Slumberjack
Oct 27, 2013, 08:21 AM
The fact that Mavericks appears to be using more system memory than Mountain Lion is nothing to be concerned about unless you are noticing any performance issues.

In fact having "Free memory" available is a bit of a waste of resources if it could be better used for system caching until required by an application.

What's the point of paying for 8G and having 4G free all the time?

Mavericks just seems to be more intelligent in ram usage than ML or at least that's my understanding.

Cheers

Richard

mrmarts
Oct 27, 2013, 08:22 AM
When I purchased my late 2013 13 MacBook retina I freaked out to see all the ram wasted. After numerous calls to Apple support I was left with a lingering unease and un-satisfaction with the constant memory usage.

I should have read up on mavericks on these forums , it seems my MacBooks memory pressure is fine and I can finally stop obsessing about my memory in activity monitor

I got a 16GB iMac on its way i bet all the ram will be used on that too with Mavericks.

umbilical
Nov 28, 2013, 12:35 AM
new late 2013 macbook pro with 8gb runs well with mavericks?
I use for photoshop, code... Im not a hardcore gamer or need for hardcore video editing... so 8gb is enough?

attila
Feb 23, 2014, 11:28 AM
MacBook Pro, 8GB RAM with external monitor.

My Kernel Task isn't that big according to standards, but my virtual memory is gigantic, iStat (widget) says I have 50MB RAM left, system slows down and fans are running at max occasionally. Didn't notice this before Mavericks.

RAM seems to rise when I attach my to USB drives, but doesn't sink when I detach them, so it could be coincidense. I often run two browser, as I'm a web dev, but don't have to run Photoshop for the RAM to implode. I have Flux 23, not 21. Any theories, guys? Attatching screenshot.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/311090/Screen%20Shot%202014-02-28%20at%2017.22.18.png

Actually almost 4.6GB is huge for kernel task on an 8gb machine. Should be more like 1-2GB.

I figured as such...

Edit: After a reboot things look better. Still have a theory about large USB drives connected. I'll do some more testing...

w0lf
Feb 23, 2014, 12:15 PM
Actually almost 4.6GB is huge for kernel task on an 8gb machine. Should be more like 1-2GB.

cal6n
Feb 24, 2014, 08:08 AM
MacBook Pro, 8GB RAM with external monitor.

My Kernel Task isn't that big according to standards, but my virtual memory is gigantic, iStat (widget) says I have 50MB RAM left, system slows down and fans are running at max occasionally. Didn't notice this before Mavericks.

RAM seems to rise when I attach my to USB drives, but doesn't sink when I detach them, so it could be coincidense. I often run two browser, as I'm a web dev, but don't have to run Photoshop for the RAM to implode. I have Flux 23, not 21. Any theories, guys? Attatching screenshot.

Image (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/311090/Screen%20Shot%202014-02-28%20at%2017.22.18.png)



I figured as such...

Edit: After a reboot things look better. Still have a theory about large USB drives connected. I'll do some more testing...

I've found that quitting Safari prior to sleeping my Mac has eliminated this kind of RAM abuse. Mavericks reopens my session when I next restart the browser. In your case, I'd probably include Chrome in this too.

I know it's a workaround rather than a fix but it seems to work for me.

attila
Feb 24, 2014, 03:32 PM
I've found that quitting Safari prior to sleeping my Mac has eliminated this kind of RAM abuse. Mavericks reopens my session when I next restart the browser. In your case, I'd probably include Chrome in this too.

I know it's a workaround rather than a fix but it seems to work for me.

I see, thank you!

So are you saying that sleep mode does strange things to RAM and/or Safari?

cal6n
Feb 24, 2014, 04:58 PM
I see, thank you!

So are you saying that sleep mode does strange things to RAM and/or Safari?

I don't know except by observation. I have a Mac Pro with 32 GB and I use MenuMeters to display my RAM usage, among other things. I noticed that the usage grew day by day but I wasn't concerned until I saw this:

http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=462425&stc=1&d=1393282380

Since it was Safari that had paused itself, it seemed logical that it might be the cause of the snowballing RAM use. Since adopting the strategy of quitting the app each night before sleeping the computer, RAM usage hasn't ever got out of hand again.

Felasco
Feb 26, 2014, 09:33 AM
Regarding unexpected RAM usage, since I've installed Mavericks I've realised a big decrease in performance, which is quite annoying using simple tasks.


Pretty much the same here. I'm not qualified to know if what I'm experiencing is a RAM issue, but it began immediately upon installing Mavericks.

As example, if I double click my hard drive icon, the window opens immediately as normal, but it can take 15-20 seconds for contents of hard drive to display in window. Oops, did I install System 6 by mistake? :-)

Same for System Preferences window.

However, this seems to happen mostly when I am opening them for the first time after login. Once I've opened these windows a time or two, they are once again display contents promptly.

talmy
Feb 26, 2014, 09:50 AM
However, this seems to happen mostly when I am opening them for the first time after login. Once I've opened these windows a time or two, they are once again display contents promptly.

When you first display a folder Finder has to grab can size the icon as well as get the information about every item in the folder, so folders, especially those with lots of items (like /Applications) can take a long time to populate. However this information is cached so it only has to calculate it once after login.

My takeaway from this is never to shut down the computer but always sleep it, but then I haven't been having sleep issues.

cal6n
Feb 26, 2014, 12:26 PM
Pretty much the same here. I'm not qualified to know if what I'm experiencing is a RAM issue, but it began immediately upon installing Mavericks.

As example, if I double click my hard drive icon, the window opens immediately as normal, but it can take 15-20 seconds for contents of hard drive to display in window. Oops, did I install System 6 by mistake? :-)

Same for System Preferences window.

However, this seems to happen mostly when I am opening them for the first time after login. Once I've opened these windows a time or two, they are once again display contents promptly.

If your Mac only has 2 GB of RAM, as suggested in your sig, I'd seriously advise installing some more.

I know that Apple list the minimum requirement as 2 GB but that's not really adequate in my view. 4 GB of RAM will likely solve your problem.

Felasco
Feb 27, 2014, 05:22 AM
I know that Apple list the minimum requirement as 2 GB but that's not really adequate in my view. 4 GB of RAM will likely solve your problem.

Thank you, I suspect you're probably right.

Just for the sake of argument, we might question whether it's _my_ problem.

The question would seem to be, does Mavericks merit the expense and bother of installing more RAM? Or, should it really require more RAM just to open a Finder window, a process which has been pretty snappy since like, System 7?

Everybody will have to answer this for themselves of course.

In my case, I'm upgrading from 10.6.8 specifically for text dictation. I can see why dictation might require more RAM, and I need it bad enough that I'll likely pay the bill. And, dictation does seem to work remarkably well, much better than the last time I tried it ten years ago.

Other than that, Mavericks so far seems like most OS updates, some new fancy pants stuff I'll never use, and a bucket full of new bugs. As example, I can't get Mail to work now, a rather significant bug.

The price of Mavericks is a welcome new development of course. Other than that, it continues a longstanding pattern from Apple, rushing stuff out the door before it's ready, thus further diluting Apple's brand as a quality alternative to Windows.

My request to Apple would be that they slow down, finish stuff before they release it, and stop using their customers as a free labor quality control department.

attila
Mar 1, 2014, 03:32 AM
Now my kernel task is almost 4 GB again, the fans are running at 50% and memory pressure in Activity Monitor is in the yellow zone.

I haven't run any big apps but Xcode, and no more than one browser at the time.

I did, however, forget to close Safari before sleep. I suppose that is my next experiment. Will reboot computer first.

cal6n
Mar 1, 2014, 05:25 AM
I tried leaving Safari open while asleep to see if things have improved under 10.9.2 but the RAM use tripled over three days (or rather nights).

Oh, well. Back to the workaround, I guess.