▲ 338 ▼ Apple’s MacBook Pro memory problem is worse than ever (www.macworld.com) submitted 2 years ago by L4s@lemmy.world [M, B] to c/technology@lemmy.world 144 comments fedilink hide all child comments Apple’s MacBook Pro memory problem is worse than ever::Apple still sells expensive "Pro" computers with just 8GB of RAM and charges a fortune for more.
[–] dukk@programming.dev 11 points 2 years ago (1 child) 11GB idling?? Maybe not as optimized as it seems… permalink fedilink source hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] huginn@feddit.it 29 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's just cached memory. Pretty common practice for any modern OS to retain memory until 60% usage or so. Costs nothing and is snappier performance. 11GB idling is only after having done other things. When you launch it'll be less than 2 in my experience. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dukk@programming.dev 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ohhh right, I totally forgot about that. Remember reading about it somewhere. In that case, I guess it makes more sense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] abhibeckert@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Yeah you need to be careful what memory numbers you read - I’ve seen some of them hit terabytes on my Mac, and I only have a 256GB SSD so there’s no way that’s physically possible. Just because a memory address is tracked by the kernel doesn’t mean it’s actually being used. You can have a single region of memory counted multiple times (in my case, probably millions of times… I don’t think I was using much swap at all). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] huginn@feddit.it 29 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's just cached memory. Pretty common practice for any modern OS to retain memory until 60% usage or so. Costs nothing and is snappier performance. 11GB idling is only after having done other things. When you launch it'll be less than 2 in my experience. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dukk@programming.dev 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ohhh right, I totally forgot about that. Remember reading about it somewhere. In that case, I guess it makes more sense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] abhibeckert@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Yeah you need to be careful what memory numbers you read - I’ve seen some of them hit terabytes on my Mac, and I only have a 256GB SSD so there’s no way that’s physically possible. Just because a memory address is tracked by the kernel doesn’t mean it’s actually being used. You can have a single region of memory counted multiple times (in my case, probably millions of times… I don’t think I was using much swap at all). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dukk@programming.dev 3 points 2 years ago (1 child) Ohhh right, I totally forgot about that. Remember reading about it somewhere. In that case, I guess it makes more sense. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] abhibeckert@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Yeah you need to be careful what memory numbers you read - I’ve seen some of them hit terabytes on my Mac, and I only have a 256GB SSD so there’s no way that’s physically possible. Just because a memory address is tracked by the kernel doesn’t mean it’s actually being used. You can have a single region of memory counted multiple times (in my case, probably millions of times… I don’t think I was using much swap at all). permalink fedilink source parent
[–] abhibeckert@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Yeah you need to be careful what memory numbers you read - I’ve seen some of them hit terabytes on my Mac, and I only have a 256GB SSD so there’s no way that’s physically possible. Just because a memory address is tracked by the kernel doesn’t mean it’s actually being used. You can have a single region of memory counted multiple times (in my case, probably millions of times… I don’t think I was using much swap at all). permalink fedilink source parent