Re: Why is OS X swapping with inactive memory available?
Re: Why is OS X swapping with inactive memory available?
- Subject: Re: Why is OS X swapping with inactive memory available?
- From: Thomas Backman <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 30 May 2008 21:07:40 +0200
On May 30, 2008, at 8:34 PM, Michael Smith wrote:
In terms that you might understand, then: you are trying to do too
much with too little. You might need a bigger machine, or you might
need to try to do less with the machine you have. If you were to
spend some time learning, and some time measuring, you might be able
to adjust what you are doing to fit, or to determine how much more
machine you require in order to get the job done.
Sadly, none of us are in a position to look inside your machine and
do this for you, but even the most casual investigation on your part
(yes, it's work, I know) will lead you to a variety of approaches
that you might apply.
= Mike
No need to get rude about it. I did indeed search, and ask on a more
casual forum (and waited for replies for a month or so). All I found
were others having the very same problem, but no answers, so I looked
around for where I might ask. Needless to say I searched the archives
of the list before even considering posting.
It all boils down to this, from a users (i.e. my) perspective: Windows
XP, given 1GB RAM, can do what OS X cannot with 3GB.
Also, FWIW, I didn't mean to whine, but *ask*, in part because I find
stuff like this interesting.
/Thomas
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Darwin-kernel mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden