What I can't understand is when I open "about your mac" I have a total memory of 122 880ko, the system program is using 121 366ko which leaves me with only 1 346 left, but when I addup all the files on my hard disk they only equal 49 000ko. Why does the system use up all the memory?
-
Hello MLAers! We've re-enabled auto-approval for accounts. If you are still waiting on account approval, please check this thread for more information.
quadra 650
- Thread starter publisud
- Start date
I've booted without any simm's using only the 8mo on the HD when I open "about mac" I got 8192ko, system programme using 6777ko left only 1361ko. I booted with one simm 32mo in "about mac" I got 40960ko, system using 39488ko left only 1385ko. I tried 4 different simm's 3 32mo and one 16mo using different slots they were all recognized but everytime I bumped up the memory the system took nearly all of it leaviNg me with very little to work with... THE PLOT THICKENS
If your System is reserving most additional RAM beyond 8MB to itself it is likely that your Mac is functioning with 24-bit addressing instead of 32-bit. It can see but cannot address more than 8MB under 24-bit, and any excess over 8MB is reserved to the System. Open your Memory control panel, select 32-bit addressing from the relevant panel, and then reboot. Default 32-bit addressing was not part of the system operation before System 7.0. Macs with 32-bit dirty ROMs (ie, containing 24-bit code), need Mode32 or Mode32 7.5 (under System 7.5) to take advantage of the control panel selection.
How a 68040/33MHz Quadra 650 might be suffering an attack of the 24-bits eludes me, however—since it was not designed to support any System lower than 7.1—without being able to see your system. Are there remnants of a previous installation loungeing about on your HDD?
de
How a 68040/33MHz Quadra 650 might be suffering an attack of the 24-bits eludes me, however—since it was not designed to support any System lower than 7.1—without being able to see your system. Are there remnants of a previous installation loungeing about on your HDD?
de
VM is, if not a poisoned chalice, at best a vin très ordinaire. Given more physical RAM versus VM, always go for more physical RAM if you can. Indeed, in the later PPC Macs that allowed up to 1.5GB of RAM, attempts to use VM with more than about 950MB of physical RAM usually confused the inanimate daylights out of VM, which quacked on-screen that there was too much actual RAM for it to function. Too much for the controller to map it accurately to a drive, I suspect to be the real cause. Apple's own published Memory Guide quoted all later Macs as being capable of addressing 1GB of VM, but in an age when physical memory is cheap-as-chips, such as now, VM is not better than a temporary stopgap.
The usual convention for cache setting in the Memory panel is at the rate of 32kB for each 1MB of physical RAM. In those later Macs that set their own cache automatically (OS 8 & 9, principally), it is better to let them do so unless there is a pressing reason to the contrary.
de
The usual convention for cache setting in the Memory panel is at the rate of 32kB for each 1MB of physical RAM. In those later Macs that set their own cache automatically (OS 8 & 9, principally), it is better to let them do so unless there is a pressing reason to the contrary.
de
With 1.5gigs of RAM is there a need for VM at all? That may be the problem. The OS is trying to allocate data to VM but it all fits in actual memory so there is nothing for it to put in VM and it gets confused that it is being asked to do something unnecessary but it tries like an obedient soldier anyway.
I agree that an attempt to use VM in such Macs is a doomed attempt, but why is more a matter of mild curiosity than baulked ambition in my case. I max. the RAM in any older (OS 9 and less) machine that I own, or stop at 512-768MB in those Macs that can hold 1.5GB. I never invoke VM unless the OS wants its own way (as under OS X). More than 0.75GB is distinct overkill in machines of the beige PPC era.
de
de
