I have two Macs, one brand new, one migrated from SL, and 10.7 Safari was almost unusable on both until I installed SSDs. If that isn't a negative effect in every possible use case, then I don't know one. I actually guessed it was just that Lion inofficially dropped support for HDDs (by removing all caches or so).
Given that Apple has fixed none of my reported bugs in 10.7, but I can't reproduce many of them in 10.8, I wonder if it even makes sense to analyze 10.7 anymore - seems it's a done deal for Apple.
It's like the system discards pages of programs just because the app has been inactive for an hour or so. So when I come back and start the same app the f*cking rotating HD I have sounds like a birds nest for too long periods.
Edit: Disabled the pager and the system now seems much more quiet regarding to disk seek noise when I start apps. Feels like a new machine! :-D
From what I've read, Windows memory manager does the same thing - after a while, it swaps out unused pages, even if plenty of free memory is available.
I wonder what's the logic behind this - did the engineers assume that the speedup coming from more free memory being available for disk cache is worth the hassle of waiting for the swapped out page (when it's actually needed)?
In Lion I get the impression they are just swapped out and thrown away / reused for something else despite there are no real pressure on the VM.
And yes, the logic is sound, its better to use a bit of swap for an infrequent daemon and let 4-5 megs of memory be at the ready if needed than leave it in place all the time. The "speedup" is not a speedup for your use, its to allow for better memory management. Which is what the VM subsystem is there for. Second guessing it all the time just makes its job harder.
Swap use when there is free memory isn't a bad thing. This fetish people have with their OS using swap at times seems to border on the ridiculous side. My iMac at home has 16g of memory and 400g of swap used right now (8g active, lots of file cache that'll get purged). Most of the swapped files belong to things like my ruby+pry repl, a clojure repl I haven't touched for 2 days, and other random things I don't use often enough to warrant they stay in active ram. Why SHOULDN'T that memory be reclaimed and at the ready for a new program or some other request? Its just going to page it out then and likely take longer to do. The only time its "wrong" is when I start using those processes again, which takes all of 1-2 seconds.
Its a hard problem, and both OSX/Windows choose the best possible solution you can heuristically.
It is, actually. I find such things unacceptable, be they on desktop or server use cases. I put as much or far more RAM in my systems than they will need, and I expect nothing to be swapped until it's actually full. Many other people do as well, which is why the Linux kernel devs finally started fixing the stupidity several years ago. Time for OS X to catch up.
Windows XP does that. It was a common source of grief. I remember it being mentioned as early as 2004. Since Windows Vista the memory manager doesn't have that problem.
YES. I have a MacBook Pro Core i7 from a little while back with an old style spinning rust drive and a 11" MacBook Air Core 2 Duo.
For purely CPU bound things, sure, the Core i7 kicks the pants out of the Core 2. Same for videogames. For day to day use, though, switching between Eclipse, Xcode, Chrome, etc. the Air provides a much more uniform experience. At its best it's far slower than the Pro at its best, but at its worst it's much faster and more responsive. I rarely see beachballs on the Air. I used to see them all the time on the Pro (the Pro has been sitting on a shelf for the past eight months as I switched to working exclusively on my Air, partially for this reason).
So my experience is that something may not be broken, but something definitely isn't set up optimally for users with poor disk performance and high memory/CPU performance.
Left some big files on the old HD, and symlinked them. The disk stays idle in the CD bay until I need it, then spins up.
If I were to do it over again I'd just get a larger SSD and leave the optical drive alone.
It also turns out I rather like working on an 11" screen. Keeps me focussed.
I haven't tried ML yet. My MBP is brand new (bought in January 2012), factory configuration (4GB RAM, Lion)
If you use it 'lightly' (that is, only Safari open) it's a breeze. But of course, it's never only that if you want to do any work.
Frankly, 4 GB should be enough! My past machine (with 3GB - and Linux) would rarely swap (in fact I could keep swap off and use a Windows 7 VM) But you can go only so far with an aging CPU
Some of the slowness can be attributed to Safari/Firefox, sure
But it really seems to have something wrong. Maybe they really neglected people with spinning disks.
(Yes, I considered buying a MacBook Air but 128Gb was not enough for me and the other options were above my budget)
I see this sentiment a lot, but I disagree with it. What are "iTunes, Xcode, Safari/Chrome, and a mail client" doing now that they weren't doing four years ago? Is it enough to justify their latest versions feeling less responsive than their versions from four years ago?
iTunes: layers of software for dealing with Wi-Fi sync, Ping social network, iTunes Match, and so on
Mail Client: totally agree with you there...
But I still pretty much agree with you overall...
Things change. My old 2006 iMac core 2 duo feels a bit clunky sometimes these days, but it runs a lot of stuff fine and is actually just as good a machine as it ever was.
Lot's of things. XCode was rewritten and does live AST syntax completion, background compiles, etc.
Safari/Chrome have several more features --did Chrome even exist 4 years ago?
Expectations are certainly a big part of the perceptual speed equation. But with OS X, don't underestimate the benefits of keeping your disk less than 90% full. With all the caches, iPhone and iPad backups (over 40 GB in my case), Xcode, sleepimages and swapfiles, installers (Adobe!), SyncServices, etc., a 160GB SSD fills up in no time. When things get slow, getting back below 90% works wonders.
Currently at 145 pages and growing https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3191630?start=2160&...
Yeah, the 2009 iMac started working the day I put Snow Leopard back on it. I then sold it and warned the owner that upgrading to Lion was at his own risk. I replaced my router with an Airport Extreme; useful excuse to buy a new toy; at one point to see if that resolved it. I even moved the iMac NEXT to the router one day.