Which uses RAM more efficiently?

[graylocks]

kj wrote:
Having two browsers open is most certainly less memory-efficient than having one, even if you have exactly the same total number of things open.

You could check to see how much each scenario takes in activity monitor, if you want to be absolutely sure.

For PC, I like Chrome quite a bit, but I probably wouldn't bother on mac. kj.

duh! why didn't i think of that!

with two browsers open on the tabs i usually sport:

Safari 115MB
Firefox 189 MB

with one browser sporting all my tabs:

Firefox 200 MB



(yes, i really should put the same load on Safari but there is no way i'd only use Safari so there's no point.)

[kj]

Whew. I was actually a little bit scared it might not work out the way I was thinking kj.

[Jimmypoo]

Re: Mail issue

http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2665

Safari 4 lasted 30 seconds on my machine under 10.5.6. With Snow Leopard & Mail v4, it's fine.

[M A V I C]

N-OS X-tasy! wrote:
One little-known factoid about OS X is that each icon on the desktop is actually a separate open window and is treated as such by the OS. Having multiple icons on your desktop (not to mention on the desktops of other logged-in user accounts) can quickly eat up system resources.

Is that just in Leopard? That would explain why I've had much better performance and uptime since installing Hazel.

[Jimmypoo]

M A V I C wrote:
Is that just in Leopard? That would explain why I've had much better performance and uptime since installing Hazel.

I've found it true on both platforms all the way back to System 6, actually. I end up doing a lot of collecting and creating catch-all folders that are dated for various comics and pics found on the web. CoverFlow (space bar) makes at least searching for junk easier.

Whether it uses the resources stated.... let's just say, I get pretty annoyed when a 2.2GHz Core2 seems to be starting up close to the speed of a 400MHz G3, because of similar loads of icons to render.