Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Inactive memory

  • 10-02-2006 1:25pm
    #1
    DamoRed
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 394 ✭✭


    Hi all,

    Can anyone explain why, according to the Activity Monitor, there is 150MB of memory inactive, while at the same time Photoshop is dawdling with only 200MB?

    I would have thought that with only two main applications running, that the memory would be shared as required, with a minimum being unused. As I understand it, I cannot assign more memory to an application as was the case in OS9.

    Having cleared off a lot of files to an external hard drive, and running only Photoshop and Safari, I was expecting things to run somewhat quicker, not slower! I'm working on a 400mhz iMac. I haven't seen Photoshop run so slow before. I've purged the caches and anything else I can think of.

    Any help will be appreciated.

    Thank you


    Damo


Comments

  • #2
    jtsuited
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,401 ✭✭✭jtsuited


    maybe try the hardware test?however i had a duff ram upgrade but the advanced test came back clear.


  • #3
    SouperComputer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,949 ✭✭✭SouperComputer


    How much RAM do you have? HFS and HFS+ dont suffer fragmentation like Fat's and NTFS so moving data doesnt have quite the same effect.

    A clean install of OS wouldnt do any harm. TBH with that spec you should be running OS 9 on an iMac.

    There's nothing wrong with PS usuing 250Mb. The bottle neck is most likely your RAM. Its more likely a tired OS combined with a possibly old and slow HD that is causing PS to seem slow.


  • #4
    Elessar
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,267 ✭✭✭Elessar


    Had a similar problem myself recently. Menu meters showed 150mb free almost constantly, despite photoshop running etc. Turns out it isnt showing the correct ram readouts, as activity monitors results were much different.

    One thing to suggest is go to image cache preferences in photoshop and increase the maximum amount of ram it can use to 100%. It's usually on 70%.


  • #5
    Hugh_C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,852 ✭✭✭Hugh_C


    SouperComputer wrote:
    TBH with that spec you should be running OS 9 on an iMac.


    Ah Soup!

    I've got 10.4.4 running beautifully on an ancient 333MHz PowerBook G3! Mind you, I wouldn't be falling over myself to run PhotoShop on it...

    :o


  • #6
    DamoRed
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 394 ✭✭DamoRed


    Thanks for the replies, especially to Elessar, bumping up the memory cache within Photoshop itself, was a help. I'm running with 512MB of RAM, and it's always been efficient, without being anything special. But certainly faster than recent experience.


    Damo


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    SouperComputer
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,949 ✭✭✭SouperComputer


    Ah Soup!

    I've got 10.4.4 running beautifully on an ancient 333MHz PowerBook G3! Mind you, I wouldn't be falling over myself to run PhotoShop on it...

    Yea, I have 10.4.4 on a 350Mhz B&W. It runs, but its fairly slow, even with a decent HD and 380Mb of RAM. If I had a choice in this case, id be using 9.


Advertisement