OS X is slow as shit on rotating rust.
Do the SSD thing
OS X is slow as shit on rotating rust. |
|
Inclined to that
The greater limiting factor is, I think, RAM: 16x my existing gigabytage ought, I think, cut down on the frequency with which the OS frantically swaps pages back and forth as, sorcerer’s apprentice fashion, it attempts to satisfy the requirements of contending applications (particularly the notoriously leaky Safari). Nevertheless, since I’m hoping the new/old machine will see me through the remainder of my seventh decade, I might as well grease the skids performance-wise with a speedy SSD, even though I’m no longer relying on the platform for my livelihood. cordially, |
|
You have too little time left to waste
Those precious final moments go by way too fast. Don't waste them waiting for any swap to spinning disk. Get the SSD, well worth it. |
|
I've got 16 GB in this i7 MBP 13 on Sierra.
It rarely uses more than 8 GB of RAM. Dunno what the OS is doing, but I wouldn't count on it using all the RAM the way you might want. (I've got Chrome running with 44 tabs, 6.6 GB Used, 850 MB Swap. I almost never reboot. Why it's using Swap when there's RAM available is a mystery to me.) Remember how much of a difference your previous SSD upgrade made? I've been happy with this 850 EVO. Speedy and reliable and pretty cheap these days. Do it. You'll be glad you did. :-) Cheers, Scott. |
|
Diversion: Swap isn't just paged RAM
See also: why you should never turn the pagefile off on Windows OS X, like Windows, is demand-paged (IIRC that's how the whole copy-on-write thing works) which means everything is paged. Turning off swap just increases the likelihood of random crashes even if you don't think you exceed the physical memory. This is a Windows-related post, but I suspect the broad principles (if not the specific technical details) apply: Here is why eliminating the pagefile is a bad idea - with no possible mitigating circumstances that I can see. It's an interesting thread. https://arstechnica.com/civis/viewtopic.php?p=21013929 Ars Technica's forums are excellent for technical stuff (and their political side is OK, too; very carefully, transparently, and fairly moderated, in my view). It's one of the few places on the internet where you'll get this kind of awesome smackdown: That said, and this is a question...that Lightening connector should suffer the same usability issues, but no one complains about compromised system performance due to the cable. Are you arguing that Samsung may have ditched it to achieve better performance above what they and their competitors are currently offering?Apple charges at something stupid slow like 0.6C and only supports USB 2.0 data. Samsung is supporting much faster charging, HD video output, dual USB data, and ethernet, simultaneously.I'm trying to understand how your assumptions here are any more of a leap of faith than mine. |
|
I have vague recollections of such discussions.
Thanks. I'd mostly purged that part of my quasi-long-term memory. ;-) There were good historical reasons for such things when RAM was dear, but I'm sure different optimization choices would be considered if one were starting over now... As long as the OS still wants to write things to disk for its own use even when free RAM is available, then there can be substantial benefits in replacing a spinning platter with a SSD. And having reboots take a few tens of seconds rather than minutes is a big win, also too. Cheers, Scott. |
|
Re: I have vague recollections of such discussions.
SSDs add most value when accessing numerous small files, due to their (nearasfuckit) instantaneous seek time. Funnily enough, your OS is made of numerous small files. |
|
Gracias.. on your timing too.
About to install a OWC 480 GB *SSD in the early '09 24" iMac * Cthulhu! we're bloody-spoiled! with RAM cheaper than rain-water in Texas. Thence pop existing 650 G unit into slim box: and Viola: a place A) to store data I don't really want to save B) for LISP evaluation {IIRC that LRPD.} Your quoted essay likely a prod go back, later to Source for some other gems; 'course you drop the other shoe (separately as fits the Importance of the factoid?) that Indeed the OS does live by taking jillions of those little (damn-near packets?) So thanx again for yet another Synchronicity eggzample. A query, if it strikes your fancy: I gather that ... in the unending aim to counter the growing Apple greed-Quotient, there's a year-build Number (for iMacs? for notebooks??) beyond which one's efforts to use tools + brain to repair, will run into their Soldered-in-$$$Wall. IS that year 2012 as for cheesy-graters (I surmised) and maybe iMacs? How Many of Us do indeed DESPISE this entirely AD-vertainment feature of SCREENS no thicker than your nearest mucous membrane? (And I Know: Nobody knoze if ANY Apple-Suit ..yet? gives a flying-fuck) ... just How Many of Us already infect ... their Base == Eloi Tribe of willing/fawning Patsys. |
|
the “Activity Monitor” app...
frequently shows the 4GB of physical RAM redlined on my elderly twin production units. I don’t anticipate making major demands on memory in retirement, but I’m hoping that between the vast increase in gigabytage and the SSD I will be seeing less of the SBOD. cordially, |
|
as to going solid state
Assuming price not to be a consideration (actually, of course, it will be to some extent), would one prefer a vanilla SATA unit, or a card-based PCIe jobbie (at perhaps half the gigabytage) as the boot device? Asking for a friend. cordially, |
|
I assume you want an SATA-interface.
Whatever your Cheese Grater uses (almost certainly SATA) would be the simplest. Check EveryMac for the details. Good luck! Cheers, Scott. |