Paul B. Gallagher a écrit :
Bernard Mercier wrote:
Dans son message précédent, chicagofan a écrit :
Mark Hansen wrote:
On 2/22/2010 7:37 PM, chicagofan wrote:
Mark Hansen wrote:
On 2/22/2010 6:40 PM, chicagofan wrote:
Just for the heck of it, I checked my CPU usage again just now, and it
showed SM using 177MB. Is that normal?
bj
177MB is not CPU, it's memory, and 177MB doesn't seem all that much.
Mine
is using 340MB for example. But then my machine has 2GB total RAM.
Sorry, I don't get the semantics right half the time. I have 1GB RAM,
and 177 MB seemed like a lot to me. :)
bj
10 years ago it was a lot. Today, not so much :-\
However, I don't know how you can run any contemporary version of Windows
on 1GB RAM. You should consider adding more.
This laptop is almost 4 yrs. old, and other than the DVD drive making a
little noise on start up, still works great... except for this memory
limitation you've pointed out. :) Hmm... now I have a reason to look
at what's new. Thanks..... ;)
bj
On my R40 Thinkpad (256MB ram) and with your link loaded, SM 2.0.3 takes
only 38,6MB as seen in Task Manager.
How about if you browse around for a while and load up the cache, is it still
only 38.6 MB? Or is that only on startup?
--
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
hmmmm
What do you expect me to say?
It was definitely 38,6MB when I browsed to the link referenced.
To please you, I browsed a bit and got a max peak of 57MB in task
manager. I don't know on which site, as I visited a couple of them.
I don't think the cache has much to do with it, but it is still at the
standard 50MB.
To please you more, I brought down the cache to 1MB.
No change in the figures.
Hope you are satisfied. :-)
--
[URL=http://users.kbc.skynet.be/fi001005] *Belgische Ardennen -
Ardennes Belge [/URL]
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
