Forums
New posts
Articles
Product Reviews
Policies
FAQ
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Apple Computing Products:
macOS - Operating System
Apple says memory leak in Finder is not a leak, but a design feature
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="MacInWin" data-source="post: 1939347" data-attributes="member: 396914"><p>No, there is no user choice in how it works. And the whole response from the Apple folks is just strange and not backed up by objective reality. For example, do you know of any computer process that happens in "2 or 3 days?" If there is a timer on how long these cached thumbnails are kept, does it have a randomizer attached to vary the time? How can a digital processor decide "2 or 3 days?" The whole answer from Apple smells of a "go away and stop bothering me" kind of answer. Howard did test it, as he wrote, and it did release the memory after just over 48 hours (closer to 50 hours, but hey, by Apple's computation, that's close enough). </p><p></p><p>In my own testing, some parts of Apple's explanation don't seem to hold up. I noticed in my own testing that the upsurge in memory reported by Activity Monitor as being used by Finder was there (I got it to be over 2GB by using multiple folders to increase the number of images it had cached), and it stayed around for a long time, but that at the same time, Activity Monitor reported a DECREASE in Memory Used and a DECREASE in Cached Files space. Then, when I killed Finder to recover the space, there was ZERO change in Memory Used and Cached Files, even though Finder had released almost 2 GB of memory, supposedly. Also, the used storage space on the SSD portion of the fabric storage was unchanged, meaniing these images were not, appparently, stored on the SSD. So, where are these alleged cached images being stored? Is there a more fundamental issue with Activity Monitor/Memory usage/Finder that Apple doesn't want to talk about? If it were a couple of hundred MB, that's one thing, but to lose track of over 2GB of storage is concerning.</p><p></p><p>There will be those folks who deny that anything is wrong, that Apple is perfect and too smart for us poor dumb users to understand. They will use this report from Apple as justification to do victory laps waving the "Apple is perfect" flag. But there are still a lot of questions about this whole issue that need investigation/exploration, and Apple's casual approach isn't helping.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="MacInWin, post: 1939347, member: 396914"] No, there is no user choice in how it works. And the whole response from the Apple folks is just strange and not backed up by objective reality. For example, do you know of any computer process that happens in "2 or 3 days?" If there is a timer on how long these cached thumbnails are kept, does it have a randomizer attached to vary the time? How can a digital processor decide "2 or 3 days?" The whole answer from Apple smells of a "go away and stop bothering me" kind of answer. Howard did test it, as he wrote, and it did release the memory after just over 48 hours (closer to 50 hours, but hey, by Apple's computation, that's close enough). In my own testing, some parts of Apple's explanation don't seem to hold up. I noticed in my own testing that the upsurge in memory reported by Activity Monitor as being used by Finder was there (I got it to be over 2GB by using multiple folders to increase the number of images it had cached), and it stayed around for a long time, but that at the same time, Activity Monitor reported a DECREASE in Memory Used and a DECREASE in Cached Files space. Then, when I killed Finder to recover the space, there was ZERO change in Memory Used and Cached Files, even though Finder had released almost 2 GB of memory, supposedly. Also, the used storage space on the SSD portion of the fabric storage was unchanged, meaniing these images were not, appparently, stored on the SSD. So, where are these alleged cached images being stored? Is there a more fundamental issue with Activity Monitor/Memory usage/Finder that Apple doesn't want to talk about? If it were a couple of hundred MB, that's one thing, but to lose track of over 2GB of storage is concerning. There will be those folks who deny that anything is wrong, that Apple is perfect and too smart for us poor dumb users to understand. They will use this report from Apple as justification to do victory laps waving the "Apple is perfect" flag. But there are still a lot of questions about this whole issue that need investigation/exploration, and Apple's casual approach isn't helping. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Name this item. 🍎
Post reply
Forums
Apple Computing Products:
macOS - Operating System
Apple says memory leak in Finder is not a leak, but a design feature
Top