Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Safari 6 is amazing, but...

gguerini

gguerini

macrumors regular
Original poster
Jun 28, 2007
203
1
I've been using Safari 6 since last night and it's the best Safari ever.

I open around 15 tabs.. news websites, youtube, facebook, google reader, etc. The memory climbed to 550mb, which is very good by the eay. But then I started to close the tabs keeping only 3 tabs only. The memory stayed at the same level. Why don't they release the unnecessary memory?

Is this normal?

Thanks
 
Safari has never been good at releasing the memory when tabs are close, however I have seen a big improvment in memory usage.
 
gguerini said:
I've been using Safari 6 since last night and it's the best Safari ever.

I open around 15 tabs.. news websites, youtube, facebook, google reader, etc. The memory climbed to 550mb, which is very good by the eay. But then I started to close the tabs keeping only 3 tabs only. The memory stayed at the same level. Why don't they release the unnecessary memory?

Is this normal?

Thanks
Click to expand...

The OS shouldn't release Safari memory unless another application needs it. The memory model is "free RAM is wasted RAM" why have RAM starved apps when there's a large bucket.

What I plan to test is letting Safari balloon up to 600MB or so of RAM And then i'll open up FCPX or some other large application and see if Safari then relinquishes RAM. This is how it's supposed to work.
 
This is how it was in snow leopard also. Just install enough ram and be dobe with it. Never worry about it again. My new mini is 2gb ram and runs out faster than ever like in 30 minutes. Got 8gb of ram at bestbuy for $45.76 on the 24th. And couldn't be happier. Never go below 4gb now no matter how many tabs I have open.
 
nuckinfutz said:
The OS shouldn't release Safari memory unless another application needs it. The memory model is "free RAM is wasted RAM" why have RAM starved apps when there's a large bucket.

What I plan to test is letting Safari balloon up to 600MB or so of RAM And then i'll open up FCPX or some other large application and see if Safari then relinquishes RAM. This is how it's supposed to work.
Click to expand...

This. You have that much RAM so you can use it - not let it sit in your computer doing nothing.
 
Every new release I say "Im going to finally switch to Safari", but after a few days I go right back to Chrome. This time I really thought I'd make the switch but I'm just not feeling that Safari has caught up to Chrome yet so I'm not sure how much longer I'll keep trying.

Its a shame that Apple still seems so far behind in the browser wars.
 
acosmichippo said:
This. You have that much RAM so you can use it - not let it sit in your computer doing nothing.
Click to expand...

Just tried it out.

I'm on a MBA 13" with 4GB of RAM and Mountain Lion.

Ran some youtube flash videos until Safari the app was taking 160MB of RAM and Web Content was 380MB.

Then proceeded to open up

Final Cut Pro X
iMovie
iPhoto
Aperture

With each app I viewed Activity Monitor and the available (Green) RAM shrunk but as soon as it went down below 50MB available I'd open a new app and the system would correct itself and I'd be back up to about 80 or so MB of available RAM. Safari and Web Content remained at their aforementioned sizing until I opened up the final app and then Web Content purged about 120MB of RAM and the Safari app purged about 20MB of RAM.

This is working far better than Lion in my experience.


Safari welcome back to the status of my default browser.

----------
urkel said:
Every new release I say "Im going to finally switch to Safari", but after a few days I go right back to Chrome. This time I really thought I'd make the switch but I'm just not feeling that Safari has caught up to Chrome yet so I'm not sure how much longer I'll keep trying.

Its a shame that Apple still seems so far behind in the browser wars.
Click to expand...

Depends on the angle you look at it from. Apple's work with Webkit is a success story and their javascript work is second only to Google. What you're likely speaking about is memory management and it appears that the Safari team has closed that gap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back