How old is your machine?
-
@Ronald said:
You would expect employees to be very happy...
I would not expect anyone forced to use Apple products to be very happy.
-
@Ill Stew said:
As a side note, how do you feel about Windows Experience Scores? They're not perfect, but they offer a comparison you can do on every Windows machine. I look at individual scores, not the 3.2 they get for having integrated graphics.
They're what I used in picking my new machine. shrug Just run down the line (in the cheap section, for me) at your local computer store and compare all the indexes. They're a pretty objective measurement, and I quickly found out my new machine with a Pentium had about twice the processor performance of the AMD Vision machines, and everything had about twice the graphics performance of my dying machine.
-
My personal laptop is pretty much one year old exactly. i5-3320M, 8GB RAM, 500GB hard drive (I want to get a 480GB or 500GB SSD but money), full HD 15" screen, some flavour of nVidia NVS graphics and Windows 8 Pro. The one before that was a Core 2 Duo P8600, 3GB RAM, 320GB hard drive, 14" 1280x800 screen, nVidia G105 graphics and went from Vista Business to 7 Pro to now running 8 Pro.
The machine I use at work (when I am at work) is a Core 2 Duo Thinkcentre (the last gen ones), 6GB RAM, a 320GB hard drive, Intel graphics and Windows 8 Pro there too. The previous user had some crappy WD hard drive in it that was dying a very slow and painful death that caused to run like shit, so when he got a bright green Vaio laptop to replace it, I adopted it and put a functioning Seagate drive we had lying around, along with getting another 4GB of RAM (to take it up to 6). It's no beast but it's better than what it replaced: a Pentium 4 HT with an ATI X300SE GPU that by some miracle a) still worked, b) had no bulging capacitors and c) ran Windows 7 at a surprisingly nimble pace, unless I had an excessive amount of stuff open.
-
I'm currently using the newest & best spec Apple PowerBook model.
-
@Jupp3 said:
I'm currently using the newest & best spec Apple PowerBook model.
Assuming you haven't also been given a decent keyboard and mouse: you have my sympathy.
-
I have a workstation with 16GB RAM, 128GB SSD, 2x 1TB spinning disks, quad Xeon CPU (don't know the model off the top of my head), 2x 24" 1920x1200 monitors. Policy here is supposed to be replacements every three years, but according to people who've been around a while, that's not always adhered to (I got this one earlier this year).
-
@Jupp3 said:
I'm currently using the newest & best spec Apple PowerBook model.
See, Charleh? Not everybody has it better than you.
-
@Charleh said:
I envy you - I work in a place where the salesmen have to have the latest technology but the actual guys that need the horsepower are given leftovers.
I used to think exactly like that, until I figured out I was completely wrong.
The slower the computer is, the more time it takes to do something. Assuming that you work as a per-hour contractor, this [b]direrectly[/b] translates into more billable hours for same amount of work, which directly means more profit!
Marketing has modern equipment to fool stupid customers into thinking that the guys they are selling also have.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Jupp3 said:
See, Charleh? Not everybody has it better than you.I'm currently using the newest & best spec Apple PowerBook model.
Whart do you mean? It's the best Apple laptop!
-
@Jupp3 said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@Jupp3 said:
See, Charleh? Not everybody has it better than you.I'm currently using the newest & best spec Apple PowerBook model.
Whart do you mean? It's the best Apple laptop!
Well, for one thing, the last PowerBook model was discontinued in 2006...
EDIT: but I'm pretty sure that's not what Morbs was getting at...
-
@Jupp3 said:
@morbiuswilters said:
@Jupp3 said:
See, Charleh? Not everybody has it better than you.I'm currently using the newest & best spec Apple PowerBook model.
Whart do you mean? It's the best Apple laptop!
"I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, Mr. Wilters.. this is never easy, but you have ball cancer. However it is the best kind of ball cancer, so that should at least cheer you up!"
-
-
@El_Heffe said:
@Jupp3 said:
I'm currently using the newest & best spec Apple PowerBook model.
Do you have a folder dedicated to women facepalming? This is the third or fourth different image I've seen you post.
-
@Ben L. said:
Do you have a folder dedicated to women facepalming? This is the third or fourth different image I've seen you post.
-
@Ben L. said:
Do you have a folder dedicated to women facepalming?
I have a huge one. It's called "Google".
-
@electronerd said:
@Jupp3 said:
Whart do you mean? It's the best Apple laptop!
Well, for one thing, the last PowerBook model was discontinued in 2006...
Well, firstly, you cannot compare systems with different CPU architecture directly.
Secondly, what competition is there for PowerPC laptops? LimePC? :-D
Thirdly, if I was going to get a generic X86 system, why the hell would I pick Apple? There's MUCH more choice on X86...
And yes, I was joking a bit. Some people just forget about discontinued models when talking about "newest Apple model X". In any case, this just happens to be the best working laptop/netbook I currently have.
-
@Jupp3 said:
Well, firstly, you cannot compare systems with different CPU architecture directly.
Well, you could benchmark them..
@Jupp3 said:
Thirdly, if I was going to get a generic X86 system, why the hell would I pick Apple?
I have no idea. But choosing Apple when they were on the barely-used PPC platform seems even less justifiable.
Story time: I knew a bunch of people who were Mac fanatics in the PPC days. And boy, did these people love talking CPU architecture. It was like they carried around a bunch of poster boards with figures and diagrams scrawled on them in their pants, so they'd be ready at a moment's notice to deliver a lecture on FLOPS and RISC and all that. And I'll admit it was somewhat fascinating, hearing them talk about their favorite processor; it was a bit like listening to them talk about how their MMORPG character could beat up my dad.
Then in mid-2005 came the announcement that Apple was moving to Intel. And these same people were ecstatic. It was all "This is going to launch Apple right to the top!" and "No more IBM holding back Apple!" and all that. It was fascinating in a "We've always been at war with Eastasia" kind of way, and it gave me a lot of insight into how these people thought. (And it wasn't even like they had all had time to coordinate their messages--I was in the room with a guy who ragged on x86 all the time as he watched the keynote. And as soon as it was announced, he started cheering. Now realize, this is a guy who lamented that our servers had to run on x86 because "It's slow crap"...)
@Jupp3 said:
And yes, I was joking a bit.
I actually thought you meant MacBook, which is why I said "I'm sorry." I'm not sure if finding out you really meant "PowerBook" makes me more or less sorry.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Also, sometimes I like to open Eclipse and just sort of stare at it for awhile before closing it, and you're not going to get it to open with any less than 8gb, son.
I have no idea what you are talking about. In my current task for a customer, I sometimes have to have Eclipse, IntelliJ and VS2010 open at the same time (... don't ask) and despite some occasional slowdowns, that actually works pretty well on a machine with an i3 CPU and 4 GB.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I have no idea. But choosing Apple when they were on the barely-used PPC platform seems even less justifiable.
When I was a student back in 2003-2004, I could get a 12inch iBook for roughly £600 (which was quite cheap for a computer at that time) with a free iPod and some other gumph. It was relatively lightweight (at the time) which was important because I commuted by on my push bike and it ran all the software I needed for uni. It started feeling a bit slow with the leopard update.
A lot of guys that I know (from the UK) get them these days because they are just a nice bit of kit, running a unix like OS that has for the most part a decent UI.
-
@Anonymouse said:
In my current task for a customer, I sometimes have to have Eclipse, IntelliJ and VS2010 open at the same time...
Were you Hitler in a previous life or something? I don't know why else you're being punished so severely in this life..
@Anonymouse said:
...actually works pretty well on a machine with an i3 CPU and 4 GB.
I was exaggerating for effect. You can run Eclipse with a system that's tight on memory, but you're gonna have a bad time. When I used to have to use Eclipse, I would frequently see it hit 1.5GB resident (although this was with some plug-ins and running a built-in Jetty application server). On 4GB that made it a pain when you consider I actually used my computer for other things (like 1GB for Chrome and 1GB for Firefox), so I only really had a good time with 8GB of memory (if using Eclipse could be considered "a good time"..)
-
@lucas said:
When I was a student back in 2003-2004, I could get a 12inch iBook for roughly £600 (which was quite cheap for a computer at that time)...
That doesn't seem that cheap for 12 inches..
@lucas said:
running a unix like OS
You say that like it's a good thing. It's like buying a car because of its Model-T-like acceleration..
@lucas said:
...that has for the most part a decent UI.
OSX has one of the most ill-conceived UIs out there, and that's saying a lot. I don't know when people started equating "decent UI" with "shiny eyecandy* bullshit that makes it harder to get any work done", but it makes me sad. It's like when somebody says "We need to model our UI on Apple because they have the best UI", without apparently knowing what any of those words mean. You want to reach across the table and smash their face into its glass top repeatedly until you shatter their nasal bridge and cause blood to pour from every orifice in their very-stupid head.
But instead you grit your teeth and say nothing, because when this shit galleon sinks to the bottom of the ocean and takes everyone aboard with it, you're going to be elsewhere. Then you end up with shit software that looks like iTunes and has usability on par with operating a Soviet nuclear reactor while Ivan Drago nut-punches you every few seconds.
(*And when did "eyecandy" come to mean "tacky brushed metal on every fucking surface"? It's like I'm having to live through the 70s and people keep inviting me down to see their "hip" rumpus room done-up entirely in fake wood paneling. I want to tell them that they're just creating a body of work which they will later ashamedly destroy any evidence of, but I suppose that's just a job I should leave up to history.)
-
@morbiuswilters said:
OSX has one of the most ill-conceived UIs out there, and that's saying a lot. I don't know when people started equating "decent UI" with "shiny eyecandy* bullshit that makes it harder to get any work done", but it makes me sad.
Me too.
One of several reasons for my ditching Ubuntu in favour of Debian was the way the Ubuntu design team all got a hard-on for trying to make Gnome look, and to some extent work, like OSX. I was among those complaining vociferously about the look of Lucid Lynx when it first appeared, only to be drowned in the now-customary cesspit of "Luddites who fear change can fuck off" fanboi bullshit.
I'd already bailed by the time Unity first appeared, and was blindsided by Gnome's own fever dreams of building a desktop OS that worked like a terrible smartphone; Gnome 3 just turned up on one of my Debian boxes after a careless aptitude full-upgrade and instantly gave me hives. MATE wasn't ready for prime time and I'd never much liked KDE, so Xfce scored another Gnome refugee and so far I have found little to dislike.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Anonymouse said:
It's actually not that bad. This job is basically partly a migration and partly a rewrite of a couple of legacy applications. IntelliJ is the IDE-of-choice for the new code, but the old code was written in Eclipse, so if I want to debug the old business logic to understand what makes it 'tick', the easiest way is to just open the old project files. Visual Studio is only in the mix because the code is kept in TFS, and while IntelliJ has a TFS plugin that works fine most of the time, I have found that when you have conflicting edits on an update, the merge results are often ... interesting (and not in a good way).In my current task for a customer, I sometimes have to have Eclipse, IntelliJ and VS2010 open at the same time...
Were you Hitler in a previous life or something? I don't know why else you're being punished so severely in this life..
-
@Anonymouse said:
It's actually not that bad.
Any job where you have to use Eclipse really is that bad.
@Anonymouse said:
IntelliJ is the IDE-of-choice for the new code...
I've actually never used IntelliJ. Maybe I should check it out. It can't be worse than Eclipse or NetBeans, can it?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
It can't be worse than Eclipse or NetBeans, can it?
It makes the bold claim on its website that it is "The Best Java and Polyglot IDE". Then again, looking at its competition, it's not such a bold claim.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
That doesn't seem that cheap for 12 inches..
Your other choices were (at the time) £1000+ business or underpowered sub-GHZ laptops. Most laptops in the £600 were 14inch 4:3 or 15.6 inch widescreen.
£600 and a free £100 iPod and some office software was a lot better deal when I was a student.
@lucas said:
You say that like it's a good thing. It's like buying a car because of its Model-T-like acceleration..
It depends what you are doing, obviously now I am a .NET dev so it would be pointless. At University our labs were solaris/linux.
If you work with tech that built with *nix in mind, then it makes a lot of sense.
@lucas said:
OSX has one of the most ill-conceived UIs out there, and that's saying a lot. I don't know when people started equating "decent UI" with "shiny eyecandy* bullshit that makes it harder to get any work done", but it makes me sad. It's like when somebody says "We need to model our UI on Apple because they have the best UI", without apparently knowing what any of those words mean. You want to reach across the table and smash their face into its glass top repeatedly until you shatter their nasal bridge and cause blood to pour from every orifice in their very-stupid head.
But instead you grit your teeth and say nothing, because when this shit galleon sinks to the bottom of the ocean and takes everyone aboard with it, you're going to be elsewhere. Then you end up with shit software that looks like iTunes and has usability on par with operating a Soviet nuclear reactor while Ivan Drago nut-punches you every few seconds.
Whether the UI is good from a UX perspective is obviously something that is subjective. I was referring to the fact that the MacOSX interface hasn't massively changed in 10 years. The odd time I jump on a mac I can still work the latest version quite well after a few minutes familiarising myself again.
Personally I prefer Windows UI for the most part.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@Anonymouse said:
I never used NetBeans much, so I can't comment on that. Between IntelliJ and Eclipse, I'm a bit divided - both have good things that the other lack, and at the same time boths have those little annoyances that can drive you up the wall at times that are thankfully absent from the other.IntelliJ is the IDE-of-choice for the new code...
I've actually never used IntelliJ. Maybe I should check it out. It can't be worse than Eclipse or NetBeans, can it?It's hard to name an actual example, because those are the kind of things that you notice, are annoyed by for a moment, then forget about because they're not worth wasting another thought on.
One thing that I do remember, though, is that in Eclipse the "auto-complete" feature offers more ways to generate boilerplate code that you need all the time (like getter/setter methods ... just move the cursor somewhere in class scope, start typing "get" + the first letters of a member, press Ctrl-Space - BAM) which you can't access as fluently in IntelliJ (at least, as far as I have found).
On the other hand, IntelliJ seems to have a much neater tool integration - everything, including plugins, seems to work together much more harmoniously than in Eclipse (where I almost went nuts trying to get something like GWT, Maven and TFS to cooperate peacefully; any two of them in any combination went together well, but as soon as I added the third, shit was starting to fly everywhere). Also, your project structure is not nearly as restricted as it is with that somewhat strange "workspace" construct used by Eclipse.
In the end, I guess, it's going to be a decision more based on personal taste than one based on objectively quantifiable criteria. Although, with IntelliJ being a commercial product, it probably also depends on whether you're willing to shell out for a license or not. Note that while I'm aware that there is a free Open Source "Community Edition", I haven't used that, so I can't say how complete that one is - oh, and consequently everything I wrote in this post is based on my experience with the commercial version.
In short - to answer your original question: It's definitely not worse than Eclipse, but (at least to me) there's also not very much about it where it is significantly better. YMMV, as always, of course.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
You can run Eclipse with a system that's tight on memory, but you're gonna have a bad time. When I used to have to use Eclipse, I would frequently see it hit 1.5GB resident (although this was with some plug-ins and running a built-in Jetty application server).
Why were you running an application server in your IDE? And why were you surprised that it used memory?
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I have no idea. But choosing Apple when they were on the barely-used PPC platform seems even less justifiable.
Story time: I knew a bunch of people who were Mac fanatics in the PPC
days. And boy, did these people love talking CPU architecture.I fully agree that PowerPC design is WAY better than X86. That, however, isn't enough. If the processors aren't developed further (especially on "mobile side"), that can be a showstopper. You couldn't really get anything faster than 1.666GHz-ish G4 in an laptop. No hope for G5, unless there were BIG changes in power consumption, cooling requirements etc. but none of this matters really.
The ONLY thing that matters EVER for choice of a computer is, "Will it run the software you want it to run?" - and processor architecture tends to be a major factor on that decision.
But as said, I bought this last year, and never really meant it to be the "primary mobile system", but what can you do when the "supposedly primary" system starts suffering from overheating (that leads to shutdown) and you have zero income? So basically the system "sneaked its way to the top".
Anyway, especially on move I don't have that high requirements. Video player, web browser with youtube working, gcc, text editor with syntax highlight, mame, mp3 player, and the system can easily do all that. Well, obviously it can't do full HD video (and neither can the display anyway) and even many 720p videos are too much for it. Also "being able to escape the linux world for a while" is a plus :-)
-
We've got shiny new Macs at my workplace (purchased because my boss is a photographer and doesn't understand the difference between "aesthetically pleasing" and "good"). Mind you, I'm not actually allowed to use one; until the current project is finished (ie. when the boss runs out of new features to ask for) we're supposed to stay on our crusty old Vista laptops with their unreliable keyboards. Oh, and we don't have enough PSUs so we need to coordinate who gets to charge their laptop when. Except for one of us who was migrated to a Mac because the boss decided he'd need to take one of our laptops for himself. But for the most part the Macs are still boxed up in a corner of the office.
Of course by now the shiny new Macs are actually a couple months old. They were already a couple months old when we first unboxed one and found out that the boss didn't pay attention when ordering and bought them with wireless keyboards and mice. So not only do we get the bliss of waiting for the mouse or keyboard to reconnect when the Bluetooth inevitably craps out, we also get no numeric keypads, which Apple only builds into the USB version of their keyboards. Everyone in the office makes heavy use of the numeric pad so now the boss has to order additional keypads. Good job, boss!
Then again, what did I expect? This is the same guy who asked me to spec out an office server for document storage etc. (for which I chose a small 300 EUR HP box with four RAIDable HDD slots, which was way more than we needed) and then scrapped the project because RAID was his core requirement and his extensive research (punching "RAID" into google and clicking a random link, most likely) had him convinced that a RAID system absolutely had to include a 4.000 EUR rack-mounted controller, which we couldn't afford. And without RAID the data would be too vulnerable. Thus our document storage system continues to consist of an external hard drive.
-
@lucas said:
Whether the UI is good from a UX perspective is obviously something that is subjective.
No. It is fucking not.
@lucas said:
I was referring to the fact that the MacOSX interface hasn't massively changed in 10 years. The odd time I jump on a mac I can still work the latest version quite well after a few minutes familiarising myself again.
So: still far worse than the UI they shipped in 1998. Gotcha. The sad thing is Apple used to know how to build a UI, and somehow that knowledge got lost and their development got taken over by the idiots who made NeXT such a "success".
@lucas said:
Personally I prefer Windows UI for the most part.
Probably because Microsoft uses the scientific method to make their UI objectively better.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Probably because Microsoft uses the scientific method to make their UI objectively better.
They forgot to do that when putting the tiles on a desktop machine, though.
-
@dhromed said:
@blakeyrat said:
Probably because Microsoft uses the scientific method to make their UI objectively better.
They forgot to do that when putting the tiles on a desktop machine, though.Incorrect. A big part of the scientific method is experiments that fail.
-
@dhromed said:
@blakeyrat said:
Probably because Microsoft uses the scientific method to make their UI objectively better.
They forgot to do that when putting the tiles on a desktop machine, though.That was a result of abnormal Apple-like thinking. "Let's make all our software product have a similar look and feel. Like Apple's always claiming that iOS and OS X are the same OS." But some moron at Microsoft didn't realize that when Apple claims that, they're lying.
-
@blakeyrat said:
The sad thing is Apple used to know how to build a UI, and somehow that knowledge got lost [...]
I wonder if one day in the far future, that will end up like one of those other "ancient lost technology" myths like Atlantis etc.
-
@boomzilla said:
Why were you running an application server in your IDE?
That's a pretty standard way to do development and debugging of J2EE web apps. And it runs in its own JVM.
@boomzilla said:
And why were you surprised that it used memory?
I'm not surprised it used memory, I'm surprised that it used 1.5GB of memory. Or not even surprised, because this is Eclipse and Java we're talking about; I was appalled it used 1.5GB of memory for IDE and a single-user application server.
-
@boomzilla said:
@morbiuswilters said:
You can run Eclipse with a system that's tight on memory, but you're gonna have a bad time. When I used to have to use Eclipse, I would frequently see it hit 1.5GB resident (although this was with some plug-ins and running a built-in Jetty application server).
Why were you running an application server in your IDE? And why were you surprised that it used memory?
What a joke. This would never happen with a modern technology like .Net.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@boomzilla said:
And why were you surprised that it used memory?
I'm not surprised it used memory, I'm surprised that it used 1.5GB of memory. Or not even surprised, because this is Eclipse and Java we're talking about; I was appalled it used 1.5GB of memory for IDE and a single-user application server.
Well, being a jvm process, you tell it how much RAM to use. So if you allowed it, say, 2GB, then why should it bother working to collect garbage if it's only using 1.5GB? Or whatever the actuals were. The default (these days at least) seems to be something like 512MB for heap and 256MB for permgen.
-
@boomzilla said:
Well, being a jvm process, you tell it how much RAM to use. So if you allowed it, say, 2GB, then why should it bother working to collect garbage if it's only using 1.5GB?
And clearly this is a sensible mode of operation. If I set the maximum permitted memory to, say, 2GB because I know sometimes Eclipse will OOM otherwise, then it should just always use 2GB. In fact, that's how every application should work: make the user set a maximum amount just to run the goddamn thing, then reserve all that memory on startup. Yep, sensible.
The fact that no other motherfucking program requires this bullshit is proof of how far ahead of everyone else Java is. Yep.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@boomzilla said:
Well, being a jvm process, you tell it how much RAM to use. So if you allowed it, say, 2GB, then why should it bother working to collect garbage if it's only using 1.5GB?
And clearly this is a sensible mode of operation. If I set the maximum permitted memory to, say, 2GB because I know sometimes Eclipse will OOM otherwise, then it should just always use 2GB. In fact, that's how every application should work: make the user set a maximum amount just to run the goddamn thing, then reserve all that memory on startup. Yep, sensible.What? I'd like to hear what you'd say to someone else this ignorant, because java doesn't reserve all of its memory on startup (again, unless you've told it to do so).
I run eclipse with a lot less memory all the time, though with different plugins, and my application server is in a separate process (I think yours was too, but then I'm confused at why you brought it up at all) and I debug remotely. But all of your applications are bigger scale and yet run faster and longer than anything anyone else does, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that your tools can barely keep up with you.
@morbiuswilters said:
The fact that no other motherfucking program requires this bullshit is proof of how far ahead of everyone else Java is. Yep.
Oh, yeah...although being able to set a max limit on RAM usage makes a lot of sense to me. Heh...one amusing thought that just occurred to me...eclipse uses xulrunner to display a lot of stuff, so I wonder if part of the problem was Mozilla's legendary memory issues.
-
@boomzilla said:
What? I'd like to hear what you'd say to someone else this ignorant, because java doesn't reserve all of its memory on startup (again, unless you've told it to do so).
I thought it was obvious I was suggesting that facetiously. I know Java doesn't reserve the memory on startup, it just uses what it has inefficiently unless it starts reaching the maximum you've set, at which point it tries to aggressively GC.
@boomzilla said:
I run eclipse with a lot less memory all the time, though with different plugins...
I'm curious what you consider "a lot less memory".
@boomzilla said:
and my application server is in a separate process (I think yours was too, but then I'm confused at why you brought it up at all)
Yes, it was in a separate process. I brought it up because it's still rampantly pissing away memory, like every Java application. If your IDE and a single-user, built-in development server use 1.5GB, I'd say that's a pretty shitty IDE and runtime.
@boomzilla said:
Oh, yeah...although being able to set a max limit on RAM usage makes a lot of sense to me.
Setting a max is fine, if the software actually bothered to use it as only a max and still made an effort to be memory-efficient. But it doesn't, so fuck it. (Of course, on Unix you can just set a maximum memory size at the OS level, so you don't even need Java to surface that part of its shitty memory manager.)
@boomzilla said:
Heh...one amusing thought that just occurred to me...eclipse uses xulrunner to display a lot of stuff, so I wonder if part of the problem was Mozilla's legendary memory issues.
Possibly. How does that not reflect badly on the Eclipse team? Eclipse is still shitty and a memory hog, like every Java application ever, maybe it's just worse because it got infected with some Mozilla crapware, too.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
And clearly this is a sensible mode of operation. If I set the maximum permitted memory to, say, 2GB because I know sometimes Eclipse will OOM otherwise, then it should just always use 2GB. In fact, that's how every application should work: make the user set a maximum amount just to run the goddamn thing, then reserve all that memory on startup. Yep, sensible.
See this is the danger of people who never used Mac Classic, they go on to reinvent it!!!
-
@morbiuswilters said:
@boomzilla said:
I run eclipse with a lot less memory all the time, though with different plugins...
I'm curious what you consider "a lot less memory".I currently have about 400MB resident. I haven't touched the default RAM stuff (that I remember).
@morbiuswilters said:
Setting a max is fine, if the software actually bothered to use it as only a max and still made an effort to be memory-efficient. But it doesn't, so fuck it.
WTF? You told it to go ahead and use it. Blakeyrat will be along in a minute to explain why it's OK for your computer to use memory.
@morbiuswilters said:
@boomzilla said:
Heh...one amusing thought that just occurred to me...eclipse uses xulrunner to display a lot of stuff, so I wonder if part of the problem was Mozilla's legendary memory issues.
Possibly. How does that not reflect badly on the Eclipse team? Eclipse is still shitty and a memory hog, like every Java application ever, maybe it's just worse because it got infected with some Mozilla crapware, too.I never said anything about how it reflected on eclipse. Perhaps you should read what I wrote instead of imagining it?
-
@boomzilla said:
WTF? You told it to go ahead and use it.
No, I told it it could use that much, if it needed to, because otherwise it will shit itself during some operations. I didn't say "Please use all of this memory, in perpetuity, throughout the universe." Just as I'd expect Chrome to use more memory if it had 100 tabs open, but if it used the same amount with 1 tab open I'd be pissed.
@boomzilla said:
Blakeyrat will be along in a minute to explain why it's OK for your computer to use memory.
I don't have a problem with a program using memory, I have a problem with it abusing memory. I'm not going to cry over a few megs, but if a program like Eclipse is just pissing memory away, then that's stupid. It impacts my ability to run other programs.
@boomzilla said:
I never said anything about how it reflected on eclipse. Perhaps you should read what I wrote instead of imagining it?
I did. I don't know what point you were trying to make, other than "Some of Eclipse's shittiness isn't solely because of Java." Whoop-de-fucking-doo!
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I don't have a problem with a program using memory, I have a problem with it abusing memory. I'm not going to cry over a few megs, but if a program like Eclipse is just pissing memory away, then that's stupid. It impacts my ability to run other programs.
Maybe your OS is just shitty at managing memory.
Is "impacts your ability to run other programs" something you've benchmarked, or gut-feeling?
-
@blakeyrat said:
Maybe your OS is just shitty at managing memory.
It's not the OS, it's Java.
@blakeyrat said:
Is "impacts your ability to run other programs" something you've benchmarked, or gut-feeling?
Benchmarked? It's something that's happened before--running VirtualBox (w/ Win7), Eclipse, Firefox, Chrome, another Java app and a few daemons like Apache, varnish and MySQL in 8GB of memory simply isn't going to work. By far, the worst offender is Eclipse, followed up by Firefox and any other Java app running at the same time.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
It's not the OS, it's Java.
Java's shitty, to be sure, but Java doesn't go out of its way to break OS memory management strategies. (Like, say, GoLang apparently does.) Much/most of that 2 GB is going to be shared between the two Java processes. Unless your OS sucks.
@morbiuswilters said:
Benchmarked? It's something that's happened before--running VirtualBox (w/ Win7), Eclipse, Firefox, Chrome, another Java app and a few daemons like Apache, varnish and MySQL in 8GB of memory simply isn't going to work. By far, the worst offender is Eclipse, followed up by Firefox and any other Java app running at the same time.
That's a lot huger workload than you implied in the previous post.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@morbiuswilters said:
It's not the OS, it's Java.
Java's shitty, to be sure, but Java doesn't go out of its way to break OS memory management strategies. (Like, say, GoLang apparently does.) Much/most of that 2 GB is going to be shared between the two Java processes. Unless your OS sucks.
@morbiuswilters said:
Benchmarked? It's something that's happened before--running VirtualBox (w/ Win7), Eclipse, Firefox, Chrome, another Java app and a few daemons like Apache, varnish and MySQL in 8GB of memory simply isn't going to work. By far, the worst offender is Eclipse, followed up by Firefox and any other Java app running at the same time.
That's a lot huger workload than you implied in the previous post.
VirtualBox has terrible performance, I don't understand why people still use it while VMware player and XenServer are free.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Much/most of that 2 GB is going to be shared between the two Java processes.
No way. I'm not counting shared libraries in that, that's just plain heap space. (Well, in my example it was 1.5GB, boomzilla is the one who said 2GB..) The shared libraries add another 500MB or so. And if Eclipse is the only Java application on your system (and Dear God, you'd wish that were the case) then those shared libraries aren't going to be shared with anything. These aren't system libraries were dozens of apps running at the same time share the same library; these are Java apps, which people go out of their way to avoid running.
@blakeyrat said:
That's a lot huger workload than you implied in the previous post.
What exactly did I imply? And I don't think anything about that workload is unreasonable for a machine with 8GB. I do think it's unreasonable for Java to use 1.5GB of heap space for an IDE.
-
@Ronald said:
VMware player
shrug I dunno, I didn't bundle the VM images. But I haven't noticed any significant difference between VMWare and Virtualbox in the past. Both run reasonably fast enough considering they're running Windows in a VM.
@Ronald said:
XenServer
I thought Xen on HVM was still pretty slow without PV drivers on the guest. Does Citrix provide its own or something? Because I didn't think Xen had any good PV drivers for Windows yet.
