Truly, I should have some clue. But I don't ... really.
I've populated the 'Evom' thread here because I'm wondering why my MBook is chugging along so slowly. It may be a simple answer. May not. But I know someone will check in and straighten me out. Boy, do I need it.
I've done some homework in the last few minutes. Hope that I have enough information for someone to analyze and advise.
Facts:
MBook, 2007, 2.16 GHz, Intel Core Duo ... IOS 10.6.8 Snow Leopard.
I'm looking at the Activity Monitor because right now, it's through the roof - two big light-blue bars. I'm trying to convert videos (TV shows) - one on Evom, one on iVI.
Here's what I gathered from the Activity Monitor:
CPU:
95% (user) / Evom ... 87% / iVI ... 96%.
The Math would suggest that this is a problem, no? Shouldn't Evom and iVI add UP to 100%?
Real Memory:
Finder 47MB, iVI 76MB (ffmpeg 99 MB), Evom 22 MB (ffmpeg 51 MB), iTunes 42 MB, something called 'kernel task' at 97 MB.
Virtual Memory:
iTunes 37 MB, Safari 131 MB, Firefox 310 MB, Evom 47 MB (ffmpeg 86 MB), iVI 211 MB (ffmpeg 136 MB), Finder 233 MB, Mail 207 MB, Dashboard 324 MB, Quick Look Helper 542 MB, Microsoft AU Daemon 138 MB.
System Memory:
Free - 84 MB of 1 GB ... Active 475 MB, Inactive 238 MB.
Okay. A lot of mumbo-jumbo to ME ... but surely, the proper language for many of you who are experts in these matters.
Is there something I need to be doing? Need to be aware of?
Thanks for any and all assistance.
/Michael.
Hello, I found your problem. Heaven knows how much disk space you have ...
As for the activity not adding up to 100 percent ... you have TWO processors. A Core 2 *duo*, you see -- two processors.
Running two video converters at once ... I'm amazed you can get the machine to function at all.
You need to max out the RAM on that machine, be sure you have TONS of free disk space, and really -- if you're going to be doing this much video converting -- upgrade to a far more powerful and RAM-capable machine.
When I saw 'chas_m' responding, I thought two things:
1. He is going to think I'm an idiot. Oh no!
2. Regardless, I'm going to get straightened out.
So, should I be looking into 'buying' more RAM? Would this 2007 MBook handle it? Or have I reached that point when I'll need to move on to a new MBP? Oh, and I have about 32 GB of disk space, fluctuates between 28 GB and 35 GB most of the time out of 120 GB.
Be gentle.
(Found your music blog ... downloading as we speak.)
/M.
What's really impressive here is how you got a MacBook to run iOS (and not OS X)!
Snow Leopard's minimum requirement is 1GB RAM, recommened 2GB+. This machine will officially support 2GB of RAM and actually take 3GB. Cut your losses, it's done 5 years, start looking for a new machine... At this point I wouldn't be putting any more money in to this one.
__________________ Apple Certified Macintosh Technician (ACMT) / Support Professional (ACSP) MacBook Air (13-inch, Mid 2012) 8GB RAM, 256GB Flash Storage Mac mini (Late 2012) 16GB RAM, Fusion Drive (128GB SSD/750GB 7200RPM) iPad mini 16GB, iPhone 4S 16GB
When I switched to Apple last year I thought based on my Windows experience that 4 mb RAM memory would be enough for our new iMac, but soon realized that with today's software and my appetite for multitasking, I needed more. And I don't game or do video stuff. CanadaRAM in Victoria was awesome to deal with, they soon shipped me an 8 mb module suited to our model that I popped into the empty second slot and we've no problems since with 12 mb. That taught a valuable lesson. In fact I wish now I had maxed the RAM and if the system gets tight in years to come that's what I'll do. It was far cheaper upgrading the RAM myself through them than upgrading through Apple when we ordered the iMac.
If I was in your shoes, I'd either talk to CanadaRAM and upgrade the RAM, or if the budget could handle it I'd get a new machine. Today's Apple computers have some nifty features over their 5 year old laptops, like more RAM capacity and bigger hard drives for starters, but I'd think twice if I didn't really need them. Also I don't know how easy it is to do a RAM upgrade oneself on that MacBook. RAM is soldered into some of the new Apple laptops and cannot be upgraded by users, so go big if you buy a new one.
Hope that helps.
__________________
iMac, iPhone, iPad, iPod, Apple TV, Airport Express, Bell FibreOp.
Last edited by slipstream; Jul 10th, 2012 at 05:17 AM.
According to everymac.com et al, that MB as I read their specs can actually use 4GB of RAM.
A 2007 with a 2.16 processor is the higher end Mid 2007 and it officially only supports 2GB of RAM, can take 3GB in an unmatched pair or 4GB as a matched pair but only address 3GB.
__________________ Apple Certified Macintosh Technician (ACMT) / Support Professional (ACSP) MacBook Air (13-inch, Mid 2012) 8GB RAM, 256GB Flash Storage Mac mini (Late 2012) 16GB RAM, Fusion Drive (128GB SSD/750GB 7200RPM) iPad mini 16GB, iPhone 4S 16GB
I'm looking at the Activity Monitor because right now, it's through the roof - two big light-blue bars. I'm trying to convert videos (TV shows) - one on Evom, one on iVI.
Here's what I gathered from the Activity Monitor:
CPU:
95% (user) / Evom ... 87% / iVI ... 96%.
As an aside, if either of those two apps doing the conversion are multithreaded (i believe evom is), you aren't gaining anything by running two concurrent conversion apps. With other bottlenecks involved (disk i/o etc.) I'd wager it would be quite a bit slower than converting one at a time.
A 2007 with a 2.16 processor is the higher end Mid 2007 and it officially only supports 2GB of RAM, can take 3GB in an unmatched pair or 4GB as a matched pair but only address 3GB.
But the 4GB arrangement provides some speed improvements:
"Macintosh intel MacBook Core2Duo 1.83, 2.0 and 2.16 GHz - MacBook2,1 black and white
Two sockets, can take 1 x 1 Gb + 1 x 2 Gb for 3 Gb total. With 2 x 2 Gb, 3.0 Gb is usable by the OS but you get Dual Channel memory access for a 6% - 8% speed improvement."
As an aside, if either of those two apps doing the conversion are multithreaded (i believe evom is), you aren't gaining anything by running two concurrent conversion apps. With other bottlenecks involved (disk i/o etc.) I'd wager it would be quite a bit slower than converting one at a time.
Yes, that's pretty stupid on this machine. Makes sense.
/M.
Linear Mode
