PDA

View Full Version : Guesses of minimum RAM for Lion?




cambookpro
Oct 23, 2010, 02:14 AM
Since Lion will incorporate a lot of 'instant load' and apps always running, it's going to need a lot of memory, isn't it? Would 2GB now be the bare minimum for RAM? SL was 1GB, but that didn't exactly speed along on 1GB. I'd guess 2GB as that is the least RAM you can now buy from Apple.



pineapple216
Oct 23, 2010, 03:57 AM
I think 2 GB will be the minimum to run Lion, due to the fact that Lion only runs on intel macs, and all intel mac's support 2 GB's of RAM

Dmac77
Oct 23, 2010, 06:38 AM
I think 2 GB will be the minimum to run Lion, due to the fact that Lion only runs on intel macs, and all intel mac's support 2 GB's of RAM

If that were the case, SL would have required 2GB of RAM because it is Intel only. I'm going to assume that they leave the minimum requirement at 1 GB of RAM, why would they release a computer (MBA) less than a year before Lion ships, that would only ship with the bare minimum requirements as standard??? It's bad business and will piss a lot of consumers off; which will inevitably lead to bad press.

-Don

netdog
Oct 23, 2010, 07:04 AM
I'm wondering if the cut-off in Lion is going to be more to do with VRAM. Those original MacBooks with shared VRAM might chug along slowly given what we saw of the graphics effects in everyday use of Lion.

cambookpro
Oct 23, 2010, 08:31 AM
If that were the case, SL would have required 2GB of RAM because it is Intel only. I'm going to assume that they leave the minimum requirement at 1 GB of RAM, why would they release a computer (MBA) less than a year before Lion ships, that would only ship with the bare minimum requirements as standard??? It's bad business and will piss a lot of consumers off; which will inevitably lead to bad press.

-Don

The thing is that now the MBAs WILL be able to run Lion. Since every current Mac has minimum RAM of 2GB+, I think it makes sense.

mabaker
Oct 23, 2010, 02:40 PM
SL is a RAM hog. There I said it. Apple has to do MAJOR RAM management optimization in oder to match Windows (as much as I am not fond of it) excellent RAM handling.

My fear is tho, that they are thinking that everybody will get a SSD to drive Lion and forget how bad RAM management/paging in OS X is.

My guess it wonít be more 1 GB RAM recommended. But as always itíS never accurate.

maflynn
Oct 23, 2010, 03:33 PM
SL is a RAM hog. There I said it. Apple has to do MAJOR RAM management optimization in oder to match Windows (as much as I am not fond of it) excellent RAM handling.
Apple's track record for writing small effecient code is worse then Micosofts. Leopard was a memory hog, SL was not better. Looking at safari, aperture and apple's other apps and I'd say the odds that apple will shrink Lion's memory requirements is about nill

goobot
Oct 23, 2010, 04:11 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

1 gig cause this method saves ram not the other way around

cambookpro
Oct 23, 2010, 05:14 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

1 gig cause this method saves ram not the other way around

No, if Lion saves the state of every app it's going to use a heck of a lot more RAM.

goobot
Oct 24, 2010, 03:08 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)



No, if Lion saves the state of every app it's going to use a heck of a lot more RAM.

in ios even if there are a 100 apps saved via ios method it is still using a lot less ram than a few apps via regular multitasking. lion i believe does it the same way

dccorona
Oct 24, 2010, 01:11 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)



No, if Lion saves the state of every app it's going to use a heck of a lot more RAM.

saving the state of an app uses a heck of a lot less ram then leaving it running

just looking at what I have running on my mac right now, iTunes (with nothing playing), iCal, Address Book, iPhoto, Pages...none of those actually NEED to be running, they're not doing anything. So if instead their state was just saved, it'd save memory

dukebound85
Oct 24, 2010, 01:15 PM
If that were the case, SL would have required 2GB of RAM because it is Intel only. I'm going to assume that they leave the minimum requirement at 1 GB of RAM, why would they release a computer (MBA) less than a year before Lion ships, that would only ship with the bare minimum requirements as standard??? It's bad business and will piss a lot of consumers off; which will inevitably lead to bad press.

-Don

You do realize that the first intel macs had 512mb ram right?

thejadedmonkey
Oct 24, 2010, 01:25 PM
I think the max ram on the first core duo macs was 2gb's.

Giuly
Oct 24, 2010, 01:53 PM
If you run SL with 1GB of RAM, it's your own fault. I can't even get along with 8GB, doing nothing fancy on my Mac Mini :rolleyes:

As long as you can upgrade virtually every Mac to run Lion, I'd also be fine with 2GB of RAM as a requirement.

I haven't seen much that justifies any kind of altered requirements on Lion so far though, remember that all that stuff runs on an iPad with 256MB of RAM and single-core CPU with 1GHz.

mrsir2009
Oct 26, 2010, 12:58 PM
I reckon the min for Lion will be 1.5GB or 2GB.

sheepopo39
Oct 27, 2010, 04:35 PM
If it goes up to 2gb, I guess I'll have to update my Late 2006 MB's ram from 2.5gb to 3.3gb or whatever the max is. :p

mrsir2009
Oct 27, 2010, 11:33 PM
If it goes up to 2gb, I guess I'll have to update my Late 2006 MB's ram from 2.5gb to 3.3gb or whatever the max is. :p

But if the min is 2GB of RAM, 2.5 GBs is more than enough :)

Orree
Oct 28, 2010, 12:31 PM
2 gb. It is the standard for all of Apple's current computers, I imagine they will only cater for computers (not upgraded) a year back. More sales when Lion is released.

mrsir2009
Oct 28, 2010, 01:11 PM
Next year I'll deck my 13" MBP with a SSD and Lion :D

iThinkergoiMac
Oct 28, 2010, 05:31 PM
Those original MacBooks with shared VRAM might chug along slowly given what we saw of the graphics effects in everyday use of Lion.

Don't you mean every MacBook ever? ALL MacBooks have integrated GPUs (and thus shared memory). The ones with the Nvidia cards are pretty fast, but they still have shared memory.

plasticphyte
Oct 28, 2010, 08:47 PM
<drevil>One million Gigabytes!</drevil>

hcho3
Oct 28, 2010, 08:55 PM
I am gonna say 1GB for minimum to just run it. However, once you start loading applications and running them on background.. then 2GB. If you start opening multiple pages and programs, then it will be better off with 4GB. iMacs will most likely move up to 8GB rams and most of laptops will be 4GB standard.

iMJustAGuy
Oct 30, 2010, 01:58 PM
I'm sure 1GB will suffice.

ghboard2010
Oct 30, 2010, 06:56 PM
How muchya' got? ;)

hachre
Nov 17, 2010, 09:41 PM
I expect RAM usage to lower in real world comparisons with Lion. I expect it to run ok on 512 and well on 1024 MB.

maflynn
Nov 18, 2010, 06:30 AM
I expect RAM usage to lower in real world comparisons with Lion. I expect it to run ok on 512 and well on 1024 MB.

You mean to say that apple will actually shrink OSX's foot print to such an extent that it will run ok on a 512mb machine when it does that now only with 2gb?

I'd say that could happen if we had a good track record from apple with safari, and other of its apps, but that's clearly not the case. Plus each version of OSX was more bloated then the prior version.

hachre
Nov 18, 2010, 08:11 AM
You mean to say that apple will actually shrink OSX's foot print to such an extent that it will run ok on a 512mb machine when it does that now only with 2gb?

I'd say that could happen if we had a good track record from apple with safari, and other of its apps, but that's clearly not the case. Plus each version of OSX was more bloated then the prior version.

In my opinion it runs okay on 1GB today. Our definitions of OK may wary :) For me it's good at 2GB, and just ok at 1GB atm.

asdf542
Nov 24, 2010, 09:16 PM
It's going to be 1GB. Apple shipped new Mac Mini's in 2009 with 1GB of RAM.

roadbloc
Nov 26, 2010, 11:10 AM
I'm hoping for a reduction in RAM usage, but I doubt that will happen. Looks like I'm gonna have to max out my MacBook.

hcho3
Nov 28, 2010, 11:02 AM
1GB ram will be the requirement. 2GB will be more like recommended spec.

ZenErik
Nov 28, 2010, 11:08 AM
I imagine 2 GB will be recommended and 4 GB will be when it actually runs well for people that do a little more than just browsing and word processing. I am in the clear with 8 GB. :) I don't expect too many issues. I never page out with my recording software but can come close to it running HD video to my TV with Movist or VLC.

ghboard2010
Dec 5, 2010, 01:40 PM
640K; after all you're never going to need more than this. . . ;)

felch
Dec 21, 2010, 04:09 PM
I would worry less about the minimum and just make sure you have the max your system can handle.


1gb is a joke :rolleyes:

MattInOz
Dec 21, 2010, 06:25 PM
You mean to say that apple will actually shrink OSX's foot print to such an extent that it will run ok on a 512mb machine when it does that now only with 2gb?

I'd say that could happen if we had a good track record from apple with safari, and other of its apps, but that's clearly not the case. Plus each version of OSX was more bloated then the prior version.

Well they want to get it down to run as much of it as they can on 128Mb machine so you'd think they would be trying to get everything smaller not bigger.

lewis82
Dec 21, 2010, 06:26 PM
I would worry less about the minimum and just make sure you have the max your system can handle.

Not useful for everyone. I've never used 4 GB of RAM, even when gaming. And that includes the fact that my 9400M takes 256MB for itself. I'll upgrade to 8GB if I really need it, or if I find a good deal on RAM. Otherwise, I'll stick with 4.

nateo200
Jan 1, 2011, 01:49 AM
I would worry less about the minimum and just make sure you have the max your system can handle.


1gb is a joke :rolleyes:

theres the overkill spirit! Better safe then sorry!

Dmac77
Jan 1, 2011, 07:27 PM
You do realize that the first intel macs had 512mb ram right?

Sorry for the late reply, but Snow Leopard (the first Intel only version of OS X) was released well after those macs were released, several years later to be in fact. So it wasn't a bad business move for Apple to require 1GB of RAM for Snow Leopard.

-Don

chrismacguy
Jan 3, 2011, 03:09 PM
I think I can safely say that the max amount the minimum ram could be is 3GB - Simply because thats what my Mac Pro Quad shipped with (a Mid-2010 Model no-less) and if they set it there I can see people who have machines like my White iMac still in use as their main machine being mighty annoyed (Although, depending on your usage, Apples RAM Requirements can be overstated - I have 10.5 booting on a 700Mhz G4 with 128MB RAM for example).

Mal
Jan 3, 2011, 10:38 PM
I think I can safely say that the max amount the minimum ram could be is 3GB - Simply because thats what my Mac Pro Quad shipped with (a Mid-2010 Model no-less) and if they set it there I can see people who have machines like my White iMac still in use as their main machine being mighty annoyed (Although, depending on your usage, Apples RAM Requirements can be overstated - I have 10.5 booting on a 700Mhz G4 with 128MB RAM for example).

Considering Apple doesn't even officially support 3GB of RAM as a configuration on most of their machines, I think it's doubtful that they would even consider that number. Only the Mac Pro's that came with triple-channel RAM supported it, but Apple refused to sell machines with 3GB's of RAM in them for all their other lines.

I think I may have already weighed in, but I can't see them requiring more than 1GB, not at this point. 1GB is very reasonable though, as no machine capable of running it is incapable of being upgraded to 1GB.

jW

logandzwon
Jan 5, 2011, 02:10 PM
I think 2 GB. Actually, I think Leopard and Snow Leopard require 2GB, "system requirements" be damned. On a serious note, I'm gonna guess 2GB, although in real-world it'll be pretty close to SL in ram use. The extra ram requirement will be so that the suspending applications works smoothly.

jace88
Jan 9, 2011, 03:40 AM
I doubt they'll change the system reqs above the current 1gb so it can be run on as many Macs as possible (i.e. making it the "must have" update for as many people as possible)- but the instant on feature might be something which can be turned off/on depending on system specs. If the iPhone/iTouch is anything to go by, it is probably very easily scalable in that once the system starts running out of RAM, old programs get taken out of RAM and their state stored on the hard drive or something.

I wonder if SSD users will get the ability to restore from the SSD since it's just as fast.

ps. Looking at http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html , it looks like Apple is very specific about what is minimum/general requirement, and what is required for feature XXX.

chrismacguy
Jan 12, 2011, 01:42 PM
Considering Apple doesn't even officially support 3GB of RAM as a configuration on most of their machines, I think it's doubtful that they would even consider that number. Only the Mac Pro's that came with triple-channel RAM supported it, but Apple refused to sell machines with 3GB's of RAM in them for all their other lines.

I think I may have already weighed in, but I can't see them requiring more than 1GB, not at this point. 1GB is very reasonable though, as no machine capable of running it is incapable of being upgraded to 1GB.

jW

I only posted it to try and stop someone claiming 4GB or similar as being the minimum, which would be silly - I expect 1GB required, 2GB for it actually be relatively useable daily, and it will boot with just 512MB (very slowly) (Like 10.5 really needs 1GB but will run on 128MB.. slowly, but it will run)

Mal
Jan 12, 2011, 03:09 PM
I only posted it to try and stop someone claiming 4GB or similar as being the minimum, which would be silly - I expect 1GB required, 2GB for it actually be relatively useable daily, and it will boot with just 512MB (very slowly) (Like 10.5 really needs 1GB but will run on 128MB.. slowly, but it will run)

Yeah, I was more elaborating than correcting.

jW

Xian Zhu Xuande
Jan 12, 2011, 03:27 PM
I would be surprised if Lion didn't run quite nicely on 1 GB.

Acorn
Feb 4, 2011, 05:24 PM
im thinking they will advertise minimum 2gb ram but you will need 4 to dodge the beachball.

nathanl1192
Feb 24, 2011, 09:12 AM
To have auto-saving apps... its gonna need at lease 2GB, maybe even more....

Androidpwns
Feb 27, 2011, 02:37 PM
im thinking they will advertise minimum 2gb ram but you will need 4 to dodge the beachball.

Haha. Too right.

ivnj
Mar 11, 2011, 12:32 PM
My mini I bought in 2007 only supports 2gb ram max. Core duo 32 bit. So not all are 2+. But might not be much added worth upgrading for in the first place. So wait and see.

ivnj
Mar 11, 2011, 06:40 PM
according to this older intel macs are out but not sure if that is correct.

http://www.appletell.com/apple/comment/mac-os-x-lion-will-drop-support-for-early-intel-macs/

crammedberry
Mar 12, 2011, 02:22 PM
I think it'll be 2GB... anyone who has used Lion can tell you that is a much bigger ram hog than Leopard... I've used the latest developer build and it never uses less than 2GB... in fact... just turning on the system pushes it past a gig... open up safari and you're back at 2GB...

One thing I did notice is that Lion is a lot lot snappier... maybe OSX is utilizing all the ram because it can, and not because it needs to? My MBP has 4GB RAM and I have noticed it's much faster... kinda reminds me of when Panther was released, it actually made older systems faster...

ivnj
Mar 12, 2011, 03:49 PM
Good to know maybe I'll skip it.

But according to this I Just found ram may not be as important.

http://www.ideaexcursion.com/2010/11/12/why-ram-matters-less-with-os-x-lion/

I hope the final is less ram hungry.

bosephus61
Jun 7, 2011, 01:05 AM
DP4 requires a Min. of 2GB (while DP3 worked with 1GB).... Off to macsales for more ram :)