Bump the RAM Apple!!!

A company giving something for free?! Are you serious?!

rhpenguin said:

A company giving something for free?! Are you serious?!

Click to expand...

How are they giving something away for free if, instead of dropping the price by e.g. $100, they add 256MB of memory? They'd actually be making money on that deal since the memory doesn't cost them anywhere near that much.

Sheesh, I remember when 4MB was plenty enough for daily computing, and having 16MB was an ungodly amount of ram.

Read it how the original poster intended it.. Basically hes saying, keep the price the same, add 256mb more memory and give users the option to remove that 256mb as a bto option.

rhpenguin said:

Read it how the original poster intended it.. Basically hes saying, keep the price the same, add 256mb more memory and give users the option to remove that 256mb as a bto option.

Click to expand...

I still don't see how they are giving anything away for free in that case. If they are going to drop the price by $100, and instead of doing that they add an extra 256MB stick of RAM which can be removed to reduce the price by, say, $75, they are still $25 ahead of where they were if they had just reduced the price, AND the system is better prepared for the average consumer (if the RAM is not removed). Even if they make the RAM an option that can be removed for the full $100, they still aren't any worse off then they would have been if they had just dropped the system's price by $100.

If they were to give you 256MB of RAM for the lower price, then fine they might be giving something for free, but if they don't lower the price, how are they giving anything away for free?

You seem to be disregarding the fact the original poster was intending this as a *replacement* for a price drop.

Apple really should have 512mb as standard really, Panther really slows if the hd is not upto scratch (<7200) with 256mb. Through economies of scale i doubt Apple would pay more than a tenner (if that) to bump up all the models and it would leave a lot of newbs who will walk out with a Mini a lot happier when they get it home. Forget a day or anything just put 512 in all the Macs, we do pay a premium after all.

i completely agree. i just got my bro a mac mini with min ram (cause ram elsewhere is cheaper) and set it up (havent gotten more ram yet). and 256 isnt enough for OS X. i have my PB maxed out and i like it (with 5 programs open at once) but honestly 256 is hardly enough to run OS X so i dont know why apple keeps packaging everything with only 256. oh well. probably by the time i get another computer 512 will be too little and thats what apple will ship as its standard.

wPod said:

... but honestly 256 is hardly enough to run OS X...

Click to expand...

Are you saying that running OS X alone, with no other applications running, takes up most of the 256 MB of RAM?

dejo said:

Are you saying that running OS X alone, with no other applications running, takes up most of the 256 MB of RAM?

Click to expand...

It comes rather close. I restarted just to see what it comes up as and it was 220 MB for me. I suppose if you close applications completely you might be able to get by, and there probably are ways to lower the amount you use.

My hope is that once the frenzy is over with that the Apple Stores in the malls will have versions of the Mac mini with at least the 512mb RAM and the AE/BT built in. I have heard that they do that on some of the PB configs that sell well.

Lacero said:

Sheesh, I remember when 4MB was plenty enough for daily computing, and having 16MB was an ungodly amount of ram.

Click to expand...

indeed man, i have a stick of PNY 4mb ram at home.. bought the stuff for $200 at best buy.. i have the receipt and the ram and the box.. i'll take pics the good ol days of windows 95.. so it was in '95 or '96 i bought it

considering cheap PCs also ship with 256 MB RAM, most of them also being used as shared video RAM, i don't see the reason for apple to do this.

you are right, though, 256 MB is fairly low for OS X. (nevermind Win XP for cheap PCs.) you will get a lot more beachballs because of frequent access to virtual memory.

but for people who want cheap computer, i think it's ok. if you know better, you'd upgrade. i don't think selling with 256 MB is really stifling the demand - those who buy without upgrades wouldn't know the difference even if it came with 512 MB, and those who know will (grudgingly) pay to upgrade.

I can understand them keeping the mini at 256 but I might like to point out by the time PC hit 800 base price for monitor and all they at sitting at 512 megs of ram. so basicly everything but BTO for the min mac and the lowest of the Emac, and Ibook, but after that they all should be at the standard 512 meg.

Level it to apple to put top of the line stuff in there top of the line computer than waste all that extra power with POS graphic card and 256 megs of ram. A basic 1,8 ghz power mac (no upgrades) will get creamed in almost all test by a 1K pc tower with a slow CPU just because that computer has 4 times the ram and a much better graphic card. before I get flamed I might like to point out that the PC tower would still have a ram and graphic card upgrade but it is still 1/2 of the cost of a basie 1.8ghz Powermac and is not hampered by no ram. It was making a poitn that Apple really needs to increase it ram

Steven1621 said:

It comes rather close. I restarted just to see what it comes up as and it was 220 MB for me. I suppose if you close applications completely you might be able to get by, and there probably are ways to lower the amount you use.

Click to expand...

Then how can OS X (10.3.7) be running on my 128MB iBook?

dejo said:

Then how can OS X (10.3.7) be running on my 128MB iBook?

Click to expand...

it'll run. but it'll be slow. that's all. (obviously, 'slow' is relative. i personally found my experience - read below - nearly unusable.)

i had a 1 GHz eMac with 128 MB. panther ran, but it was very slow. try to run any app and you'd get beachball. slow and 'nearly' unsable doesn't mean it won't run. you'd be amazed how much better the performance will be if you put a bit more RAM in your iBook.

i think it's an excellent idea. and now that Apple has been messing with the price of the upgrade options for the mini, maybe it wouldn't be too "below" them for it to actually be possible.

I think it's more than an excellent idea- I think it's imperative... Yeah, cheap PC's come with 256- but those $500 PC's come with a keyboard. mouse, & monitor- ... So for all intensive purposes, Apple doesn't really make a "Cheap" computer... I understand the target audience for the mini is people who already have that stuff- but they are also comparing it to the $500 PC's so it's fair to point out what you get & don't get..

Let's face it- even Apples low end desk tops are expensive- compared to PC's - 512 should be standard- 256 is unacceptable in anything other than the mini...

I used my eMac with 256 mb of RAM for a few months. It was very annoying and all I use is iTunes, Safari, iPhoto, and few other programs on a regular basis. 256 mb is not enough. I have used a Mac with 512 mb and imho that is not enough. 768 mb seems to be a sweet spot with normal use and anything more is never a bad thing.

jxyama said:

considering cheap PCs also ship with 256 MB RAM, most of them also being used as shared video RAM, i don't see the reason for apple to do this.

Click to expand...

I'm sure there are a few cheap PCs out there with 256K, but the cheap Dell on the back of Parade Magazine in my Sunday paper ($499 after rebate with 17" CRT and keyboard/mouse) has 512K of RAM. I think that 512 is becoming the PC standard, even on the cheapest of boxes.

rosalindavenue said:

I'm sure there are a few cheap PCs out there with 256K, but the cheap Dell on the back of Parade Magazine in my Sunday paper ($499 after rebate with 17" CRT and keyboard/mouse) has 512K of RAM. I think that 512 is becoming the PC standard, even on the cheapest of boxes.

Click to expand...

Based on my experiences, I would be far more likely to run a Mac with 10.3 with 256mb RAM, than I would a Win XP box with the same amount of RAM.

Apple has to struggle against the common perception that Macs are too expensive, thus the emphasis on a low advertised price point. Up-selling is common throughout business and that's what Apple does with the BTO options.

Chip NoVaMac said:

Based on my experiences, I would be far more likely to run a Mac with 10.3 with 256mb RAM, than I would a Win XP box with the same amount of RAM.

Click to expand...

I disagree. My XP machine with 256mb ran much more smoothly than the mac mini does with 256. Mac OS X is simply a more demanding operating system.

The typical WinXP computer might be slower, but if you don't let a bunch of spyware and junk get installed, it is very usable with 256mb of ram. Adding more would probably help when you have lots of stuff open, but regular web browsing, word processing, etc. performace isn't boosted that much.

The mini is literally a night and day difference switching to 512. I put in the memory today and it finally feels like it should. Using this machine with 256mb is like driving a car with the emergency brake on. It also bothers me that the iLife '05 suite that Apple touts as a reason to buy the mini runs so poorly on the stock memory configuration. I think this potential PR nightmare could be easilly aleviated by putting in another $30 of ram (probably much less wholesale)

-Andrew