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

mabaker

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jan 19, 2008
1,209
566
I miss ye old days where 512 MB was enough. :(

Ever since SL and 64bit became the norm, Mac OS has gotten hoggy all the way whereas Windows 7 has gotten much much better as far as paging/RAM are concerned.

What about Lion?

TIA
 

Hellhammer

Moderator emeritus
Dec 10, 2008
22,164
582
Finland
It uses even more RAM. All these Resume features and stuff are very RAM heavy, thus the 2GB requirement.
 

mabaker

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jan 19, 2008
1,209
566
That is bad news indeed.

Have you used Lion yet in any way? Could you compare it to Windows 7 in case of RAM management?
 

Hellhammer

Moderator emeritus
Dec 10, 2008
22,164
582
Finland
That is bad news indeed.

Have you used Lion yet in any way? Could you compare it to Windows 7 in case of RAM management?

I'm running Lion as we speak. It's been awhile since I used Windows 7 extensively so it's hard for me to compare the two. I will be reviewing Lion along with Andrew and Anand in AnandTech.com so stay tuned. We have plans on testing the RAM usage too.
 

mabaker

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Jan 19, 2008
1,209
566
Thank you. :) Good luck to you then! I really am afraid that the RAM usage will be astronomical this time around as SL was already pushing it...:(
 

Dr McKay

macrumors 68040
Aug 11, 2010
3,430
57
Kirkland
Remember that the RAM usage reflected in Lion right now might not be accurate.

Its a natural assumption that each new OS will use more RAM.

Heck, people going over from XP bitch about Vista/7 using more RAM, but unlike XP, they are designed to actually use RAM, not just let it sit wasted and unused.
 

rkmac

macrumors 6502
Jun 22, 2009
413
0
JAFA, New Zealand
RAM is so cheap now though... 8GB costs next to nothing. I really don't see how you can say you don't have enough RAM when its so cheap :confused:
 

paulsalter

macrumors 68000
Aug 10, 2008
1,622
0
UK
RAM is so cheap now though... 8GB costs next to nothing. I really don't see how you can say you don't have enough RAM when its so cheap :confused:

Not sure if it's just about the cost

I have one of the original core 2 duo's, which from what I remember can only have a max of 2GB (would like to be wrong on that as would like more)

Can any machine capable of running Lion have as much memory as possible ? or are there limits on the amount you can install
 

Hellhammer

Moderator emeritus
Dec 10, 2008
22,164
582
Finland
Not sure if it's just about the cost

I have one of the original core 2 duo's, which from what I remember can only have a max of 2GB (would like to be wrong on that as would like more)

Can any machine capable of running Lion have as much memory as possible ? or are there limits on the amount you can install

Your Mac can take up to 4GB of which 3GB will be usable. The hardware is the limiting factor, not the software.
 

paulsalter

macrumors 68000
Aug 10, 2008
1,622
0
UK
Your Mac can take up to 4GB of which 3GB will be usable. The hardware is the limiting factor, not the software.

nice one :D

Sorry for going off topic, but can I replace one of the 1GB rams with a 2GB, or would I have to put 2 x 2GB in it ?
 

jeanlain

macrumors 68020
Mar 14, 2009
2,430
933
Indeed, Lion does use a lot of RAM, but as they say, free RAM is wasted RAM. Of course, you don't want to be swapping to disk, but I'm not sure it is that more likely to happen in Lion, as memory management has improved.
 

baryon

macrumors 68040
Oct 3, 2009
3,875
2,922
Thank god Apple updated the late 2008 MBP EFI to support 8 GB a year ago... Originally it would only take 4 GB in theory and 6 GB in practice.
 

Nuckinfuts

macrumors 6502
Jun 15, 2011
398
0
Syracuse, NY
Your Mac can take up to 4GB of which 3GB will be usable. The hardware is the limiting factor, not the software.

How much will be accessible is really dependent on his hardware configuration and how many memory-mapped I/O devices he has, he'll probably see closer to 3.75Gb since 32bit can do up to 4Gb of addresses minus memory-mapped I/O addresses and minus the shared video memory (if there is any)
 

maflynn

macrumors Haswell
May 3, 2009
73,419
43,308
OS X has been a memory hog since Tiger.

You know, I've always thought Tiger was the last svelte OS from apple. It was a tight, fast OS that was very stable. Leopard appeared while it had lots of features, it was less ram friendly then its predecessor
 

applefan289

macrumors 68000
Aug 20, 2010
1,705
8
USA
It uses even more RAM. All these Resume features and stuff are very RAM heavy, thus the 2GB requirement.

Wow, so not even all Intel Macs will be able to run it? Don't the older intel Macs (like the white iMac) and the older Macbook, etc. have only like 1GB of RAM?

I thought all Intel Macs could run Lion...not that I have an old Mac, but it would seem unfair for people who did have an Intel Mac but not enough RAM...
 

Nuckinfuts

macrumors 6502
Jun 15, 2011
398
0
Syracuse, NY
Wow, so not even all Intel Macs will be able to run it? Don't the older intel Macs (like the white iMac) and the older Macbook, etc. have only like 1GB of RAM?

I thought all Intel Macs could run Lion...not that I have an old Mac, but it would seem unfair for people who did have an Intel Mac but not enough RAM...

They already don't support the old intel processors, from Wikipedia
Macs with an Intel Core 2 Duo, Intel Core i3, Intel Core i5, Intel Core i7, or Xeon processor.
 

BlackMangoTree

macrumors 6502a
Sep 30, 2010
896
2
On a Macbook 2007 duo core 2 2ghz with maxed out ram at 2gb and GMA950 integrated graphics performance with the lastest DP of Lion is shockingly bad. There is just no way this can be useable. Windows 7 on the same laptop is far superior, runs even better than Snow Leopard.
 

daneoni

macrumors G4
Mar 24, 2006
11,577
1,131
You know, I've always thought Tiger was the last svelte OS from apple. It was a tight, fast OS that was very stable. Leopard appeared while it had lots of features, it was less ram friendly then its predecessor

It was but then the Intel iteration with Universal binaries...

On a Macbook 2007 duo core 2 2ghz with maxed out ram at 2gb and GMA950 integrated graphics performance with the lastest DP of Lion is shockingly bad. There is just no way this can be useable. Windows 7 on the same laptop is far superior, runs even better than Snow Leopard.

We get it. You like Windows 7.
 

iGrouch

macrumors member
Jul 28, 2007
96
0
Off Ramp M50
You know, I've always thought Tiger was the last svelte OS from apple. It was a tight, fast OS that was very stable. Leopard appeared while it had lots of features, it was less ram friendly then its predecessor

Have to agree there. I have tiger 10.4.11 on my 2003 G4 Powermac. Boots and shuts down faster than latest Snow Leopard on Mac Pro late 2006 with 5GB RAM. While everything else (as expected) runs faster on the Mac Pro config than the older Mac, Tiger is a far more stable beast. The leopards in my experience have been far more quirky in their behaviors with one scenario where all the apps lock up and can't be quit, to an extent that one has to hard power off the Mac. Seen same thing happen on brothers Mac.

My suspicion has been that Mac OS X development has been less than stellar since the advent of IOS for iPhone/iPod Touch. And, some of the features and omission of functionality in OS X in the last few years has been targeted as being a fun experience for IOS users and less as professional OS.

For Lion I am going to give Apple the benefit of the doubt. I am going to get an extra 4GB for the Mac and a new HD and do a very clean install i.e not use any of the time machine options and install all my pro apps one by one and leave out as much unnecessary stuff as possible.

I have one other issue with Sleep not working, and yes I know, can be caused by some USB device. The thing is though I still have my original Tiger install on an internal drive and it has no sleep issues on the same hardware configuration.
 

Nuckinfuts

macrumors 6502
Jun 15, 2011
398
0
Syracuse, NY
Snow Leopard on Mac Pro late 2006 with 5GB RAM.

This is just kinda nitpicky I know but you really want an even distribution of RAM. I'm assuming you have a 1GB stick and a 4GB stick in there. This puts a lot more load on the 4GB stick and thus an imbalance in your memory. When you go to 8Gb like you mentioned, I suggest buying a full 8GB kit (with 2 sticks of 4GB) so they have the same exact latency. This will speed up your memory access times and should make applications seem to hang less.

</end 2 cents>

PS. I instantly flame PC vendors who sell PC's with odd amounts of RAM too
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.