Apple to Boost Standard Memory?

[mac-er]

According to AppleInsider, Apple is planning to increase the standard RAM it ships with each system to 512 MB to help improve performance with various applications.

[jim.]

Hmm, an across the board RAM increase would be nice. I wonder if they are going to use up all the mem slots on the lower end lines (ibook, iMac, etc.) and just give a single 512 stick on the pro lines? I guess that would be good product differentiation.

Jim

[Blue Velvet]

Originally Posted by jim.

I wonder if they are going to use up all the mem slots on the lower end lines (ibook, iMac, etc.) and just give a single 512 stick on the pro lines?

The current crop of G5 PMs take their RAM in matched pairs so they'll either stay at 512 or go up to 1gb, I would have thought...

But if true, all I can say is... about bloody time.

It's not like RAM is that pricey any more, unless you're going for those big modules.

[MrCommunistGen]

Originally Posted by jim.

I wonder if they are going to use up all the mem slots on the lower end lines (ibook, iMac, etc.) Jim

My cynical beliefs would lean towards this being the case... it could just be because Apple has a bunch of 256MB chips laying arround

[zap2]

Originally Posted by jim.

Hmm, an across the board RAM increase would be nice. I wonder if they are going to use up all the mem slots on the lower end lines (ibook, iMac, etc.) and just give a single 512 stick on the pro lines? I guess that would be good product differentiation.

Jim

this would be great but the imac is not in the lower end lines imac is the best all in one computer that apple makes ,emac is in the lower end

[g5_11]

512mb should definately be the minimum, because for Os X 256 can get really sluggish. Especially when you leave everything open like me.

[pubwvj]

Originally Posted by g5_11

512mb should definately be the minimum, because for Os X 256 can get really sluggish. Especially when you leave everything open like me.

I'm a firm believer in loading up my computers with the maximum RAM and HD space and I'm glad to see Apple boosting the standard RAM configuration. BUT, don't be confused - even 192MB is enough to run Panther. I have three computer (2 iBooks and a PowerBook) with MacOS X 10.3.5 on them and they all do fine. Yes, if you want to leave a lot of applications open or use memory hogs like Photoshop or some games they aren't going to be snappy but they are great for many people. My wife, who uses one of those machines, only has a few apps open at a time and she's perfectly happy with it. When she uses my computer which has 1GB of RAM she notices the difference in speed, but it isn't a big deal to her. Same for our two youngest children who use the other lower end machines.

For price sensitive buyers that is an issue and we're lucky that Apple's OS runs so well on such limited hardware. Just be glad you're not using Windows which is a just getting worse and worse.

More memory is wonderful but the minimum is a lot lower than you think.

[Chappers]

This is so obviously a good thing. Ok so macosx can run on 256 - but it runs even better on 512.

[miloblithe]

Sounds like a move that will be very good for consumers, especially novices who don't really understand this stuff and just buy basic models expecting them to work fine. I imagine Tiger will be pretty bad on 256. Panther is awful on 128, although that's not a good comparison.

The problem with the rumor is that it seems unlikely that Apple would up the specs in its computers without updating the line. Would they upgrade the minis to 512 before they give them a general revamp?

[mac-er]

It is certainly a move that is needed.

It is nearly impossible to run any iLife program (aside from iTunes) with 256 MB. I cannot imagine how many switchers have bought a new Mac with 256 MB, and it is unbearably slow with iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto. I'm sure it creates lots of negative feelings towards Macs with these people.

[ftaok]

Originally Posted by mac-er

It is nearly impossible to run any iLife program (aside from iTunes) with 256 MB. I cannot imagine how many switchers have bought a new Mac with 256 MB, and it is unbearably slow with iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto. I'm sure it creates lots of negative feelings towards Macs with these people.

I think you're overestimating the speed/power that these switchers are coming from. Many switchers are coming from old PCs with PIII's @500mhz and Win98. A new Mac with 256MBs will seem like greased lightning to them.

Case in point. I persuaded my sister to go Mac (she did, with a 17" G5 iMac 1.8) and it only has 256MB. The other day, she commented that she loves the Mac because she can do her work and listen to music too.

[Solafaa]

Originally Posted by ftaok

Case in point. I persuaded my sister to go Mac (she did, with a 17" G5 iMac 1.8) and it only has 256MB. The other day, she commented that she loves the Mac because she can do her work and listen to music too.

Ha, i could not do that with my 3.0 Ghz 1GB 256 video RAM top of the line PC. i always had problems with lag and crashs.

[feakbeak]

Originally Posted by Solafaa

Ha, i could not do that with my 3.0 Ghz 1GB 256 video RAM top of the line PC. i always had problems with lag and crashs.

I'm not sure what work you were doing, but something must have been wrong. Either the applications you were using were poorly written. There are A LOT of poorly written Windows apps - comes with the marketshare, there are many good Win apps too.

Otherwise, you have a bad piece of hardware in the loop. It is certainly not a problem with the platform. I know, were you trying to do this while underwater?

[mac-er]

Originally Posted by ftaok

I think you're overestimating the speed/power that these switchers are coming from. Many switchers are coming from old PCs with PIII's @500mhz and Win98. A new Mac with 256MBs will seem like greased lightning to them.

Case in point. I persuaded my sister to go Mac (she did, with a 17" G5 iMac 1.8) and it only has 256MB. The other day, she commented that she loves the Mac because she can do her work and listen to music too.

Sure, they can multi-task, but iLife applications are unbearably slow at 256 MB

[ftaok]

Originally Posted by mac-er

Sure, they can multi-task, but iLife applications are unbearably slow at 256 MB

You missed my point. A Mac with 256MB is probably 10x faster than the computer they're coming from. Even with iLife apps. Since their new computer is faster than their old computer, why would they feel negative towards Apple and Macs?

[mac-er]

Originally Posted by ftaok

You missed my point. A Mac with 256MB is probably 10x faster than the computer they're coming from. Even with iLife apps. Since their new computer is faster than their old computer, why would they feel negative towards Apple and Macs?

Well, I see your point there....
I was looking at the aspect of a user getting a new Mac, and then the iMovie application running really sluggishly, and iDVD doing the same, and iPhoto doing the same....
I had that experience when I got my first Mac. And, I thought, "Why would this company put programs on its computers that run so slowly on its minimum RAM?"

Aren't there complaints with how slowly the Mac Mini's are running the iLife apps?

[ScubaDuc]

Originally Posted by ftaok

You missed my point. A Mac with 256MB is probably 10x faster than the computer they're coming from. Even with iLife apps. Since their new computer is faster than their old computer, why would they feel negative towards Apple and Macs?

I think you are generalizing too much. Some PC users are far from "unexperienced". My 4 yrs old PC is way faster than my Slowsilver even though it has less RAM. Does it matter how long it takes to burn a DVD? Not really: I leave it on all night and it's ready in the morning

I doubt any Mac is faster in running Office than an old PC which is probably what most switchers are working with. Also, if you are willing to leave Win behind and use DOS programs, you would be amazed by how fast you can run say, a Monte Carlo simulation using Shazam, for example.

[raggedjimmi]

Originally Posted by ftaok

I think you're overestimating the speed/power that these switchers are coming from. Many switchers are coming from old PCs with PIII's @500mhz and Win98. A new Mac with 256MBs will seem like greased lightning to them.

Case in point. I persuaded my sister to go Mac (she did, with a 17" G5 iMac 1.8) and it only has 256MB. The other day, she commented that she loves the Mac because she can do her work and listen to music too.

every PC I've had for about 2 years now, if not more, has had 512Mb Ram. ditto for the vast majority of PC owners i know, who mostly are not gamers/video editors/people who need lotsa ram.

[ftaok]

Originally Posted by raggedjimmi

every PC I've had for about 2 years now, if not more, has had 512Mb Ram. ditto for the vast majority of PC owners i know, who mostly are not gamers/video editors/people who need lotsa ram.

That's probably because you're a techie type person with techie type friends. In the US, most people get new computers every 4 years or so. Many of the people who are switching to Macs (at least the mini and iMacs) are coming from 4 year old PCs that have never been upgraded and were probably not top of the line when purchased.

I can't remember, but what were the specs of a budget PC (for mini buyers) or mid-end PC (for iMac buyers)? I don't think 512MB would be standard 4 years ago. Hell, we got a low-end PC for my dad last year (no, we don't hate him) and it was a 2.4 celeron with 256MB.

Anyways, 512 all around is a good move for Apple. Especially since it doesn't really cost them too much more.

[panphage]

I have to agree about lots of people having very low PC specs. Most of the people I work with and most of my family have very low-end PCs. My poor mother just got a "new" Dell last year (bargain basement, her sister bought it for her, the mini wasn't out yet or I would have bought her one of those!) wondered why her "new" computer was so slow. I thought she had spyware or 5 million cookies slowing her down. So I go over there to clean the thing off, and I check the system specs. 128MB ram. SHARED WITH THE VIDEO CARD. The video card was using "up to" 32MB of her ram. She's running windows XP. Three days and 512MB additional ram later, she's as happy as can be. Then a month later the mini comes out. I'm dying for the extra cash to switch her over.

Also, people saying Tiger will "require" a minimum of 512 to run decently haven't been paying attention. Hasn't OS X been getting *faster* with every release? Yes it has. 10.2 -> 10.3 wasn't a huge speedup like the past couple point releases were, but OS X is going in reverse compared to windows, getting faster and better. Ok, maybe all of tiger's new features will bump the comfort level for ram, but I don't think it's going to be "unusable" any more than Panther was "unusable" with low ram compared to Jaguar.

[MacSA]

Originally Posted by ftaok

That's probably because you're a techie type person with techie type friends. In the US, most people get new computers every 4 years or so. Many of the people who are switching to Macs (at least the mini and iMacs) are coming from 4 year old PCs that have never been upgraded and were probably not top of the line when purchased.

I can't remember, but what were the specs of a budget PC (for mini buyers) or mid-end PC (for iMac buyers)? I don't think 512MB would be standard 4 years ago. Hell, we got a low-end PC for my dad last year (no, we don't hate him) and it was a 2.4 celeron with 256MB.

Anyways, 512 all around is a good move for Apple. Especially since it doesn't really cost them too much more.

I got my current PC (Im using it now) just over 4 years ago......667mhz Celeron, 64Mb RAM and shared graphics. I added another 256Mb RAM about 18 months ago

[plinden]

Originally Posted by ftaok

I can't remember, but what were the specs of a budget PC (for mini buyers) or mid-end PC (for iMac buyers)? I don't think 512MB would be standard 4 years ago. Hell, we got a low-end PC for my dad last year (no, we don't hate him) and it was a 2.4 celeron with 256MB.

My Dell is three years old (almost exactly) and at the time it was the second fastest CPU (1.8GHz P4 vs 2.0GHz P4) available from Dell. Standard for that model was 20GB HD (I got 40GB) and 256MB RAM (I got 512MB and later added another 512MB)

It was close but not quite top of the line and definitely not a budget PC (cost me $1400 - damn it, I just remembered, I didn't get my $100 rebate)

Subtract lots more RAM from that (I remember seeing 128MB RAM in PCs for sale not so long ago) and add a much slower P4 or Celeron to get the budget machines in those days.

And if you look at Dell even now, 256MB is standard on all but their most expensive desktops.

[mkaake]

Originally Posted by mac-er

It is certainly a move that is needed.

It is nearly impossible to run any iLife program (aside from iTunes) with 256 MB. I cannot imagine how many switchers have bought a new Mac with 256 MB, and it is unbearably slow with iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto. I'm sure it creates lots of negative feelings towards Macs with these people.

LOL

sure they're unusable

i don't suppose you actually *use* a machine with 256 megs of ram, do you? I've been using my 1.0 emac with 256 megs of ram for almost a year now, and while it's no speed demon, its far from 'unbearably slow' or 'nearly impossible to run any iLife program'. With 256, I often have 5 or 6 programs open with no problem.

yes, in fact, I can actually run the iApps! with only 256 megs of ram!

and here's a little secret - I can run more than one of them at one time! who would have thought it was possible??

it's not as bad as you think. is 512 better? sure. but calling 256 unusable, unbearable, and barely able to run the iApps is a little foolish...

[mac-er]

Originally Posted by mkaake

LOL

sure they're unusable

i don't suppose you actually *use* a machine with 256 megs of ram, do you? I've been using my 1.0 emac with 256 megs of ram for almost a year now, and while it's no speed demon, its far from 'unbearably slow' or 'nearly impossible to run any iLife program'. With 256, I often have 5 or 6 programs open with no problem.

yes, in fact, I can actually run the iApps! with only 256 megs of ram!

and here's a little secret - I can run more than one of them at one time! who would have thought it was possible??

it's not as bad as you think. is 512 better? sure. but calling 256 unusable, unbearable, and barely able to run the iApps is a little foolish...

Let us run 1 hour of video from our camcorders to iMovie and then burn a DVD with iDVD. I have a gig of RAM. Let's see who does it with the least problems.

If Apple increases the RAM to 512 MB, they are saying that 256 MB is no longer sufficient. Please read the Appleinsider article, which says "insiders say the boost in memory spec will assure consumers a smoother experience running both Tiger and Apple’s iLife ’05 digital lifestyle software suite. They added that the upgrade is 'much needed.'"

I ran iLife programs with 256 MB, and I found that iMovie was horribly slow in response, iPhoto was sluggish, and iDVD was not usuable. If you don't have that experience, awesome!

[mkaake]

Originally Posted by mac-er

Let us run 1 hour of video from our camcorders to iMovie and then burn a DVD with iDVD. I have a gig of RAM. Let's see who does it with the least problems.

If Apple increases the RAM to 512 MB, they are saying that 256 MB is no longer sufficient. Please read the Appleinsider article, which says "insiders say the boost in memory spec will assure consumers a smoother experience running both Tiger and Apple’s iLife ’05 digital lifestyle software suite. They added that the upgrade is 'much needed.'"

I ran iLife programs with 256 MB, and I found that iMovie was horribly slow in response, iPhoto was sluggish, and iDVD was not usuable. If you don't have that experience, awesome!

hey, i'm not arguing that 512 is better. i'd rather have a mac wiht 2 gigs of ram or more, but i don't. i just thought that the above poster saying that the iApps were unusable with 256 megs of ram was ridiculous...

i'm actually really glad that apple might up the ante... it's past due. while I my computer is useable with 256 megs of ram, I came from a machine with over 400 (my trusty g3/266 desktop, may the beige live on), and miss the extra speed...