256 MBs enough for Mac OS X?

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by PhantomOSX, Feb 10, 2005.

  1. PhantomOSX macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Location:
    USA
    #1
    I have a friend who is convinced that 256MBs is more than enough for Mac OS X (he also claims that he runs WinXP only using only 20MBs of RAM :rolleyes: ). The sad thing is I would consider him an advanced user of any Mac OSes, which hits me strange that he would say such. We all know that 256 MBs isn't enough, but I couldn't think of a good explanation to say to him to prove the obvious. What could I say to him to prove he's wrong? (I think I worded that the right way) Also, how much RAM on average does Panther take up? Thanks. :cool:
     
  2. CanadaRAM macrumors G5

    CanadaRAM

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    On the Left Coast - Victoria BC Canada
    #2
    256 MB is perfect for dedicated TextEdit users. :D

    Really it depends what you do with the machine. I never have less than 9 progtrams open at once, so 1 Gb is the minimum for me.

    Thanks
    Trevor
    CanadaRAM.com
     
  3. Duff-Man macrumors 68030

    Duff-Man

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    #3
    Duff-Man says.....reputable site Macs Only recently did an article about ram and mac os x...it is worth a look at...oh yeah!
     
  4. cyanide macrumors regular

    cyanide

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    Location:
    Chicago
    #4
    On CONAN last night...

    Insult comic dog says. "256 Megs of RAM is enough... for me to poop on!" okay not really.. but if 256 gets the job done, which it entirely did for me for quite some time, so be it. You can do things quicker and more efficiently with more RAM, but OS X is entirely operable at 256 megs of RAM.
     
  5. Phat_Pat macrumors 68000

    Phat_Pat

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Location:
    I Live Where I Live
    #5
    I would say go to at least 512. It'll be much faster and you won't have to watch that ball keep spinning.....

    although if your low on cash than 256 is acceptable.... you can always upgrade down the road....
     
  6. ravenvii macrumors 604

    ravenvii

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2004
    Location:
    Melenkurion Skyweir
    #6
    256 MB is the minimal you would want to even enjoy OS X. 512 is the sweet spot. As we all know, even more is even better :)
     
  7. brap macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Location:
    Nottingham
    #7
    I never understood that. Surely the "Sweet spot" is 'however-much-you-can-fit-in-and-then-a-little-more'. I had 512 in my PB, it was just as dog-slow as 256. Now, with 1.25GB, it flew.

    Sweet spot there ain't. Even up to 1GB you notice finder responsiveness improve.
     
  8. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #8
    Good article duff man.

    I have to say that in some ways my 500Mhz iBook with 384MB of RAM seems faster than my 1Ghz eMac with 640MB because while I do a lot on the eMac, I rarely run anything other than Word on the iBook. The need for lots of RAM depends on usage. On the other hand, I do recall trying to use the eMac for a couple days with its stock 128MB before the 512MB stick arrived. It was nearly useless. So I assume 256 is fine as long as you are doing one thing at a time.
     
  9. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #9
    Thanks Duff Man, great article. It does show that for maybe 80% of the users out there, 256mb RAM will be enough.
     
  10. brap macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Location:
    Nottingham
    #10
    Personally, I thought the article was twaddle. As someone who is having to endure a very similair machine now - 1.33, 256, 80gb@5400rpm, and as someone who has run XBench on aforementioned machine with both 256 and 1280MB of RAM. The amount of RAM means squat in XBench, in fact, it usually decreases the scores slightly.

    I can't run Thunderbird, Firefox, Adium and iTunes concurrently without the system bogging down -- this is not power user stuff -- I'm not even going to mention Photoshop. Even when I'm running nothing, Finder is slow. They should have done the comparison between 256 and 1024, really, to show just how memory dependent "real world" usage is, and quit with XBench already.
     
  11. CanadaRAM macrumors G5

    CanadaRAM

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    On the Left Coast - Victoria BC Canada
    #11
    Gotta side with brap on this one: an eMac with 256 Mb is unusable with a single document open in Quark Xpress, no other programs running.

    Background - sent an eMac in for warranty repair, received it back without the third party RAM, wondered why it was a pig.

    Moral: Don't buy your Mac from a company who's motto is "Everything you want from a drugstore"

    The article: Haven't analyzed it but between the methodology and XBench's unreliability, I suspect it's validity. The thing is: Any amount of RAM works just fine until your software and data requirements exceed it. Then it slows down. It's like saying, "a Toyota Echo makes a fine school bus" -- statement is true if your school has 3 or fewer students.

    Thanks
    Trevor
    CanadaRAM.com
     

Share This Page