iMac G5, 256MB RAM

Discussion in 'Macintosh Computers' started by stevietheb, Nov 28, 2004.

  1. stevietheb macrumors 6502a


    Jan 15, 2004
    Recently purchased an iMac G5 with the config found in my sig.

    With 256MB of RAM, I find the iMac to be apallingly slow. Has anyone else found this? I'm upgrading the RAM ASAP (crucial), but I just wanted to know if maybe there was a larger problem. My iBook G4 800mHz which has 640MB runs a lot smoother than the iMac.

    If this is the way it is, I'm disappointed that Apple would even sell the iMac with only 256MB RAM.
  2. Leareth macrumors 68000


    Nov 11, 2004
    yep, needs lots more RAM to be happy
    and for me to be happy too
    go for at least 1gb if you can afford it.
    'Fixed' my G5 iMac
  3. stevietheb thread starter macrumors 6502a


    Jan 15, 2004
    Well, I'll be doing 768MB of RAM soon.

    Quite frankly, I'm pleased with the performance of my iBook with 640MB or RAM...I fully expect the iMac to hum with 768 MB of RAM.
  4. beatle888 macrumors 68000


    Feb 3, 2002

    if you "fully expect the iMac to hum" you'd better learn a bit more about ram and what the iMac needs to run the apps you use. 768MB wouldnt be enough to hum along with the work i do.

    it sounds like you expected the imac to perform at its peak even though it was configured with the MINIMUM requirements to run the OS ONLY. :rolleyes: then you compare it with a system that has nearly three times as much as your new iMac :D . and to your comment that you cant believe apple would even sell you a computer with 256MB but YOUR person who bought it...didnt you read about the OS ram requirements?

    sorry, but your original post was pretty harsh on the imac and it seems it was your lack of knowledge that was faulty not the computer. on a brighter note i think you'll be happy once you get the amount of ram you need.

    i on the other hand am typing this on a 20" iMac with 256MB and its fine...that is for basic email, dvds, the web. i actually had a dvd playing AND worked on a 150MB photoshop file and was happy with the performance fully realizing that this little beauty was running on the BARE BONES MINIMUM ram requirements, and as i said thats just for the OS.

    anyway i'll shut up, its just that you came off harsh on apple when in this case i really dont see they did anything wrong.
  5. earthtoandy macrumors 6502

    Jan 18, 2003
    yeayeah all there computers should ship with 512 minimum. i think we might see this in the near future... maybe around tiger time. 512 is MINIMUM i think to be comfortable
  6. stevietheb thread starter macrumors 6502a


    Jan 15, 2004
    What exactly is the work you do? This way I have something to compare.

    I'm assuming that since I feel good about the performance of my iBook, I should feel good about the performance of my iMac with 768MB of RAM.

    I did not expect the iMac to perform at its, having assumed (for whatever reason) that I am a moron, are falsely inferring that. Tell me more about the OS RAM requirements. Isn't the RAM Req for Panther listed at 128MB? And no, I did not read the OS RAM requirements. Having dealt with Apple before, I assumed that they would not sell me a brand new computer that would not have enough RAM to run the OS. I find that, in general, Apple has been a trustworthy company.

    I knew long before I fired up the iMac that I was going to be needing more RAM, this is why I ordered more RAM as my wife was going through the user setup.

    My knowledge was faulty in that I did not expect the computer to run terribly with the following applications running:

    Never did I accuse Apple of wrongdoing. I do not intend to send the computer back. I expect that in a few short days I will be very pleased with my purchase. The purpose of my post was twofold:

    1) Ascertain whether or not there was something wrong with my iMac...Perhaps other people had been having issues...
    2) Point out that selling the iMac with only 256MB of RAM is a little silly. I think most people in this forum would say that 512 is the minimum you should use...

    Why am I disappointed that Apple would sell it with 256MB of RAM? Mainly because there are plenty of people who don't know as much about RAM as I do who might expect they're $1500 purchase to run a little more smoothly. If you construe that as being "harsh"...sorry. I'm a big fan of Apple, and I hope that more naive users (whom Apple's ease-of-use philosophy caters to) aren't upset when they realize that they need more RAM for some basic multitasking.

    Finally, IF you think my "knowledge is faulty"...a better thing to do might be to instruct/inform, rather than belittle.
  7. beatle888 macrumors 68000


    Feb 3, 2002
    i do graphics...large 1gig photoshop files.

    for the apps you listed i would think the iMac would at LEAST be "ok". im using very similar apps and things seem fine. as i said i played a dvd, had safari open and worked on a 150MB file in photoshop without being disappointed but im familiar with macs and what to expect under different ram conditions.
  8. stevietheb thread starter macrumors 6502a


    Jan 15, 2004
    When I'm not in class I am a video editor. I've been editing video on macs for 5 years now...I knew that 256MB of RAM was not going to be sufficient for running Final Cut or After Effects...this is obvious. I was just surprised at how choppy things became when I started running more than 1 or 2 (rather mundane) apps. I had never run OS X with less than 512MB of RAM (except the few days I ran my iBook with 128 while waiting for the RAM to arrive).
  9. 5300cs macrumors 68000


    Nov 24, 2002
    I'm not very happy with that fact either. My iBook I bought last summer came with 128 :rolleyes: Stingy stingy, Apple. Shame on you :mad:
  10. cluthz macrumors 68040


    Jun 15, 2004
    I got my powerbook with 256mb RAM, i had it for two days before my 512mb stick arrived. With 768mb the machine is flying.
    Almost never see the beachball and i'm constantly running Mozilla aMSN, x11 with gnome 2.6 and xcode or another text editor.
    I also do some photoshop works, but very seldom with images over 50mb. I also run adobe premiere 6.5 (i have decieded to switch to FCExpress since premiere is abadoned on the mac platform..).

    I think 768 mb is enougth for most people, and 1024 MB stick are still too expensive. If the 12-incher had two ram slots I would have got another 512MB stick bringing it up to 1024MB ram, but I'm happy with 768mb RAM.

    I have rum OSX for several years on 512MB (on my G4 sawtooth) and that has worked great.

    I guess the point is that apple is in all cases selling the macs with insuffient amout of RAM. All powerbooks, iMacs and ibooks should have been sold with atleast 512 mb ram. The Powermacs should have been sold with 1024 MB.

    Most stores have stock Macs on display and they always seems slow due to the crappy amount of RAM, therefore pepole gets the impressions that macs are slow.
    Some of my fellow students are complaining of their ibooks because they are beachballing when running both m$ Word and Safari. In all cases it was stock configs, and after spending some $$ for an extra stick of 512MB they are happy. But someone had to tell them...

    Apple is also charging 150% extra from the RAM compared to others, I think apple is losing curtomers because of their riddiculus RAM policy.

    Satisfied users often tells other that they are satisfied, but unsatisfied users are screaming louder!

Share This Page