When will 3GB RAM be the minimum requirement?

Discussion in 'Buying Tips and Advice' started by Planner Dude, Jan 1, 2007.

  1. Planner Dude macrumors 6502

    May 31, 2006
    Here's a question for you guys and gals:

    When do you foresee RAM requirements of 3GB for programs?

    With the CD2 allowing 3Gb over the CD's 2GB, I thought it would be a good thing to ask.

    Do people think that it will be more than 3 Years? If so, I'd assume it would be cheaper to get the refurb cd Macbook/Pro and buy a newer computer down the road.

    If it's less I'd assume it's better to plunk a few hundred extra for a CD2.

    What's your opinion?
  2. Warbrain macrumors 603


    Jun 28, 2004
    Chicago, IL
    I don't see it happening for quite a while. Definitely more than three years down the road.
  3. weldon macrumors 6502a


    May 22, 2004
    Denver, CO
  4. mrkramer macrumors 603


    Jul 11, 2006
    Definitely more than 3 years, most programs now don't even require 1GB RAM.
  5. trainguy77 macrumors 68040

    Nov 13, 2003
    Well the operating system will not have that requirement for a long time. Right now you only need 256 mb. I think apple may bump that requirement to 512 for 10.5 However the bigger question is how long until it is highly recommended to have that much ram. That may be much sooner. As right now many people here recommend that you have atleast 1 gb. I suspect with in 5 years people may be recommending 3 gbs. But its hard to say. But it would be cheaper to upgrade down the road. As it will be awhile yet.
  6. Father Jack macrumors 68020

    Father Jack

    Jan 1, 2007
    True most programs will run with less than 1 Gb but adding more speeds things up considerably.

    Have you tried running Photoshop on 512 Mb? :mad:

  7. adamyoshida macrumors regular

    Jul 10, 2006
    It's an open question.

    I've got 2 Gigs of Ram in my notebook, and would have more if I could. I find the 1 Gig in my Powerbook to be far too little (and I don't even use CS2 or anything like that, I'm talking about for Garageband and Office).

    Looking back, we seem to see minimum ram requirements double, oh, every two years or so.

    If we figure that 1 Gig is the effective minimum in 2007.

    512 Megs = 2005.

    256 Megs = 2003.

    128 Megs = 2001.

    64 Megs = 1999

    32 Megs = 1997

    16 Megs - 1995

    All of those, I daresay, are about right. On average, I'd say that my main computer throughout that time always had about double that, so, yeah.

    So, working from that, I'd say that sometime in 2010.

    By the 32/64 Bit transition throws a bit of a wrinkle into that, I guess. I don't know if we'll see ram esculate rapidly, or if we'll see more of a push towards also using flash memory (either flash hard drives, or hybrids).
  8. daneoni macrumors G4


    Mar 24, 2006
    Im actually contemplating maxing out to 3GB of RAM now, would have done this when ordering but wasn't sure about losing dual channeling as a result of unmatched pairs.

    Right now i push 1.3GB on average in OS X and when i fire up parallels i max out and start getting alot of page outs. So it turns out 2GB is no longer 'comfortable' for my usage, this is probably due to Rosetta. I might upgrade to 3GB now or just wait and go to 4GB on the next update to the notebook lines.

    Who would've thought, only last year i was getting by with 1GB.
  9. wako macrumors 65816

    Jun 6, 2005
    For macs... I say not for a long long time...

    For PCs... right now Im running 2gigs and I think I could use more....
  10. eXan macrumors 601


    Jan 10, 2005
    You should look at the number of page outs, not page ins.

    Funny, I was thinking quite the opposite. OS X with 512 MB = XP with 256.
  11. iW00t macrumors 68040


    Nov 7, 2006
    Defenders of Apple Guild
  12. daneoni macrumors G4


    Mar 24, 2006
    Typo there, i meant page outs (the one that means memory is being taken from the HDD as RAM is no longer sufficient). Basically, the ratio of page in to page out become close and the pie chart in activity monitor becomes mostly red and yellow.
  13. topgunn macrumors 65816


    Nov 5, 2004
    or 8199?

    Either way I don't get it.

    Vista with 1GB = OS X with 512MB
  14. Canerican macrumors regular

    Jul 22, 2006
    So should I wait till then to get my computer?:eek: ;)
  15. Abstract macrumors Penryn


    Dec 27, 2002
    Location Location Location

    No way. I love Apple and Macs, but you need to be realistic. OS X 10.4 is more memory hungry than Win XP is. If you mean Win Vista, then maybe I'd agree.
  16. eXan macrumors 601


    Jan 10, 2005
    Vista is not out yet, but you may be right. If you are - the better! :D
  17. Mac'Mo macrumors 6502a


    Aug 29, 2006
    3 gb is a nice odd number especially since they dont make 1.5 gb chips
  18. Planner Dude thread starter macrumors 6502

    May 31, 2006
    3 GB is the current limit on the new Core2 duo MBP

    Core duo MBP limit is 2 GB

    I was trying to get a feel of how long I could use the Core duo vs the new core2 duo

    IF I wanted a really odd number I could have chosen 2.25 GB:D
  19. adamyoshida macrumors regular

    Jul 10, 2006
    Eh, when the time comes, two Gigs versus three gigs won't make a huge difference. Ram requirements tend to go in multiples - IE, by the time that two gigs it too little, you'll want four gigs. Three gigs falls in the same place that computers with 384 Megs or 768 Megs fall - transitional.

Share This Page