Am I the only one that HATES my Intel Mac?

[plinden]

Two ways to increase your productivity:

1. get more ram
2. stop whining.

Ok, the OP has been told several times to stop whining and get more RAM - and if you read the thread, you'll see he's accepted that. How about we just post if we've got something new to say?

 

[technicolor]

My work Mac is a 2x2GHz PowerMac 🙂p) with 512MB RAM 🙂(). If running just one or two apps, it's great, but if running with Mail and Safari (in particular) open in background, Xcode, Console, Interface Builder running it's a bit of a pig.

With the current OS, and in particular on Intel Macs with Rosetta, I wouldn't really consider 512 to be adequate for any grade of user, unless you have a lot of patience.

It's a pity Apple don't:

a) Default to a larger amount of RAM. If a user is confident they can manage with less, then let them choose a smaller amount.

or

b) Don't provide any default, and force the user to choose an amount of RAM.

So you want Apple to baby users who are are grown enough to blow at least 2 grand on a system?

 

[whooleytoo]

So you want Apple to baby users who are are grown enough to blow at least 2 grand on a system?

No, not 'baby' users. I didn't purchase these machines, if I had, I would have bought a hell of a lot more than 512MB RAM on each (especially since it would have been 'lost' in the budget! 😉 )

But, if you're buying your first Mac with Tiger, you don't really know what the realistic required memory is until you've tried it. If you're buying your first Intel Mac, even more so, as it's impossible to gauge how much of an impact Rosetta (plus shared graphics memory, if applicable) will make on RAM requirements.

Personally, I think it's as much about Apple not shooting themselves in the foot! If they ship quite fast machines (as all the Intel Macs are), but they get poor customer or media reviews because of poor performance due to inadequate RAM, who gains?

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

But, if you're buying your first Mac with Tiger, you don't really know what the realistic required memory is until you've tried it.

Well, Apple gives you a few clues if you just want to "Learn more" when getting a MacBook (or an iMac, I just checked, presumably this advice is given with all the models):

As I pointed out early in this thread... 🙄

 

[technicolor]

No, not 'baby' users. I didn't purchase these machines, if I had, I would have bought a hell of a lot more than 512MB RAM on each (especially since it would have been 'lost' in the budget! 😉 )

But, if you're buying your first Mac with Tiger, you don't really know what the realistic required memory is until you've tried it. If you're buying your first Intel Mac, even more so, as it's impossible to gauge how much of an impact Rosetta (plus shared graphics memory, if applicable) will make on RAM requirements.

Personally, I think it's as much about Apple not shooting themselves in the foot! If they ship quite fast machines (as all the Intel Macs are), but they get poor customer or media reviews because of poor performance due to inadequate RAM, who gains?

I see your point, fair enough.


You are right intel macs are getting a bad rap due to users who are clueless.

 

[Gasu E.]

I think if you're paying so much money for a computer, it should work at the base configurations- I shouldn't have to add RAM!

I agree-- why should YOU have to add RAM to someone else's computer?

 

[whooleytoo]

Well, Apple gives you a few clues if you just want to "Learn more" when getting a MacBook:

As I pointed out early in this thread... 🙄

I don't consider those guides to be very accurate, even on a PPC. (On an Intel machine with Rosetta, even less so).

Safari in particular seems either to leak memory, or to cache large amounts with little regard for RAM usage; either way, leave Safari open with a few tabs open, and one or two other apps open (such as Mail), and over time I've found machines with 512 RAM significantly bog down OS responsiveness.

You are right intel macs are getting a bad rap due to users who are clueless.

I don't think they're necessarily clueless.

If people buy an Intel Mac with the amount of memory Apple recommends and find it slow, they're going to assume (wrongly) it's a slow machine. I don't think that's unreasonable, and it would be relatively easy for Apple to address.

 

[vv-tim]

I love my MacBook Pro. I wasn't naive to assume that 512MB is enough for everything I'll ever want to do... so you know what? I had 2GB waiting for me when I bought the machine... and top of the line hard drive.


From all the posts I've seen from the OP (I stopped bothering to read after the first page)... I'm getting this:

"What do you mean my 3Ghz Dell with 512MB of RAM can't run FEAR at 1920x1200?!?! WHY WOULD THEY ONLY PUT 512MB of RAM IN IT IF IT'S NOT ENOUGH!"

You pay Apple $2000 for design. You pay extra for performance.

 

[CanadaRAM]

OP:
Do a search here on MR for recommendations of Memory vendors.
Please don't ask us to do all the work for you. There's even a Guide on it here http://guides.macrumors.com/Buying_RAM

 

[bankshot]

Anyway...after all this I'm going to buy Ram and go from there. Any suggestions on where/what to buy?

I bought 2 GB of this Patriot memory for my Macbook. Works very well. All of the Intel Macs use the same kind of memory right now, so that'll work in yours too. Newegg is a very reputable company that I've used numerous times. They have good prices and excellent service.

One important note: After you install the memory, get a copy of memtest and let it run its full test a few times. It's best to do it in single user mode, which the included instructions walk you through. This test is far more thorough than the Apple hardware test CD/DVD that came with the machine. If any test fails, send the memory back for exchange.

Mine passed over 10 iterations of the test with no errors using the Patriot memory. On computers I've had with subtle memory problems, memtest caught them every time, even when Apple's hardware test said it was good.

 

[dr_lha]

What this thread comes down to is that Apple should really be selling these Intel Macs with 1Gb of RAM, or at least strongly advising people that if they want to do more than run basic Universal Apps, they *need* 1Gb of RAM.

OP: All your problems will go away if you stick at least 1Gb in your iMac. Well, OK, Rosetta apps won't run at G5 iMac speeds, but they will go a lot faster.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

I don't consider those guides to be very accurate, even on a PPC. (On an Intel machine with Rosetta, even less so).

[...]

If people buy an Intel Mac with the amount of memory Apple recommends and find it slow, they're going to assume (wrongly) it's a slow machine.

That is not a guide... that's the buying advice from Apple Store when it comes to how much RAM you actually need for your Mac... and you can clearly see that Apple recommends more RAM for the OP's needs/uses...

 

[jsw]

I have a 17" Intel iMac.

I got it as part of the developer exchange program. When it arrived, it had 512MB of RAM. I used it like that for a few days until my RAM order arrived. My experience is that a regular consumer using apps built into the iMac would have no problem whatsoever with that amount of RAM. iLife works. Mail, Safari, etc. - they all work fine. Would more RAM help the average consumer? Yes. Would more horsepower make a Honda Civic go faster? Yes. Is either needed for the average buyer to enjoy their purchase? No.

However, not being the average buyer, I upped it first to 1.5GB by adding a 1GB stick, then to 2GB by replacing the 512MB stick. Honestly, I see very little difference except when I'm pushing past 1.5GB in use (matched RAM doesn't do a whole lot).

So, for a developer/pru user, I'd say 1GB minimum, 1.5 or 2GB recommended.

For a pro photo/film guy, I'd say stick with PPC until the apps go universal.

That iMac is my favorite Mac (the only one I've ever liked more was my IIci back in the day). It's fast, small, silent, and attractive.

 

[clayj]

This may be a stupid question, but I'll ask it anyway:

Is there anyone out there who still doesn't realize that OS X 10.4 under less than 1 GB of RAM is just asking for trouble?

 

[hellodon]

This may be a stupid question, but I'll ask it anyway:

Is there anyone out there who still doesn't realize that OS X 10.4 under less than 1 GB of RAM is just asking for trouble?

I see Steve Jobs in the back there with his hand up.....looking confused.

 

[jsw]

Is there anyone out there who still doesn't realize that OS X 10.4 under less than 1 GB of RAM is just asking for trouble?

I respectfully disagree. Average consumers - like my parents - are fine with 512MB. 1GB will make things faster at times, but a lot of people buy Macs for surfing, email, iTunes, and iPhoto - and little else. 512MB will work for them, and honestly I don't think they'd care much about what 1GB would do to help.

 

[ChrisA]

So it's been 4-5 months now.

I hate this thing. I work on a slower 17" imac G5 at work and it smokes everything about my intel iMac.

What you have a clasic case of Useing the wrong tool for the job. Don't call a money wrench "junk" because it make s poor hammer. An Consumer-level Intel Mac makes a poor platform for running profesional PPC applications. Steve Jobs himself said this with he announced the Intel iMACs. I can't remember the exact words but to paraphrase he said PS runs ok if you don't use it much which translates to "not ready for profesional use".


Why did you buy an Intel mac when you knew there were no Universal Binary versions of the applications you use? For example I want to run Photoshop so I'm waiting untill Adobe releases CS3 before I buy an Intel Mac.

The Intel iMac is a consummer desktop machine that comes pre-loaded with iLfe. and try-out versions of MS Word and Apple iWork. It runs these applications very well.

For your use you'd be best off with a G5 PowerMac and a 23 or 30 inch ACD. Either that or wait to buy an Intel Mac untill there are Universal version of the software you need.

 

[hulugu]

Ahh...yeah that's true.

I went from 256 to a gig in my powerbook and I couldnt really tell. That's why I'm bothering to ask/argue this RAM thing....will it really make this iMac run better? I mean, that is the MAX i can put in it....so if that's not making it run the best i possibly can, then I'm really going to be disappointed.

I don't want to invest in a mistake if it's not going to fix it is what i'm saying, overall.

RAM is always helpful, especially with resource intensive applications like Adobe's, and it makes a difference even on my old Powerbook.
However, if the machine is as crashy and buggy as you say, you might have a whole 'nother problem and you might want to work on those problems first. RAM makes things faster, but apps shouldn't crash.

Lastly, on the whole RAM issue, Apple sells a stock configuration to keep the price down and gives you the opportunity to either live without it, to buy it somewhere else, or to buy it as an add-on. This is a good thing, IMHO, because it gives you some choice. Pro users are always, or should always be prepared to, fiddle with their machines much more than your average consumer and so adding RAM is not a significant road-block.
If you want to argue about RAM, why don't you complain to Adobe (and Apple) for making their Pro applications so resource intensive?

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Is there anyone out there who still doesn't realize that OS X 10.4 under less than 1 GB of RAM is just asking for trouble?

Why...?!? I run Tiger on my iBook G4@800 with just 640 MB RAM without any problems... my girlfriend has only 512 MB in her iBook G4@1.33, and even if it's a bit slow whenever she opens both Photoshop, Indesign and Illustartor (all CS2), the machine works very well... 🙄

 

[hulugu]

This may be a stupid question, but I'll ask it anyway:

Is there anyone out there who still doesn't realize that OS X 10.4 under less than 1 GB of RAM is just asking for trouble?

Of course you can run OSX with less than 1GB of RAM without trouble, OSX isn't that resource intensive for the most part.
I'm not saying that RAM isn't important, but you can live with 512+.

 

[devilot]

I respectfully disagree...a lot of people buy Macs for surfing, email, iTunes, and iPhoto - and little else. 512MB will work for them, and honestly I don't think they'd care much about what 1GB would do to help.

Yup. Was just about to post something simliar to that. Except I'm that user-- at least when using my iBookG4. The built in 512MB is fine for what I do. In fact, I hesitate to upgrade the RAM because I've read that it makes the computer run even warmer and quite frankly, I don't need extra RAM for my 'book uses.

 

[milo]

Go to at least a gig, you'll get a HUGE improvement. I don't know if 2 gigs is necessary, but that's what I got. I do agree that apple should ship these with more ram (even the included "consumer" apps choke pretty quickly with 512, especially if you have more than one open at a time. even apps like Safari, iWeb and iPhoto are ram hogs).

GET THE RAM.

You will see an improvement, but you won't get maximum performance until your apps are all native.

 

[hellodon]

What you have a clasic case of Useing the wrong tool for the job. Don't call a money wrench "junk" because it make s poor hammer. An Consumer-level Intel Mac makes a poor platform for running profesional PPC applications. Steve Jobs himself said this with he announced the Intel iMACs. I can't remember the exact words but to paraphrase he said PS runs ok if you don't use it much which translates to "not ready for profesional use".


Why did you buy an Intel mac when you knew there were no Universal Binary versions of the applications you use? For example I want to run Photoshop so I'm waiting untill Adobe releases CS3 before I buy an Intel Mac.

The Intel iMac is a consummer desktop machine that comes pre-loaded with iLfe. and try-out versions of MS Word and Apple iWork. It runs these applications very well.

For your use you'd be best off with a G5 PowerMac and a 23 or 30 inch ACD. Either that or wait to buy an Intel Mac untill there are Universal version of the software you need.

I didnt realize that's what was up...obviously.

Everyone is putting themselves in my shoes and saying "WULLLLL I'd react this way because I know this".

I thought I was getting a computer that topped a G5 iMac.
That's the BOTTOM LINE.

I was looking to order a G5 imac, i use them at work, they run great....i said "i'll wait for macworld"...so i did that. Then the intel macs came out. And based on that presentation, i was under the assumption that it would run great. Just like a G5 only BETTER. THAT is why i bought it. I didnt say "oh well universal binary" blah blah...no..i didnt do that. I didnt even know what the hell that meant that day and i certainly dont remember him saying anything other than "this is going to be so much faster" and "rosetta will take care of any apps that you need to run that arent made specifically for intel mac yet".

 

[dr_lha]

I was looking to order a G5 imac, i use them at work, they run great....i said "i'll wait for macworld"...so i did that. Then the intel macs came out. And based on that presentation, i was under the assumption that it would run great. Just like a G5 only BETTER. THAT is why i bought it. I didnt say "oh well universal binary" blah blah...no..i didnt do that. I didnt even know what the hell that meant that day and i certainly dont remember him saying anything other than "this is going to be so much faster" and "rosetta will take care of any apps that you need to run that arent made specifically for intel mac yet".

You are a test case for why people should do some research before splashing out $1700, instead of just impulse buying. All the problems you are having could have been easily predicted by the fact you don't have enough RAM and are running Pro-Apps under Rosetta. In honesty a refurb iMac G5 probably would have been a better buy for you.

Why...?!? I run Tiger on my iBook G4@800 with just 640 MB RAM without any problems... my girlfriend has only 512 MB in her iBook G4@1.33, and even if it's a bit slow whenever she opens both Photoshop, Indesign and Illustartor (all CS2), the machine works very well... 🙄

To be fair though, it seems in general that the Intel Macs need a bit more RAM to work well. Running apps under Rosetta makes this doubly true.

 

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

To be fair though, it seems in general that the Intel Macs need a bit more RAM to work well. Running apps under Rosetta makes this doubly true.

For universal apps: No, not necessarily. Most day-to-day surfing, mail, iCal, text editing/word processing, iPhoto etc. runs seem to run very well with 512 MB RAM, just don't run ALL at the same time. (I base this on comments here at MR and first hand experience).

For PPC applications under Rosetta: H*** yes! Get as much RAM as you can afford... then add some more... 😀