Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple to Boost Standard Memory?
- Thread starter mac-er
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm suprised that no one's thought of this...
TIGER will likely REQUIRE 512MB to be usable at all (not officially require, but practically speaking).
TIGER will likely REQUIRE 512MB to be usable at all (not officially require, but practically speaking).
animefan_1
macrumors regular
Regular_John
macrumors 68040
bout freakin time! My friends running her G5 with 256 cuz that's all it shipped with and she has no clue what I mean when I say "you need more ram"
aricher said:
Painfully slow? I also played around with 1.42 GHz mini for a while. I had to check twice if it really had only 256 MB because it didn't feel any slower than my Rev. B 12" PB with 768 MB. It definitely wasn't "painfully" slow. ONTH, I agree having more RAM never hurts. It would definitely be a good move by Apple to include 512 with all Macs.
tech4all
macrumors 68040
aricher said:
True regarding maxing out the RAM in demo machines to give top-notch performance, and thus a better appeal in the eye's a would-be switcher. BUT consider this, a PC user plays with a Mac mini with 1GB RAM and like it. Thats great, but....they may assume thats how the Mac comes standard and they don't think they need to upgrade. Thus when they buy it and take it home with the standard RAM, 256, they are disappointed due to the fact that it doesn't have the same performance that it did on the Mac with maxed out RAM. Then they start hating Macs all over again.
But we can hope that people to check the "About this Mac" when trying it out. I know I do 😀
animefan_1 said:
So far that's two people.
mkaake said:
Although I do have a 1.8GHz G5, I still only have 256MB of RAM. And with that I can run Photoshop, InDesign, skEdit, Mail, NetNewsWire, Safari, iTunes, Firefox, Adium, and who knows what else at the same time. It might be a little slow, but it certainly is doable.
SiliconAddict
macrumors 603
You guys are funnier then a Robin Williams\Chris Rock stand up skit.
LOL. I can't believe the FUD flying around in their thread. First off someone jumping from Windows to OS X isn't going to have some magical mystical performance increase. Its a no brainer that a 500Mhz system jumping to a 1Ghz + system is going to feel snappier. That is going to apply no matter what platform you are on. Be it PPC or x86.
Beyond that this talk about usability and RAM is hilarious. Can you use 256MB of RAM on a Mac? I know you can. A friend of mine has a 2 year old iBook with 256MB and it runs. Its slow as hell but it runs. It could also be said that I could use a Pentium 90 with Windows XP. Well it runs the OS and its apps so its usable right? Wrong. There is a reason that most software manufacturers have a minimum spec sheet AND a recommended spec sheet for their wares. You get optimal performance with a certain amount of RAM, CPU speed, hard drive speed, video card, ect. Anything above those recommended specs is gravy.
In the case of RAM its interdependent with the hard drive and CPU. In my experience with Windows (And since the way an OS functions in regards to CPU/disk/RAM is pretty much the same from OS to OS this prob applies to OS X/Linux/BE OS/Etc as well.) you can have a deficiency in any one area. (e.g. A slow CPU, but a ton of RAM, and a blazing HD or an on fire CPU but a lower amount of RAM, and a blazing HD.) But when you have multiple deficiencies it impacts your overall speed of your system. The fact that people on this thread are claiming that they work with means exactly jack squat.
The office I manage has dealt with 128MB/1.7Ghz/20GB/Windows 2000 system for two years and they haven't complained. That is what they have gotten use to. Last summer I upgraded everyone to 512MB of RAM. I got a box of cookies and a $10 gift cert to Best Buy out of that upgrade.
The fact remains you guys running on 256MB would go.. 😱 if you upgraded to 512MB or 1GB. 256MB + a slow hard drive = more paging to the swap file and of course the speed of that swap file is determined by the HD's overall performance. Likewise a fast CPU helps page out a file since a fast CPU typically has a faster FSB and can process transactions (e.g. page file IO.) faster then a slower CPU. *shakes head* sorry. Blah blah blah....
The simple fact is Apple should have done this a couple years ago.
LOL. I can't believe the FUD flying around in their thread. First off someone jumping from Windows to OS X isn't going to have some magical mystical performance increase. Its a no brainer that a 500Mhz system jumping to a 1Ghz + system is going to feel snappier. That is going to apply no matter what platform you are on. Be it PPC or x86.
Beyond that this talk about usability and RAM is hilarious. Can you use 256MB of RAM on a Mac? I know you can. A friend of mine has a 2 year old iBook with 256MB and it runs. Its slow as hell but it runs. It could also be said that I could use a Pentium 90 with Windows XP. Well it runs the OS and its apps so its usable right? Wrong. There is a reason that most software manufacturers have a minimum spec sheet AND a recommended spec sheet for their wares. You get optimal performance with a certain amount of RAM, CPU speed, hard drive speed, video card, ect. Anything above those recommended specs is gravy.
In the case of RAM its interdependent with the hard drive and CPU. In my experience with Windows (And since the way an OS functions in regards to CPU/disk/RAM is pretty much the same from OS to OS this prob applies to OS X/Linux/BE OS/Etc as well.) you can have a deficiency in any one area. (e.g. A slow CPU, but a ton of RAM, and a blazing HD or an on fire CPU but a lower amount of RAM, and a blazing HD.) But when you have multiple deficiencies it impacts your overall speed of your system. The fact that people on this thread are claiming that they work with means exactly jack squat.
The office I manage has dealt with 128MB/1.7Ghz/20GB/Windows 2000 system for two years and they haven't complained. That is what they have gotten use to. Last summer I upgraded everyone to 512MB of RAM. I got a box of cookies and a $10 gift cert to Best Buy out of that upgrade.
The fact remains you guys running on 256MB would go.. 😱 if you upgraded to 512MB or 1GB. 256MB + a slow hard drive = more paging to the swap file and of course the speed of that swap file is determined by the HD's overall performance. Likewise a fast CPU helps page out a file since a fast CPU typically has a faster FSB and can process transactions (e.g. page file IO.) faster then a slower CPU. *shakes head* sorry. Blah blah blah....
The simple fact is Apple should have done this a couple years ago.
I just ordered the new 12" Powerbook. It has 512 MB of RAM, but 256 MB on-board and a 256 MB chip. The 15" and 17" Powerbooks also have 512 MB, but they are with a single 512 MB chip leaving the second slot free.
If the iBooks get upgraded to 512 MB, then it would be the same with a 256 MB chip in the slot.
So if I want to upgrade the memory above 512 MB with the new 12" Powerbook, it doesn't make much sense to get a 512 MB chip and through out the 256 MB. I am going to be saving money up to go straight for the 1 GB chip!
If the iBooks get upgraded to 512 MB, then it would be the same with a 256 MB chip in the slot.
So if I want to upgrade the memory above 512 MB with the new 12" Powerbook, it doesn't make much sense to get a 512 MB chip and through out the 256 MB. I am going to be saving money up to go straight for the 1 GB chip!
tech4all said:
From what I have heard, one will need a minimum of 2 gigs for Tiger to run smoothly. So 512 is still on the low side. But hey somebody needs to make a little money on memory.
MrCommunistGen
macrumors regular
Unfortunately i think so...
My cynical beliefs would lean towards this being the case... it could just be because Apple has a bunch of 256MB chips laying arround 😉
jim. said:
My cynical beliefs would lean towards this being the case... it could just be because Apple has a bunch of 256MB chips laying arround 😉
nagromme
macrumors G5
It's only a matter of time. Alongside Tiger makes sense.
Costs and prices go down over time. Features go up at the same price. It's time for Apple to choose RAM as the feature to boost!
It's not worth raising prices over (at the bottom end) but it's worth not lowering them at the next revision.
Costs and prices go down over time. Features go up at the same price. It's time for Apple to choose RAM as the feature to boost!
It's not worth raising prices over (at the bottom end) but it's worth not lowering them at the next revision.
Standard Macs with 512MB RAM will certainly be better. You could safe some money on buying RAM, or you could not buy RAM at all after you get a new Mac with 512MB standard, it's not a bad quantity 🙂
johnnyjibbs
macrumors 68030
pubwvj
macrumors 68000
mac-er said:
Not. 256MB is quite useable. Case in point we have machines that are running with 192MB of RAM and a lowly 266 MHz G3 processor but they are very usable. They run Panther with iTunes, a database, Mail, Safari, jNotes and iCal all going at the same time.
Sure, more memory for the base configuration is great, but don't be unrealistic. 256MB is enough to do a lot of work. Your expectations are too high.
ftaok
macrumors 604
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.raggedjimmi said:
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.
ftaok
macrumors 604
It would be nice if Apple were to solder 512MB on the 12" PB and leave the slot open. That would be a nice 1.5GB max for the 12". I don't think they'd do that with the iBook, though. They like to keep some differentiation. Although they are currently the same right now (RAM slot wise).nighthawk said:
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.
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.
Mitthrawnuruodo
Moderator emeritus
I don't know...
If this means that the iBooks will have 256 MB built-in + 256 MB in the (only) RAM slot then I'm against it... It will be just as stupid as it was when I bought my iBook G4@800 with 128 + 128 MB, I had to remove the replaceable one to insert my 3rd party 512 MB RAM, and ended up with "only" 640 MB RAM. If Apple, as they did on a later rev, had 256 MB built-in and an open slot I would have been at 768 MB and not had a (useless and valueless) 128 MB SO-DIMM in a drawer somewhere... 🙁
If, on the other hand, they solder a 512 MB DIMM on the motherboard, and leaves one slot free, I'm all for it... 😀
If this means that the iBooks will have 256 MB built-in + 256 MB in the (only) RAM slot then I'm against it... It will be just as stupid as it was when I bought my iBook G4@800 with 128 + 128 MB, I had to remove the replaceable one to insert my 3rd party 512 MB RAM, and ended up with "only" 640 MB RAM. If Apple, as they did on a later rev, had 256 MB built-in and an open slot I would have been at 768 MB and not had a (useless and valueless) 128 MB SO-DIMM in a drawer somewhere... 🙁
If, on the other hand, they solder a 512 MB DIMM on the motherboard, and leaves one slot free, I'm all for it... 😀
