Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iGary

Guest
May 26, 2004
19,580
7
Randy's House
Um, what happened to my post? :confused:

[From the moderator: Most one-word posts (e.g., Great!, Yippee! etc.) are considered spam and routinely deleted, unless they answer a specific question or add something useful to the discussion. Yours was not the only such post today.]
 

pshady

macrumors 6502
Mar 10, 2005
263
173
los angeles
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).
 

dornoforpyros

macrumors 68040
Oct 19, 2004
3,070
4
Calgary, AB
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"
 

Zaty

macrumors 65816
Mar 14, 2004
1,215
2
Switzerland
aricher said:
This would be a good move. Even better would be to max out the RAM in the demo machines at the Apple Stores. I know 3 PC users who won't buy Mac Minis now because the demo machines only had 256 MB in them - "painfully slow," was what one of them 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.
 

0098386

Suspended
Jan 18, 2005
21,574
2,908
ftaok said:
I think you're overestimating the speed/power that these switchers are coming from. Many switchers are coming from old PCs with PIII's @500mhz and Win98. A new Mac with 256MBs will seem like greased lightning to them.

Case in point. I persuaded my sister to go Mac (she did, with a 17" G5 iMac 1.8) and it only has 256MB. The other day, she commented that she loves the Mac because she can do her work and listen to music too.

every PC I've had for about 2 years now, if not more, has had 512Mb Ram. ditto for the vast majority of PC owners i know, who mostly are not gamers/video editors/people who need lotsa ram.
 

tech4all

macrumors 68040
Jun 13, 2004
3,399
489
NorCal
aricher said:
This would be a good move. Even better would be to max out the RAM in the demo machines at the Apple Stores. I know 3 PC users who won't buy Mac Minis now because the demo machines only had 256 MB in them - "painfully slow," was what one of them 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 :D

animefan_1 said:
Anyone who votes negative on this topic deserves to be smacked in the head. :D

So far that's two people.
 

blumie607

macrumors newbie
Sep 6, 2003
26
0
mkaake said:
LOL

sure they're unusable :p

i don't suppose you actually *use* a machine with 256 megs of ram, do you? I've been using my 1.0 emac with 256 megs of ram for almost a year now, and while it's no speed demon, its far from 'unbearably slow' or 'nearly impossible to run any iLife program'. With 256, I often have 5 or 6 programs open with no problem.

yes, in fact, I can actually run the iApps! with only 256 megs of ram!

and here's a little secret - I can run more than one of them at one time! :eek: who would have thought it was possible??

it's not as bad as you think. is 512 better? sure. but calling 256 unusable, unbearable, and barely able to run the iApps is a little foolish...

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.
 

xli_ne

macrumors 6502a
Mar 3, 2005
790
0
Center of the Nation
tech4all 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 :D



So far that's two people.

Agree 100%
But most new mac buyers won't know "About this Mac" unless someone tells them that it's there.
 

SiliconAddict

macrumors 603
Jun 19, 2003
5,889
0
Chicago, IL
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. It’s 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.. :eek: 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.
 

nighthawk

macrumors regular
Jan 3, 2003
104
0
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!
 

ipodmann

macrumors member
Nov 11, 2004
47
0
tech4all said:
I was just thinking of this last night before I went to bed. Apple should definetly up the standard RAM from 256 (where applicable) to 512. It would nice if Apple made 1GB RAM standard on the higher end PowerMacs :rolleyes:

I also hope they don't raise the price in response to the upgrade.


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.
 

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,546
1,196
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.
 

iPlm

macrumors regular
Dec 17, 2004
104
0
Sofia
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 :)
 

pubwvj

macrumors 68000
Oct 1, 2004
1,901
208
Mountains of Vermont
mac-er said:
It is nearly impossible to run any iLife program (aside from iTunes) with 256 MB. I cannot imagine how many switchers have bought a new Mac with 256 MB, and it is unbearably slow with iMovie, iDVD, iPhoto. I'm sure it creates lots of negative feelings towards Macs with these people.

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 603
Jan 23, 2002
6,485
1,571
East Coast
raggedjimmi said:
every PC I've had for about 2 years now, if not more, has had 512Mb Ram. ditto for the vast majority of PC owners i know, who mostly are not gamers/video editors/people who need lotsa ram.
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.

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 603
Jan 23, 2002
6,485
1,571
East Coast
nighthawk said:
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!
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).
 

panphage

macrumors 6502
Jul 1, 2003
496
0
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.
 

wdlove

macrumors P6
Oct 20, 2002
16,568
0
I think that this is a good move on the part of Apple. Chances are Tiger will run better with the increased memory. I would expect that the price would remain the same.
 

Mitthrawnuruodo

Moderator emeritus
Mar 10, 2004
14,413
1,041
Bergen, Norway
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... :D
 

MacSA

macrumors 68000
Jun 4, 2003
1,803
5
UK
ftaok said:
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.

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.

I got my current PC (Im using it now) just over 4 years ago......667mhz Celeron, 64Mb RAM and shared graphics. I added another 256Mb RAM about 18 months ago ;)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.