Apple to Boost Standard Memory?

[Doctor Q]

Because Apple hasn't traditionally sold personal computers specifically for the low end of the market where price is the only consideration, I could never understand their habit of providing minimum (usually insufficient) RAM in almost every model, especially since they don't cut corners so tightly in other areas. I've always configured my own Macs, and the ones I help others acquire, with twice the standard RAM, before I consider any other options or add-ons. Maybe in the future this won't always be necessary.

 

[rdowns]

Anyone who votes negative on this topic deserves to be smacked in the head.

Not necessarily although I never vote on threads nor pay attention to it. Pointless feature of the forum IMO. I could see one vote negative because Apple will likely ship 2-256MB stick in machines with 2 slots making you toss RAM you paid for.

 

[bankshot]

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.

Yes, painfully slow. I had 256 MB on my 1.25 GHz PowerBook for awhile, and 10 seconds to switch applications was not my idea of "usable."

I'm curious what you did to "play around" with that mini. Check a few websites with one window in Safari, fire up iTunes or iMovie? If it's a demo machine in the store, you can't really do a lot to stress the machine there. Try opening 6 Safari windows, each with 5 tabs of moderately complex or large web pages. Maybe a few Flash pages. Load a 20-minute project in iMovie with lots of clips/transitions/effects/whatever. Make lots of edits. Now switch back to Safari. Wait for about 20 seconds for the spinning beach ball to stop. Close a Safari window, wait another 20 seconds.

This is my daily battle on my QuickSilver G4 with 640 MB of memory. Currently, Safari is using 848 MB of virtual memory with 5 windows and 12 total tabs open. Pretty ironic for a browser that was originally created to be a fast and lightweight alternative.

People who browse the web in one window at a time, never having 2 pages or tabs open, will probably be fine with 256 MB. Maybe have their Mail open in the background and iTunes playing. Ok, fine. That's probably reasonable in 256 MB, but even then I bet it swaps some and takes a few extra seconds of disk thrashing when switching apps. As many comments here show, people get used to it, say it's not (too) slow, and enjoy Mac OS X for the superior experience. Great.

But for anyone who wants to try the creative iLife programs, something that's a big selling point for Apple, 256 MB is inexcusable. Someone who naturally browses with a bunch of windows open will get frustrated with their new Mac mini because it bogs down so much. Maybe frustrated enough to go back to their old PC, or even tell their friends how disappointing and overpriced it was. Does Apple want that? Probably not.

For a long time I've said Apple should move to 512 minimum on the consumer machines, 1 GB pro. Anything less seriously hurts the quality of the experience. Even if a switcher is coming from the crappiest PC setup, Apple should want the Mac experience to blow them away so much that they can't believe they ever put up with the PC. If their new Mac is just as slow but with better software, many people may not be nearly as thrilled, as likely to tell their friends, or as likely to be repeat customers.

 

[plinden]

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.

My Dell is three years old (almost exactly) and at the time it was the second fastest CPU (1.8GHz P4 vs 2.0GHz P4) available from Dell. Standard for that model was 20GB HD (I got 40GB) and 256MB RAM (I got 512MB and later added another 512MB)

It was close but not quite top of the line and definitely not a budget PC (cost me $1400 - damn it, I just remembered, I didn't get my $100 rebate)

Subtract lots more RAM from that (I remember seeing 128MB RAM in PCs for sale not so long ago) and add a much slower P4 or Celeron to get the budget machines in those days.

And if you look at Dell even now, 256MB is standard on all but their most expensive desktops.

 

[bankshot]

Anyone who votes negative on this topic deserves to be smacked in the head.

I voted negative. On any rumor story, I interpret the vote to mean how likely do I think it is to actually come true? I think this is long overdue, but I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[Lacero]

512MB upgrade across the line is great, except when Apple fills all available RAM slots like they did with the latest rounds of upgrades to the 12" PB. There is 256 MB soldered RAM and 1 filled RAM slot. It would perhaps be better if they provided 512MB RAM as soldered instead. Otherwise, if the price remains constant, then 512MB is great.

 

[mac-er]

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.

I'm very happy for you, but your user experience is not the end-all-be-all.

When I used iLife with 256 MB, I found it unusable and a waste of time. iLife began to run great with 512 MB.

 

[dicklacara]

Try opening 6 Safari windows, each with 5 tabs of moderately complex or large web pages. Maybe a few Flash pages.

This is a ploblem with Flash, and it is a more of a CPU cycles problem (although small memory may make it worse).

Try this, from a fresh boot:

1) open activity monitor
2) open Safari to a non-Flash site, like apple.com
3) Note the CPU cycles used by Safari
4) open another Safari window to a non-Flash site
5) note the CPU cycles used by Safari
6) Point the first Safari window to macromedia.com
7) note the CPU cycles used by Safari
8) Point the second Safari window to macromedia.com
9) note the CPU cycles used by Safari

The point is, Flash consumes a lot of CPU cycles even when the page is inactive (hidden). Several (4-5) concurrent Flash pages will bring the system to its knees.

 

[ziwi]

about time. Any self respecting Mac or PC requires at least that to have a good experience. I guee it will be 2 256's versus a single 512...outside the PM line which is 2 at a time.

 

[Eastend]

512MB upgrade across the line is great, except when Apple fills all available RAM slots like they did with the latest rounds of upgrades to the 12" PB. There is 256 MB soldered RAM and 1 filled RAM slot. It would perhaps be better if they provided 512MB RAM as soldered instead. Otherwise, if the price remains constant, then 512MB is great.

You beat me to it, they have got to stop soldering on those tiny 256 MB of Ram and filling the other slot with something that has to be taken out and replaced, not environmentally compatible. Especially on the Pro line up, the 12 inch PowerBook should be Pro not 2- 256 MB of memory.

Brian

 

[deanbo]

It's about time

About god damn time!

 

[finchna]

I suppose that's acceptable, but really--1G would be better.

 

[rdowns]

I suppose that's acceptable, but really--1G would be better.

A GB makes no sense from a business perspective. Apple needs to make money off of upgrades, even if many buy them elsewhere. Besides, 1 GB is overkill for the vast majority of users.

 

[broken_keyboard]

This is great. I only wish they had made this decision before they rolled out the Mac mini, because a lot of these new adopters would have been a lot happier with their purchase.

 

[SurfAddict]

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!

You really dont have to save that much money man I picked up my 2 1 gigs from Outpost.com for 180 each I dont think that specific deal is still their but they usually have really good notebook prices if you dont look for the made for mac ram. BTW mine is Kingston ram

 

[SurfAddict]

512MB upgrade across the line is great, except when Apple fills all available RAM slots like they did with the latest rounds of upgrades to the 12" PB. There is 256 MB soldered RAM and 1 filled RAM slot. It would perhaps be better if they provided 512MB RAM as soldered instead. Otherwise, if the price remains constant, then 512MB is great.

Honestly I dont think that them soldering on the 256 for the 12 inch was really that big a deal. I believe that the intention was that since the max ram is 1.25 gb if they soldered on the 512 they would make you pay more for a laptop which you could never make actually equal 1.25 gb of ram? I'm not sure though if it would just ignore the extra 256 of ram if you to drop in a gig and have it actually equal 1.5. Honestly the 512 wasnt really a big deal for me since I knew when I ordered I'd be placing 2 gigs in as soon as they shipped and I had an extra 512 lying around that I popped in before ever powering on the computer to start with 1 gig (sorry for the double post)

 

[~loserman~]

This is a ploblem with Flash, and it is a more of a CPU cycles problem (although small memory may make it worse).

Try this, from a fresh boot:

1) open activity monitor
2) open Safari to a non-Flash site, like apple.com
3) Note the CPU cycles used by Safari
4) open another Safari window to a non-Flash site
5) note the CPU cycles used by Safari
6) Point the first Safari window to macromedia.com
7) note the CPU cycles used by Safari
8) Point the second Safari window to macromedia.com
9) note the CPU cycles used by Safari

The point is, Flash consumes a lot of CPU cycles even when the page is inactive (hidden). Several (4-5) concurrent Flash pages will bring the system to its knees.

If you really want to see a cpu cycle waster open a terminal and run top.
It is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. 10 to 14% CPU utilization.
On other Unix systems top uses less than 1 %

 

[eXan]

According to AppleInsider, Apple is planning to increase the standard RAM it ships with each system to 512 MB to help improve performance with various applications.

This would be a really good move for Apple

 

[The Black Rock]

What would be most annoying would be if Apple decided to ship the iMac G5 with two 256 chips. If they do that then I'm guaranteed to throw one of them away (or donate it) when I add my 1 gig chip.

Please Apple, if you're going to do this do it right in the iMac G5. Put one 512 chip in one slot so I can make it a 1.5 machine, rather than a 1.25.

 

[The Black Rock]

On the other hand, if in the next iMac revision they put 4 ram slots in there things are very different.

Honestly why have 64-bit computing power on a machine that can never take advantage of it?

 

[Platform]

On the other hand, if in the next iMac revision they put 4 ram slots in there things are very different.

Honestly why have 64-bit computing power on a machine that can never take advantage of it?

Well by having the 64Bit cpu you don't just get the advantage of beeing able to handle more RAM but also the you can do more comlex thing is sertain apps.
And the OS will also take advantage of it and apps will be optimized for the PowerPC G5

 

[Platform]

It was about time....

As I have heard that to be able to use many programs at a time and have the OS smoothe you should have a gig of RAM.

But now that 512 will be standard will the sweet limit rise or

 

[BWhaler]

The bottom line is this is a good marketing move by Apple.

And I guess the req's of Tiger are getting pretty steep in the lab, and Apple wants some headroom to keep innovating in the future. Supporting old hardware makes it tough to truly innovate...

 

[Timboid]

... 1 GB is overkill for the vast majority of users.

Is it? Most of the Mac users I know are Photoshoppers/Final Cutters/Musicians. LIke myself. LOgic Pro, FCP4.5, Photoshop CS all LOVE ram. And if you have FCP and Photoshop open, as well as other things, then 1Gb is the minimum for this sort of usage. I installed 1Gb in my G4 533 Sp about 4 years ago, when it was running OS9.1 (i think!) and it is still a useable machine now that i have taken it through 10.0, 10.2, up to Panther.

Most Windows users are in Offices, using the OS and Office. 256 Megs will do this, but Mac users tend to be more in the creative areas which generally require greater RAM rquirements.

I agree that the Mac mini and basic G5 iMacs will probably be more used by Office/net users, so there is pronbably no real need for more than 512 there, but for the Pro G5 towers, I really thing 1Gb is the minimum that should be installed, especially in the light of Tiger's immineabt release.

 

[gekko513]

If you really want to see a cpu cycle waster open a terminal and run top.
It is the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. 10 to 14% CPU utilization.
On other Unix systems top uses less than 1 %

Yeah, I know, that is really strange. Their version of top also has very weird keyboard shortcuts that don't match neither the man page nor the top that I'm used to in Linux.

But I do agree that Flash pages are major system resources hogs especially on the Mac, and I think it can explain many of the cases where people are dissappointed by the performance with 256MB of RAM.

I have used my niece's eMac with 128MB of RAM without performance issues. It was not connected to the internet, so no Flash, and it was mostly used in a one application at once manner, but still. (It is now upgraded to 640MB of RAM because the Sims requires 384MB of RAM )