Bump the RAM Apple!!!

tinydancer

macrumors regular
Original poster
Aug 31, 2004
112
0
North Carolina
So here's my thought, which I'm sure is not that novel, but nevertheless on my mind:

Rather than go through the standard price drops for the various computer lines every so often, Apple should bump the min RAM specs across the board by 256 while leaving the price untouched. Leave the option open for the buyer to downgrade the RAM for a savings, if so desired. This will dramatically increase the performace of the computer, which results in greater customer satisfaction. The average computer user doesn't understand what factors influence the computer. All they know is if they like what their using or not. More minimum RAM will lead to happier customers, among them who are the reccent PC converts who are buying up these iMac Mini's. What do you think?.....not that it will happen anytime soon, but I guess somethings got to give at some point.
 

tubedogg

macrumors regular
Dec 18, 2003
190
33
Minnesota
rhpenguin said:
A company giving something for free?! Are you serious?!
How are they giving something away for free if, instead of dropping the price by e.g. $100, they add 256MB of memory? They'd actually be making money on that deal since the memory doesn't cost them anywhere near that much.
 

Lacero

macrumors 604
Jan 20, 2005
6,639
2
Sheesh, I remember when 4MB was plenty enough for daily computing, and having 16MB was an ungodly amount of ram.
 

rhpenguin

macrumors 6502a
Jun 10, 2003
929
0
London, Ontario
Read it how the original poster intended it.. Basically hes saying, keep the price the same, add 256mb more memory and give users the option to remove that 256mb as a bto option.
 

tinydancer

macrumors regular
Original poster
Aug 31, 2004
112
0
North Carolina
rhpenguin said:
Read it how the original poster intended it.. Basically hes saying, keep the price the same, add 256mb more memory and give users the option to remove that 256mb as a bto option.

Yes you're right. Make this change in hardware, not price. But if Apple is going to drop the price anyway...just add the RAM and keep the price the same. Apple gives nothing away for free if they intend to drop the price on the line as it is. It would be like you paying for an upgrade, it's just that in this case apple has make the upgade for you.
 

tubedogg

macrumors regular
Dec 18, 2003
190
33
Minnesota
rhpenguin said:
Read it how the original poster intended it.. Basically hes saying, keep the price the same, add 256mb more memory and give users the option to remove that 256mb as a bto option.
I still don't see how they are giving anything away for free in that case. If they are going to drop the price by $100, and instead of doing that they add an extra 256MB stick of RAM which can be removed to reduce the price by, say, $75, they are still $25 ahead of where they were if they had just reduced the price, AND the system is better prepared for the average consumer (if the RAM is not removed). Even if they make the RAM an option that can be removed for the full $100, they still aren't any worse off then they would have been if they had just dropped the system's price by $100.

If they were to give you 256MB of RAM for the lower price, then fine they might be giving something for free, but if they don't lower the price, how are they giving anything away for free?

You seem to be disregarding the fact the original poster was intending this as a *replacement* for a price drop.
 

Fredstar

macrumors 6502a
Nov 3, 2004
595
0
Near London
Apple really should have 512mb as standard really, Panther really slows if the hd is not upto scratch (<7200) with 256mb. Through economies of scale i doubt Apple would pay more than a tenner (if that) to bump up all the models and it would leave a lot of newbs who will walk out with a Mini a lot happier when they get it home. Forget a day or anything just put 512 in all the Macs, we do pay a premium after all.
 

wPod

macrumors 68000
Aug 19, 2003
1,654
0
Denver, CO
i completely agree. i just got my bro a mac mini with min ram (cause ram elsewhere is cheaper) and set it up (havent gotten more ram yet). and 256 isnt enough for OS X. i have my PB maxed out and i like it (with 5 programs open at once) but honestly 256 is hardly enough to run OS X so i dont know why apple keeps packaging everything with only 256. oh well. probably by the time i get another computer 512 will be too little and thats what apple will ship as its standard.
 

Steven1621

macrumors 6502a
Apr 10, 2003
796
0
Connecticut
dejo said:
Are you saying that running OS X alone, with no other applications running, takes up most of the 256 MB of RAM?
It comes rather close. I restarted just to see what it comes up as and it was 220 MB for me. I suppose if you close applications completely you might be able to get by, and there probably are ways to lower the amount you use.
 

Chip NoVaMac

macrumors G3
Dec 25, 2003
8,889
25
Northern Virginia
My hope is that once the frenzy is over with that the Apple Stores in the malls will have versions of the Mac mini with at least the 512mb RAM and the AE/BT built in. I have heard that they do that on some of the PB configs that sell well.
 

Logik

macrumors 6502a
Apr 24, 2004
616
0
Lacero said:
Sheesh, I remember when 4MB was plenty enough for daily computing, and having 16MB was an ungodly amount of ram.
indeed man, i have a stick of PNY 4mb ram at home.. bought the stuff for $200 at best buy.. i have the receipt and the ram and the box.. i'll take pics ;) the good ol days of windows 95.. so it was in '95 or '96 i bought it
 

jxyama

macrumors 68040
Apr 3, 2003
3,735
1
considering cheap PCs also ship with 256 MB RAM, most of them also being used as shared video RAM, i don't see the reason for apple to do this.

you are right, though, 256 MB is fairly low for OS X. (nevermind Win XP for cheap PCs.) you will get a lot more beachballs because of frequent access to virtual memory.

but for people who want cheap computer, i think it's ok. if you know better, you'd upgrade. i don't think selling with 256 MB is really stifling the demand - those who buy without upgrades wouldn't know the difference even if it came with 512 MB, and those who know will (grudgingly) pay to upgrade.
 

Timelessblur

macrumors 65816
Jun 26, 2004
1,086
0
I can understand them keeping the mini at 256 but I might like to point out by the time PC hit 800 base price for monitor and all they at sitting at 512 megs of ram. so basicly everything but BTO for the min mac and the lowest of the Emac, and Ibook, but after that they all should be at the standard 512 meg.

Level it to apple to put top of the line stuff in there top of the line computer than waste all that extra power with POS graphic card and 256 megs of ram. A basic 1,8 ghz power mac (no upgrades) will get creamed in almost all test by a 1K pc tower with a slow CPU just because that computer has 4 times the ram and a much better graphic card. before I get flamed I might like to point out that the PC tower would still have a ram and graphic card upgrade but it is still 1/2 of the cost of a basie 1.8ghz Powermac and is not hampered by no ram. It was making a poitn that Apple really needs to increase it ram
 

dejo

Moderator
Staff member
Sep 2, 2004
15,725
447
The Centennial State
Steven1621 said:
It comes rather close. I restarted just to see what it comes up as and it was 220 MB for me. I suppose if you close applications completely you might be able to get by, and there probably are ways to lower the amount you use.
Then how can OS X (10.3.7) be running on my 128MB iBook?
 

jxyama

macrumors 68040
Apr 3, 2003
3,735
1
dejo said:
Then how can OS X (10.3.7) be running on my 128MB iBook?
it'll run. but it'll be slow. that's all. (obviously, 'slow' is relative. i personally found my experience - read below - nearly unusable.)

i had a 1 GHz eMac with 128 MB. panther ran, but it was very slow. try to run any app and you'd get beachball. slow and 'nearly' unsable doesn't mean it won't run. you'd be amazed how much better the performance will be if you put a bit more RAM in your iBook.
 

ifjake

macrumors 6502a
Jan 19, 2004
562
1
i think it's an excellent idea. and now that Apple has been messing with the price of the upgrade options for the mini, maybe it wouldn't be too "below" them for it to actually be possible.
 

jemeinc

macrumors 6502a
Feb 14, 2004
771
0
South Jersey
I think it's more than an excellent idea- I think it's imperative... Yeah, cheap PC's come with 256- but those $500 PC's come with a keyboard. mouse, & monitor- ... So for all intensive purposes, Apple doesn't really make a "Cheap" computer... I understand the target audience for the mini is people who already have that stuff- but they are also comparing it to the $500 PC's so it's fair to point out what you get & don't get..

Let's face it- even Apples low end desk tops are expensive- compared to PC's - 512 should be standard- 256 is unacceptable in anything other than the mini...
 

auxplage

macrumors 6502
Nov 11, 2004
331
1
Virginia Beach
I used my eMac with 256 mb of RAM for a few months. It was very annoying and all I use is iTunes, Safari, iPhoto, and few other programs on a regular basis. 256 mb is not enough. I have used a Mac with 512 mb and imho that is not enough. 768 mb seems to be a sweet spot with normal use and anything more is never a bad thing. :)
 

rosalindavenue

macrumors 6502a
Dec 13, 2003
837
213
Virginia, USA
jxyama said:
considering cheap PCs also ship with 256 MB RAM, most of them also being used as shared video RAM, i don't see the reason for apple to do this.
I'm sure there are a few cheap PCs out there with 256K, but the cheap Dell on the back of Parade Magazine in my Sunday paper ($499 after rebate with 17" CRT and keyboard/mouse) has 512K of RAM. I think that 512 is becoming the PC standard, even on the cheapest of boxes.
 

Chip NoVaMac

macrumors G3
Dec 25, 2003
8,889
25
Northern Virginia
rosalindavenue said:
I'm sure there are a few cheap PCs out there with 256K, but the cheap Dell on the back of Parade Magazine in my Sunday paper ($499 after rebate with 17" CRT and keyboard/mouse) has 512K of RAM. I think that 512 is becoming the PC standard, even on the cheapest of boxes.
Based on my experiences, I would be far more likely to run a Mac with 10.3 with 256mb RAM, than I would a Win XP box with the same amount of RAM.
 

daveL

macrumors 68020
Jun 18, 2003
2,425
0
Montana
Apple has to struggle against the common perception that Macs are too expensive, thus the emphasis on a low advertised price point. Up-selling is common throughout business and that's what Apple does with the BTO options.
 

AndrewTosh

macrumors newbie
Jan 12, 2005
28
0
Chip NoVaMac said:
Based on my experiences, I would be far more likely to run a Mac with 10.3 with 256mb RAM, than I would a Win XP box with the same amount of RAM.
I disagree. My XP machine with 256mb ran much more smoothly than the mac mini does with 256. Mac OS X is simply a more demanding operating system.

The typical WinXP computer might be slower, but if you don't let a bunch of spyware and junk get installed, it is very usable with 256mb of ram. Adding more would probably help when you have lots of stuff open, but regular web browsing, word processing, etc. performace isn't boosted that much.

The mini is literally a night and day difference switching to 512. I put in the memory today and it finally feels like it should. Using this machine with 256mb is like driving a car with the emergency brake on. It also bothers me that the iLife '05 suite that Apple touts as a reason to buy the mini runs so poorly on the stock memory configuration. I think this potential PR nightmare could be easilly aleviated by putting in another $30 of ram (probably much less wholesale)

-Andrew
 

tinydancer

macrumors regular
Original poster
Aug 31, 2004
112
0
North Carolina
Does anyone know where we can make this sort of recommendation to Apple. Under ffedback on their site there is no general feedback section for RAM....just individual systems to commment on. No emac, no imac, no mac mini sections are avaible for comment.