hey there, just wanted to know... How much ram is enough for osx?
- Thread starter sevag1
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
alex_ant
macrumors 68020
Five years ago I was able to browse the web, check email, do word processing, edit images, and do light compiling all at once COMFORTABLY in LESS than 32MB of RAM. To do the same in OS X I now require TWENTY TIMES that. Not twice as much, not three times as much. Not four, or five, or six times as much. Not seven or eight times as much, either - and also not nine, ten, eleven, twelve, thirteen, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, eighteen, or even nineteen times as much. But the general recommendation here seems to be "go with a HALF GIGABYTE" and you'll be alright.
Does this strike anyone else as utterly incredulous and monumentally disgusting? I mean, I know RAM is cheap. I know CPU cycles and memory bandwidth are a bit more expendable than they used to be. But WHERE is this memory GOING?? I used to (six years ago) be able to get a lot done - almost as much as I do today - on a computer with 8MB of RAM. Yes, that's right - eight megabytes of RAM. Why do I require nearly sixty-four times more memory now than I did then? Sure OS X has new features, but does it really have enough new "features" to justify its ungodly appetite for memory? Most operating systems of 1996, even the various Unix derivatives (including OpenStep) ran comfortably in 32MB or less. In 1995, IRIX 6 - an industrial-strength mainframe Unix OS custom engineered to stream multi-gigabyte files over high-speed supercomputer interconnects - ran comfortably in 64MB of RAM. And even IT was considered highly bloated for its day. Fast-forward to 2002, and having two web browsers open at the same time requires the equivalent of nearly $20,000 worth of RAM at 1995 prices.
I would just like to conclude this rant by saying that although I still love OS X, its memory usage is absolutely the most atrocious of ANY OS EVER in the history of computing, hands down, bar none. God forbid it gets even worse, because my TiBook can "only" hold one gigabyte. Spit.
Alex
Does this strike anyone else as utterly incredulous and monumentally disgusting? I mean, I know RAM is cheap. I know CPU cycles and memory bandwidth are a bit more expendable than they used to be. But WHERE is this memory GOING?? I used to (six years ago) be able to get a lot done - almost as much as I do today - on a computer with 8MB of RAM. Yes, that's right - eight megabytes of RAM. Why do I require nearly sixty-four times more memory now than I did then? Sure OS X has new features, but does it really have enough new "features" to justify its ungodly appetite for memory? Most operating systems of 1996, even the various Unix derivatives (including OpenStep) ran comfortably in 32MB or less. In 1995, IRIX 6 - an industrial-strength mainframe Unix OS custom engineered to stream multi-gigabyte files over high-speed supercomputer interconnects - ran comfortably in 64MB of RAM. And even IT was considered highly bloated for its day. Fast-forward to 2002, and having two web browsers open at the same time requires the equivalent of nearly $20,000 worth of RAM at 1995 prices.
I would just like to conclude this rant by saying that although I still love OS X, its memory usage is absolutely the most atrocious of ANY OS EVER in the history of computing, hands down, bar none. God forbid it gets even worse, because my TiBook can "only" hold one gigabyte. Spit.
Alex
Rower_CPU
Moderator emeritus
Alex-
Inflation is everywhere...HDs over 500MB were considered HUGE, now you can't even install the OS on that...a 33MHZ processor used to be a screamer, now you can't even run anything worthwhile on it...a 12" monochrome monitor used to be sufficient, now anything less than a 17" with milions of colors + is considered unthinkable...3D videocards didn't even exist...sound was limited to the PC speaker...modems were the ONLY was to connect to the 'Net...need I go on?
This evolution is inevitable and driven very much by consumer demand.
Just think of all you can do on you Mac today that would have been impossible 5 years ago. Does 512 MB of RAM still seem to be exorbitant?
PS - eyelikeart has RAM envy!
I'm very happy with my 640 in my TiBook...
Inflation is everywhere...HDs over 500MB were considered HUGE, now you can't even install the OS on that...a 33MHZ processor used to be a screamer, now you can't even run anything worthwhile on it...a 12" monochrome monitor used to be sufficient, now anything less than a 17" with milions of colors + is considered unthinkable...3D videocards didn't even exist...sound was limited to the PC speaker...modems were the ONLY was to connect to the 'Net...need I go on?
This evolution is inevitable and driven very much by consumer demand.
Just think of all you can do on you Mac today that would have been impossible 5 years ago. Does 512 MB of RAM still seem to be exorbitant?
PS - eyelikeart has RAM envy!
I'm very happy with my 640 in my TiBook...
Beej
macrumors 68020
On technilogical infalation
I was sitting in a lecture today, looking at the architecture of the Pentium Pro processor (ew yuck, yeah I know). Anyway, the lecturer referred to it as "a really old chip".
Dude. It's been around for six years, and it's "really old" ??? I guess that's just the way it is these days
I was sitting in a lecture today, looking at the architecture of the Pentium Pro processor (ew yuck, yeah I know). Anyway, the lecturer referred to it as "a really old chip".
Dude. It's been around for six years, and it's "really old" ??? I guess that's just the way it is these days
alex_ant
macrumors 68020
Well, it's not like all the software that used to run on that thing won't still run. It's just that you can't find the software anywhere anymore. Why not? Because newer versions have come out. Sure new versions often include new features, but what the hell kind of new features does it take to cause RAM requirements to rise exponentially? Not to mention the fact that many people don't need, or even want, new features - they feel forced into upgrading because, well, 3.0 must be better than 2.0, and 2.0 won't be supported much longer, and 2.0 can't open all my colleagues' 3.0 files, and... and... and...
I agree that hardware-accelerated OpenGL neurological model simulations are not the job of a 33MHz processor, but, really - somehow I managed to live on my 33MHz processor. OK, it was actually 40MHz - but I still did it. I checked my email, I browsed the web, I even played games. I could still do all of that today if the software were still available and kept reasonably up-to-date without going into exponential bloat mode. Yes, it is possible. I am awed just thinking about how much money I, and millions of other people, would have saved over the years if we had never felt the need to move past a 40MHz, or even a 200MHz, CPU.
I agree, but I think it's a sad situation whereby consumers are demanding what they don't need. If they were looking at the big picture and were capable of unifying themselves in order to deduce what would be best for them as a whole, I think they would come to the conclusion that there is a certain point beyond which there would be no need to upgrade if the software weren't so ****e. Seriously - everything anyone can do on a dual 1GHz Mac today they could do on a 300MHz computer if all the software available to run on a 300MHz computer - which includes Mac OS X, Linux, Windows, and everything else except BeOS - weren't so bloated and demanding.
The computer companies, though, do not have any interest in doing what is best for the consumer - it is their job to make software more and more bloated, in order to justify consumers' purchases of faster and faster hardware. Indeed, if this were not the case, even if people would be happier and wealthier, the economy would be in the pisser, and that's all that's important, right?
I'm sorry for ranting, but I actually quite enjoy it, and I hope you all do as well.
Alex
rainman::|:|
macrumors 603
okay i shouldn't have read this thread. i only have *sob* 256 meg. why, oh why can't you download RAM off of hotline? actually it works fine for me, i've only maxed the RAM out once or twice, doing too much at once... i can live with certain limitations.
and whenever i try to upgrade this computer, since it's not technically mine, RJ slinks about like i'm plotting to overthrow the government with it or something...probably my reputation for taking things apart and not putting them together again. my problem is i have about a bijillion 128 meg sticks lying around, and only two slots. it seems like such a waste to go buy ram when i have it unused here. i don't suppose 128 goes for much secondhand on ebay, does it?
hmm, thinking on it, i think i have a 256 around here somewhere... hmm a project for tomorrow...
ah well. the moral of this story is, don't feel too bad if you only have half a gig...
pnw
actually it works fine for me, i've only maxed the RAM out once or twice, doing too much at once... i can live with certain limitations. and whenever i try to upgrade this computer, since it's not technically mine, RJ slinks about like i'm plotting to overthrow the government with it or something...probably my reputation for taking things apart and not putting them together again. my problem is i have about a bijillion 128 meg sticks lying around, and only two slots. it seems like such a waste to go buy ram when i have it unused here. i don't suppose 128 goes for much secondhand on ebay, does it?
hmm, thinking on it, i think i have a 256 around here somewhere... hmm a project for tomorrow...
ah well. the moral of this story is, don't feel too bad if you only have half a gig...
pnw
Firestormf
macrumors newbie
Whooo my first post ever!
I have OS X on an iBook maxed out at an amazing 160mb. I can run about 2 apps at a time with minimal page outs, unless it's Limeware, in which case that had better be the only thing running!
Looking forward to getting a Pbk G4 when they get an update.
Question: Does the 512mb the Pbk comes with take up both memory slots? I want to be able to upgrade the ram in the future and it would suck if they put in 2x256mb sticks.
I have OS X on an iBook maxed out at an amazing 160mb. I can run about 2 apps at a time with minimal page outs, unless it's Limeware, in which case that had better be the only thing running!
Looking forward to getting a Pbk G4 when they get an update.
Question: Does the 512mb the Pbk comes with take up both memory slots? I want to be able to upgrade the ram in the future and it would suck if they put in 2x256mb sticks.
AlphaTech
macrumors 601
I gather that you have never had to deal with windblows then. Talk about horrid memory management. You have no option other then using it's virtual memory system. Also, if you don't adjust the registry size after some installs, forget about what little stability it does have.
Mr. Anderson
Moderator emeritus
You might want to check something first. Find out how much Apple is charging for the 1 512MB, and for the standard. You might be able to get the minimum from Apple and then spring for the single 512MB separately, not through Apple, and still come out with a better deal. Then maybe sell the extra memory on ebay or to a friend to pick up a little cash.
I like http://www.buymemory.com but there are plenty others out there that offer good, lifetime replacement, cheap memory.
I've got a Gig in both of my machines. But even then, if I'm doing a big Photoshop file (>100 Meg) or working with Lightwave, I have to manage my apps carefully. This is all in OS9. I'll be going to OSX full time when Photoshop7 gets delivered.
Rower_CPU
Moderator emeritus
Alex-
One more thing I forgot in my original post...prices.
How much does the average computer cost today?
How much 5 years ago?
I think you see where I'm going with this. Technology makes it possible for us to have better/faster/bigger parts for cheaper and cheaper...me likey!
One more thing I forgot in my original post...prices.
How much does the average computer cost today?
How much 5 years ago?
I think you see where I'm going with this. Technology makes it possible for us to have better/faster/bigger parts for cheaper and cheaper...me likey!
eyelikeart
Moderator emeritus
Re: Re: Re: well damn...
hey!!! we'll work on that password/user scenario...he he he...
and yes I do have RAM envy...I've had a few opportunities to get the RAM I want and instead I've bought other things....so does that make me a bad Mac-head??
Originally posted by AlphaTech
Yeah, until his GF takes the computer away from him for a while... like THAT would ever happen.
hey!!! we'll work on that password/user scenario...he he he...
and yes I do have RAM envy...I've had a few opportunities to get the RAM I want and instead I've bought other things....so does that make me a bad Mac-head??
alex_ant
macrumors 68020
Windows is very guilty of unreasonable memory usage as well, but it simply cannot touch OS X. I'm not talking about memory management or stability - I'm talking about pure and simple bloat - memory usage. I'm not defending Microsoft, because I hate them as much as anyone else, but my point was that nothing is more bloated than OS X. Nothing.
Alex
alex_ant
macrumors 68020
Yes, and it also makes it possible for us to have the same old parts for much cheaper. If I could do everything I need to today on a $200 P200 laptop, I damned well would not have plunked down in excess of $2K for a new Powerbook. I don't think it's unreasonable to wish that there were software that got updated without growing exponentially in memory and CPU usage. Another point - you wouldn't have any need for those better/faster/bigger parts if your software weren't so crappy. That goes for me as well, and probably the majority of computer users the world over.Originally posted by Rower_CPU
Alex-
One more thing I forgot in my original post...prices.
How much does the average computer cost today?
How much 5 years ago?
I think you see where I'm going with this. Technology makes it possible for us to have better/faster/bigger parts for cheaper and cheaper...me likey!
Alex
Rower_CPU
Moderator emeritus
We can all go back to CLI if you want...low system requirements there...
Yes, I agree that software developers do not always have the lowest common denominator in mind when they develop...but then it comes right back to consumer demand.
Consumers want their OS to be functional, allow them to do everything from email and websurfing to video development and 3D rendering. And they want the OS to look good while doing it. All of the 128bit icons and shadows and transparency in OS X adds to the "bloat", if that's what you want to call it. But that's what the users want to see in a "next generation" OS. Are you condemning Apple for giving it to them?
I honestly believe that as X matures we will see better and better performance from it. We will also see component prices drop further and further, thus making the neccessity for more RAM/faster CPU/larger HD less of an issue.
It's the natural cycle of technology...sometimes you're on the cutting edge...sometimes you're on the bleeding edge...and sometimes you wait a while and reap the benefits of that which has gone before.
AlphaTech
macrumors 601
With OS X Apple essentially recreated the OS. With such a major change, it needs some time to mature, and give us the improvements we are asking for (just as you stated).
Many people gave feedback on the public beta of OS X which is what has shaped it so far. I wonder what would have happened if the majority of people sent feedback requesting less features, instead of more. I would rather have the system requirements be up there for a next generation OS then to have the OS be ho hum.
Given enough time, OS X will mature into a true windows killer, as it should be.
The developers of software, be it Apple or others, are always looking to make their applications more attractive to people. That typically means giving them more features that have been asked for. Personally, I have no use (at home) for the biggest bloatware of all. Of course, I am speaking about m$ orfice.
AppleWorks does everything I need, and version 6 has been sweet under OS X (9 as well) for some time now.
alex_ant
macrumors 68020
Now, come on - I never said anything about going back to the CLI. I said something about going back to software that can do basically 80% of what today's can do with basically <10% of the hardware requirements.
I need email and websurfing, but I don't need video development or 3D rendering. Some people do, though, and there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to on fast hardware. I'm not a luddite. But this goes back to what I said in one of my previous posts - if software weren't so damned bloated and taxing, people would be able to do their 3D rending and video editing on hardware that was five times slower... as evidenced by the likes of BeOS and QNX.
No way, I think vectorized icons and antialiased fonts and alpha blending are great. Yes, they do add to the bloat, but are they the cause of these exponential increases in RAM requirements? Seriously - tell a BeOS user, who lives comfortably in 32MB of RAM, that it takes ten times as much RAM as it otherwise would to antialias fonts and provide graphical geegaws. So, as I said, a good-looking OS is great, but there's no reason it has to use up a quarter to a half gigabyte of memory.
Great - so some day soon, I'll be able to do everything I used to need to be able to do on hardware that's only 50 times faster than what I used to have, and only having to pay for a few more OS upgrades at $100 each. I'm sick of the cycle, and I speak for a lot of average, non-techie consumers here - we just want something that works, that we can use for a long long time and never have to worry about upgrading. I agree that Apple will make X faster in subsequent releases, but I wonder whether those performance gains will be canceled out by yet more new features that I have no use for.
Alex
Rower_CPU
Moderator emeritus
Alex -
All good points, I was just playing the Devil's Advocate for the sake of discussion...
I'm right with you on wanting to see X perform better on lower system reqs...my G3 450 with 128MB at work (that I'm typing on right now) is up to the task, but it slows down and pages out regularly...
All good points, I was just playing the Devil's Advocate for the sake of discussion...
I'm right with you on wanting to see X perform better on lower system reqs...my G3 450 with 128MB at work (that I'm typing on right now) is up to the task, but it slows down and pages out regularly...
mc68k
macrumors 68000
RAM
RAM requirements depend on what system you're running and what you plan on doing with the system.
OS X is functional, bloated, pretty, stable, and capable but is still a fledgling OS. I still prefer the ability to control my own RAM to a certain extent than giving it to UNIX.
OS 9 is less stable but very snappy compared to OS X and memory controls are great ability to DECIDE wheter or not to have VM, RAM disk, or memory alottment on a per-application basis. I like control over my OS.
With that said, it really depends what you're doing with the system. For all practicallity 512MB should be enough for anyone *thinks back to Gates quote*. I can launch all my apps in OS X and still have memory to spare. And this is on a S900! Any memory over this is really for peace of mind or high-end work. I have yet to page-out in OS X with 512MB.
Seems funny 512 more than enough in OS 9 but standard for OS X. Guess it's Moore's Law at work again.
RAM requirements depend on what system you're running and what you plan on doing with the system.
OS X is functional, bloated, pretty, stable, and capable but is still a fledgling OS. I still prefer the ability to control my own RAM to a certain extent than giving it to UNIX.
OS 9 is less stable but very snappy compared to OS X and memory controls are great ability to DECIDE wheter or not to have VM, RAM disk, or memory alottment on a per-application basis. I like control over my OS.
With that said, it really depends what you're doing with the system. For all practicallity 512MB should be enough for anyone *thinks back to Gates quote*. I can launch all my apps in OS X and still have memory to spare. And this is on a S900! Any memory over this is really for peace of mind or high-end work. I have yet to page-out in OS X with 512MB.
Seems funny 512 more than enough in OS 9 but standard for OS X. Guess it's Moore's Law at work again.
