is 512MB enough for basic apps?

[kainjow]

The more ram the better, no matter what.

Processors are and will be much much faster then ram for a long time to come, unless we get some revolutionary new type of memory. Memory is just so slow, and the processor is too fast for it. So give your system as much ram as you can afford. It only will be *faster*.

 

[pubwvj]

Is the stock 512 ram that will come with my ibook enough to do most of the basic tasks?

Yes. Not only that you can run OSX Panther with even less and it still works fine for basic tasks like email, web, wordprocessing, spreadsheets, light work Photoshop stuff, database (4D), etc.

We have iBooks and a PowerBook Lombard running OSX with only 192MB and they work fine. These are not used by power users who expect to have dozens of applications open at the same time and everything to happen lickity split. They do work fine for the lightweight use they get.

In my PowerBook Pismo G3 500MHz with MacOSX 10.3.9 I have 512MB of RAM. I am a "power user" (17 applications open at the moment, programming, database work, web design, heavy Photoshop work, complex Illustrator stuff, etc.) The 512MB of RAM I have is just barely enough for me. I sometimes feel the lack of more RAM. It is when I switch to an application that hasn't been used for a while that I notice a slow down - most notible is bringing Photoshop back to the foreground if it has large files open (e.g., >50MB) and I hadn't been using it for a while. I used to have 1GB of RAM but one of the sticks went bad and was causing kernel panics so I pulled it last summer - I've been running okay since then and no more crashing. I may replace the bad stick and go back up to 512MB of RAM.

Or should I just order a 1GB stick or ram now while I'm still waiting fo rit to be shipped to me.

I would order as much RAM as I could afford at the time of purchase. Ideally you want to leave one slot open for additional RAM later if possible if you think there is the remotest chance you'll want more RAM in the future. If you have the cash spend it. RAM is the easiest way to increase the speed of the computer. After that, a faster hard drive. Then a faster processor, front side bus, etc, etc.

I would also get as much VRAM as you can afford - although with the iBook that is not an option (It is with PowerBooks).

 

[IJ Reilly]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think RAM usage depends on how many applications you've got "running" at any given time, because OSX assigns system resources dynamically, unlike the Classic MacOS where RAM demands were static and specified by the application. If you check your Activity Monitor you'll see that running applications that aren't being used otherwise demand little in the way of resources. So I'm almost certain that if you aren't demanding real work from multiple applications simultaneously, or aren't running applications with big resource demands of their own, then a minimal amount of RAM won't hurt performance no matter how many applications you've got "running."

 

[kainjow]

No, the more ram, the more programs you can have running at once. Sure, you don't need a lot of ram, the system will use virtual memory instead (from the hard disk) but if you want to actually have a usable computer with multiple applications running at once, you NEED more ram, no butts about it

 

[ansalmo]

The more ram the better, no matter what.

Processors are and will be much much faster then ram for a long time to come, unless we get some revolutionary new type of memory. Memory is just so slow, and the processor is too fast for it. So give your system as much ram as you can afford. It only will be *faster*.

What absolute nonsense! If I'm running several applications that together with the OS requirements need 300MB RAM then the machine will exhibit the same performance whether I have 512MB or 1GB installed. Unless my applications or the OS have a memory leak, they won't go and use all the memory that is available.

The time when extra memory will provide improved performance is if you've reached the stage where your utilisation has exceeded the available physical memory (there or thereabouts) and virtual memory comes into play - this will require disk access, which is obviously much slower than RAM. Adding memory to the machine will alleviate the need to swap out, and so fast physical memory will be used hence giving a more performant feel to the machine.

No, the more ram, the more programs you can have running at once. Sure, you don't need a lot of ram, the system will use virtual memory instead (from the hard disk) but if you want to actually have a usable computer with multiple applications running at once, you NEED more ram, no butts about it

See above - you only need more RAM when you need more RAM

 

[pubwvj]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think RAM usage depends on how many applications you've got "running" at any given time

The reason RAM usage is related to application count is that if you are switching rapidly between applications they can end up getting shuffled out to the hard drive and that takes more time than if they are kept in RAM. If you have several memory hungry applications that you switch between this is even worse. e.g., Illustrator, Photoshop, X-Plane, etc.

When things are being switched out to hard disk and back then the disk speed becomes a factor as well.

 

[Eevee]

512 MB is not enough. Get at least 1 g or more.

 

[IJ Reilly]

The reason RAM usage is related to application count is that if you are switching rapidly between applications they can end up getting shuffled out to the hard drive and that takes more time than if they are kept in RAM. If you have several memory hungry applications that you switch between this is even worse. e.g., Illustrator, Photoshop, X-Plane, etc.

When things are being switched out to hard disk and back then the disk speed becomes a factor as well.

Well that's my point essentially. If you finish a Photoshop session, close all the document windows without quitting the application, and then start browsing with Safari, the two aren't going to be competing for the same RAM, but if you bounce back and forth frequently, they will. At least that's my understanding, which I admit is incomplete.

As a practical matter, I know OSX can be run without major issues in 320 Mb of RAM, because we do it everyday here. You just need to log out or reboot once in a while to clear out the VM files. No big deal. More is better, but not essential for most users.

Even more to the point, even if you've got a honking big load of RAM, you're only putting off the time when you'll need to reboot or log out or performance will degrade in the same way and for the same reasons as if you had less RAM.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I ran the Dual 533 G4 tower in my sig for a few months with 512MB RAM and it was fine. I did have a fast SATA hard drive though, which actually did more to speed performance than bumping the RAM to 1GB.

OTOH, more memory NEVER hurts performance. (though it might hurt the ol' wallet.)

 

[ansalmo]

OTOH, more memory NEVER hurts performance.

True enough. OTOOH, it doesn't necessarily improve performance either. That's my point - your run of the mill computer user has been told at some dim and distant point in the past that more memory will improve performance (probably because they'd reached the disk-swapping stage) and now holds that view as gospel for all circumstances. If my machine could handle it, I could install 100GB of RAM and it would run at exactly the same speed as it would with 1GB, or 512MB with my usual set of apps open. It won't hurt performance, but it won't improve it either.

Your point about the disk speed is very true though, particularly for machines like the iBook. That would benefit from a 5400rpm drive much more than a bump from 512MB to 1GB of RAM for the majority of users. If only Apple had made the drive user-accessible....