Is Lion as muhc of a RAM hog as SL?

Discussion in 'Mac OS X Lion (10.7)' started by mabaker, Jun 20, 2011.

  1. mabaker macrumors 65816

    mabaker

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    #1
    I miss ye old days where 512 MB was enough. :(

    Ever since SL and 64bit became the norm, Mac OS has gotten hoggy all the way whereas Windows 7 has gotten much much better as far as paging/RAM are concerned.

    What about Lion?

    TIA
     
  2. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #2
    It uses even more RAM. All these Resume features and stuff are very RAM heavy, thus the 2GB requirement.
     
  3. mabaker thread starter macrumors 65816

    mabaker

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    #3
    That is bad news indeed.

    Have you used Lion yet in any way? Could you compare it to Windows 7 in case of RAM management?
     
  4. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #4
    I'm running Lion as we speak. It's been awhile since I used Windows 7 extensively so it's hard for me to compare the two. I will be reviewing Lion along with Andrew and Anand in AnandTech.com so stay tuned. We have plans on testing the RAM usage too.
     
  5. mabaker thread starter macrumors 65816

    mabaker

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    #5
    Thank you. :) Good luck to you then! I really am afraid that the RAM usage will be astronomical this time around as SL was already pushing it...:(
     
  6. Dr McKay macrumors 68040

    Dr McKay

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2010
    Location:
    Kirkland
    #6
    Remember that the RAM usage reflected in Lion right now might not be accurate.

    Its a natural assumption that each new OS will use more RAM.

    Heck, people going over from XP bitch about Vista/7 using more RAM, but unlike XP, they are designed to actually use RAM, not just let it sit wasted and unused.
     
  7. rkmac macrumors 6502

    rkmac

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    JAFA, New Zealand
    #7
    RAM is so cheap now though... 8GB costs next to nothing. I really don't see how you can say you don't have enough RAM when its so cheap :confused:
     
  8. paulsalter macrumors 68000

    paulsalter

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #8
    Not sure if it's just about the cost

    I have one of the original core 2 duo's, which from what I remember can only have a max of 2GB (would like to be wrong on that as would like more)

    Can any machine capable of running Lion have as much memory as possible ? or are there limits on the amount you can install
     
  9. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #9
    Your Mac can take up to 4GB of which 3GB will be usable. The hardware is the limiting factor, not the software.
     
  10. paulsalter macrumors 68000

    paulsalter

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #10
    nice one :D

    Sorry for going off topic, but can I replace one of the 1GB rams with a 2GB, or would I have to put 2 x 2GB in it ?
     
  11. Hellhammer Moderator

    Hellhammer

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2008
    Location:
    Finland
    #11
    You can have 1GB+2GB.
     
  12. paulsalter macrumors 68000

    paulsalter

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #12
    Perfect, Many thanks for that
     
  13. itickings macrumors 6502a

    itickings

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    #13
    1+2=3 will work fine and waste no bytes, but 2+2=3 should be slightly faster.
     
  14. jeanlain macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2009
    #14
    Indeed, Lion does use a lot of RAM, but as they say, free RAM is wasted RAM. Of course, you don't want to be swapping to disk, but I'm not sure it is that more likely to happen in Lion, as memory management has improved.
     
  15. mabaker thread starter macrumors 65816

    mabaker

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    #15
    Hellhammer, one thing more:

    https://discussions.apple.com/thread/2132305?start=0&tstart=0

    There is still an issue with SL in CERTAIN configurations that it does not free the inactive memory even if it’S needed by other applications.

    Please do some testing towards this weird phenomenon that#s never been there in Tiger or Leopard.
     
  16. baryon macrumors 68040

    baryon

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    #16
    Thank god Apple updated the late 2008 MBP EFI to support 8 GB a year ago... Originally it would only take 4 GB in theory and 6 GB in practice.
     
  17. Nuckinfuts macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Location:
    Syracuse, NY
    #17
    How much will be accessible is really dependent on his hardware configuration and how many memory-mapped I/O devices he has, he'll probably see closer to 3.75Gb since 32bit can do up to 4Gb of addresses minus memory-mapped I/O addresses and minus the shared video memory (if there is any)
     
  18. daneoni macrumors G4

    daneoni

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
  19. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #19
    You know, I've always thought Tiger was the last svelte OS from apple. It was a tight, fast OS that was very stable. Leopard appeared while it had lots of features, it was less ram friendly then its predecessor
     
  20. applefan289 macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Location:
    USA
    #20
    Wow, so not even all Intel Macs will be able to run it? Don't the older intel Macs (like the white iMac) and the older Macbook, etc. have only like 1GB of RAM?

    I thought all Intel Macs could run Lion...not that I have an old Mac, but it would seem unfair for people who did have an Intel Mac but not enough RAM...
     
  21. Nuckinfuts macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Location:
    Syracuse, NY
    #21
    They already don't support the old intel processors, from Wikipedia
     
  22. BlackMangoTree macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    #22
    On a Macbook 2007 duo core 2 2ghz with maxed out ram at 2gb and GMA950 integrated graphics performance with the lastest DP of Lion is shockingly bad. There is just no way this can be useable. Windows 7 on the same laptop is far superior, runs even better than Snow Leopard.
     
  23. daneoni macrumors G4

    daneoni

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2006
    #23
    It was but then the Intel iteration with Universal binaries...

    We get it. You like Windows 7.
     
  24. iGrouch macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Location:
    Off Ramp M50
    #24
    Have to agree there. I have tiger 10.4.11 on my 2003 G4 Powermac. Boots and shuts down faster than latest Snow Leopard on Mac Pro late 2006 with 5GB RAM. While everything else (as expected) runs faster on the Mac Pro config than the older Mac, Tiger is a far more stable beast. The leopards in my experience have been far more quirky in their behaviors with one scenario where all the apps lock up and can't be quit, to an extent that one has to hard power off the Mac. Seen same thing happen on brothers Mac.

    My suspicion has been that Mac OS X development has been less than stellar since the advent of IOS for iPhone/iPod Touch. And, some of the features and omission of functionality in OS X in the last few years has been targeted as being a fun experience for IOS users and less as professional OS.

    For Lion I am going to give Apple the benefit of the doubt. I am going to get an extra 4GB for the Mac and a new HD and do a very clean install i.e not use any of the time machine options and install all my pro apps one by one and leave out as much unnecessary stuff as possible.

    I have one other issue with Sleep not working, and yes I know, can be caused by some USB device. The thing is though I still have my original Tiger install on an internal drive and it has no sleep issues on the same hardware configuration.
     
  25. Nuckinfuts macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2011
    Location:
    Syracuse, NY
    #25
    This is just kinda nitpicky I know but you really want an even distribution of RAM. I'm assuming you have a 1GB stick and a 4GB stick in there. This puts a lot more load on the 4GB stick and thus an imbalance in your memory. When you go to 8Gb like you mentioned, I suggest buying a full 8GB kit (with 2 sticks of 4GB) so they have the same exact latency. This will speed up your memory access times and should make applications seem to hang less.

    </end 2 cents>

    PS. I instantly flame PC vendors who sell PC's with odd amounts of RAM too
     

Share This Page