Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Leopard with 512MB of RAM?
- Thread starter theman5725
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My friend has 768MB of RAM and he says it runs about the same speed or a little slower than Tiger. I have had the same result with my laptop with 2GB of RAM, so I assume that it would be likewise for you.
I'm running Leopard on a powerbook 12" 1ghz with 512mb ram and it is surprisingly snappy. Hardly any beachballs. I did install a 7200k hard drive so I'm sure that helps too.
Wait it out - time is on your side.
This gives you opportunity to test your ram in a known configuration. If you install Leopard, and the ram shortly thereafter, you're troubleshooting 2 variables.
Waiting also increases the likelihood that 10.5.1 will be out - which should fix many of the migration / installation hiccups that occur.
This gives you opportunity to test your ram in a known configuration. If you install Leopard, and the ram shortly thereafter, you're troubleshooting 2 variables.
Waiting also increases the likelihood that 10.5.1 will be out - which should fix many of the migration / installation hiccups that occur.
I'm running Leopard on my 2.0GHz iMac G5 with 512mb of RAM and it runs quite well, only a little slower than my 2.0GHz C2D MacBook with 1Gb of RAM. Most people on these forums seem to believe you have to have 5GB of RAM in your computer to be productive, but this is not true.
That is hard to believe considering only MacPros can accept more than 4GB and the vast majority of Macs other than those shipped this year can only use 2GB or less. Where are you getting this info?
I think his previous statement about the 5GB was a healthy dosage of sarcasm.
Running the bare minimum with any software is just that - the bare minimum. So if Leopard requires at least 512 (according to Apple) then I would expect it would function - but things would improve a good deal with a bit more.
I know on Tiger, the switch between 512 and 1024 made a huge difference on my imac - not running apps, but within Tiger itself.
The jump from 1GB to 3GB (with Tiger) didn't seem to yield much improvement. (though with video and photo editing - it seemed to expedite things a bit)
Running the bare minimum with any software is just that - the bare minimum. So if Leopard requires at least 512 (according to Apple) then I would expect it would function - but things would improve a good deal with a bit more.
I know on Tiger, the switch between 512 and 1024 made a huge difference on my imac - not running apps, but within Tiger itself.
The jump from 1GB to 3GB (with Tiger) didn't seem to yield much improvement. (though with video and photo editing - it seemed to expedite things a bit)