Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

When will 3GB RAM be the minimum requirement?

P

Planner Dude

macrumors 6502
Original poster
May 31, 2006
262
0
Here's a question for you guys and gals:

When do you foresee RAM requirements of 3GB for programs?

With the CD2 allowing 3Gb over the CD's 2GB, I thought it would be a good thing to ask.

Do people think that it will be more than 3 Years? If so, I'd assume it would be cheaper to get the refurb cd Macbook/Pro and buy a newer computer down the road.

If it's less I'd assume it's better to plunk a few hundred extra for a CD2.


What's your opinion?
 
Planner Dude said:
Here's a question for you guys and gals:

When do you foresee RAM requirements of 3GB for programs?

With the CD2 allowing 3Gb over the CD's 2GB, I thought it would be a good thing to ask.

Do people think that it will be more than 3 Years? If so, I'd assume it would be cheaper to get the refurb cd Macbook/Pro and buy a newer computer down the road.

If it's less I'd assume it's better to plunk a few hundred extra for a CD2.


What's your opinion?
Click to expand...

I don't see it happening for quite a while. Definitely more than three years down the road.
 
Well the operating system will not have that requirement for a long time. Right now you only need 256 mb. I think apple may bump that requirement to 512 for 10.5 However the bigger question is how long until it is highly recommended to have that much ram. That may be much sooner. As right now many people here recommend that you have atleast 1 gb. I suspect with in 5 years people may be recommending 3 gbs. But its hard to say. But it would be cheaper to upgrade down the road. As it will be awhile yet.
 
True most programs will run with less than 1 Gb but adding more speeds things up considerably.

Have you tried running Photoshop on 512 Mb? :mad:


FJ
 
It's an open question.

I've got 2 Gigs of Ram in my notebook, and would have more if I could. I find the 1 Gig in my Powerbook to be far too little (and I don't even use CS2 or anything like that, I'm talking about for Garageband and Office).

Looking back, we seem to see minimum ram requirements double, oh, every two years or so.

If we figure that 1 Gig is the effective minimum in 2007.

512 Megs = 2005.

256 Megs = 2003.

128 Megs = 2001.

64 Megs = 1999

32 Megs = 1997

16 Megs - 1995

All of those, I daresay, are about right. On average, I'd say that my main computer throughout that time always had about double that, so, yeah.

So, working from that, I'd say that sometime in 2010.

By the 32/64 Bit transition throws a bit of a wrinkle into that, I guess. I don't know if we'll see ram esculate rapidly, or if we'll see more of a push towards also using flash memory (either flash hard drives, or hybrids).
 
Im actually contemplating maxing out to 3GB of RAM now, would have done this when ordering but wasn't sure about losing dual channeling as a result of unmatched pairs.

Right now i push 1.3GB on average in OS X and when i fire up parallels i max out and start getting alot of page outs. So it turns out 2GB is no longer 'comfortable' for my usage, this is probably due to Rosetta. I might upgrade to 3GB now or just wait and go to 4GB on the next update to the notebook lines.

Who would've thought, only last year i was getting by with 1GB.
 
For macs... I say not for a long long time...


For PCs... right now Im running 2gigs and I think I could use more....
 
daneoni said:
Im actually contemplating maxing out to 3GB of RAM now, would have done this when ordering but wasn't sure about losing dual channeling as a result of unmatched pairs.

Right now i push 1.3GB on average in OS X and when i fire up parallels i max out and start getting alot of page ins. So it turns out 2GB is no longer 'comfortable' for my usage, this is probably due to Rosetta. I might upgrade to 3GB now or just wait and go to 4GB on the next update to the notebook lines.

Who would've thought, only last year i was getting by with 1GB.
Click to expand...

You should look at the number of page outs, not page ins.

wako said:
For macs... I say not for a long long time...


For PCs... right now Im running 2gigs and I think I could use more....
Click to expand...

Funny, I was thinking quite the opposite. OS X with 512 MB = XP with 256.
 
eXan said:
You should look at the number of page outs, not page ins.
Click to expand...

Typo there, i meant page outs (the one that means memory is being taken from the HDD as RAM is no longer sufficient). Basically, the ratio of page in to page out become close and the pie chart in activity monitor becomes mostly red and yellow.
 
Mac'Mo said:
3 gb is a nice odd number especially since they dont make 1.5 gb chips
Click to expand...

3 GB is the current limit on the new Core2 duo MBP

Core duo MBP limit is 2 GB

I was trying to get a feel of how long I could use the Core duo vs the new core2 duo

IF I wanted a really odd number I could have chosen 2.25 GB:D
 
Planner Dude said:
3 GB is the current limit on the new Core2 duo MBP

Core duo MBP limit is 2 GB

I was trying to get a feel of how long I could use the Core duo vs the new core2 duo

IF I wanted a really odd number I could have chosen 2.25 GB:D
Click to expand...

Eh, when the time comes, two Gigs versus three gigs won't make a huge difference. Ram requirements tend to go in multiples - IE, by the time that two gigs it too little, you'll want four gigs. Three gigs falls in the same place that computers with 384 Megs or 768 Megs fall - transitional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back