[wily]

Purely FYI to those of you considering doing so;

I just raised my RAM on my Dual 2.0 G5 from 1.5 to 2.5 gig.

Maybe it's in my head, but the machine is a lot snappier even in ordinary tasks.

Why is this? Is OS X THAT much of a memory hog?

Can't imagine what the dual 2.0 would be like with the stock 512!!

[digiology2]

Thats wierd considering I doubled my ram to only 1Gig and noticed a very little jump in speed with panther!

[The Placid Casual]

I noticed a big jump in performance when going from 512 to 1 Gig +...

I am not surprised that a performance increase can be felt at higher RAM levels... you can never have enough RAM.

[angelmb]

I am amazed, I expected to read something like from 512 MB to 1 GB RAM and I find that your start point is 1.5 GB RAM !!!, the G5 sporting 2.5 GB RAM must be a dream to use !!!

how much RAM shows the Terminal command 'uname -a' after you open your 'everyday favourite apps' ?, just curious.

[Cadaver]

I had 1.5GB in my G5, and it did fine... however, I did notice a lot of page-outs when both my wife and I were logged in. Added an extra 1GB just two days ago. There is a definite improvement. Not huge, but less HD thrashing in general.

[wily]

Well, the thing I don't get is just how much faster my machine IS.

It's GOT to be psychological, but it sure doesn't seem like it.

Anyone have a good explanation why 1.5 gig Ram to 2.5 would be so noticeable?

[THE MAC GOD]

Heh... I've always said that RAM, along with sex and horsepower, you can never have enough of.

[Spliffdaddy]

In normal use, above 300MB of RAM any performance increase is all in your head.

[Thinine]

The more RAM you have, the more stuff OS X stores in RAM and keeps there. So you're seeing the effect of OS X's cache-happiness.

[The Placid Casual]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
In normal use, above 300MB of RAM any performance increase is all in your head.

It depends on what you are doing.

[THE MAC GOD]

It's in your head if you think 300 Megs is all you need...

[djohnson]

Yup. This is why if you can afford the ram, buy it! I plan on putting at least 2GB in my new system, once Apple releases it that is!

[freakboy2]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
In normal use, above 300MB of RAM any performance increase is all in your head.

wrong, but its ok.. it's just in my head.

fb

[Landos Mustache]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
In normal use, above 300MB of RAM any performance increase is all in your head.

What the hell is normal use? For me normal use is Photoshop with 100 Meg files open, quark and dreamweaver. Trust me, with 1.5 GIGS of ram things can get a bit slow switching between apps.

[angelmb]

My Al has actually 512MB RAM since the 'second' 512 MB module went wrong, and the difference is really noticable, sure it is.

[djohnson]

I only have 384MB in my current machine and it works fine.... I dont see how people say 1.5GB is not enough!

[tsukurite]

Originally posted by djohnson:
I only have 384MB in my current machine and it works fine.... I dont see how people say 1.5GB is not enough!

I recently had 382 in my system. I removed a 64mb dimm (don't laugh) and dropped in a 512 module. I got a boost in day to day operation and application starts. Nice.

Then, the other day, I dropped another 512 in. Boom! Huge difference. Applications startups were notably faster, with nearly no lag when opening windows and other file operations. I love it. Everything is a pleasure to use.

Oh, the machine is a Sawtooth upgraded to 1.4ghz, ATI 8500, and now with 1.25 GB of ram. I absolutely *love* this machine now.

Ben

[The Placid Casual]

Originally posted by djohnson:
I only have 384MB in my current machine and it works fine.... I dont see how people say 1.5GB is not enough!

Well, things will 'work; fine with 128MB or even less.

I would prefer to repeatedly jam my head in a car door than to use enterprise DBMS or do heavy PS work with less than 1 Gig. This would be a minimum for me to work freely, especially for DBMS.

[Cadaver]

Why my G5 seems faster with 2.5GB of RAM vs. 1.5GB...

Two accounts, both currently logged in:
Wife's account: currently open are Safari, Word, Calculator, iCal, Mail, Quicken
My account: currently open are Safari, OmniWeb 5, Photoshop CS, Preview, Terminal, Activity Monitor, Transmit, iCal, Mail, Keynote

If my wife was working on something and steps away, then I want to switch to my account and do some stuff. With less RAM, I'd see delays while OS X swaps some/all the RAM she's using to disk if I go open another app or document under my account. More RAM means more stuff stays in RAM (stating the obvious, I know).

While OS X obviously works with less, its faster with more. It can keep more 'stuff' loaded in RAM (apps, cache files, application/toolbox libraries, etc) so there's no swap-file virtual memory delays. I could get by with less RAM, but why?

[l008com]

My G4 had 256 when i got it (ordered two 512's in the mail, but i had to wait) and I could open mail, safari, and aim. Anything else and it would bog down BIG TIME. And I mean anything else. Now I'm cruising, though i'd still love another 512... its so expensive these days though.

[BZ]

That is not true.

There was an article with benchmarks of moving from 2GB to 4GB and how it really sped up serious applications ilke FCP.

More memory is always good. OSX is unix and unix likes and will use as much as you give it.

When I get my new G5 (someday...) I will move it right to 4GB. When prices drop down a lot, I will max it out.

BZ

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
In normal use, above 300MB of RAM any performance increase is all in your head.

[SMacTech]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
In normal use, above 300MB of RAM any performance increase is all in your head.

You keep running with your 300MB of RAM and the performance increase is IN my Mac, not my Machead. YHMV !

[sniffer]

Originally posted by The Placid Casual:
Well, things will 'work; fine with 128MB or even less.

Correction. Things will run with 128 mb, but you'll actually miss Mac OS 9s multitasking.

[Spliffdaddy]

[translated]I spent $360 on RAM, it damn well better be an improvement.[/translated]

placebo effect.

I stand firmly behind my "300MB" statement.

While "Normal use" can mean a great many different things to each user, in this instance it obviously does not involve using professional-level software to manipulate vast megabytes of data. It involves, rather, email and web-browsing, and a multitude of other normal duties that will never need more than 300MB of RAM.

"It caches (omg, Spliff, all sorts of stuff) in RAM..."

No it doesn't.

Those faster re-launches have nothing to do with how much RAM is in your system.

It's like having five seats and only three passengers. No benefit. And, worse, it takes energy to haul those empty seats along.

Any perceived increase in performance from adding more RAM than necessary is all in your head.

Look for yourself. How much RAM are you using right now?


I'm betting you use less than 300MB of RAM. So tell me how 1GB of RAM would improve your computing experience? What's the OS gonna put there...on that unused 700MB? Stuff you might use? Stuff you already used? Those jpeg images from the USB card reader you plugged-in last week?

Well, if it ain't got an active process associated with it - it ain't cached in the RAM. You can wish it were so. Perhaps enough folks could wish along with you and make it true.

Certainly, there are lots of things that could be done with 'excess' RAM. 'Could' being the sticking point.

I'll wish along with you. In the meantime, tell me now much RAM you're using and what you're doing with it. and I'll show you evidence of the placebo effect.

[Londor]

Spliffdaddy, whatever you are smoking must be pretty strong.

[Scotttheking]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
<snip>

Spliffdaddy, OSX is THE MOST ram inefficient OS made so far. I'm doing "nothing" (AIM/ICQ, web browser, mp3 player, mail program) and I'm using 325MB of ram.
That said, going from 1.5GB to 2.5GB under normal use won't show any improvement.
I recently bumped my desktop from 1.25GB to 1.75GB. Under normal use, there was no improvement. Working on a video I was doing that had 3GB of files, there was a small improvement. If I'd had to buy the ram instead of getting it back from a friend I had loaned it to, would I have? No way.
I agree with you on the placebo effect up until such point as someone does a well controlled benchmark of a system with 2 different (and very large) amounts of ram. "It feels faster" doesn't count.

[SMacTech]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
[translated]I spent $360 on RAM, it damn well better be an improvement.[/translated]

placebo effect.

I stand firmly behind my "300MB" statement.

< snip>

I'll wish along with you. In the meantime, tell me now much RAM you're using and what you're doing with it. and I'll show you evidence of the placebo effect.

You obviously don't know much about the virtual memory management in OS X. Safari alone right now, is using 150mb of real RAM and this is with only 2 windows, with a few tabs.
OS X will cache whatever it can, which in the end yields a much faster Mac. This perceived crap that it is all in my head is B$. I perceive your Mac runs like molasses, compared to what it could run if it had more memory.
It is quite possible that your idea of normal use, is only your normal. I have 15 applications open right now, some of which are easily using ~ 80mbs.
You can fool yourself, but those of us who actually use a Mac abnormally compared to your use will indeed see more than just a placebo effect.
For $360 I can buy A LOT of RAM and I have just 1GB in my cube.

[idyll]

I'd like to try whatever Spliffdaddy is smoking as well

share!

[innerimager]

Knowing a lot more about placebo effect than mac performance with more ram, I'd like to correct the way it's being used in this thread. A true "placebo" effect in the given context would go like this. My G5 "thinks" it's getting 2GB more Ram, but instead gets a placebo, dummy, Ram card. Then....it runs noticeably, objectively, faster, by bench testing! That's what makes the placebo response so interesting, the objective results from "nothing" being done. Won't go into too much detail, but much of this multimodal effect has to do with conditioned responses. So, that G5 may only show the positive effect if it had in the past been given more real ram. ;>)
best....Peter

[l008com]

Originally posted by innerimager:
Knowing a lot more about placebo effect than mac performance with more ram, I'd like to correct the way it's being used in this thread. A true "placebo" effect in the given context would go like this. My G5 "thinks" it's getting 2GB more Ram, but instead gets a placebo, dummy, Ram card. Then....it runs noticeably, objectively, faster, by bench testing! That's what makes the placebo response so interesting, the objective results from "nothing" being done. Won't go into too much detail, but much of this multimodal effect has to do with conditioned responses. So, that G5 may only show the positive effect if it had in the past been given more real ram. ;>)
best....Peter

I want some of what your smoking too :-D

[freakboy2]

spiffdaddy,

instead of all the dope, why don't you go spend 50 bucks on some more ram and come back and tell us that we're as high as you.

i would agree that around 320 or so OSX becomes barely useable on a 500 megahergz g4 or so.. It's better with 512 and better yet with 768 and better yet with more than a gig.

As someone else said, you just don't know what you're talking about. OSX does use the extra memory to cache things and it makes virtual hits much less likely which really hose the performance.

anyway, if you don't believe us.. go find a box with a lot of ram, use it for awhile, then take out the ram and try to use the machine.

or go buy yourself some, you'll be happy you did

fb2

[Turnpike]

Somebody mentioned the memory management in relation to Mac OS X's UNIX roots. For the record, it is not all UNIX that manages memory like this. I believe the first "popular" UNIX variant to do this was BSD (on which the UNIX portions of OS X are based), but now some Linux builds also use this.

I don't know when the perceived speed from extra RAM tops off, but due to the memory management it shouldn't ever actually top off completely... certainly, for most users going over a few gigs isn't necessary, but I wouldn't be surprised if people who ran a fairly large number of programs, even if they are all rather generic "consumer" programs, saw improvements upwards of 5-6 gigs. For those of us who do more rigorous work, have more accounts running, or are caching things for 45-60 day uptimes... or some combination thereof... well, it wouldn't be necessary, but we'd see a difference.

[wily]

I stand by my speed improvement at 2.5 gig.

[l008com]

I'm at 1.25 GB and soon as ram is resonably priced again, i'm going to 1.75 GB, and i know ill see an increase in performance on many fronts, not the least of which are the very large 300 DPI maps i make in photoshop.

[Spliffdaddy]

suckers. the lot of you.

[freakboy2]

spliff what kind of mac u got.. i have some extra pc 100 and pc 133 128 meg dimms lying around. i'll dig them up and mail them to you.

i just want your pain to stop.

fb

[Spliffdaddy]

I don't have a Mac.

Heck, I've never even seen a Mac except for one time when I was in NYC and I walked past a store window and saw a flatpanel iMac.

Don't let that tiny little issue get in the way of my obviously profound expertise in the operation of Mac hardware.


There's a lot you can learn by listening to me. Probably not so much about Macs, but there's still lots of other stuff. Which I'll get around to discussing at some point.

[eggman]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
While "Normal use" can mean a great many different things to each user, in this instance it obviously does not involve using professional-level software to manipulate vast megabytes of data. It involves, rather, email and web-browsing, and a multitude of other normal duties that will never need more than 300MB of RAM.

And this is precisely where your argument breaks down. My normal use does involve using professional-level software to manipulate (somewhat) "vast megabytes of data".

The reason I spent my hard-earned cash on a G5 is because it's my bread-and-butter. I just installed my 2nd GB of RAM... after using the dual G5 since September with 1GB. I'm not into gratuitous purchases for hardware bragging rights: here are the applications I typically have open concurrently, switching among these in approximate order of frequency:

Macromedia Dreamweaver MX
Safari
BBEdit
Adobe Photoshop
Microsoft Entourage
Microsoft Word
Transmit
Terminal
Macromedia Flash MX
Macromedia Fireworks MX
Macromedia Freehand
iTunes
Art Director's Toolkit
Quickeys
Extensis Suitcase

My productivity is a function of not only how quickly each of my major apps operate, but also how quickly and seamlessly I can move amongst these apps. If I've just updated a template in Dreamweaver, which just had to update dozens, (often hundreds) of documents... and then I click on Photoshop, it is very noticeable when there's a lag while the disk thrashes to swap out least-recently-used pages and swap back in Photoshop.

So that's normal usage for me. It's abnormal that I'd just be browsing the web and writing email.

And even with 1GB of RAM, which I had thought would be sufficient when I purchased my system last fall, I experienced enough frustrating waits due (verifiably) to page fault related disk activity that I'm forking over additional money for an extra quanta of RAM that I'd prefer to use for something fun.

So, if your premise of what constitutes normal usage doesn't gibe with the actual usage of some folks reading this thread, it's not surprising that your conclusion flies in the face of their experience. Your faulty assumption doesn't make those of us who don't share it 'suckers'.

[Spliffdaddy]

But 95% of folks reading this thread are using less than 300MB of RAM.

I'd say your usage would be classified as 'abnormal'.

[Londor]

Spliffdaddy. Stop smoking, save some money, get a Mac and you will see how wrong you are. 100% of people reading this thread are using over 300 Mb (you only need to have open a web browser and Activity Monitor to do it).

[wily]

My G5 routinely works with files of 50-100meg with heavy processor use.

Me thinks "spiffdaddy" is trolling.

[CIA]

My OS9 traits are still with me in OSX 10.3 I have a quicksilver DP800, "Maxed" out with 1.5GB of ram, and a bunch of other stuff.... Even though I guess I don't need to, I still quit Apps I'm not using. I run Safari constantly, as well as activity moniter and the command line version of folding at home (folding only on 1 Proc, I can't figure out how to get it on both procs!)
These days, anyone running 10.3 and using basic apps (Safari, Mail, iTunes, 1 or so more) can get by with 640 or 768MB of RAM. For anything else, put in as much as you can afford.
Plus more ram means better resale when we all upgrade to G6's! 8-)
On my dad's dual 1.8 G5, he went from 512 to 1.5 and noticed a HUGE difference, and he only does photoshop stuff in CS, (He's a photographer....)

[Spliffdaddy]

Don't look to me for compassion. I didn't spend $300 on additional RAM and extoll the virtues of doing so on an internet forum after years after insisting Windows was "bloated" and "RAM-hungry".

512MB installed, 298MB free

Things are pretty much instantaneous. I click, it's there. Kinda hard to beat it, really.

I reckon it would be swell to have all my data cached in RAM - instead of needing that slow-ass hard drive. But until RAM prices drop to near a dollar per gigabyte, I'll use this hard drive, thanks.

[theatombomb]

I usa FCP, but other than that I go fairly light on My dual 2G G5 and the 1G of RAM I have is definitely not enough. I've used G5s with 3G RAM and the difference was very real.

[angelmb]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
[B]Don't look to me for compassion
(...)
Things are pretty much instantaneous. I click, it's there. Kinda hard to beat it, really.
/B]

Sure?, my SGI beats that. Only 256 MB RAM and things are "really" instantaneous. D Don´t take it personally, it is only another point of view (another example).

[Don Pickett]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
[translated]I spent $360 on RAM, it damn well better be an improvement.[/translated]

placebo effect.

I stand firmly behind my "300MB" statement.

<snip>

You, sir, are an idiot.

When I'm running a full app and document load, I can use all of the 2 gigs of RAM in this machine. Photoshop itself can easily take a gig of RAM. Add Quark, Illustrator, Distiller, Suitcase, Flightcheck, Safari and Entourage to that list and my machine uses every bit of RAM it has. As my salary is directly related to my productivity, and my productivity is directly related to how fast my machine is, I don't want to have to wait while Photoshop swaps 500 meg files in and out of memory. I want enough head room to have Distiller making pdfs, Quark printing documents and Photoshop pushing pixels all at the same time. This requires assloads of RAM.

Maybe you were trolling. Maybe a heavy application load for you is Safari, Mail and iTunes. Maybe your job is such (assuming you're not still in school) that your computer is a toy and not a tool. If you don't need more than 300 megs of RAM, I would imagine you're don't use your machine in a professional capacity, which would place out outside of Apple's core demographics.

Either way, you're still an idiot.

[AlphaQuam]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
"It caches (omg, Spliff, all sorts of stuff) in RAM..."
No it doesn't.

Wrong. OS X caches as much data as it can in memory, so it can reuse that data without reading from disk.

[riotge@r]

Originally posted by Cadaver:
Why my G5 seems faster with 2.5GB of RAM vs. 1.5GB...

Two accounts, both currently logged in:
Wife's account: currently open are Safari, Word, Calculator, iCal, Mail, Quicken
My account: currently open are Safari, OmniWeb 5, Photoshop CS, Preview, Terminal, Activity Monitor, Transmit, iCal, Mail, Keynote

If my wife was working on something and steps away, then I want to switch to my account and do some stuff. With less RAM, I'd see delays while OS X swaps some/all the RAM she's using to disk if I go open another app or document under my account. More RAM means more stuff stays in RAM (stating the obvious, I know).

While OS X obviously works with less, its faster with more. It can keep more 'stuff' loaded in RAM (apps, cache files, application/toolbox libraries, etc) so there's no swap-file virtual memory delays. I could get by with less RAM, but why?

Easy fix: Get your wife her own computer. I have 2GB of RAM all to myself.

[riotge@r]

Originally posted by Don Pickett:
You, sir, are an idiot.

When I'm running a full app and document load, I can use all of the 2 gigs of RAM in this machine. Photoshop itself can easily take a gig of RAM. Add Quark, Illustrator, Distiller, Suitcase, Flightcheck, Safari and Entourage to that list and my machine uses every bit of RAM it has. As my salary is directly related to my productivity, and my productivity is directly related to how fast my machine is, I don't want to have to wait while Photoshop swaps 500 meg files in and out of memory. I want enough head room to have Distiller making pdfs, Quark printing documents and Photoshop pushing pixels all at the same time. This requires assloads of RAM.

Maybe you were trolling. Maybe a heavy application load for you is Safari, Mail and iTunes. Maybe your job is such (assuming you're not still in school) that your computer is a toy and not a tool. If you don't need more than 300 megs of RAM, I would imagine you're don't use your machine in a professional capacity, which would place out outside of Apple's core demographics.

Either way, you're still an idiot.

LOL! My sentiments exactly.

[itai195]

To play devil's advocate, Spliff did say he's not talking about 'professional' users. I've got 1GB of memory in my G5 and, for the most part, I probably don't need that much, I probably don't need a G5 either. But I stocked up a little when memory was cheap, and when I do some heavier development work it's nice to have the extra RAM. At today's prices, I couldn't justify buying 1GB of memory for myself.