 |
 |
MB's compare to G4's
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
So i hear many ppl saying OSX is a RAM-ivor. i can agree, with some contradictions
(note: this thread is related to the MB)
my eMac 1.42 Ghz, 256 RAM seems to run much faster than several different eMacs a 1 Ghz, 1.25 Ghz and a 1.42 GHz eMacs with 768 MB.RAM - of which one has 1GB. (however, this is mainly due to disk space- they all have ca 10 GB left, i have 40)
And while running word or other mundane apps my computer goes at the same speed as a 1.5 Ghz PB with 512 MB.RAM......... however, recently the PB has continued to be relativly snappy, while my eMac is hacky and lags frequently. (because my harddisk is filling up)
the PB is defenatly faster now i think, and the only time i've seen a real lag is when trying to deal with a 12megapixel photo....
in any case, i see no problem in any of these computers running say atleast 3 apps at the same time-
word, safari, msn messenger..... b4, my 256MB RAM eMac flew flawlessly with even more apps open eg iTunes and even Photoshop CS. (now i c the main reason it is lagging is because of hd space, and that 256 just isnt enough, among with the fact that many apps i use require 256, recommend 512)
Yet many seem to say that the Macbook isnt to be used for multiple apps......... How can u ppl justify that, considering the backgrround info i have ????
note: i am not mad with any one or calling any1 stupid, as the thread might imply.
just want to know more of the MB...........
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator  Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cambridge, UK
Status:
Online
|
|
Originally Posted by Gio-mania
Yet many seem to say that the Macbook isnt to be used for multiple apps......... How can u ppl justify that, considering the backgrround info i have ????
What the hell are you on about? Tiger and other apps are ram hungry. 512mb is the bare minimum for running Tiger efficiently and 1gb or more is recommended. The more apps you have open, the more RAM will be needed and if not enough is available, the hard disk will be used as virtual RAM.
Originally Posted by Gio-mania
my eMac 1.42 Ghz, 256 RAM seems to run much faster than several different eMacs a 1 Ghz, 1.25 Ghz and a 1.42 GHz eMacs with 768 MB.RAM - of which one has 1GB. (however, this is mainly due to disk space- they all have ca 10 GB left, i have 40)
Disk space is a factor, but it also depends what is running in the background and whether the maintenance scripts have been able to run etc.
512mb and below is not enough for running OS X well, you need at least 1gb to run it well. Keep an eye out in activity monitor to see how many page outs you get, the more page outs you get the more OS X has to use the virtual memory and will make things slower. Compare this to a computer with 1gb of ram and it should be almost 0. To make it a fair test though you'd have to restart both computers first to reset the page in/out counters.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
ok.... i c
but what can be done on the macbook 1.83 Ghz, 512 MB RAM ???
in anycase i plan to buy the iMac 17" with 1.5 GB RAM- making it my "heavy worker".......
-[EDIT] eventhough Tiger has a 256 Mb requirement- Leopard will most certainly have 512 Mb.
so it will be necesary to increase the RAM in anycase- unless apple increase it at the Leopard relase -
btw:
the iMac comes with 1x512 MB RAM
and the macbook with 2x256 MB RAM right ?? - so in theory upgrading from the apple store wont cost more than from 3rd party- since u'll have 2x256MB sticks un-used..... seeing they can only be installed on Core Duos, and ytf would u install tht on a computer which already has it.....
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status:
Offline
|
|
Safari alone can use more than 256 MB RAM. It shouldn't, but it often does. 256 MB is totally inadequate, which is why ALL Macs now ship with 512 MB RAM. Actually a MacBook with 512 MB is still not very good. I would never spec a MacBook with less than 1 GB RAM, considering that 80 GB gets used by the GPU, and apps running under Rosetta eats up RAM too. (Actually 768 MB would probably be OK, but performance suffers on MacBooks unless you have matched RAM, and it's impossible to match RAM and still get 768 MB.)
I have 512 MB MacBook right now (until my 2 GB RAM arrives), and using it can be quite irritating once I've got a few apps and widgets active.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cambridge, UK
Status:
Online
|
|
Originally Posted by Eug Wanker
considering that 80 GB gets used by the GPU
considering that 80 MB gets used by the GPU
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cambridge, UK
Status:
Online
|
|
Originally Posted by Gio-mania
the iMac comes with 1x512 MB RAM
and the macbook with 2x256 MB RAM right ??
Yes.
Originally Posted by Gio-mania
so in theory upgrading from the apple store wont cost more than from 3rd party- since u'll have 2x256MB sticks un-used..... seeing they can only be installed on Core Duos, and ytf would u install tht on a computer which already has it.....
I'm not sure quite what you mean in the bit in bold but it generally is more expensive getting upgrades from Apple since they horribly overprice things.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by seanc
considering that 80 MB gets used by the GPU
LOL. Thx for the correction. 
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Status:
Offline
|
|
that typo led to a pun - MB as in macbook & megabytes (sry, found tht amusing)
jokes aside, thnx for the help
seanc:
wht i mean is tht i'll get 3rd party ram (1GB) to add to my future iMac.....
but since there are 2x256 on the macbook i'd be spending about $140 for a 1GB stick or $90 for 2x512........
for $140 i'd get a grand total of 1.25 GB RAM, while for $90 i'd have 1GB RAM- in any case i'd have left overs.... that cannnot be used
i could sell 'em, but who would buy them- if there is no use...... 256 can only make an unpaired amount
hope u grasp the point- cant explain it to a 100%
(Last edited by Gio-mania; May 25, 2006 at 11:22 AM.
)
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderator Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Cambridge, UK
Status:
Online
|
|
Originally Posted by Gio-mania
since they suffer if not paired ill be better off getting it dun by apple directly
I don't think the ram has to be exactly the same, I think it just has to be the same size. I still think you should avoid buying ram from apple as it is horribly overpriced. You could buy 3x512mb sticks of ram from a 3rd party and put one in the iMac, two in the MacBook and sell the old 2x256mb ram on eBay.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Dangling something in the water… of the Arabian Sea
Status:
Offline
|
|
Originally Posted by seanc
I don't think the ram has to be exactly the same, I think it just has to be the same size. I still think you should avoid buying ram from apple as it is horribly overpriced. You could buy 3x512mb sticks of ram from a 3rd party and put one in the iMac, two in the MacBook and sell the old 2x256mb ram on eBay.
You won't save that much by getting 3rd party 2x512 MB RAM (unless you can sell the 2x256 for a significant amount on eBhey). Apple's pricing for 512 MB sticks is not that bad.
For example, OWC charges $99 for 2x512. Apple charges $100.
I think the real savings come when you get 3rd party 2x1024 MB RAM, because Apple's pricing for 1024 MB sticks is very high.
For example, OWC charges $225 for 2x1024. Apple charges $500. 
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
Forum Rules
|
|
|
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top
