Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

kremmit · Dec 18, 2004, 06:35 AM

My PC friends are switching to Macs in a few weeks, but all were surprised to find they only get 256MB by default on their iBooks. The RAM prices are a ton to upgrade too!

Why does apple do this to them?

Xeo · Dec 18, 2004, 06:38 AM

At least it switched to 256 built-in rather than what it was a year ago with 128 built-in and 128 extra chip. The max is higher as a result.

But yeah, it would be nice if they offered more by default. Buying an extra 256 or 512 isn't all that expensive to go through a 3rd party, though.

Isn't this topic better suited to the iBook forum?

demograph68 · Dec 18, 2004, 06:39 AM

'cause they're bastards.

Cubeoid · Dec 18, 2004, 06:42 AM

greeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeed.

kremmit · Dec 18, 2004, 06:45 AM

Heh, at least my friends are still switching !

Goldfinger · Dec 18, 2004, 06:54 AM

Just don't buy your extra RAM from Apple, you'd be a fool if you did that.

powerbook867 · Dec 18, 2004, 07:35 AM

buying ram from apple is waaay too expensive. I agree that the base amount of ram in mac's is way to low. check out newegg.com or check out dealram.com for the best prices...

jcadam · Dec 18, 2004, 07:42 AM

I just received 1GB of RAM (2x512MB sticks) from crucial.

Now I am just waiting on the new PowerMac G5 2.0DP to show up.....

Cubeoid · Dec 18, 2004, 08:12 AM

Yo..yo...yooo.... yo h=year ya'll heard right. RAm you needs??? Ask Cubeoid...he'll tell you the place..yo ... if it is RAM i MAN require...it is one place I man should seek out..yo.. this place be CRUCIAL... yo ... say it now..yo CRUCIAL... that's right brother CRUCIAL... crucial.com

your place for ram.. ! YO...... the bestest place for i man ram...yo!!!!!!111oneoneyoOne!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111 1111111yo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!One!!!11111oneone

mitchell_pgh · Dec 18, 2004, 12:08 PM

Considering the price of RAM, I would think that they would bump it to make the Mac look much more appealing.

Considering most consumers don't know ANYTHING about computers, if they were comparing an iBook to another laptop and noticed that the iBook blew the other laptop away in Ram, it's added value.

Oh well...

CreepingDeth · Dec 18, 2004, 12:12 PM

Yeah, it'd be nice if they did that. My mac only came with 256MB. I can't run a damn thing with 256. But now we have 512, but if I ever have to upgrade, I'll have to orphan one stick.

Hell, I can barely work with 512.

Come on Apple, this is ridiculous. It makes the machines look junky with the little amount they give you. Besides, is there really any quality difference between the "Apple" stuff and the 3rd party ram?

Xeo · Dec 18, 2004, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
Besides, is there really any quality difference between the "Apple" stuff and the 3rd party ram?

The Apple stuff is 3rd party so, no. Not all 3rd party RAM is equal, though. But you can buy the same quality Apple buys for less.

wdlove · Dec 18, 2004, 12:21 PM

Apple is more than willing to add RAM when you are willing to pay.

Dec 18, 2004, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by CreepingDeth:
Yeah, it'd be nice if they did that. My mac only came with 256MB. I can't run a damn thing with 256. But now we have 512, but if I ever have to upgrade, I'll have to orphan one stick. Hell, I can barely work with 512.

That's us, though. Can you run a web browser, appleworks, and Mail on 256? My wife's iBook (clamshell) is maxed out at 320, and she has no trouble at all.

Sure you can't run XCode, Photoshop, etc. all at the same time, but for basic needs it's ok.

But then again, iLife needs more, so I guess you're right.

chabig · Dec 18, 2004, 01:48 PM

Actually, I don't think there is a single app that won't run with 256 MB. You'll suffer a speed penalty, but it will run. As far as each app knows, it's got 4GB of address space. The virtual memory system tells it so.

Chris

tooki · Dec 18, 2004, 01:49 PM

I consider anything under 512MB unacceptable for Mac OS X, and don't recommend anything under 640MB. 768-1024MB is better.

tooki

chabig · Dec 18, 2004, 02:02 PM

I wholeheartedly agree with you Tooki. But the system and apps will still run in 256MB.

tooki · Dec 18, 2004, 02:16 PM

Many apps cannot run in that little RAM because they require real RAM to operate correctly. Any media app, for example.

So sure, any app can launch in 256MB, but it may not be able to run.

256MB, under Mac OS X, is an exercise in futility, because the OS alone will chew up 3/4 of that sitting idle, and even more as windows open (remember, in OS X, every open window consumes RAM!).

I have an old Mac here that runs with 448MB, and while it runs many things just fine, even just web browsing simultaneous with much of anything else is a rather trying task.

On an old clamshell iBook, I consider Mac OS 9 to be more appropriate.

tooki

nredman · Dec 18, 2004, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by tooki:
Many apps cannot run in that little RAM because they require real RAM to operate correctly. Any media app, for example.

So sure, any app can launch in 256MB, but it may not be able to run.

256MB, under Mac OS X, is an exercise in futility, because the OS alone will chew up 3/4 of that sitting idle, and even more as windows open (remember, in OS X, every open window consumes RAM!).

I have an old Mac here that runs with 448MB, and while it runs many things just fine, even just web browsing simultaneous with much of anything else is a rather trying task.

On an old clamshell iBook, I consider Mac OS 9 to be more appropriate.

tooki

i use only 256 in my ibook (because i am too cheap to upgrade). i can run safari, mail, yahoo im, ichat, and itunes all at the sametime without any major issues. but try to use the finder while those apps are all running, then it will slow down big time. the slow downs haven't bothered me enough for me to upgrade.

Mafia · Dec 18, 2004, 03:22 PM

when running 10.3.7 with no apps open my computer is using about 180 megs of ram. i do think apple should make 512 the standard, but ram is not that expensive from crucial so is not a big deal. imo atleast.

Twilly Spree · Dec 18, 2004, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by tooki:
I consider anything under 512MB unacceptable for Mac OS X, and don't recommend anything under 640MB. 768-1024MB is better.

tooki

384 MB is the bare minimum for a normal computer today running OS X IMO. I've got a G3 that has that amount and runs without many pageins/outs all the i-apps and MS Office and such.

It's the equivalent of 8 MB RAM in 1995.

Another machine I have is a G4 12" PB. 256 MB RAM. It is driving me nuts. Switching between open apps always causes a delay and RAM/HD memory swapping. That machine can run one app at a time.

I'd never recommend anything under one GB these days. It is worth it. Apple really should sell their machines with 512 MB minimum. The current low is not helping their image. It is too little for the Macs to run effectively and smoothly. Welcome to the 21st century I guess.

PacHead · Dec 18, 2004, 03:47 PM

Apple does not need to give away more ram. With the prices Apple charges for ram, I would hardly want their machines to come with a GIG or more in ram.

What's so hard about buying a Mac, then ordering third party ram ? You can order the exact amount you want, and pop it in your machine. Even a slightly dumb monkey could install ram on a Mac I'm sure.

sworthy · Dec 18, 2004, 05:08 PM

My sister in-laws iBook had a logic board problem where it wouldn't recognize the other 512mb chip we put in, so she was stuck using the standard 128. 128mb is horrible. Just opening the finder takes about 10 seconds. It's so slow she avoids using it. I'm taking it in to Apple today.

Luca Rescigno · Dec 18, 2004, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by Cubeoid:
Yo..yo...yooo.... yo h=year ya'll heard right. RAm you needs??? Ask Cubeoid...he'll tell you the place..yo ... if it is RAM i MAN require...it is one place I man should seek out..yo.. this place be CRUCIAL... yo ... say it now..yo CRUCIAL... that's right brother CRUCIAL... crucial.com

your place for ram.. ! YO...... the bestest place for i man ram...yo!!!!!!111oneoneyoOne!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111 1111111yo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!One!!!11111oneone

Anyway, back on topic...

I think the problem with including so little RAM with their computers is that someone new to Macs will not realize they need more, and end up assuming that Macs are just slow and crappy. Ideally, every Mac would ship with exactly double the amount of RAM that they currently come with. Pretty much 512 MB across the board, and 1 GB on the high end PowerBooks and PowerMacs. The point is that the RAM doesn't cost Apple that much, they just charge a lot to sell it. I can't imagine they sell a tremendous amount of RAM themselves, so it would probably be more beneficial to them if they were to include more RAM standard. They'd lose a little bit of money, but they'd do a much better job of winning over the computer-illiterate crowd.

I don't understand the assumption that if Apple included more RAM, their computers would cost way more since they charge so much for it. There's a huge difference between Apple's cost and what they sell it for. That's called a "profit margin."

nredman · Dec 18, 2004, 08:59 PM

Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:

great flick

Cubeoid · Dec 18, 2004, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by nredman:
great flick

Agreed.

note to self: drink less alcohol.

MrForgetable · Dec 19, 2004, 01:45 AM

one finder window, 3 safari windows, terminal, itunes, word, quicksilver, and msn messenger running on 256mb of RAM and it's fine for me.

MilkmanDan · Dec 19, 2004, 11:02 AM

256 is fine for my parents. For me.... 768.

JHromadka · Dec 19, 2004, 11:56 AM

www.dealram.com