[tziats]

I've been a Windows user since the mid-1990s. My current Wintel desktop system has 1 GB of RAM. However, it should be noted that I only really use this system for web surfing, e-mail, instant messaging, ripping/encoding/listening to music, typing the occasional document, and that's about it. No gaming, no photo/video editing.

When I acquire my mini, my usage for it will be exactly the same as my Wintel system. Though I would like to have 1 GB of RAM, it adds to the overall cost, and that doesn't really appeal to me. My question is do I really need 1 GB, or will 512 MB suffice for what I actually do with my computer? In other words, am I going to notice any significant performance difference using 512 MB vs. 1 GB?

[jfandem]

I have had my mini for a while, but had panther and dial up internet up until now. It was fine, and only had 256mb memory, some stuff it would lag on , but not bad. Once i got hi speed internet, THEN tiger, it slowed down tremendously, (tiger recommends 512mb minimum ram though) so i went ahead and ordered a 1gb stick through www.crucial.com and installed it yesterday. it is EXTREMELY faster and I do the same stuff as you pretty much, and play a little unreal tournament 2004. It plays unreal fine on my apple 20'' cinema BUT in 1024*768 mode. So i would definely recommend 1gb, although ive never tried it with 512.

[ghporter]

The way OS X uses RAM is very different from the way Windows uses it. Much more of the OS and running apps sits in RAM or virtual memory than with Windows, which depends on .dlls to tie stuff together-and only loads them when they're called. Adding RAM reduces the overhead for moving data into and out of physical RAM and makes the OS much peppier.

Basically, OS X (and particularly Tiger) really does better with more RAM, and since the Mini can only handle a max of 1GB, that's the best thing you can do to improve its performance

[mduell]

Originally Posted by ghporter

The way OS X uses RAM is very different from the way Windows uses it. Much more of the OS and running apps sits in RAM or virtual memory than with Windows, which depends on .dlls to tie stuff together-and only loads them when they're called. Adding RAM reduces the overhead for moving data into and out of physical RAM and makes the OS much peppier.

What? Nonsense. Windows uses extensive caching in memory; my Task Manager currently says I have 825MB system cache in memory. OSX uses shared libraries too, as Windows uses dlls. Also, keeping things in virtual memory is just as bad as not keeping them in memory at all, since virtual memory is on the hard drive.
I think either I'm very confused as to what you mean or you're very confused as to how Windows and OSX use memory.

[sodamnregistered2]

If it already has 512, then value wise, it's prolly enough.

At any given time I'd have a major app or two runing (Photoshop, Illustrator, Flash) and some minor apps (yourSQL, mactheripper, DVDXone) and a browser with several tabs going.

I have 1GB in mine though, and I would bet that it's superior for the use I've just described.

I was against Apple putting 512 in the Mini for this reason, it kind of pigeon holes people into the 512 since adding a 1GB stick basically leaves you with a 512 pulled stick that you could maybe trade on Craigslist for a double cheeseburger combo.

[Kadman]

I'm an IT professional (18 years now), so when I decided to upgrade my Mini from 512 to 1GB I paid close attention to memory usage and performance before and after the upgrade. In my case, it did make a considerable difference in performance. But then again, I'm doing a lot of what you said you don't do, namely editing video and images.

The short answer is: You are probably perfectly fine with 512. In fact, I was doing a lot of editing with my system at 512 and it wasn't bad at all (although it's better with 1GB). The only other thing I would add is if you are one to put your Mini in sleep mode instead of shutting down, be prepared to do a reboot a bit more often than if you had 1GB. The reason is that in the process of opening/closing apps on a regular basis you never really get all of the memory back from that program. THe way to get all of the memory back is to simply reboot.

My recommendation is to keep the activity monitor open during regular usage and watch the system memory category of page outs. If you see your system paging out to disk on a regular basis, you might want to consider adding ram. My guess is you won't need it.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by mduell

What? Nonsense. Windows uses extensive caching in memory; my Task Manager currently says I have 825MB system cache in memory. OSX uses shared libraries too, as Windows uses dlls. Also, keeping things in virtual memory is just as bad as not keeping them in memory at all, since virtual memory is on the hard drive.
I think either I'm very confused as to what you mean or you're very confused as to how Windows and OSX use memory.

I'm not saying that both OSs don't share virtual memory strategies. I AM saying that OS X does things somewhat differently. Further, Windows installations typically have a "sweet spot" level of RAM, above which there is seldom much system performance improvement. If OS X has such behavior, I've never heard of it.

It's my understanding of OS X that active processes remain in physical RAM as much as possible, and that inactive processes are shifted to virtual RAM as needed (though not necessarily as soon as the process goes inactive). This is basically the way Windows works. However, Windows typically loads dlls only when that code has been called, while I believe OS X loads at least parts of shared libraries preemptively, before that code is called. Further, Windows often loads separate instances of the same dll for separate programs, even if the code being used is identical and there is no problem with sharing; Windows is not yet very smart at sharing core code like dlls. OS X seems to be quite smart about that, and appears to use the same memory image as much as needed. (Note that the above is my understanding from not-necessarily-authoritative sources and I could be technically incorrect in a lot of details above.)

Virtual memory is a standard OS strategy. The exact plan and tactics of how any specific OS manages virtual memory is up to the OS designers. *nix OSs share a large legacy of smart memory usage, while Windows has a history of poor memory usage. I believe that more RAM in any Mac is a Good Thing, while Windows machines can only benefit so much from increased RAM.

[far200]

Originally Posted by tziats

My question is do I really need 1 GB, or will 512 MB suffice for what I actually do with my computer? In other words, am I going to notice any significant performance difference using 512 MB vs. 1 GB?

For question number one " do i really need 1 gig of ram" No. 512 will do you for your basic tasks.

For question two " am I going to notice any significant performance difference." yes. you'll notice a difference when running more than one app at a time.

If you feel comfortable opening up your mini to change the ram then go with 512 and see how it works for you. this way you can always up grade if you find you need to.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I'm not saying that both OSs don't share virtual memory strategies. I AM saying that OS X does things somewhat differently. Further, Windows installations typically have a "sweet spot" level of RAM, above which there is seldom much system performance improvement. If OS X has such behavior, I've never heard of it.

It's my understanding of OS X that active processes remain in physical RAM as much as possible, and that inactive processes are shifted to virtual RAM as needed (though not necessarily as soon as the process goes inactive). This is basically the way Windows works. However, Windows typically loads dlls only when that code has been called, while I believe OS X loads at least parts of shared libraries preemptively, before that code is called. Further, Windows often loads separate instances of the same dll for separate programs, even if the code being used is identical and there is no problem with sharing; Windows is not yet very smart at sharing core code like dlls. OS X seems to be quite smart about that, and appears to use the same memory image as much as needed. (Note that the above is my understanding from not-necessarily-authoritative sources and I could be technically incorrect in a lot of details above.)

Virtual memory is a standard OS strategy. The exact plan and tactics of how any specific OS manages virtual memory is up to the OS designers. *nix OSs share a large legacy of smart memory usage, while Windows has a history of poor memory usage. I believe that more RAM in any Mac is a Good Thing, while Windows machines can only benefit so much from increased RAM.

I still don't understand what you're asserting. In one paragraph you say that OSX benefits more from increased RAM than Windows can, and in the next you say Windows needs to use more RAM because it can't share libraries while OSX can. Perhaps your knowledge of Windows dates back to the 9x days when there was a 512MB limit? The NT based OSs have an entirely different memory subsystem.
Can you point me to where you learned about all of this?

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by mduell

I still don't understand what you're asserting. In one paragraph you say that OSX benefits more from increased RAM than Windows can, and in the next you say Windows needs to use more RAM because it can't share libraries while OSX can. Perhaps your knowledge of Windows dates back to the 9x days when there was a 512MB limit? The NT based OSs have an entirely different memory subsystem.
Can you point me to where you learned about all of this?

No, in the second paragraph I say that Windows doesn't use RAM as efficiently as OS X in loading DLLs. You're right that NT-based OSs are freed from the RAM addressing limitation that the 9X OSs had, but note that I didn't say the computer couldn't use extra RAM, it just didn't make much difference in processing speed after some point.

Unfortunately I don't have any single source for this stuff. It's been experience with desktop-class Wintel boxes that I've built, been responsible for, or been roped into providing support for, as well as paying attention to sources like PC Magazine. Note that I didn't present anything like a number for the Windows memory "sweet spot." That's because I don't remember the numbers and what I do remember is that the number is different for different installations; Win2K makes better use of physical RAM than either NT4 or XP can, but XP is better than NT... I can, however, point you to a lot of empirical material, such as this on the Win9X OSs, this from Crucial about XP, but there are plenty of sites that contradict both. I have not found a really well researched article that scientifically studied the effect of memory increases in Windows OSs, though I've looked quite a bit. My AMD-based Windows desktop AND my Dell P4M laptop are both running 1GB because it was simpler than playing with increments between 256MB and 1GB, but THAT particular leap was phenomenal on both.

[dannyillusion]

Keep the 512MB stick and buy a 7200rpm Firewire HD that you put your system on.
I had 256MB which indeed makes for a sluggish behaviour as soon as you have several apps open.
A 1GB stick speeded things up quite significantly but installing the system on a FW HD made for a HUGE difference in responsiveness!!!

[mduell]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Unfortunately I don't have any single source for this stuff. It's been experience with desktop-class Wintel boxes that I've built, been responsible for, or been roped into providing support for, as well as paying attention to sources like PC Magazine. Note that I didn't present anything like a number for the Windows memory "sweet spot." That's because I don't remember the numbers and what I do remember is that the number is different for different installations; Win2K makes better use of physical RAM than either NT4 or XP can, but XP is better than NT... I can, however, point you to a lot of empirical material, such as this on the Win9X OSs, this from Crucial about XP, but there are plenty of sites that contradict both. I have not found a really well researched article that scientifically studied the effect of memory increases in Windows OSs, though I've looked quite a bit. My AMD-based Windows desktop AND my Dell P4M laptop are both running 1GB because it was simpler than playing with increments between 256MB and 1GB, but THAT particular leap was phenomenal on both.

I would expect both OSs to top out (i.e. have a sweet spot beyond which RAM doesn't help) relatively low (i.e. at 1GB or less) in synthetic benchmarks. OSX may top out higher because it's so large (some would call it "bloated" but I think that's a loaded term). According to ArsTechnica OSX is compiled to optimize for size because it's so big.

Where your personal sweet spot sits depends on your usage pattern. Users who multitask and run memory-hungry apps are going to top-out much higher than email and web users. You can't tell me that an email and single-window/tab web user would notice the difference between 2GB and 4GB on OSX. On the other hand, I'd upgrade to 4GB tomorrow if my laptop could support it, just so I could stop swapping (or at least do it less).