 |
 |
ram and osx
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
Sorry to ask this question but I am not sure...
I read that 256 MB was a minimum for osx, but I was wondering if I could still try it on a g4 400 mhz with 128 MB ram... I can't upgrade the memory right now, is it worth trying this os?
Thanks
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Trafalmadore
Status:
Offline
|
|
It will work, but will slow down considerably as you open more apps.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chicago
Status:
Offline
|
|
the memory upgrade cost less the OS, i'd upgrade the memory first.. or stick to 9.1 till you can afford to upgrade the whole system.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Québec, Canada
Status:
Offline
|
|
Go for it.. I ran OS X in 64MB for a while..
When you'll have the money.. upgrade! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
started with 256 - went and bought another 512 two days later and will be swapping the 256 for a 512 this weekend. OSX just seems to eat RAM like ive never seen.
I'm starting to think the 1Gb limit on PBs (which I'm going to hit this weekend) is a wee bit low
RM
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status:
Offline
|
|
128 is the bare minimum, if you use Classic mode. If you can manage to avoid Classic, I've heard tales of running quite happily in only 64 megs, but I wouldn't recommend trying that. One time, just to see if I could do it, I tried installing OSX on a 32-meg machine. The results were not pretty.
But in general, you can never have too much RAM. OSX uses memory in a totally different way from OS9, and while RAM consumption figures don't mean as much as they used to, adding RAM will still have a definite impact, in the form of a speed boost. Just how much of a boost depends largely on how many apps you run at once, and how much RAM you had before the upgrade.
|
|
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Jun 2002
Status:
Offline
|
|
I guess I'll try with 128 MB; can't be patient! 
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Asheville, NC
Status:
Offline
|
|
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Geneva, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Geneva, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif">Originally posted by deca:
<strong>I guess I'll try with 128 MB; can't be patient! </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Geneva, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif">It will work. It will just seem really really slow compared to 9. The more memory you put in, the faster it will go. 512MB is about where you hit the point of diminishing returns. It just depends on how much you run at once.
|
|
ACSA 10.4/10.3, ACTC 10.3, ACHDS 10.3
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Seattle, WA, King
Status:
Offline
|
|
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Geneva, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="1" face="Geneva, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif"> I guess I'll try with 128 MB; can't be patient! </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="1" face="Geneva, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif">You're going to have to be to run OS X with just 128MB of RAM. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
|
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