[nathanxu]

A friend of my was showing her MacBook to me today. She has one of those 1.83GHz Core 2 Duo chip, 512MB RAM MacBook. It is so slow, I must admit I have never seen any Mac slow as her computer. Yet, she hardly had anything on her computer. If there is no hardware problem, what can she do to make it faster? Apart from upgrade the RAM, is there anything else she can do?
Cheers
Nathan

[Cold Warrior]

The RAM upgrade will be the single most important thing she can do.

Max it out to 3GB.

[ibook_steve]

What was she running that seemed slow?

Steve

P.S. Seconded on the RAM upgrade. 512 MB is simply not enough, especially with Leopard.

[CharlesS]

Yeah, I used Tiger on a machine with only 512 MB RAM for a while, and it was paging all the time, enough to be really annoying. And that was a PPC machine - it's going to be far worse on an Intel running Leopard that has both Rosetta and the integrated graphics eating away at the RAM.

[deeper]

How about painting flames on it? (Sorry, just kidding.)

Upgrade the ram... it's cheap and easy.

[Xarthan]

Originally Posted by deeper 

How about painting flames on it? (Sorry, just kidding.)

Upgrade the ram... it's cheap and easy.

oh yeah, even with 1GB she'll see a BIG improvement in performance, but I'd suggest 2GB or more!

FLAMES? how about a wing?

[tinkered]

Speed holes!

[@pplejaxkz]

I came across this article a while ago. I don't know if any of it helps or is of use to you, but I'd thought I'd share anyways.

The first thing I would do would be to buy RAM. Macsales has some pretty good deals.

[nathanxu]

Thanks guys, I thought that particular version of MacBook cannot take anything more then 2GB of RAM, can she have 3GB?
She is using Tiger, and she really didn't have many stuffs on it, should I install 10.5 for her after she gets the upgrade of the RAM?

[Cold Warrior]

It can address up to 3GB.

Upgrade RAM first, then install Leopard.

[bishopazrael]

I would get the RAM first. Run Tiger and see how it is. If it works OK and she's DESPERATE to try Leopard, then go ahead, otherwise I'd stick with Tiger for just a bit.

[amazing]

RAM's the best way to get less frustration out of a laptop.

After that, put in a larger and faster HD, satisfaction level will go way up.

[markponcelet]

I know already that I can't top "speed holes," so I'm not going to try. BUT! I did want to pipe in and suggest the ol' delete-everything-and-reinstall. If a laptop has had software on it for a couple of years, it always seems to be much snappier after one of those. Especially if the hard drive is really, really full when you start. :-)

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by amazing 

RAM's the best way to get less frustration out of a laptop.

And Leopard's the best way to get it back in.

Stick with Tiger. It's faster.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by markponcelet 

I know already that I can't top "speed holes," so I'm not going to try. BUT! I did want to pipe in and suggest the ol' delete-everything-and-reinstall. If a laptop has had software on it for a couple of years, it always seems to be much snappier after one of those. Especially if the hard drive is really, really full when you start. :-)

That's more of a PC thing unless the user is running out of disc space. By far the biggest bang for the buck is as much RAM as the machine will take. Then bigger / faster hd. Then Leopard.

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

And Leopard's the best way to get it back in.

Stick with Tiger. It's faster.

Not on my MBP C2D. I bet it's going to be faster on the MB C2D as well. I know it is on my MB C2D.

[peeb]

Leopard is generally faster, but RAM hungrier - if the computer does not have the RAM to give Leopard some elbow room, it can be slower than Tiger.

[Cold Warrior]

Hence the upgrade.

[peeb]

Right.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by Cold Warrior 

Not on my MBP C2D. I bet it's going to be faster on the MB C2D as well. I know it is on my MB C2D.

You're probably right. Leopard is, in my experience, slower on a G4, but it's probably faster on an Intel chip (again, provided you load it up with RAM, preferably 2 GB or more).

[peeb]

I don't think it's an architecture issue - Leopard is faster on my G4 - as long as it has enough RAM. My guess is the G4 you are thinking of has less than 1.5GB?

[RevEvs]

Just to echo what everyone else has said - more RAM! 512 isnt enough, not even close! 2GB minimum! 3GB if its not that much ore expensive.

[imitchellg5]

Leopard is almost exactly the same on my iMac G5 as Tiger was, but it is slower on my minimum requirement G4.

[peeb]

How much RAM in the G4?

[olePigeon]

Staple on a spoiler and put "Type R" sticker on it.

On a more serious note, make sure she's quitting applications. If she's not used to how the Mac OS interface works, clicking the red button doesn't quit the application (90% of the time.) You can tell an application is still running if there's a dot underneath the icon in the dock.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by peeb 

How much RAM in the G4?

I've ran it with 512 MB, 640 MB, and 1.12 GB. Leopard was slower with 512 MB, slightly slower with 640 MB (but only noticeable converting MP3s to AAC and copying large files), and barely faster with 1.12 GB. I made a chart showing the time differences, but I seem to have deleted it

[peeb]

That sounds about right - I think Leopard needs at least 1-1.5 to be faster than Tiger.

[Luca Rescigno]

When I referred to Leopard being slow on my old G4, it was a 1.5 GHz PowerBook G4 with 1.25 GB of RAM (the maximum). It was still very slow and I think 1.25 GB isn't enough. I'd say 2 GB is how much you need to run Leopard well.

[peeb]

Are you sure that is the max ram on that machine? For sure it likes 2gb.

[Luca Rescigno]

If you're referring to me, I was using a 12" PowerBook, which Apple stupidly decided should have 256 MB of RAM soldered onto the mainboard and only one RAM slot, thus making the maximum RAM 1.25 GB (it used regular DDR, not DDR2, so I couldn't get a 2 GB module for it).

This is what happens when technology is designed for yesterday rather than tomorrow. Apple never really updated the 12" PowerBook in any meaningful way past 2004 or so.

[ibook_steve]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

If you're referring to me, I was using a 12" PowerBook, which Apple stupidly decided should have 256 MB of RAM soldered onto the mainboard and only one RAM slot, thus making the maximum RAM 1.25 GB (it used regular DDR, not DDR2, so I couldn't get a 2 GB module for it).

This is what happens when technology is designed for yesterday rather than tomorrow. Apple never really updated the 12" PowerBook in any meaningful way past 2004 or so.

Um...hate to tell you, but back then, that was a lot of RAM for the low-end pro laptop! And the 12" G4 was updated to 1.5 GHz in early 2005. Since I worked on the logic board design for these machines, I can tell you there simply was no room to put another RAM slot and more onboard memory would either take up more board space (8 chips instead of 4) or been much more expensive (512 MB in 4 chips; really expensive back then).

The technology wasn't designed for "yesterday" in 2004-2005. It was designed for today. Only today is now yesterday. Or whatever.

Steve

[Luca Rescigno]

I bought the 12" PowerBook in early 2006, actually, and they had just refreshed (more like consolidated, though, in the case of the 12" model) the whole PowerBook line in October 2005. In fact, when I purchased it, the iBook already had 512 MB of RAM soldered in place, while the 12" PowerBook (which was quite a bit more expensive) still came with a 256 + 256 MB configuration.

I don't suppose an extra 256 MB would have helped though, really. I would have done better to wait until the MacBook was introduced a few months after I bought the computer, but a friend of mine worked at the Apple store and got me a pretty nice deal on the PowerBook. At the time, no one knew Apple would be migrating all their computers to Intel quite so quickly.

I don't know... it just seems that, for the amount that Apple charged for the 12" PowerBook, it should have been a little more than a slightly tuned-up iBook. It was such a nice form factor and it seemed to have real potential, but it never quite seemed to realize that potential. It was something like $500 more than the iBook and only had a few improvements.

But that's all in the past. We have MacBooks now.

[Terrin]

Ram of course is the best way to speed things up. However, there are other things that help too. For instance, setting your monitor to display thousands of colors instead of the default millions. Other ways: 1) set a simple desktop pattern or color as opposed to a photo; 2) use a program like Monolingual to remove unwanted languages (read the instructions carefully before using), 3) download a free tool like tinker-tools and stop dock animations, 4) disable widgets that you are not using (they are using resources in the background), 5) get a program like Cocktail and run regular maintenance scripts, and 6) quit programs you are not using.

Despite Apple's claims that programs in OSX that are idle aren't using much RAM, I don't buy this claim. Safari and Word are big memory hogs even when not in use. Moreover, keeping few programs running reduces the chance of a program freezing. When one program freezes in OSX, the performance for all running programs take a hit because the OS is spending resources trying to solve whatever problem has the program stuck. In my experience, some programs freeze regularly especially when not in use.

Finally, make sure all the software on the computer is updated so that Rosetta is used as little as possible.

For what it is worth, I find the Macbook quite speedy compared to the iBook it replaces except when using programs that rely heavily on the inetgrated graphics chip.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by Terrin

setting your monitor to display thousands of colors instead of the default millions

Don't set your display to thousands of colors. It looks like ass, and it doesn't help performance at all. Maybe if you were running a Performa with System 7, but not today.

Originally Posted by Terrin

set a simple desktop pattern or color as opposed to a photo

I don't think using a solid color or pattern instead of a desktop image would really help either. That takes up, what, an extra few hundred kb of RAM?

Originally Posted by Terrin

use a program like Monolingual to remove unwanted languages (read the instructions carefully before using)

Removing languages via Monolingual will save hard drive space but it will not improve performance.

Originally Posted by Terrin

download a free tool like tinker-tools and stop dock animations

Tinker Tool is nice in that you can also speed up certain animations, which makes things go faster overall. Sheets take way too long to pop down without speeding them up using Tinker Tool.

Originally Posted by Terrin

disable widgets that you are not using (they are using resources in the background)

Widgets don't use processor time when they're not in use, but each one hogs 10-20 MB of RAM at all times. Even simple ones like the clock, or Stickies. I'd go into Dashboard and close any open widgets.

Originally Posted by Terrin

Despite Apple's claims that programs in OSX that are idle aren't using much RAM, I don't buy this claim. Safari and Word are big memory hogs even when not in use.

Safari is indeed a gigantic RAM hog if you leave it running for very long. Quit Safari when you're not using it.

[finalsortie]

RAM will help, but you will only see a marginal gain with normal usage, however really intensive processes will be smoother. I upgraded by iBook from 256 to 768 and did not see much of an outright speed boost but I could work with more images in Photoshop at once

Being aware of which applications are open and what they are doing is an excellent idea and will save system resources.

Also go into system preferences and set the processor to work at full speed all the time if you REALLY are worried about even the slightest speed bumps, but I do not really suggest this. . .

Open up Activity Monitor and track the processor and RAM usage of your applications in different modes (active, inactive, window open, window closed, etc.) and make decisions based on that. For instance, I have found that leaving certain programs open and just closing the window drops the processor usage to 0 (or very close) and allows me to almost immediately reenter the program if I need it, whereas if I had quit the app I would have had to wait for it to relaunch

In my experience Leopard is much faster in every aspect, except opening Finder windows, than Tiger or Panther were on my computer.

I do not suggest deleting system files or languages, it will not increase your speed, and may cause your system to run less efficiently.

OnyX is an excellent modification program that I have used since 10.3 to make changes to my system. However, use these kind of programs with caution and do not expect a noticeable boost from turing off simple animations. In fact, I have found that sometimes removing animations actually makes things slower!

If decide to run Leopard, definitely use the 2D Dock and the non-translucent menu bar.

Good Luck!

[peeb]

Oh nooooo! The jump from 25 to 768 is not enough - you need to break the 1.5 / 2 barrier to see much speed increase.

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by ibook_steve 

The technology wasn't designed for "yesterday" in 2004-2005. It was designed for today. Only today is now yesterday. Or whatever.

Steve

Wow man. Totally lost me there

[macbones]

512? OMG. Ram is the answer- forget archive and install and all that. I have 2 GB of ram, right now I am running Safari, address book and mail, and I have about 800 MB free. I didn't even know you could buy these things with less than a GB of ram. 2 GB of ram is like $50 or less. Open activity monitor and look how many page outs are listed. . .Thats how often you are using your hard drive for ram. . .

[Terrin]

Don't set your display to thousands of colors. It looks like ass, and it doesn't help performance at all. Maybe if you were running a Performa with System 7, but not today.

Well, perhaps you can perceive a difference in how the settings look. I can't. That, however, is neither here nor there. The issue was what speeds up performance, not what looks better. There are numerous resources on the web that backs up the claim that changing the color settings improves performance. Furthermore, why don't you just let other people try it out? It isn't like it costs them anything. For what it is worth, System 7 could display millions of colors at a faster speed then OS 8 and 9 could (on a equally configured machine).

I don't think using a solid color or pattern instead of a desktop image would really help either. That takes up, what, an extra few hundred kb of RAM?

The problem is you haven't done any research on it, but you are willing to give an opinion. Nonetheless, you seem to be willing to admit it does take up additional memory to display more complex pictures, thus admitting the possibility that it does slow down performance. Since, I will admit that perhaps you can notice a difference between thousands and millions of colors, while I can't, perhaps you will take my work that I can perceive a difference in performance between various desktop pictures. Of course, this performance difference is more profound on older Macs. For what it is worth, having tons of icons on your desktop slows down performance as well because the OS treats each as a Window.

Removing languages via Monolingual will save hard drive space, but it will not improve performance.

Yes, and you act like hard drive space and system performance aren't related. OSX relies on virtual memory, which uses the hard drive. If the hard drive is too full, it can effect performance. You can reclaim close to 500 MB's of space by getting rid of unused language packs. Admittedly, this isn't really an issue unless you already have used up a good portion of your space.

Tinker Tool is nice in that you can also speed up certain animations, which makes things go faster overall. Sheets take way too long to pop down without speeding them up using Tinker Tool.

I really have no idea what you are talking about here, but no animations is faster then animations. Again, the issue was speeding up performance.

Widgets don't use processor time when they're not in use, but each one hogs 10-20 MB of RAM at all times. Even simple ones like the clock, or Stickies. I'd go into Dashboard and close any open widgets.

There are many sources that disagree with you. Widgets even when not running use both RAm and processor time. This can be evaluated by running Activity Monitor.

Safari is indeed a gigantic RAM hog if you leave it running for very long. Quit Safari when you're not using it.

Well, at least we agree on something. Again, this can be verified by using Activity Monitor.

[wataru]

Originally Posted by Terrin 

Well, perhaps you can perceive a difference in how the settings look. I can't.

Perhaps you should get your eyes checked. The dithering is painful to look at.

That, however, is neither here nor there. The issue was what speeds up performance, not what looks better. There are numerous resources on the web that backs up the claim that changing the color settings improves performance.

If you actually read the comments in the one link you provided, you'll see lots of people disagreeing. Fewer colors at best frees up some RAM, and not a lot at that.

Furthermore, why don't you just let other people try it out? It isn't like it costs them anything. For what it is worth, System 7 could display millions of colors at a faster speed then OS 8 and 9 could (on a equally configured machine).

Comparing System 7 to OS 8 and 9 is completely immaterial to the discussion at hand

The problem is you haven't done any research on it, but you are willing to give an opinion. Nonetheless, you seem to be willing to admit it does take up additional memory to display more complex pictures, thus admitting the possibility that it does slow down performance. Since, I will admit that perhaps you can notice a difference between thousands and millions of colors, while I can't, perhaps you will take my work that I can perceive a difference in performance between various desktop pictures.

You don't seem to understand that the amount of memory you'd save by having a simple desktop image is so small that it doesn't matter. If you really need that 1-2MB, you have bigger problems than your desktop image.

Your "perception" of performance with different desktop pictures sounds about as reliable as evaluating the speed of a car by what color it's painted.

For what it is worth, having tons of icons on your desktop slows down performance as well because the OS treats each as a Window.

This is the first worthwhile tip you've offered.

Yes, and you act like hard drive space and system performance aren't related. OSX relies on virtual memory, which uses the hard drive. If the hard drive is too full, it can effect performance. You can reclaim close to 500 MB's of space by getting rid of unused language packs.

Again, if you're that low on space, you have bigger problems already.

[mduell]

Originally Posted by Terrin 

Well, perhaps you can perceive a difference in how the settings look. I can't. That, however, is neither here nor there. The issue was what speeds up performance, not what looks better. There are numerous resources on the web that backs up the claim that changing the color settings improves performance. Furthermore, why don't you just let other people try it out? It isn't like it costs them anything. For what it is worth, System 7 could display millions of colors at a faster speed then OS 8 and 9 could (on a equally configured machine).

The guy you linked to can't even do basic math (he thinks 8-bit and 12-bit is the difference between thousands and millions of colors).

Originally Posted by Terrin 

Yes, and you act like hard drive space and system performance aren't related. OSX relies on virtual memory, which uses the hard drive. If the hard drive is too full, it can effect performance. You can reclaim close to 500 MB's of space by getting rid of unused language packs. Admittedly, this isn't really an issue unless you already have used up a good portion of your space.

Hard drive space is unrelated to Virtual Memory; perhaps you're confusing vm and swap?

[nathanxu]

So, I can put 3GB RAM for those older C2D MacBook and maybe even 4GB RAM for those iMac that Apple said 3GB is the max?

[mduell]

I don't think Apple has understated the memory capacity of any Intel Macs. They crippled the Core Duo Macs to support 2GB instead of 3.mumble, but there's no way around that.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by Terrin 

Well, perhaps you can perceive a difference in how the settings look. I can't. That, however, is neither here nor there. The issue was what speeds up performance, not what looks better. There are numerous resources on the web that backs up the claim that changing the color settings improves performance. Furthermore, why don't you just let other people try it out? It isn't like it costs them anything. For what it is worth, System 7 could display millions of colors at a faster speed then OS 8 and 9 could (on a equally configured machine).

System 7 was faster because it could not do as much as a more modern system, simple as that. Do you remember using TCP/IP on System 7? It was a pain in the ass, especially as a programmer, because you could not depend on the fact that things such as that were there by default. Anyways, I'm quite certain that nothing is going to be processed (at least in Cocoa) in anything less than 32-bit color (Why even bother when all the registers are going to be 32 bit anyways?), then it will be simply downgraded when it gets to your video card. Barely an upgrade, short of placebo effect.

Originally Posted by Terrin 

The problem is you haven't done any research on it, but you are willing to give an opinion. Nonetheless, you seem to be willing to admit it does take up additional memory to display more complex pictures, thus admitting the possibility that it does slow down performance. Since, I will admit that perhaps you can notice a difference between thousands and millions of colors, while I can't, perhaps you will take my work that I can perceive a difference in performance between various desktop pictures. Of course, this performance difference is more profound on older Macs. For what it is worth, having tons of icons on your desktop slows down performance as well because the OS treats each as a Window.

You're saying that we should decrease customizability, usability, and looks to save maybe a total of 10 Megs of RAM, which is just silly in this day and age with modern hardware. Not really a solution, just masking the problem. The solution is OS X needs more RAM, especially on a system that's going to use RAM to run the "GPU" (Crappy ass Intel tech)

Originally Posted by Terrin 

Yes, and you act like hard drive space and system performance aren't related. OSX relies on virtual memory, which uses the hard drive. If the hard drive is too full, it can effect performance. You can reclaim close to 500 MB's of space by getting rid of unused language packs. Admittedly, this isn't really an issue unless you already have used up a good portion of your space.

According to my current research, HFS may slow down if you fall under 15% of hard drive space, but that's not really that much of an issue like on the older Mac OS X versions, and you no longer have the issue with deleting plists (which was the major reason you weren't supposed to let the hard drive fill up). I'll agree that it is something you do not want to do for fragmentation issues, but it's not going to cause that huge of an issue of a 5400 RPM hard drive.

Originally Posted by Terrin 

I really have no idea what you are talking about here, but no animations is faster then animations. Again, the issue was speeding up performance.

Animations are a perception thing. As humans, we like having some feedback that the computer is doing something, while we wait for the computer to actually do something (case and point: launch screens) So, while it may actually be faster, it can actually feel slower, because you don't see the computer giving you feedback that it's doing something.

Originally Posted by Terrin 

There are many sources that disagree with you. Widgets even when not running use both RAm and processor time. This can be evaluated by running Activity Monitor.

If you do not open Dashboard, they do not load into memory on System load, and I'm quite certain that it has been that way since Dashboard's inception. I cannot test it myself right now, as I no longer use Dashboard, but that's why it takes so long when you first open Dashboard unless you used a program like Kickstart to force Dashboard to load widgets on system startup.

Summary?

Tell her she needs at least a Gig stick (I'd actually get two identical Gig sticks so you can have the GPU use them in parallel for added performance benefit.) The big problem is that she's running OS X on 512, of which, a minimum of 60 will be in use by the onboard graphics controller, so she's going to be attempting to run OS X on 452 Megs of RAM maximum, and that's low enough that just having the system open (Not even counting Safari) will force the system to hit it's page file incessantly, which slows a computer down quite dramatically. That is the only real solution unless you want to hurt the quality of computer usage.

[Parvez]

DUDE! I had the exact Macbook that your friend has now. I ordered 2 GB sticks from Macsales.com and plus I ordered a Western Digital 5400RPM 160 HDD. The maximum RAM 1.83GHz can handle is 2 GB or else I'd have ordered a 3GB.

It was really easy to install. Though I had to go to Home Depot to buy that freakin' screw driver that you need for it. Then I installed Leopard and it runs very smooth. I am in love with it once again.

All that (1GBx2, 160 HDD) cost me only $126.47

[Parvez]

Originally Posted by Terrin 

Yes, and you act like hard drive space and system performance aren't related. OSX relies on virtual memory, which uses the hard drive. If the hard drive is too full, it can effect performance. You can reclaim close to 500 MB's of space by getting rid of unused language packs. Admittedly, this isn't really an issue unless you already have used up a good portion of your space.

Actually some people got over 1.2GB free by getting rid of unused language packs (There is a thread in MacRumors Forums). I had 899 MB free only since when I installed Leopard, I chose not to install those additional packs and drivers.

[VetPsychWars]

I was surprised to find that running iDefrag makes the machine faster in operations that access the disk. Booting is much faster, as well as loading programs for the first time.

So, you might want to take a look at it.

Tom

[@pplejaxkz]

Rub then CPU with Cheetah blood =]

[forumhound]

If you lived in Nepal, you would slaughter a goat. That's what they do to make the 747's go faster (and stay in the air). Cheers,
FH

[zaghahzag]

Get her the max ram, which is either 2 or 3 gigs on that machine. that will make it go from dog slow to what it's supposed to work like.

then get her a bigger and faster get a 320 or a 500 gig hd. That should help a lot b/c OSX slows down once your run low on HD space.

Finally, build her a space ship and accelerate to near light speed. have the machine run things while you wait for it to return. Time dilation is a sure thing.

(seriously) that machine has only two options - HD and memory.