Will Tiger 10.4 need more memory

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
I know that Panther demands at least 512 MB for basic operations.

With less memory, it becomes slower.

I am curious whether the upcoming "Tiger" will need even more memory.

Is there anyone who knows the answer?

TIA

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 19
    mactechmactech Posts: 31member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mac Hammer Fan

    I know that Panther demands at least 512 MB for basic operations.

    With less memory, it becomes slower.

    I am curious whether the upcoming "Tiger" will need even more memory.

    Is there anyone who knows the answer?

    TIA




    Panther DOES NOT demand at least 512mb of memory. I still use my Pismo with 192mb and tiBook 400 with 384mb for iTunes, iChat and Safari.

    That said, the more memory the better for OS X. I suspect Tiger will have about the same memory foot print as Panther. I am still waiting for my ADC seed DVD to arrive, so I will know more really soon
  • Reply 2 of 19
    henriokhenriok Posts: 537member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Mac Hammer Fan

    I know that Panther demands at least 512 MB for basic operations.



    I agree with MacTech. Panther does NOT require +512 MB for basic operation. I have several users that have less than that and they are doing just fine.
  • Reply 3 of 19
    but you get 512MB's or +,and it starts to purrr. Get 2GB's and it roars.
  • Reply 4 of 19
    jwri004jwri004 Posts: 626member
    Using MenuMeters I float around 256MB used, and rarely use more than 512MB.



    More is better, but not mandatory.
  • Reply 5 of 19
    telomartelomar Posts: 1,804member
    It doesn't demand it but you'll certainly notice the difference going from 256 MB to 512. I didn't notice much change to daily use when I went from 512 to 1 GB or from 1 GB to 2 but I certainly noticed the first upgrade.
  • Reply 6 of 19
    jwilljwill Posts: 209member
    And I most certainly noticed a jump from 128 MB to 640 MB...
  • Reply 7 of 19
    mactechmactech Posts: 31member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MacTech

    Panther DOES NOT demand at least 512mb of memory. I still use my Pismo with 192mb and tiBook 400 with 384mb for iTunes, iChat and Safari.

    That said, the more memory the better for OS X. I suspect Tiger will have about the same memory foot print as Panther. I am still waiting for my ADC seed DVD to arrive, so I will know more really soon




    Unfortunately, I cannot get Tiger to work on my cube(s). I get a kernel panic every time on both of them after installing and trying to log in.

    Let's hope it will install on my dual 867.
  • Reply 8 of 19
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,770member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Telomar

    It doesn't demand it but you'll certainly notice the difference going from 256 MB to 512. I didn't notice much change to daily use when I went from 512 to 1 GB or from 1 GB to 2 but I certainly noticed the first upgrade.



    Which is why I don't understand why Apple doesn't make 512MB the minimum on all systems. The costs are much less now and those focused on the processor speed slowdowns wouldn't complain as much.
  • Reply 9 of 19
    thttht Posts: 3,036member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Frank777

    Which is why I don't understand why Apple doesn't make 512MB the minimum on all systems. The costs are much less now and those focused on the processor speed slowdowns wouldn't complain as much.



    It is simply because Apple wants more profit margin from RAM upgrades. Maybe it is also Apple's way of supporting the retailers.
  • Reply 10 of 19
    webmailwebmail Posts: 639member
    What's the big deal with ram anyway? Sure you can run on 192, unless you have a powerbook there is no reason your computer shouldn't be maxed out, it's not that expensive. RAM is very important and is a great way to increase speed. I'm suprised more machines don't just ship with 1gb from apple, they should set a crazy high standard by shipping all new machines with nothing less than 1gb of ram since it's really not too expensive.
  • Reply 11 of 19
    Quote:

    Originally posted by THT

    It is simply because Apple wants more profit margin from RAM upgrades. Maybe it is also Apple's way of supporting the retailers.



    But it is backfireing: when someone buys a(n) *mac or *book, or any computer for that matter they don't expect to upgrade right out of the box, and only the computer illiterate, or crazy fools would pay apples price for ram, so I say more ram out of the box is crucial. (pun intended.)



    example:

    PM dual 1.8, a $2000 unit that ships with 256 megs of ram? please...that is a joke, with that little stock ram, I guess they use the term "workstation" loosely.
  • Reply 12 of 19
    Yes , I've got two G3 and they have got 192Mo and 314Mo with Panther and it is powerfull enouth !!! 8)
  • Reply 13 of 19
    aquaticaquatic Posts: 5,602member
    Quote:

    But it is backfireing: when someone buys a(n) *mac or *book, or any computer for that matter they don't expect to upgrade right out of the box, and only the computer illiterate, or crazy fools would pay apples price for ram, so I say more ram out of the box is crucial. (pun intended.)



    example:

    PM dual 1.8, a $2000 unit that ships with 256 megs of ram? please...that is a joke, with that little stock ram, I guess they use the term "workstation" loosely.



    Exactly. Apple had been doing this for over a decade! I mean they should just eat the $15 for double the RAM, 512 minimum in everything, at their volume pricing. It'd make a huge huge difference. OS X functions dramatically better with 512 or more RAM. Anything less than 384 hurts to watch.
  • Reply 14 of 19
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Aquatic

    Exactly. Apple had been doing this for over a decade! I mean they should just eat the $15 for double the RAM, 512 minimum in everything, at their volume pricing. It'd make a huge huge difference. OS X functions dramatically better with 512 or more RAM. Anything less than 384 hurts to watch.



    just an update, a $450 emachines at bestbuy comes with 512 mb ram!!!!, apple is pathetic.



    <more to say>

    Apple should raise the bar, 1 gb ram in everything, from emac to dual 2.5 pm, from ibook to 17 inch PB at their volume prices they would pay <$30 for 1 gb ram chips, their systems would then really allow osx to show off.
  • Reply 15 of 19
    jmoneyjmoney Posts: 133member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by apple_a_day

    just an update, a $450 emachines at bestbuy comes with 512 mb ram!!!!, apple is pathetic.



    <more to say>

    Apple should raise the bar, 1 gb ram in everything, from emac to dual 2.5 pm, from ibook to 17 inch PB at their volume prices they would pay <$30 for 1 gb ram chips, their systems would then really allow osx to show off.




    I agree that the dual should definitely come with a gig, but I'd be afraid of them cheaping out and giving me 4 sticks of 256. Of course with 8 slots, I can't complain too much 8)
  • Reply 16 of 19
    I know it's hard to cough up some dough to play for that extra ram. Yeah it does mean you may need to pay about $75 more, but think about it , if you are here in the forums, you most likely spend hours and hours online everynight. Yeah we cannot live without our computers now. So and investment in ram is something GOOD !. I say, just go big and get as much as you can. it will make a difference and totally work it. Lets face it , we are geeks and need to have out mac on top performance.

    So indulge yourself and get more ram .



    MacDuneRaver
  • Reply 17 of 19
    Hi Guys,



    In the end it's what the user demands. I've yet to see a MacOS not installing because of lack of RAM. Mostly more RAM works better and less is slower and slower is defined differently by each user. As a rule of tumb: always use more RAM than the original amount that's built in by Apple (on standard confiurations) and you've got a nice workable Mac. Tiger works in my experience as fast(on average) as Panther on my Mac.



    Cheers,



    Gonzo
  • Reply 18 of 19
    nanonano Posts: 178member
    Why should they raise the minimum requirment if it can still run on 128mb. Minimum is just that, the bare bones. Raising it will not help anyone.
  • Reply 19 of 19
    Quote:

    Originally posted by MacTech

    Unfortunately, I cannot get Tiger to work on my cube(s). I get a kernel panic every time on both of them after installing and trying to log in.

    Let's hope it will install on my dual 867.




    The thing is:

    TIGER beta yet comes incomplete without Graphicdrivers and with only a few CPU platform drivers,leading to KPs on the first seconds after starting from the install DVD.

    The workaround:

    use TIGER as an update and install it over Your current System,so it can use

    all the current drivers and only replaces what´s old.



    How to do that without having to restart from DVD/CD first?

    Connect a FW drive with Your cloned Disk and install it on there by clicking

    "osx Pckg. install" via Pacifist or from the system/installer pckages folder(hidden folder,only visible via finder click on the DVD) folder.



    Its running SUPERSTABLE and blazing fast(subjectively +20% faster) on

    my 1.2 Ghz CUBE with GF3 Videocard.
Sign In or Register to comment.