I am always amazed at the venom the majority of apple users here express. You would think apple is trying to stick it to you at every turn. Well they don?t regardless to all those who are about to slam me would say otherwise. Be realistic how hard is it to order a stick of memory and slap into your rig.
Apple offers all of us elegant design, one of the best operating system ever compiled and IMHO the most thought out and best engineering in a box anywhere. Have I ever had any problem adding additional memory? Absolutely not. In fact I have always ordered my Macs with the lowest amount of memory possible and then add my own for a cost savings.
I applaud Apple for the memory increase I think new users to OSX will be better served, but come on with quotes like ?Well it is about TIME!!!!!!!?.
With that being said I do agree with a minimum of 512 for the Mac mini just because this little go getter was not originally a user upgradeable box. But for the rest of the lines upgrade it your self or order it with more memory.
Nevertheless, while 256MB of RAM is adequate for light use, 512MB is demonstrably better. You're a SuperDrive away from being able to run all the iLife apps.
And the ironic thing about Apple looking out for so many details is that you really notice the details they don't look out for. If the Mac sells as a value-added product—and it does—then more-than-adequate RAM is a pretty obvious value add.
If nothing else, it will silence the most consistent and universal criticism of their hardware line. It's especially important for the Mac mini, since the whole idea is that you just pick up the little box and go home. The default configurations should be the ones most recommended for general use.
The only reason Apple skimped on RAM before was so that their resellers would have something to throw in FREE. But they have to revise the baseline to keep up with software demands, or they'd still be shipping 32MB by default.
Time for them to also realize that any desktop machine sold in this day and age for 999 or more, should have a superdrive and approx 160GB of storage as standard...
and a nightmare to actually use, unless you mean like a linear scroll wheel.
A linear scroll wheel - (well, it wouldn't be a wheel anymore, would it?)... A linear scroll pad with underlying clickable areas like the iPod's would be interesting. I'd have to use a prototype tho, as in reality it may not work that favorably.
While 512MB would be great for running many apps at once, Mac OS X runs fine with only 256MB. True you don't want to run PhotoShop and iMovie, but you can run Safari, Mail, AppleWorks, etc all at the same time.
I have a 400MHz Blue&White G3 Tower with only 256MB and it's VERY usable.
As a test I even got it to boot and run a few apps with only 64MB installed. However, it was painfully slow. LOL
people, for the average consumer, 256mb IS currently enough. try 10.3.8, the newest office for mac 11.1.1 update, and you'll see itunes, iappz, office for mac, illustrator cs and photoshop cs run not too bad as long as you are not *constantly* swapping between apps, in which case you would be a power user and not really consider 256mb anyway....
but this move, if it really does happen, in middle of 2005, will secure more mindshare among Switchers because of :
1. outright value. 512mb as standard just looks good and appealing to consumers
2. performance of OS 10.4 with iLife '05. it will be a nice, smooth cruise
3. with G4 minimum speeds of, what, 1.2ghz at least across the range, with 512mb, this will pretty much guarantee new Switchers a pleasant first ride into the mac world
4. i for one compliment apple on maintaining profits while making use of massive price drops occuring for example, clearly, in the DRAM market.
5. i hope to see them exploit similar massive improvements and cost reduction in the GPU area... not because i am a GPU head but due to (A)core image and (B)overall rapid GPU advances.... but that of course, is covered in many other threads....
6. dell offers 128mb of ram in their base model? what? that's dissapointing to me. personally i hope that lawsuit against them gains some ground
....epilogue....
with my dad's iBook g4 933mhz 256mb ram, i'm just biding my time until the end of this year, when it hits its 2-year old birthday, to dropkick the 128mb out of the slot and slot in a nice 512mb, bringing it up to 640mb... that will be a nice cruise out to it's 3rd birthday.... a few months after it's first birthday, we got a nice new LCD screen (thanks to AppleCare and the LCD conveniently dying after white spots started appearing....) bwah ha ha ha ha
While 512MB would be great for running many apps at once, Mac OS X runs fine with only 256MB. True you don't want to run PhotoShop and iMovie, but you can run Safari, Mail, AppleWorks, etc all at the same time.
iMovie and GarageBand are bundled free with every mini. Apple flogs iLife more than either OS X or the mini, and never mind Mail and AppleWorks.
How lame is it that a machine can't effectively run the applications that it ships with? 256MB is perfectly adequate for light use, but Apple is trying to get people into the whole digital lifestyle thing. They can't do that if their digital lifestyle apps run poorly.
It's much more Apple like to pick up the box, plug in the machine, and have everything usable just like that.
Quote:
I have a 400MHz Blue&White G3 Tower with only 256MB and it's VERY usable.
As a test I even got it to boot and run a few apps with only 64MB installed. However, it was painfully slow. LOL
Apple isn't going to sell machines on technical definitions of usability. The Mac mini, in particular, will be the first impression many people have of an Apple computer. Why not make it a nice one? "There is no step three," remember?
iMovie and GarageBand are bundled free with every mini. Apple flogs iLife more than either OS X or the mini, and never mind Mail and AppleWorks.
How lame is it that a machine can't effectively run the applications that it ships with? 256MB is perfectly adequate for light use, but Apple is trying to get people into the whole digital lifestyle thing. They can't do that if their digital lifestyle apps run poorly.
It's much more Apple like to pick up the box, plug in the machine, and have everything usable just like that.
Apple isn't going to sell machines on technical definitions of usability. The Mac mini, in particular, will be the first impression many people have of an Apple computer. Why not make it a nice one? "There is no step three," remember?
well in any case the 256mb argument has gone on these boards for long enough... long live 512mb as standard...!! well, not too long...!!
No! Long live the one-button, scrollwheelless mouse.
Now, a one-button mouse with an embedded iPod-style clickwheel would be an interesting addition.
I find, one button mice are sooooo impractical,when surfing and reading long documents, and the right-click function is a god-send in most "pro" apps.
As for RAM, I have one point to make. Why do Apple expect users of one-slot machines to either throw away or try to sell their "base" memory from their machines, in order to house the bigger RAM chip which they HAVE to purchase to make the computer's performance sufficient for their needs?
Some say this is Apples way of offering comsumer choice. I say this is Apple operating on the cheap. As for video cards on "pro" G5s.. ppllleeeaassee..
and hopefully Apple will fix that too, when they redesign the board for PCI-Ex
Bit confused doesnt the 2.0 G5 upwards have PCI express or are you talking about something else? I own the 1.6GHZ G5 so im in the dark here... Do you mean PCI-X as standard?
I thought 128MB was the minimum. Does anyone run OS X with 128MB RAM? I ran my iMac with 256MB for a while and then upgraded to 768MB. I didn't notice a huge leap. However, now that the processors are better, more RAM is needed more as the RAm is the bottle neck not the CPU. As Apple are a high-end lifestyle product 512MB is a welcome addition.
Comments
Apple offers all of us elegant design, one of the best operating system ever compiled and IMHO the most thought out and best engineering in a box anywhere. Have I ever had any problem adding additional memory? Absolutely not. In fact I have always ordered my Macs with the lowest amount of memory possible and then add my own for a cost savings.
I applaud Apple for the memory increase I think new users to OSX will be better served, but come on with quotes like ?Well it is about TIME!!!!!!!?.
With that being said I do agree with a minimum of 512 for the Mac mini just because this little go getter was not originally a user upgradeable box. But for the rest of the lines upgrade it your self or order it with more memory.
And the ironic thing about Apple looking out for so many details is that you really notice the details they don't look out for. If the Mac sells as a value-added product—and it does—then more-than-adequate RAM is a pretty obvious value add.
If nothing else, it will silence the most consistent and universal criticism of their hardware line. It's especially important for the Mac mini, since the whole idea is that you just pick up the little box and go home. The default configurations should be the ones most recommended for general use.
The only reason Apple skimped on RAM before was so that their resellers would have something to throw in FREE. But they have to revise the baseline to keep up with software demands, or they'd still be shipping 32MB by default.
Originally posted by monkeyastronaut
No! Long live the one-button, scrollwheelless mouse.
Now, a one-button mouse with an embedded iPod-style clickwheel would be an interesting addition.
and a nightmare to actually use, unless you mean like a linear scroll wheel.
Originally posted by ipodandimac
and a nightmare to actually use, unless you mean like a linear scroll wheel.
A linear scroll wheel - (well, it wouldn't be a wheel anymore, would it?)... A linear scroll pad with underlying clickable areas like the iPod's would be interesting. I'd have to use a prototype tho, as in reality it may not work that favorably.
most of us figured they would have to up the RAM in their top of the line
anyway.
Unless they change the RAM slots, I think you'll still need matched
pairs in the PowerMacs, so I'd expect a pair of 256's and not one
512.
If matched pairs ARE required then it's easy to see that a pair of 512's
would be the ideal minimum for each CPU.
I sure hope we see more than just Tiger and a RAM boost.
Although I am posting this from a 256M Mini which I feel is working fine, even with multiple apps open.
Originally posted by hugodrax
512M is a nice default especially if 499 gets you a base 512M Mini.
Although I am posting this from a 256M Mini which I feel is working fine, even with multiple apps open.
I agree. 256 is not the worst thing in the world, if you're just browsing the web, email, etc. However, 512 really makes things smooth.
While 512MB would be great for running many apps at once, Mac OS X runs fine with only 256MB. True you don't want to run PhotoShop and iMovie, but you can run Safari, Mail, AppleWorks, etc all at the same time.
I have a 400MHz Blue&White G3 Tower with only 256MB and it's VERY usable.
As a test I even got it to boot and run a few apps with only 64MB installed. However, it was painfully slow. LOL
but this move, if it really does happen, in middle of 2005, will secure more mindshare among Switchers because of :
1. outright value. 512mb as standard just looks good and appealing to consumers
2. performance of OS 10.4 with iLife '05. it will be a nice, smooth cruise
3. with G4 minimum speeds of, what, 1.2ghz at least across the range, with 512mb, this will pretty much guarantee new Switchers a pleasant first ride into the mac world
4. i for one compliment apple on maintaining profits while making use of massive price drops occuring for example, clearly, in the DRAM market.
5. i hope to see them exploit similar massive improvements and cost reduction in the GPU area... not because i am a GPU head but due to (A)core image and (B)overall rapid GPU advances.... but that of course, is covered in many other threads....
6. dell offers 128mb of ram in their base model? what? that's dissapointing to me. personally i hope that lawsuit against them gains some ground
....epilogue....
with my dad's iBook g4 933mhz 256mb ram, i'm just biding my time until the end of this year, when it hits its 2-year old birthday, to dropkick the 128mb out of the slot and slot in a nice 512mb, bringing it up to 640mb... that will be a nice cruise out to it's 3rd birthday.... a few months after it's first birthday, we got a nice new LCD screen (thanks to AppleCare and the LCD conveniently dying after white spots started appearing....) bwah ha ha ha ha
Originally posted by gugy
With 512mb coming standard across the line means the the hi-end Powermacs will come with 1gb standard. That's great!
with a nice little (0.1 - 1) ghz speedbump too...? ;-)
Originally posted by schizzylogic
Give me a break!
While 512MB would be great for running many apps at once, Mac OS X runs fine with only 256MB. True you don't want to run PhotoShop and iMovie, but you can run Safari, Mail, AppleWorks, etc all at the same time.
iMovie and GarageBand are bundled free with every mini. Apple flogs iLife more than either OS X or the mini, and never mind Mail and AppleWorks.
How lame is it that a machine can't effectively run the applications that it ships with? 256MB is perfectly adequate for light use, but Apple is trying to get people into the whole digital lifestyle thing. They can't do that if their digital lifestyle apps run poorly.
It's much more Apple like to pick up the box, plug in the machine, and have everything usable just like that.
I have a 400MHz Blue&White G3 Tower with only 256MB and it's VERY usable.
As a test I even got it to boot and run a few apps with only 64MB installed. However, it was painfully slow. LOL
Apple isn't going to sell machines on technical definitions of usability. The Mac mini, in particular, will be the first impression many people have of an Apple computer. Why not make it a nice one? "There is no step three," remember?
Originally posted by Amorph
iMovie and GarageBand are bundled free with every mini. Apple flogs iLife more than either OS X or the mini, and never mind Mail and AppleWorks.
How lame is it that a machine can't effectively run the applications that it ships with? 256MB is perfectly adequate for light use, but Apple is trying to get people into the whole digital lifestyle thing. They can't do that if their digital lifestyle apps run poorly.
It's much more Apple like to pick up the box, plug in the machine, and have everything usable just like that.
Apple isn't going to sell machines on technical definitions of usability. The Mac mini, in particular, will be the first impression many people have of an Apple computer. Why not make it a nice one? "There is no step three," remember?
well in any case the 256mb argument has gone on these boards for long enough... long live 512mb as standard...!! well, not too long...!!
Damn has to use ugly windows machine....
Originally posted by hanxu
come on apple, release it, I really need J2SE 5.0 for my project...
Damn has to use ugly windows machine....
virtual pc 7 not an option for you? performance issues, yeah, i know, but
1. dont have to use ugly windows machine
2. dont have to worry about and maintain ugly windows machine
3. you can backup 'drive images' quite easily incase your windows get infected or you/someone/something f8ck up the registry somehow
just an idea....
Originally posted by monkeyastronaut
No! Long live the one-button, scrollwheelless mouse.
Now, a one-button mouse with an embedded iPod-style clickwheel would be an interesting addition.
I find, one button mice are sooooo impractical,when surfing and reading long documents, and the right-click function is a god-send in most "pro" apps.
As for RAM, I have one point to make. Why do Apple expect users of one-slot machines to either throw away or try to sell their "base" memory from their machines, in order to house the bigger RAM chip which they HAVE to purchase to make the computer's performance sufficient for their needs?
Some say this is Apples way of offering comsumer choice. I say this is Apple operating on the cheap. As for video cards on "pro" G5s.. ppllleeeaassee..
Originally posted by DGNR8
I am always amazed at the venom the majority of apple users here express.
Maybe you'd be happier over at Macrumors.com?
Originally posted by Matsu
and hopefully Apple will fix that too, when they redesign the board for PCI-Ex
Bit confused doesnt the 2.0 G5 upwards have PCI express or are you talking about something else? I own the 1.6GHZ G5 so im in the dark here... Do you mean PCI-X as standard?