Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Guesses of minimum RAM for Lion?

hachre said:
I expect RAM usage to lower in real world comparisons with Lion. I expect it to run ok on 512 and well on 1024 MB.
Click to expand...

You mean to say that apple will actually shrink OSX's foot print to such an extent that it will run ok on a 512mb machine when it does that now only with 2gb?

I'd say that could happen if we had a good track record from apple with safari, and other of its apps, but that's clearly not the case. Plus each version of OSX was more bloated then the prior version.
 
maflynn said:
You mean to say that apple will actually shrink OSX's foot print to such an extent that it will run ok on a 512mb machine when it does that now only with 2gb?

I'd say that could happen if we had a good track record from apple with safari, and other of its apps, but that's clearly not the case. Plus each version of OSX was more bloated then the prior version.
Click to expand...

In my opinion it runs okay on 1GB today. Our definitions of OK may wary :) For me it's good at 2GB, and just ok at 1GB atm.
 
I'm hoping for a reduction in RAM usage, but I doubt that will happen. Looks like I'm gonna have to max out my MacBook.
 
I imagine 2 GB will be recommended and 4 GB will be when it actually runs well for people that do a little more than just browsing and word processing. I am in the clear with 8 GB. :) I don't expect too many issues. I never page out with my recording software but can come close to it running HD video to my TV with Movist or VLC.
 
I would worry less about the minimum and just make sure you have the max your system can handle.


1gb is a joke :rolleyes:
 
maflynn said:
You mean to say that apple will actually shrink OSX's foot print to such an extent that it will run ok on a 512mb machine when it does that now only with 2gb?

I'd say that could happen if we had a good track record from apple with safari, and other of its apps, but that's clearly not the case. Plus each version of OSX was more bloated then the prior version.
Click to expand...

Well they want to get it down to run as much of it as they can on 128Mb machine so you'd think they would be trying to get everything smaller not bigger.
 
felch said:
I would worry less about the minimum and just make sure you have the max your system can handle.
Click to expand...

Not useful for everyone. I've never used 4 GB of RAM, even when gaming. And that includes the fact that my 9400M takes 256MB for itself. I'll upgrade to 8GB if I really need it, or if I find a good deal on RAM. Otherwise, I'll stick with 4.
 
dukebound85 said:
You do realize that the first intel macs had 512mb ram right?
Click to expand...

Sorry for the late reply, but Snow Leopard (the first Intel only version of OS X) was released well after those macs were released, several years later to be in fact. So it wasn't a bad business move for Apple to require 1GB of RAM for Snow Leopard.

-Don
 
I think I can safely say that the max amount the minimum ram could be is 3GB - Simply because thats what my Mac Pro Quad shipped with (a Mid-2010 Model no-less) and if they set it there I can see people who have machines like my White iMac still in use as their main machine being mighty annoyed (Although, depending on your usage, Apples RAM Requirements can be overstated - I have 10.5 booting on a 700Mhz G4 with 128MB RAM for example).
 
chrismacguy said:
I think I can safely say that the max amount the minimum ram could be is 3GB - Simply because thats what my Mac Pro Quad shipped with (a Mid-2010 Model no-less) and if they set it there I can see people who have machines like my White iMac still in use as their main machine being mighty annoyed (Although, depending on your usage, Apples RAM Requirements can be overstated - I have 10.5 booting on a 700Mhz G4 with 128MB RAM for example).
Click to expand...

Considering Apple doesn't even officially support 3GB of RAM as a configuration on most of their machines, I think it's doubtful that they would even consider that number. Only the Mac Pro's that came with triple-channel RAM supported it, but Apple refused to sell machines with 3GB's of RAM in them for all their other lines.

I think I may have already weighed in, but I can't see them requiring more than 1GB, not at this point. 1GB is very reasonable though, as no machine capable of running it is incapable of being upgraded to 1GB.

jW
 
I think 2 GB. Actually, I think Leopard and Snow Leopard require 2GB, "system requirements" be damned. On a serious note, I'm gonna guess 2GB, although in real-world it'll be pretty close to SL in ram use. The extra ram requirement will be so that the suspending applications works smoothly.
 
I doubt they'll change the system reqs above the current 1gb so it can be run on as many Macs as possible (i.e. making it the "must have" update for as many people as possible)- but the instant on feature might be something which can be turned off/on depending on system specs. If the iPhone/iTouch is anything to go by, it is probably very easily scalable in that once the system starts running out of RAM, old programs get taken out of RAM and their state stored on the hard drive or something.

I wonder if SSD users will get the ability to restore from the SSD since it's just as fast.

ps. Looking at http://www.apple.com/macosx/specs.html , it looks like Apple is very specific about what is minimum/general requirement, and what is required for feature XXX.
 
Mal said:
Considering Apple doesn't even officially support 3GB of RAM as a configuration on most of their machines, I think it's doubtful that they would even consider that number. Only the Mac Pro's that came with triple-channel RAM supported it, but Apple refused to sell machines with 3GB's of RAM in them for all their other lines.

I think I may have already weighed in, but I can't see them requiring more than 1GB, not at this point. 1GB is very reasonable though, as no machine capable of running it is incapable of being upgraded to 1GB.

jW
Click to expand...

I only posted it to try and stop someone claiming 4GB or similar as being the minimum, which would be silly - I expect 1GB required, 2GB for it actually be relatively useable daily, and it will boot with just 512MB (very slowly) (Like 10.5 really needs 1GB but will run on 128MB.. slowly, but it will run)
 
chrismacguy said:
I only posted it to try and stop someone claiming 4GB or similar as being the minimum, which would be silly - I expect 1GB required, 2GB for it actually be relatively useable daily, and it will boot with just 512MB (very slowly) (Like 10.5 really needs 1GB but will run on 128MB.. slowly, but it will run)
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was more elaborating than correcting.

jW
 
My mini I bought in 2007 only supports 2gb ram max. Core duo 32 bit. So not all are 2+. But might not be much added worth upgrading for in the first place. So wait and see.
 
I think it'll be 2GB... anyone who has used Lion can tell you that is a much bigger ram hog than Leopard... I've used the latest developer build and it never uses less than 2GB... in fact... just turning on the system pushes it past a gig... open up safari and you're back at 2GB...

One thing I did notice is that Lion is a lot lot snappier... maybe OSX is utilizing all the ram because it can, and not because it needs to? My MBP has 4GB RAM and I have noticed it's much faster... kinda reminds me of when Panther was released, it actually made older systems faster...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back