Actually, (knowing my stuff) that would be 2x512 MB that came with Mac Pro 2x1GB to fill the last two slots on that riser. Riser 2 has another 2x1GB and the last two slots I intend to fill with a 4GB kit 2x2GB. To Add, the current 5GB was set up with the Mac Pro with Tiger and it ran fine.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Is Lion as muhc of a RAM hog as SL?
- Thread starter mabaker
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
RAM is so cheap now though... 8GB costs next to nothing. I really don't see how you can say you don't have enough RAM when its so cheap
Well, my Imac only supports 3 GB RAM. So what now? I should buy a new computer every 4 years?
Frankly, I find that hard to believe. I've dealt with HP workstations with Windows 7, with integrated graphics more powerful than a GMA950. The thing just ground to a halt when playing basic video's, or sometimes even when scrolling. Probably a driver issue (it came and went with updates), but a GMA950 was oldschool when I was still in high school.
Frankly, I'd be a happy camper if even my new Xeon workstation at work felt as fast as my iMac i7. By all logic, it should be faster, it's a clean machine, but still...
So tell me, are you trolling?
Not on the 6,1 model its not. Its 3gb and I am maxed out.
http://www.crucial.com/store/listpa...z Intel Core 2 Duo (24-inch)&pl=Apple&cat=RAM
I participated in that thread, and it was frustrating as all hell...
Some people just didn't want to come to grips with the fact that you could wind up swapping with loads of inactive RAM. Nope, they just couldn't get their arms around that at all. I wanted to strangle some people, let's just leave it at that.
In the end, I "fixed" the problem by going to 8G RAM everywhere.
If there are going to be VM improvements in Lion, great. I may not need them so much any more with the 8G but others will.
Apple wants you too
There's a lot of folks here at MR that buys one every year or every other year. Given that apple is in the business to sell hardware and the newer generations of hardware run much better with Lion its a win for them.
You don't have to get Lion. After all, if won't improve your user experience, then it's not really an upgrade.
Whatever that really means.
Go instal Windows 7 on a Macbook with the GMA950 Graphics and then come back and tell me it doesn't run very well. Performance is excellent. You simply don't get the dreaded beachball, and sluggishness when pushing the machine hard in Windows it's clearly a lighter smother OS on the Macbook. Not to say Windows doesn't have issues it does but it does run better than Snow Leopard.
Last edited:
I can't share your view here as I'm running Lion on the very same configuration, but from external FW disk and with 23" ACD in dual display mode and I don't feel that sluggishess you are claiming. Sure, it's not the fastest Mac out there, but it's as usable as Snow Leopard for my daily work.
I'm on Snow Leopard now (32 bit kernel) it uses ~750 MB RAM and Lion (64 bit kernel) uses ~1 GB. Don't see how either OS is a RAM hog.
I'm using Lion on a 2009 mini with 4Gb of RAM; it runs about the same as Snow Leopard in my experience though Safari seem to be a real memory hog. Several times I've quit Safari only to free up half of in use RAM. Realistically I think I'm running the minimum configuration for a well functioning Lion install.
Why do people always bitch about RAM usage? What is the point of having RAM if you are not going to use it. Also, for what it's worth, Lion seems just as snappy to me as snow leopard did.
People bitch about RAM usage because when you fill your RAM, it's a HUGE performance hit when your computer has to page some if it back to the hard drive.
The more RAM the OS uses up, the less we get to use for applications and multitasking.
Lion is about as much of a RAM hog as SL. The base OS is not too RAM heavy, it's the applications with the resume function that make it heavier. There are also memory leaks right now which are a result of the beta, I'm pretty sure this will get patched in the final release of Lion. Overall, if you're running a lot of applications and using Mission Control correctly, you get much higher performance as long as you're using 4GB+ of RAM. The reason for this being the automatic of memory addressing to the applications per space created. The fast switching of spaces is in short genius. It allows you to work on a space just by swiping to it. Older machines will see a bit of a pullback unless you have 4GB of RAM but it's still useable. The increase in usability and speed of what you can do in Lion outweigh the RAM usage.
Its not under warranty though and i only use it for htpc which it works fine with 1gb, doesnt really need Lion but if im getting it for my macbook i may as well put it on the mini (if it works).
