Pierre at Betalogue seems to confirm what I suggested a few weeks ago: running Tiger on 512MB of RAM hurts. While in the process of troubleshooting some random freezes, he removed the third-party RAM from his PowerMac G5 Quad, bringing him down from 4.5GB to 512MB.
My, this is a painful computing experience! I just cannot believe how slow the machine becomes with only 512 MB. There was, quite predictably, lots of hard disk activity, but I didn’t expect the machine to become this slow. It was actually quite close to being unusable. Everything, absolutely everything was excruciatingly sluggish.Interestingly, though, he reports the experience being worse than running Tiger on his PowerBook G4, with 384MB of RAM. So is part of this just the experience of being able to use the computer that much faster, or is there something else going on here? Pierre conjectures that part of it might have to do with running a 30” display and a 23” display from the G5, but I’m not convinced. After all, I felt quite a similar disparity between going from 1GB to 512MB on the MacBook (and after a week of going back to 1GB, I’m honestly still surprised how fast the performance is).
The default amount of RAM sold with most computers is constantly rising. While Apple’s line is at 512MB across the board, I for one would be glad to see them take a stand by bumping that up to 1GB.
Update: Whoops. As YTX correctly points out below, the Mac Pro, 17” MacBook Pro, and high-end 15” MacBook Pro all come with 1GB standard, while the Mini, MacBook, iMac, and lower-end 15” MacBook Pro come with 512MB. Still, 1GB across the board would be a nice move.
I use a mini with 512MB and it is quite USABLE for me. Sure more might be better, but it works for me. I do movie editing, etc.
Interesting observation. Earlier this year I ran Tiger on my G4 PowerBook for several days with only the built-in 256MB of RAM (due to the failure of my add-on DIMM). While I wouldn't have wanted to run it that way forever, it was quite tolerable for basic Internet tasks like email and web browsing, and some Office document work. I wouldn't come close to describing it as unusable.
Just remember that you are going to have to pay Apple prices for that extra RAM you feel should be standard. Apple will just jack up the base price. I'll just as soon get the base product for as less money as possible and add in my own third party RAM. That MacPro Apple DDR2 RAM is very expensive. I'd rather get more modules from OWC and save some money.
I have found 512MB to be usable, but I wouldn't recommend anything but 1GB. I tried to use XP on a DELL with only 512MB and it was almost useless for anything, even browsing.
The new MacPros come with 1GB of RAM in the standard configuration. Also, the faster 15.4-inch MacBook Pros and the 17-inch MBPs start at 1GB. So it's not really 512MB across the board. Consumer models maybe, but not the newer pro models.
I purchased an early Intel i mac and upgraded my 512 Ram to 3d party 1Gb
My computer had all kinds of problems, Ram modules were replaced with other 3d party units till finally original Apple Ram was installed and all troubles came to an end so perhaps paying more is better.
I've got a Blue & White G3 with 512MB RAM and a 500MHz G4 upgrade, running Tiger. I've found it to be perfectly usable for the web/email type of use I have for it. I've also got a 300MHz clamshell iBook with 320MB RAM running Panther, and that's reasonably usable too. Certainly not as painful as my old Pentium 233/64MB laptop running Win98.
I know this is strictly anecdotal, but I've had no issues at all with my third-party (Corsair) 1GB DDR667 SO-DIMM I purchased for less than $100USD for my MacBook Pro. It installed just fine and has run without a hitch for about 6 months now. I don't necessarily agree that Apple's RAM is better, or at least not "better" enough to spend 3 times as much.
I am still amazed at how much memory everyone seems to think is neccessary to run OS X. Personally, I only have very limited experience with it, but I've been a Linux user since 1999. I have repeatedly pointed out how well my Old Macs(Wallstreet Series I, B&W G3(G4/400), PM 9600, & PM 7500) all run Linux very well with just 256MB RAM. Even on my Dell Dual Xeon 500Mhz machine, I only have 512MB RAM, and Linux is extrememly responsive. Of course, I'm as comfortable using a command line as a GUI, so I guess all the fancy extras that alot of Mac users crave is what makes OS X such a memory hog. Even WinDoZe XP runs well with 512MB RAM...... At least in my case, I can spend all that extra $$ on other things like drives...