adding memory to macs

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
i've got a year-old powerbook G4. it's running OSX 10.3.9 but will be upgraded to tiger at christmas. it's got 512 of RAM in it at the moment.

when i run progammes like iphoto or mac the ripper and anything else, the whole thing is hugely slow. would adding RAM help with this? i've done a check at crucial.com, and apparently there's only one memory slot in this computer, and it's being used by (if i can remember right), a 256 addition that was put in when it was just a baby. so if i understand it, that'll have to be taken out before adding the new one?

so my questions are:
1. from what i remember, the 512 addition was in my price range. would that make a difference, or do i need to stretch to more?
2. is this easy enough to do? i think my brother will claim he can do it, any chance he's going to kill my computer?
3. what do i do with the old memory that i'm taking out? can i sell it on ebay or something?

thanks!

colette (a2lette), Saturday, 26 November 2005 13:42 (twenty years ago)

1. A GB if you can afford it. Jamming it full of RAM really does pay off in performance.
2. The only laptop I've put memory in was a clamshell iBook, but it was easy. Keyboard lifts up and there's your RAM slot.
3. Toss it. It's obsolete.

I do feel guilty for getting any perverse amusement out of it (Rock Hardy), Saturday, 26 November 2005 14:27 (twenty years ago)

i am in the EXACT same situation as colette

s1ocki (slutsky), Saturday, 26 November 2005 17:02 (twenty years ago)

Do Mac laptops (iBooks/Powerbooks) get significantly slower over time? I'm a little surprised to hear his Powerbook G4 is running so slowly. My brand new (see other thread) iBook G4 runs everything perfectly smooth -- ripping a CD in iTunes, running iWorks, iChat, Safari, and watching a DVD, all at once.

Mickey (modestmickey), Saturday, 26 November 2005 17:07 (twenty years ago)

yo, me too. except my powerbook only has, cough, 256MB.

i might as well get some memory for the ol' iMac too while i'm at it.

it's gonna have to be after xmas, tho'. unless santa is reading this.

x-post: no, but each new application released assumes more and more base memory. so the net effect is the same :)

grimly fiendish (grimlord), Saturday, 26 November 2005 17:08 (twenty years ago)

I'm pretty sure mine got slower, even using the same apps as when I started. I even did a complete clean reinstall and it helped a bit but it never seems to return to that out of the box snappiness.

I added 256MB to my 3-year-old 600MHz eMac recently, bringing it up to 512MB and I only really notice the difference when running Photoshop. iTunes is still much more sluggish than it was, just cause I think it doesn't like huge libraries.

It's not that bad at all, though, certainly nothing like using an aged PC at work. You know, a 3MB picture might take three seconds to come up or something. Which is why I'm surprised that colette is having problems with her year old one. Sounds like there's something wrong with it to me.

Alba (Alba), Saturday, 26 November 2005 17:40 (twenty years ago)

2. is this easy enough to do? i think my brother will claim he can do it, any chance he's going to kill my computer?

It's not too hard. But I've always had the genius bar at the apple store install RAM for me. They only charge $30 or so to put it in for you, and I figure $30 to make sure that my $$$ laptop isn't ruined is pretty good.


3. what do i do with the old memory that i'm taking out? can i sell it on ebay or something?

Yup. Ebay/Craigslist/etc

lyra (lyra), Saturday, 26 November 2005 17:56 (twenty years ago)

fwiw, crucial told me that i only had one slot when i actually only had one AVAILABLE slot. might want to check first.

changing ram is simple. $30 is a rip.

GARGLEBY (dr g), Saturday, 26 November 2005 18:06 (twenty years ago)

OTM. DIY.

I do feel guilty for getting any perverse amusement out of it (Rock Hardy), Saturday, 26 November 2005 18:12 (twenty years ago)

even i'm planning on doing it myself, and i'm a cack-handed buffoon.

grimly fiendish (grimlord), Saturday, 26 November 2005 18:18 (twenty years ago)

You have to pay the genius bar price AND buy it from them at inflated prices. Double the rip.

Colette has the stock 256 (or 512) plus another 256 in the second slot - so yeah, you'll need to remove that one. Definitely go for a gig, it's amazing what a difference it makes.

Erick Dampier is better than Shaq (miloaukerman), Saturday, 26 November 2005 18:25 (twenty years ago)

You guys are so lame with your lame-ass computer questions.

'you' vs. 'radio gnome invisible 3' FITE (ex machina), Saturday, 26 November 2005 18:32 (twenty years ago)

i am going to do this exact same thing very soon

however when i go to apple.com the only option they give me to upgrade is a 512 MB

how do i go up to a gig? do i have to use an APPLE chip or just ANY OL' CHIP??

i am going to have to upgrade this stupid machine, as i am running out of hard drive space as well AND i'm still running jaguar. i guess this is what i get for avoiding doing anything to it for 3 years.

Homosexual II (Homosexual II), Saturday, 26 November 2005 18:54 (twenty years ago)

you need to go here. thass all.

grimly fiendish (grimlord), Saturday, 26 November 2005 19:06 (twenty years ago)

I bought 1GB for my daughter's Mini from here, and they're cheaper than Crucial on the two or three items I checked. Fast shipping, no complaints.

I do feel guilty for getting any perverse amusement out of it (Rock Hardy), Saturday, 26 November 2005 19:20 (twenty years ago)

hmm. from a UK perspective, crucial's best: free shipping. but mandee, you might be better with rock's lot.

grimly fiendish (grimlord), Saturday, 26 November 2005 19:26 (twenty years ago)

bloody hellfire. memory for the iMac isn't cheap. at least: not as cheap as i hoped. but fuck it ... 66 quid to give the whole thing a new lease of life is probably worth it.

roll on, january pay packet.

grimly fiendish (grimlord), Saturday, 26 November 2005 19:30 (twenty years ago)

I bought my memory from www.macsales.com - they were a few dollars cheaper than Crucial in the end.

Erick Dampier is better than Shaq (miloaukerman), Saturday, 26 November 2005 19:56 (twenty years ago)

ok, the price difference between adding 512 and 1GB is huge-- $66 vs $195.

i'd really find it hard to stretch to two hundred dollars on this, but is it even worth doing just the 512?

thanks for all the thoughts!

colette (a2lette), Monday, 28 November 2005 15:34 (twenty years ago)

As I said, colette, I'd be suspicious that lack of RAM is really your problem. Have you tried doing a reinstall of OS X?

Alba (Alba), Monday, 28 November 2005 15:37 (twenty years ago)

Also, based on what other people have told me, I'd leave off upgrading to Tiger anyway. It sound like OS X is getting a bit bloated.

Alba (Alba), Monday, 28 November 2005 15:38 (twenty years ago)

Yep, Tiger has some bugs. :-(

Nathalie (stevie nixed), Monday, 28 November 2005 15:41 (twenty years ago)

OS X is bloated if you're a simpleton who can't put down proper money for RAM.

'you' vs. 'radio gnome invisible 3' FITE (ex machina), Monday, 28 November 2005 15:50 (twenty years ago)

It's bloated full-stop.

Forest Pines (ForestPines), Monday, 28 November 2005 15:51 (twenty years ago)

How much RAM do you have? What CPU?

'you' vs. 'radio gnome invisible 3' FITE (ex machina), Monday, 28 November 2005 15:53 (twenty years ago)

upgrading to tiger should make it fractionally faster, but it is def worth upping the memory from 512, even another 256 should make some difference, and making it up to a 1G should make it very pleasant (even on single processor machines). it's worth checking you've got some good hard disk space spare for the virtual memory to play with too.

Britain's Obtusest Shepherd (Alan), Monday, 28 November 2005 16:06 (twenty years ago)

Jon, my point is that a year old Powerbook with 512MB shouldn't be running slowly with something like iPhoto.

Alba (Alba), Monday, 28 November 2005 16:10 (twenty years ago)

Yea, RAM is urgent and key since the windowing system uses main memory as a "swap" for vram.

xpost.

I have a year old 12" powerbook with 768 megs of RAM and iPhoto runs fine.

'you' vs. 'radio gnome invisible 3' FITE (ex machina), Monday, 28 November 2005 16:13 (twenty years ago)

Exactly! So perhaps there's something else wrong with colette's powerbook, not just lack of RAM (my three year old eMac was fine with iPhoto even when I only had 256MB RAM)

I suppose if reinstalling does help with whatever's screwing up her machine, then an upgrade to Tiger will do a similar job. So yeah, go Tiger if you're set on it, colette. But I'd do that first and see if the install helps, before spending money on RAM.

Alba (Alba), Monday, 28 November 2005 16:15 (twenty years ago)

Run activity monitor and see if something is hogging stuff?

'you' vs. 'radio gnome invisible 3' FITE (ex machina), Monday, 28 November 2005 16:19 (twenty years ago)

Have you tried doing a reinstall of OS X?

jesus! don't do this. it's not windows. brrr. nick, you're a mentalist.

have you ever let it run its overnight maintenance things? if not, open terminal and type:

sudo periodic monthly

it'll ask you for your admin password. enter this, and wait. then do:

sudo periodic weekly

(which will take ages)

and

sudo periodic daily

you might find this helps. failing that ... you might try getting hold of diskwarrior, or whatever diagnostic tool the mac professional of choice uses these days.

actually: the built-in usage monitor thing is fucking helpful. i cannot for the life of me remember what it's called - i just have it running in the dock - but it's something like "activity monitor" and it'll be in /Applications/Utilities. it will tell you, at a glance, what processes are running and how much CPU/memory/etc they're using.

but woo, don't go reinstalling the OS unless your machine is actually melting or on fire or something :)

x-post

grimly fiendish (grimlord), Monday, 28 November 2005 16:20 (twenty years ago)

There's a number of idiot proof utilities to run those tasks also.

Also, run disk utility and check to make sure the "SMART" status of the drive is ok. I had a pbook disk die on me and performance was the first sign of it checking out.

Also, if anyone is interested in an awesome backup / system cloning solution... find ye one "carbon copy cloner"

'you' vs. 'radio gnome invisible 3' FITE (ex machina), Monday, 28 November 2005 16:24 (twenty years ago)

Oh, well I reinstalled OS X without any real problems after advice on here and it speeded things up a bit and solved a Finder window bug that had developed.

Isn't all that sudo periodic daily stuff just the same as what MacJanitor does without poking about in terminal?


Alba (Alba), Monday, 28 November 2005 16:26 (twenty years ago)

grimly makes a good point WRT the periodic maintenance log rotation etc

"Activity Monitor" is in /Applications/Utilities. is good

Britain's Obtusest Shepherd (Alan), Monday, 28 November 2005 16:26 (twenty years ago)

yes MacJanitor is a good user way to do that periodic stuff

(Mike Bombich is my homey)

Britain's Obtusest Shepherd (Alan), Monday, 28 November 2005 16:27 (twenty years ago)

carbon copy cloner

yeah, I used this to be safe (with external HD) when I did the reinstall.

Alba (Alba), Monday, 28 November 2005 16:27 (twenty years ago)

xpost

MacJanitor

yes. but i couldn't remember what it was called. and messing about in the terminal makes me feel OLD-SKOOL.

grimly fiendish (grimlord), Monday, 28 November 2005 16:28 (twenty years ago)

Yea, I'm thinking about keeping my cloned firewire disk in my desk at work....

'you' vs. 'radio gnome invisible 3' FITE (ex machina), Monday, 28 November 2005 16:35 (twenty years ago)

xposts - isn't OSX Tiger faster than the previous version? Even with the extra cruft?
It f****** well should be, considering how much Windows XP kicks Panthers arse speed wise (with same amount of ram, similar HD speed etc).

fandango (fandango), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:20 (twenty years ago)

My Windows XP machine hoses when I run a lot of big applications in a way that my OS X laptop doesn't. Fairly comprable processor/ramwise.

'you' vs. 'radio gnome invisible 3' FITE (ex machina), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:23 (twenty years ago)

Madchen's two-year-old Compaq (snigger) running XP skelps the arse off my six-month-old Mac mini, loathe though I am to admit it. Tiger is slower than Panther, by a good hike. Shonky object-based systems, sigh.

stet (stet), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:30 (twenty years ago)

Loath or loathed (by mac evangelists)

Alba (Alba), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:36 (twenty years ago)

My Windows XP machine hoses when I run a lot of big applications in a way that my OS X laptop doesn't. Fairly comprable processor/ramwise.

Mac's definitely have the edge on stabilty now (just). It annoys me when programs do still lock up in action though and "but, it's just the GUI" (mac zealots). Honestly! Without posessing 1337 ninja-fast command line powers it makes f-all difference HOW it crashes. Just that it does often enough to still be problematic.

Of course I can count the number of times I've had to power-off reboot my iBook on one hand. XP would require a tally chart to keep track. Even if it's not a thrice-daily occurence anymore (see: Win98x OSs).

fandango (fandango), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:54 (twenty years ago)

By "hose" I meant "takes 60 seconds to be responsive" after sleep when running Firefox, Visual Studio, gaim, Photoshop, Word and Outlook.

'you' vs. 'radio gnome invisible 3' FITE (ex machina), Monday, 28 November 2005 17:56 (twenty years ago)

erk: subs pls fix

xpost: I don't think I've ever had the Mac mini crash, though Safari does quit a lot.

stet (stet), Monday, 28 November 2005 18:05 (twenty years ago)

that's because it's shit.

grimly fiendish (grimlord), Monday, 28 November 2005 18:11 (twenty years ago)

(nb: it's not. i just have a pavlovian reaction to certain things stet says.)

grimly fiendish (grimlord), Monday, 28 November 2005 18:12 (twenty years ago)

Yes, like "Get Quicksilver", which I told you about years ago and you ignored until last week, chumper.

stet (stet), Monday, 28 November 2005 18:14 (twenty years ago)

that's because i'm still scarred by other things you've advised me to try:

camino for OS 9
launchbar
double blue aftershock and vodka

etc

grimly fiendish (grimlord), Monday, 28 November 2005 18:30 (twenty years ago)

camino don' work on OS 9, vodka kid.

stet (stet), Monday, 28 November 2005 18:37 (twenty years ago)

that's why i'm scarred by your advice.

no, OK, that horrible mozilla thing that ate my bookmarks.

grimly fiendish (grimlord), Monday, 28 November 2005 18:38 (twenty years ago)

Remember that a Mac Mini is basically an iBook in a square package. They're not going to be blazing fast.

Erick Dampier is better than Shaq (miloaukerman), Monday, 28 November 2005 18:50 (twenty years ago)

Yes, that's true. But you'd expect it to hold it's own against a two-year-old PC, no? The time of the Intel Macs can't come quick enough.

stet (stet), Monday, 28 November 2005 18:58 (twenty years ago)

Not really - the original Minis came with 256MB RAM that was almost impossible to upgrade on your own. 256 just isn't enough to run OS X and multiple programs, no matter what kind of processor is involved.

Which isn't a defense of the Mini, I thought it was kind of a ripoff then and still do.

Erick Dampier is better than Shaq (miloaukerman), Monday, 28 November 2005 19:19 (twenty years ago)

Well, mine has 1GB in it. And I think they're good if you a) have a honking big screen already, b) want something to tide you over till the IntelBooks arrive.

stet (stet), Monday, 28 November 2005 19:24 (twenty years ago)

Getting back to the original "slow down" question, you might want to check to see how much disk space you have left. Once you get down below 1GB your swap partition gets mucked up.

Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Monday, 28 November 2005 19:27 (twenty years ago)

I shall risk repeating myself by saying that contrary to the received wisdom, until a couple of months ago I was running OS X on 256MB quite happily (very happily when my eMac was new, 3 years ago) with several programs running at once. When I used Photoshop I tended to close down iTunes and Firefox, just cause it seemed sensible, but generally things were fine.

RAM RAM RAM that's all I ever hear.

Alba (Alba), Monday, 28 November 2005 19:27 (twenty years ago)

i have 256MB in my powerbook and it's a lot slower than i'd like. when i bought it, i intended to stick more memory in within a couple of months. but drinking BEER got in the way.

Once you get down below 1GB your swap partition gets mucked up

good point. i've been there, with the iMac. it's horrible.

grimly fiendish (grimlord), Monday, 28 November 2005 19:47 (twenty years ago)

ok, this is an interesting discussion, i'm learning stuff, thanks.

i've got a ton of memory-- like 40gb (keep music on an external drive, another question for another day, sigh). it came with 256 standard and we added 256 straightaway, so that's how i'm at 512.

using the nifty activity monitor tells me it's all firefox's fault-- taking up about 80% of CPU...is that normal? so yeah, it all gets sluggish when i use firefox, iphoto and pretty much any third programme (usually itunes or word, or mac the ripper).

i think i'm just impatient and i should actually take out that extra 256 of RAM that was installed, and instead read buddhist tennants, or something.

no, that's just working till like 10 at night talking! more RAM! faster, faster!

colette (a2lette), Monday, 28 November 2005 22:02 (twenty years ago)

I would definitely start by trying Safari over Firefox. I'm on a G5 desktop, but Safari is 5-10% of the CPU on mine and iTunes is 7-10% while playing something.

I can't remember how you find them, but if memory is your problem there will be a log file showing the number of 'pageouts' you've had recently.

Erick Dampier is better than Shaq (miloaukerman), Monday, 28 November 2005 22:08 (twenty years ago)

Not really - the original Minis came with 256MB RAM that was almost impossible to upgrade on your own.

Not true. You could easily upgrade it with stock RAM, with nothing more than a putty knife to open the case. In a lot of ways, it was even more simple to do it than it is with a PC.

That said, no matter how much memory you have in the thing, it can still be a beast, and a lot of that's probably the fault of the hard drive--it's a notebook drive, and consequently it's really slow. You can upgrade that too, if you want.

Sean Carruthers (SeanC), Monday, 28 November 2005 22:11 (twenty years ago)

I keep a CPU Portal widget open on my desktop, and when I feel system performance lagging, I check it and it's pegged at 100%. Firefox is usually the problem, but quitting and restarting that app takes care of it and performance goes back to zippy. Also, I have 1.75 GB of RAM. It's worth the investment.

Opening my daughter's Mini to add RAM was not exactly easy, but it was doable. I had to sharpen the putty knife to wedge it in at all, and you have to have a few small shims handy to hold one side open while you wedge the other.

I do feel guilty for getting any perverse amusement out of it (Rock Hardy), Monday, 28 November 2005 22:26 (twenty years ago)

it's all firefox's fault-- taking up about 80% of CPU...is that normal?

no, it most certainly isn't!

that's insane. does it always do that? mine's sitting here on about 3%. normally 80% would suggest it's running some mental java lunacy ... do you have extensions on it and stuff?

wow.

grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 00:23 (twenty years ago)

Not strictly related, but Apple's just released a tuner to make fast broadband, er, faster

http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/broadbandtuner10.html

stet (stet), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 00:36 (twenty years ago)

firefox on my xp machine eats resources, too. it seems to be a common problem, at least in windows:

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Memory_Leak

toby (tsg20), Tuesday, 29 November 2005 09:13 (twenty years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.