[P1] ibook, panther and 96MB RAM

[Jack Rodgers]

On Dec 17, 2003, at 4:22 AM, e.mkeene wrote:

> Any computer trying to run Panther on 96MB RAM HAS TO CHUG. The fact 
> it is even chugging is miraculous. It should just tell you to get lost 
> instead. {Huge difference in behavior between Macs and PCs given awful 
> working conditions   8? ) OS 9 on the clamshells chugged with only 96 
> MBs of RAM. I know, I tried to use it to file online reports and it 
> would take hours. As soon as I maxed the
> RAM to 160 (top possible at the time) it was a happy camper.

RAM has always been a factor on the Mac. The more RAM the better.

OS 9 applications almost invariable shipped with the Get Info amount of 
RAM assigned set to a bare minimum needed to run the application. 
Doubling and tripling the minimum amount invariably improved 
performance turning a real chugger into a real runner. This however 
would reduce the total number of applications you could open since each 
one consumed its assigned amount of RAM. Using Virtual Memory will let 
you open more applications but it has its price tag in speed since RAM 
is a heck of a lot faster than disk memory.

OS X assigns memory dynamically as needed. But increasing the amount of 
RAM installed does improve performance as there is less need to use 
virtual memory and more data is stored in RAM memory.

Apple tries to keep the price of its computers down by not installing 
the maximum amount of RAM. It is doing a little better now by shipping 
my 17" with 512 Megs of RAM installed which is more than the minimum 
need to run smoothly but still not as nice as having 1 or 2 Gigs 
installed. The Titanium I bought shipped with a subpar amount of RAM, 
256 Megs and didn't work well until I tossed in a 512 Meg chip.

---
Trees are being sucked dry of life in South Florida by a tiny insect.
<http://www.lobatelacscale.com>