Is Mac OS X becoming a memory hog?

broken_g3 · Jul 25th, 2008, 06:19 PM

I've been looking around the internet, and even around these forums, and I've noticed something. Mac OS X, though originally a streamlined, simple operating system, has been requiring higher and higher system configurations, with minimal gain.

If anyone doesn't know it already, I HATE memory hogs. This is why I prefer Windows 2000 to XP, Microsoft Office to OpenOffice, Opera to Firefox and, yes, Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X. This is why I HATE Windows Vista- the worst excuse for a Windows OS ever (aside from Me). Recently, at Wikipedia, I found the system requirements for Mac OS X leopard and Windows Vista. Here they are:

Windows Vista

800 MHz Pentium III processor
512 Megabytes RAM
DVD-ROM drive
20 GB hard drive capacity, 15 GB of free space

Mac OS X v.10.5

At least 867 MHz PowerPC G4 processor
512 Megabytes RAM
DVD-ROM drive
At least 9 GB hard drive space

Certainly, OS X will run very quickly on any new Mac- just how Vista will run quickly on any new PC. But I have a friend with a 1.42 GHz Power Macintosh G4, he just upgraded to Leopard and tells me he immediately notices that the computer is up to 15s slower on startup, and that it lags on pretty much every request, aside those within the operating system (like spaces). He claims that "this is the first Mac OS that's dissapointed me".

So, what's your opinion? Has Mac OS X become a memory hog, destined to follow the fate of Windows Vista? (I would hate a world where everyone uses Linux. That would SUCK)

Gerbill · Jul 25th, 2008, 06:32 PM

	Quote:			Originally Posted by broken_g3
	So, what's your opinion? Has Mac OS X become a memory hog, destined to follow the fate of Windows Vista? (I would hate a world where everyone uses Linux. That would SUCK)

Who cares? I have 4 GB of memory, so who cares if a little of it goes to waste. I don't care about Windows or Linux either, no relevance to my life at all.

monokitty · Jul 25th, 2008, 06:33 PM

My Mac mini (G4) also slowed with the install of Leopard (10.5.x), but I can live with a very slight decrease in regular speed.

Pre-G5 units should stay with 10.4.11 for optimal performance. With Intel-based Macs, it's a non-issue, and with RAM being as dirt cheap as it is, it stays a non-issue for most users.

mikefly · Jul 25th, 2008, 06:49 PM

I found it super annoying when I upgraded from Tiger to Leopard. I expected things to run faster, but it slowed my MBP down considerably, but then again, I didn't do a clean install.

A month ago I realized that I had migrated my G4 MBP running tiger to my new C2D MBP and then upgraded that machine from tiger to leopard. It was running super slow and it was really frustrating. I finally lost it, wrote off a weekend and wiped it clean and reinstalled everything.

I knew it was a good idea when CS3 took 15 minutes to install instead of over 50! Since then, my machine has been kicking ass. I'm loving it now!

I'm just sad I'll have to do it all over again in the fall with Snow Leopard...

fjnmusic · Jul 25th, 2008, 07:07 PM

We have one Intel iMac running OS X 10.5, one G3 running OS 10 X 10.4 and three more G3's running OS X 10.3. They all work fine in OS X and I only run OS 9.2 if I have no other option, which is pretty much never. Really, I think you're making too big a deal about this. Your fear of OS X seems to be rooted in something else. Fear of change, maybe?

csonni · Jul 25th, 2008, 07:14 PM

Maybe this is what Apple has caught on to and thus, will be releasing Snow Leopard.

NBiBooker · Jul 25th, 2008, 07:22 PM

	Quote:			Originally Posted by broken_g3
	I've been looking around the internet, and even around these forums, and I've noticed something. Mac OS X, though originally a streamlined, simple operating system, has been requiring higher and higher system configurations, with minimal gain. If anyone doesn't know it already, I HATE memory hogs. This is why I prefer Windows 2000 to XP, Microsoft Office to OpenOffice, Opera to Firefox and, yes, Mac OS 9 to Mac OS X. This is why I HATE Windows Vista- the worst excuse for a Windows OS ever (aside from Me). Recently, at Wikipedia, I found the system requirements for Mac OS X leopard and Windows Vista. Here they are: Windows Vista 800 MHz Pentium III processor 512 Megabytes RAM DVD-ROM drive 20 GB hard drive capacity, 15 GB of free space Mac OS X v.10.5 At least 867 MHz PowerPC G4 processor 512 Megabytes RAM DVD-ROM drive At least 9 GB hard drive space Certainly, OS X will run very quickly on any new Mac- just how Vista will run quickly on any new PC. But I have a friend with a 1.42 GHz Power Macintosh G4, he just upgraded to Leopard and tells me he immediately notices that the computer is up to 15s slower on startup, and that it lags on pretty much every request, aside those within the operating system (like spaces). He claims that "this is the first Mac OS that's dissapointed me". So, what's your opinion? Has Mac OS X become a memory hog, destined to follow the fate of Windows Vista? (I would hate a world where everyone uses Linux. That would SUCK)

You're comparing lemons (Vista) and Apples, pardon the pun. I dare you to run Vista with those minimum requirements. Even if it does run, it runs with reduced functionality. (i.e. watered down interface). Vista's real minimum requirements are signficantly higher. My experience has been that it needs at LEAST 2 gigs of ram and a dual-core P4 class processor and a hole pile of hard drive space.

Having said that, there is a certain element of truth to your notion of Leopard running slower on older machines. Mac users have taken for granted the longer lifespans of their hardware and we sometimes don't realize how different OS X versions can be. Leopard is significantly more advanced than Tiger and much, much more than Panther, which is the OS I think the machine originally shipped with.

Could Leopard be faster? Yep. As others have pointed out, that's likely the genesis for Snow Leopard. Can be use less system resources? You betcha. Take a look at the tiny footprint of OS X on an iPhone.

allanyong · Jul 25th, 2008, 07:32 PM

4GB is $100 on other world computing now....

How much ram can you buy with $100 back to era of G4

The problem with Vista, it doesn't run that smoothly on the NEW machines.

edmondk · Jul 25th, 2008, 08:00 PM

I have a 1.25 Ghz mini with 1gig of RAM running 10.3.9 and a 1.42 Ghz ibook with 2 Gigs running tiger and I was thinking of upgrading both of them to leopard in a month or so when i get an iphone. I already feel like my mini drags sometimes and was hoping that leopard would pep it up. Part of the reason for upgrading is so that I am not forced to run ancient versions of safari and firefox.
So is it a bad idea for my to upgrade to leopard? am I better off just upgrading my mini to tiger and leaving the ibook as it is?

psychodad · Jul 25th, 2008, 08:19 PM

Seems that there are expectations of improved performance without demanding more of the supporting hardware.

My 12" PB is pretty much at the limit of specs to run Leopard - and it runs it pretty well. The limit is RAM. The PB max is 1.25GB, and if I have a few apps running for a while, Activity Monitor shows a shortage of free RAM - whereas Tiger used less.

The OS still seems pretty slim to me, and since later machines accept more RAM, and it's cheap these days, then it's a price worth paying.