retentivity matter — so is n’t Apple forgetting something ?
I really like the fresh iMac . For the same toll as the previous generation ( or less , for the two in high spirits - end models ) you get much more power , thanks to a G5 C.P.U. and an update system architecture , and more features , such as optical audio output and support for SATA drives . Style - wise , it ’s not as ultra a figure as the late version , but in many ways it ’s more pragmatic . ( It ’s surely easier to upgrade , thanks to a obliterable rearward panel that exposes most components for easy admittance — including , it appears , the hard drive , which required substantial computer operating room to replace in the former two iMac lines . ) In fact , the slim , all - in - one profile and the power to mount the iMac on a wall orVESA - compliantarm may actually open up up a few fresh markets for Macs . ( I think you ’ll be seeing a mountain of these on reception desk , on lab benches , and in “ exhibit”-type location . )
But as much as I care the new iMac line , I do have a couple kick : the abscence of built - in Bluetooth accompaniment ( minor kick ) and the famine of installed computer memory ( major beef ) . I ’ll save treatment of the former for another day ; today I desire to focalise on the latter : the paltry 256 MB of RAM — frustratingly inadequate — that Apple ship with the young iMac .
Before I get to the gist of this article , I should tell you that unlike some users , I ’m a fast believer in keeping the price of a product — especially a “ consumer - level ” point — down by not include feature film / hardware that the average consumer wo n’t want . So , for illustration , I agree with Apple ’s decision not to admit FireWire 800 interface in the young iMac , as most consumer do n’t have ( or need ) FireWire 800 peripherals . ( See my late Mac Gems Weblog entry for a related to discussion . ) Similarly , including an AirPort Extreme card with the young iMacs would jacklight up the price by another $ 50-$75 — a pregnant amount of money for a feature article that many people would never involve in a stationary computer .
That being say , when it comes to memory , I think Apple has run short too far for the sake of stumble a toll point .
The Apple website severalise you all the things you may do with the new iMac : work with exposure , channel-surf the Web , rip CDs , create music , and even produce movies . The new G5 chip , according to the land site , “ speeds up Mac OS X and all the other included software , such as iLife ’ 04 , Quicken 2004 and World Book . ” But has anyone in Apple ’s marketing department actuallyusedan iMac with 256 MB of memory to do any of those job or practice any of these app ? ( Perhaps not — whenever I ’ve peeked under the cowling of a presentment Mac at an Apple Store or at the Apple booth at a Macworld Expo , it ’s had extra RAM installed . ) Even the new gamy - closing manikin , with a sinewy 1.8GHz G5 central processing unit and a 20 - in LCD video display , is bogged down by insufficient RAM .
( To be middling , this behavior is n’t limited to Apple . Many Windows microcomputer vender take the same approach , leave only 256 megabit of RAM for computer run for Windows XP , which requires at least 512 megabyte , in my thought , to run well . But since I write for a Mac publication , and since I call up Apple postulate to distinguish its computers from trade good Windows PC , I ’m talking about the iMac . )
I ’m specially sensitive to this military issue right now because of a late experience of my own . A few hebdomad ago one of the RAM microprocessor chip in my PowerBook G4 ( 1.5GHz Aluminum 15″ ) went bad and had to be interchange . For a hebdomad , I had to use the PowerBook with only 256 megabyte of memory .
It was a irritating week .
Safari would take 15 - 20 seconds to unfold , and some page would n’t even exhibit . Trying to extend Mail , Safari , and a word processor — three applications that even the most beginning users are probable to use — at the same meter was nearly impossible . I really had to slow down my typing down to obviate “ dropped ” characters . And opening iPhoto with a subroutine library of less than 1000 exposure , without any other coating running , was little more than an example of spin out beachball performance artistry .
Granted , the PowerBook is n’t a G5 car , but it ’s currently the fastest PowerBook in the world and I think it was nearly unserviceable with 256 MB of RAM . When you consider that installing the replacement RAM chip ( 512 M , which brought the total to 768 MB ) “ fixed ” everything — the same software I was using before open immediately and perform well — it ’s clear that the lack of RAM was the bottleneck , not the 1.5GHz G4 processor .
I ’m not alone in this criticsm , and it ’s not a fresh issue ; Apple has been take to task for years for render insufficient random access memory in its data processor . In fact , longtime Mac users loosely include money for extra tup in their data processor purchasing budget . But is that the way it should be ? And what about raw users ? What about “ switchers ” ? What do you enjoin people who take their brand novel G5 iMac out of the box and enquire why its carrying into action seems to be lacking ? Few will likely suspect that it ’s a lack of remembering — not the mainframe or the OS — that ’s go along their new computer from execute .
Adding 256 megabit of Aries to an iMac G5 — resulting in a aggregate of 512 MB — would be you or me $ 40-$50 at today ’s retail prices , which have in mind Apple would most in all probability ante up $ 30-$40 ( or less ? ) for the same upgrade . That ’s a small investment that would result in significant gains for the consumer . Even if Apple could n’t afford to reduce their per - unit net by $ 30 and had to bring up the price of the iMac $ 30 , I think such a move would be worth it . How many iMac buyers would balk at an extra $ 30 ? And any competent commentator would praise Apple for not claim the low - RAM route . A few price - obsess “ analyst ” might object , but I think most would see the note value in such a move .
( Still to be determined is whether or not the new iMac requires that RAM chips be installed in pairs , like the Power Mac G5 line . Since the young iMac has only two RAM slots , if it requires pairs , upgrading the RAM would require that you dispose of the included memory and then install large RAM chips — thus importantly increase the cost to upgrade your computer storage post - purchase , whereas the cost to Apple to set up 512 MB from the start would remain modest . )
In the farsighted campaign , deficient stock RAM only bruise Apple . multitude whose first , or only , exposure to the Mac platform is using a Mac with too small Aries end up with perceptions that Macs are “ slow ” or that OS X is “ mentally ill ” — both common trait of estimator with too little RAM . Selling a computer with a G5 chip shot and Mac OS X but only 256 MB of RAM is like build a Ferrari with a two - gallon gasoline tank . No one would opine of doing that , and , likewise , Apple should n’t skimp on the RAM . Given today ’s memory intensive practical program and operating systems , an iMac based on “ leading - edge ” technology ( as Apple call it ) should transport with a minimum of 512 MB of Aries the Ram .
( For those of you unfortunate somebody out there who have been using Mac OS X with only 256 MB of Aries , please — please — do yourself and your Mac a favour and corrupt some more RAM . You ’ll be astonished what OS X can do — in terms of both operation and constancy — when properly feed . )
