Will Leopard run smoothly with 512MB of RAM?

cDaddy84 · Jun 25, 2008

We have a Macbook with the 1.83 GHz, 512 MB of RAM and Tiger installed. If we were to install Leopard on it, would it run smoothly or is there not enough RAM to support it?

Thanks

D3v1L80Y · Jun 25, 2008

Leopard Minimum system requirements:

* Mac computer with an Intel, PowerPC G5, or PowerPC G4 (867MHz or faster) processor
* 512MB of memory
* DVD drive for installation
* 9GB of available disk space

Avenged Origami · Jun 25, 2008

D3v1L80Y said:
Leopard Minimum system requirements:

* Mac computer with an Intel, PowerPC G5, or PowerPC G4 (867MHz or faster) processor
* 512MB of memory
* DVD drive for installation
* 9GB of available disk space

it will run on minimum requirments but 512MB
really isnt enough in my opinion
i have a macbook 2.2ghz and 2 gigs of ram and it is rarely slow...
i would highly recommend upgrading your ram first.

Avenger2SER · Jun 25, 2008

Avenged Origami said:
it will run on minimum requirments but 512MB
really isnt enough in my opinion
i have a macbook 2.2ghz and 2 gigs of ram and it is rarely slow...
i would highly recommend upgrading your ram first.

I second that, besides ram so cheap now you can't go wrong maxing out your ram.

Zoolook · Jun 25, 2008

cDaddy84 said:
We have a Macbook with the 1.83 GHz, 512 MB of RAM and Tiger installed. If we were to install Leopard on it, would it run smoothly or is there not enough RAM to support it?

Thanks

The answer is yes it would be supported, but it would not be very 'smooth'. With one application at a time open, you might have no issues, but you'd be putting your machine at a serious disadvantage if you're trying to run several apps at once.

I would recommend going straight to 2 GBs of RAM - simply because it is so cheap now.

Go here for example, $50 for 2Gbs is pretty good value, and Crucial is great RAM. If that's a bit painful, 1GB for just over $30 is a steal.

cDaddy84 · Jun 25, 2008

That's what I needed to know! Thanks again.

Noxian · Jun 26, 2008

Even Tiger didn't run that well on 512, I had a MacBook with only 512 and upgraded in less then a month after buying it, Even when 1GB sticks were 200$ a piece it was well worth it.

INTELligent · Jun 26, 2008

Yeah, it's not that fact that it will run, it's just a matter of how fast it will run...

Good sticks
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145157

I know Zoolook gave the link for Crucial RAM, seeing as how Crucial doesn't have the best track record, I wouldn't take any chances... Their Ballistix Tracers had everyone fooled for a while, then they started dying and they lost some of their market... Ppl were angry with Corsair for slipping those ProMos based chips into their lower XMS2 RAM models, I think Crucial put the same thing to practice. But seeing as how overclocking is unlikely for your application here, it's not to worry.

dtravis7 · Jun 26, 2008

I first tried Leopard on my then stock Intel 1.66 Core Duo mini with 512Megs RAM. It ran fine but like was already stated, open too many things and then it will drag.

zongamin · Jun 26, 2008

What would be the point? If you are going to buy leopard, you might as well spend the extra few dollars or pounds for a gig or two of ram.

Zoolook · Jun 26, 2008

INTELligent said:
Yeah, it's not that fact that it will run, it's just a matter of how fast it will run...

Good sticks
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145157

I know Zoolook gave the link for Crucial RAM, seeing as how Crucial doesn't have the best track record, I wouldn't take any chances... Their Ballistix Tracers had everyone fooled for a while, then they started dying and they lost some of their market... Ppl were angry with Corsair for slipping those ProMos based chips into their lower XMS2 RAM models, I think Crucial put the same thing to practice. But seeing as how overclocking is unlikely for your application here, it's not to worry.

Crucial are fine, I was building high end PCs from the mid-90's until only 18 months ago or so, and almost always used either Crucial or Corsair. Besides, as you say, the chips needed for a MacBook are very stable and run at very modest speeds (CL 3.5 anyone?)

dtravis7 · Jun 26, 2008

Zoolook said:
Crucial are fine, I was building high end PCs from the mid-90's until only 18 months ago or so, and almost always used either Crucial or Corsair. Besides, as you say, the chips needed for a MacBook are very stable and run at very modest speeds (CL 3.5 anyone?)

Agreed and I have never had issues with Crucial Ram either. Kingston has been quite good also, but I really trust Crucial.

INTELligent · Jun 26, 2008

Zoolook said:
Crucial are fine, I was building high end PCs from the mid-90's until only 18 months ago or so, and almost always used either Crucial or Corsair. Besides, as you say, the chips needed for a MacBook are very stable and run at very modest speeds (CL 3.5 anyone?)

dtravis7 said:
Agreed and I have never had issues with Crucial Ram either. Kingston has been quite good also, but I really trust Crucial.

Both of you try some G. Skill, then we'll talk...

I can't get on a forum such as [H], XtremeSystems, or OCForums without seeing a thread about somebody's Ballistix that have crapped out...

And a 3.5 CL? That's either expensive, low frequency, or both...

Zoolook · Jun 26, 2008

INTELligent said:
Both of you try some G. Skill, then we'll talk...

I can't get on a forum such as [H], XtremeSystems, or OCForums without seeing a thread about somebody's Ballistix that have crapped out...

And a 3.5 CL? That's either expensive, low frequency, or both...

We're not talking about specialist RAM for gaming rigs or overclocking. The RAM used in a MacBook is pretty vanilla, and would be fine. Seriously, Crucial is pretty rock solid with its mid-range RAM.

CL 3.5 is slow - that was the point. Back in the day, CL2.0 was more the norm for gaming rigs.