Anyone try Mountain Lion with 2GB RAM?

Question

Level 1

102 points

Anyone try Mountain Lion with 2GB RAM?

We have a 20" iMac that we got around the end of 2008 or beginning of 2009. It came with 1GB RAM. I installed Snow Leopard on it when it came out, and performance was snappy (but we didn't do virtualization, Adobe CS, or heavy multitasking). I upgraded it to 2GB RAM. Now, I'm wondering if I should install 10.8. I know it's more memory-hungry than 10.6 (but less so than 10.7).

I'm not interested in hearing from people with 4 or 8 GB RAM saying that you need more RAM to do anything. Is there anyone out there who actually has used ML with 2GB RAM (and not with a SSD)?

iMac, Mac OS X (10.6.8), Late 2008, 2GB DDR RAM, HDD

Posted on Jul 30, 2012 3:53 PM

Reply

Answer 1

Mac OS XP Author

Level 1

102 points

Jul 30, 2012 4:04 PM in response to Mac OS XP

Specifically, how does performance of 10.8 compare with 10.6?

Reply

Answer 2

den.thed

Level 9

76,840 points

Jul 30, 2012 4:58 PM in response to Mac OS XP

They probably can't answer because either there system is bogged down or there Hard Drive has died from disk thrashing.

Adding that a 50 or $60 RAM upgrade is far cheaper than a $150 + the labor Hard Drive replacement from (disk thrashing) excessive VM paging.

Upgrade Apple iMac Memory & more – Easy Guide, Free Installation Videos.

Crucial Memory Upgrades for Macs - Apple Memory

Reply

Answer 3

BDAqua

Level 10

238,841 points

Jul 30, 2012 5:00 PM in response to den.thed

😀

Reply

Answer 4

Mac OS XP Author

Level 1

102 points

Jul 30, 2012 5:03 PM in response to BDAqua

Is that supposed to mean something?

Seeing as my iMac is supported and meets the minimum memory requirements, den.thed, I think you may be exaggerating a bit.

Reply

Answer 5

BDAqua

Level 10

238,841 points

Jul 30, 2012 5:19 PM in response to Mac OS XP

It wasn't supposed to mean anything negative, I just had a bit of a smile reading den's reply, because I hadn't thought of that, but could be possible.

Personally I find Apple's Minimum Requirements BARE Minimums, if not laughable.

I'm not sure yet, but possibly I've found somebody that tried it with the minimum RAM...

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4159666?tstart=0

Sorry if you took any offense, there was non intended.

Reply

Answer 6

den.thed

Level 9

76,840 points

Jul 30, 2012 5:20 PM in response to Mac OS XP

Mac OS XP wrote:

I think you may be exaggerating a bit.

OK maybe a little. However you really should watch your Page outs and Swap use because excessive totals will put lots of unnecessary ware & tare on your Hard Drive.

Reply

Answer 7

BDAqua

Level 10

238,841 points

Jul 30, 2012 5:23 PM in response to Mac OS XP

Nope, the other person has plenty of RAM, 8 GB, some other problem, but see how little is Free?

Reply

Answer 8

Mac OS XP Author

Level 1

102 points

Jul 30, 2012 5:31 PM in response to BDAqua

No worries, thanks for the info.

But if a computer has 8 GB RAM, isn't it possible that the user and/or system is more liberal than necessary with its allocation?

Reply

Answer 9

BDAqua

Level 10

238,841 points

Jul 30, 2012 5:42 PM in response to Mac OS XP

I think that any diff would be tiny, can't say it'd be no diff.

From my experience I'd say Apple's Minimums should be doubled if you want to say use a Browser these days, & tripled for even better performance.

10.8 does seem a bit better with RAM than 10.7, but 10.7.x didn't do well on my iMac with 4 GB, 4 times the minimum, upping it to it's max 6 GB made a big diff.

Not on it at the moment, but I don't think I've ever seen 10.8 use less than 3 GB+ just running very little.

Reply

Answer 10

Mac OS XP Author

Level 1

102 points

Jul 30, 2012 6:25 PM in response to BDAqua

Well me right now with email, web browsing, and a full day of usage, I'm using 3.04 GB out of 4GB in Mountain Lion. I had Lion before with the 4GB RAM and it was fine, but then again I have an SSD.

Wasn't 4GB only double Lion's min requirements?

I would go back and say again, with Snow Leopard (1GB RAM requirement) on the iMac and just 1GB RAM used, performance was just fine. I'm just trying to get an idea of how that would compare to 2GB RAM in ML.

Reply

Answer 11

BDAqua

Level 10

238,841 points

Jul 30, 2012 6:49 PM in response to Mac OS XP

Ah yes, you're correct Lion was 2 GB! 😊

An SSD would make a big diff, did you have that with 1 GB in 10.6?

Reply

Answer 12

Mac OS XP Author

Level 1

102 points

Jul 30, 2012 7:59 PM in response to BDAqua

No, actually the SSD is in my MBP which came with 4GB RAM and Lion (now Mountain Lion). The 1GB (now 2GB) of RAM iMac with 10.6 has a hard drive (part of my hesitation in upgrading it).

You see, I really want to take advantage of iMessage, Versions, Dictation, and all the other improvements, but on the other hand I don't want to spend another $60 for 4GB of RAM. So I'm trying to get an idea of what to expect.

I suppose if it came down to it and 10.8 was being too RAM-hungry I could revert via Time Machine, but I've never restored from Time Machine so I'm a little nervous.

Reply

Answer 13

BDAqua

Level 10

238,841 points

Jul 30, 2012 9:34 PM in response to Mac OS XP

I don't think you can revert using TM as far as I've read, seems some block on Apple's part to going back to it just works, a bootable clone is the only way to go back, & have it disconnected when installing 10.8, as the Install does things to every drive connected.

Reply

Answer 14

Mac OS XP Author

Level 1

102 points

Jul 30, 2012 9:48 PM in response to BDAqua

!? Then what's the point of Time Machine??? Does it matter if I have a bootable 10.6 DVD? I mean that's strange, no matter what is on the HDD I should be able to boot into the restore disk and connect my Time Machine backup.

By the way, I saw someone else in another thread who said shortly after a restart and with Safari running they had 1.13 GB RAM used and less than 500 MB wired.

Reply

Answer 15

BDAqua

Level 10

238,841 points

Jul 30, 2012 11:30 PM in response to Mac OS XP

You don't want to hear my opinion on the overly complicated, cantankerous TM, can't tell if it'll really Restore until it works... or doesn't!?

Sort of like calling the cops after an intruder shoots you, & you die, or maybe not.😟

It works for Millions, but fails for 10's of thousands, is this good?

Reply