RAM In MacBooks is REALLY REALLY IMPORTANT

Discuss music production with Ableton Live.
Naive Teen Idol
Posts: 227
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2004 8:28 pm

RAM In MacBooks is REALLY REALLY IMPORTANT

Post by Naive Teen Idol » Sun Feb 04, 2007 12:44 am

I had a MacBook with 512 MB of RAM with Live for about two weeks before I said, "No more." It makes a HUGE difference in overall performance -- in load times, in saves and quits. The whole ball of wax -- everything.

I know just about 98% of this board prob. already knows this, but I'm saying it b/c for the 2% who think they can get by on the cheap -- well, trust me: you can't. Max it out before you drive yourself crazy.
MacBook 2 GHz Intel CoreDuo, 2GB RAM, Live 6.10, Reason 4.01, Reaktor 5.14, Novation Remote SL 25, GForce Oddity, TimewARP 2600, Arturia CS-80V 2, UC-33e, M-Audio FastTrack Pro, Roland Jupiter 6 w Europa mod

M. Bréqs
Posts: 1479
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 6:02 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Re: RAM In MacBooks is REALLY REALLY IMPORTANT

Post by M. Bréqs » Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:21 am

Naive Teen Idol wrote:I had a MacBook with 512 MB of RAM with Live for about two weeks before I said, "No more." It makes a HUGE difference in overall performance -- in load times, in saves and quits. The whole ball of wax -- everything.

I know just about 98% of this board prob. already knows this, but I'm saying it b/c for the 2% who think they can get by on the cheap -- well, trust me: you can't. Max it out before you drive yourself crazy.
Not just for macbooks my friend, but Live is RAM-hungry with all computers (PCs too).

ikke
Posts: 396
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 4:52 pm

Post by ikke » Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:10 am

so then upgrading from 1GB to 2GB IS important? (WinXP) I always thought it didnt matter as long as you dont use massive multi samples

Justin Thyme
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 10:40 pm

Post by Justin Thyme » Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:32 am

ikke wrote:so then upgrading from 1GB to 2GB IS important? (WinXP) I always thought it didnt matter as long as you dont use massive multi samples
Well, if you don't use massive multisamples, or a huge number of tracks, it may not be an issue.

But when it comes to music, more RAM and faster CPU are always better.

veggieryan
Posts: 125
Joined: Sun Feb 19, 2006 5:13 pm

Post by veggieryan » Sun Feb 04, 2007 5:44 am

512mb in xp is usable.
in mac osx it is terrible, anyone would notice. my girlfriend has 128mb on her old p3 dell and it is much more usable than a new macbook with 512mb.

you NEED 2gb in osx. period.

memory management in osx is very bad... thats why not many people run servers on osx... let the flames begin.

arctic ranger
Posts: 654
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2006 6:49 am
Location: inuvik NT/vancouver BC

Post by arctic ranger » Sun Feb 04, 2007 7:20 am

1 gig is just fine for me, but i got a video card
mpb c2d, remote sl, mpc1000, korg legacy, zebra 2, phoscyon, devastator

http://soundcloud.com/enrock/first-edit

glu
Posts: 2769
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 12:27 am

Post by glu » Sun Feb 04, 2007 8:31 am

512mb in xp is not usable for me.

I guess it depends on how you use Live.
no prevailing genre of music:
http://alonetone.com/glu

freqn
Posts: 620
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:18 am
Location: Midwest
Contact:

Post by freqn » Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:02 pm

Getting my macbook this week . Gonna replace the 2x512's with 2gigs and sell em.

compositeone
Posts: 271
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 12:22 pm
Contact:

Post by compositeone » Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:19 pm

I used 256 for while on live 5 but I was massivly constrained by the amount tracks I had. Moving from that to 1 gig blew my mind. :p
http://www.myspace.com/compositeswerve

"So what kind of music do you make?"
"Both kinds...... drum and bass."

sqook
Posts: 2430
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 8:14 pm
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Post by sqook » Sun Feb 04, 2007 3:08 pm

ikke wrote:so then upgrading from 1GB to 2GB IS important? (WinXP) I always thought it didnt matter as long as you dont use massive multi samples
When live 7 is released. ;)

muscleandhate
Posts: 693
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 5:54 pm

Post by muscleandhate » Sun Feb 04, 2007 3:29 pm

veggieryan wrote:512mb in xp is usable.
in mac osx it is terrible, anyone would notice. my girlfriend has 128mb on her old p3 dell and it is much more usable than a new macbook with 512mb.

you NEED 2gb in osx. period.

memory management in osx is very bad... thats why not many people run servers on osx... let the flames begin.
Not at all, OSX runs without problems with 512 RAM. I've been using my MacBook (CoreDuo) since September with 512 RAM and manage fine. In fact, I get much better performances with much lower latency with Live 5 in OSX than Live 6 in XP. Saying a P3 with 128BM is faster than my MacBook 2.00Ghz Dual Core processor is just a joke.

glu
Posts: 2769
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 12:27 am

Post by glu » Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:24 pm

Is this for DJ work or multitracking with audio and softsynths?

I just don't understand.... 512mb ram would choke my system. My Dell has 768 mb ram and runs OK but definately leaves a world to be desired.. My emachines has 1.25gb and it could even use more...
no prevailing genre of music:
http://alonetone.com/glu

leedsquietman
Posts: 6659
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 1:56 am
Location: greater toronto area

Post by leedsquietman » Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:41 pm

I can do a lot with 1GB ram (dual channel 400 Mhz) but then again, my laptop is beast (Dell Inspiron 9100) which weighs slightly less than an African elephant runs for 33 seconds on battery power and has a desktop 3.2 Ghz P4 chip with h/t (turned off in bios for live) which runs hotter than a steel furnace (g4 powerbook owners burnt laps are nothing on this!).

But plug the sucker into the AC in a ventilated area and it flies - it is still whupping ass on most of the dual-core machines my friends own (they are lighter and actually can run on a battery but my lappy still outperforms most of 'em). Of course, when the programs are truly optimized for dual core then I'll be left behind in the reear view mirror but I don't believe the dual core factor is properly implemented in Live or Cubase or other DAWS, the drivers are still almost beta in some cases.

glu
Posts: 2769
Joined: Thu May 19, 2005 12:27 am

Post by glu » Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:44 pm

leedsquietman wrote: Of course, when the programs are truly optimized for dual core then I'll be left behind in the reear view mirror but I don't believe the dual core factor is properly implemented in Live or Cubase or other DAWS, the drivers are still almost beta in some cases.

Yeah I wonder just how effectively Live currently makes use of multicores- but the performance thread along with individual testimonies have me pretty convinced that the difference is VERY noticable.
no prevailing genre of music:
http://alonetone.com/glu

leedsquietman
Posts: 6659
Joined: Sun Nov 19, 2006 1:56 am
Location: greater toronto area

Post by leedsquietman » Sun Feb 04, 2007 5:30 pm

the best thing is for multi core users, things will surely get even better but it would help if they settled down and didn't keep changing things so fast, such as Intel rumored to be changing their standard to quad core soon etc. That's fine but let's just let the dust settle on dual core for a while before we all need another upgrade and have to wait months for drivers to function etc.

Post Reply