RAM Question and Apple OS question

[axemanxt40]

Ok first I am looking to buy a laptop for college, which will be able to play games for the next 4 years. So I was wondering if I could get away with 512 RAM opposed to getting a gig?

And secondly, I basically have this issue of time, I know the best place to get my laptop from would be alienware...but they take a long time. Voodoo...takes maybe a little less time but its way more expensive.

I need a laptop on short notice, I want one with an ATI 9600 gfx card in it...so I am looking at an apple laptop. As you can tell about my question relating to RAM and gaming, I would like to be able to play some games in college. So I was wondering if anyone knows how Virtual PC w/ Windows XP on a apple runs games?

 

[InlineFive]

You should get 512MB, it's the best choice right now. 1GB (or more) is only necessary if you do a lot of graphics stuff or if you play MMORPG games.

I would avoid Alienware and Voodoo as their laptops arn't really mobile, just lots of power for games. What I would do is look at a higher-end Dell Inspirion laptop with a 9600 Mobile.

NO APPLE! Mac OS X doesn't have a lot of games compatible with it and Virtual PC is very slow on Macs in my experience. Just running simple applications like Word! I doubt you could even think about a game on Virtual PC.

So it basically boils down to, 512MB and Windows XP. A laptop is your personal choice but I like mobility more then raw power. Unless you are a strong person who can easily lug around an 8lb laptop and not have a care.

Hope this helps!

-Por

 

[Eug]

VPC does not run 3D games. Even if it did, it'd be a slideshow, because the vid card is emulated in VPC.

The Apple PowerBooks are the absolute best laptops out there IMO... except for gaming.

For OS X, 512 MB would be enough for most stuff. But if you do a LOT of multitasking or work with huge files, then 1 GB is recommended.

I usually recommend 512 MB for XP, and OS X uses even more memory than XP does.

 

[axemanxt40]

Yeh weight isn't a concern of mine...I'm kinda one of those geeky jocks. Also thank you for the help as I had no idea that the Virtual PC idea would be a bad idea.

Too bad mac os isn't better for gaming. Oh well.

 

[Overkast]

I think Panther may use less RAM than OS X does... I hear Apple made some speedy modifications to the OS for Panther.

512 may be sufficient for Panther.

 

[dnuggett]

I usually recommend 512 MB for XP, and OS X uses even more memory than XP does.

If you are buying a new Apple book you will be receiving Panther. The memory management capabilities of Jaguar and Panther are far better then XP. Those two versions will not use more memory than XP does, in fact it allocates amost 100% of the memory to the front most program. You can also change those settings to control who gets what. Much more efficient than XP.....

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

I usually recommend 512 MB for XP, and OS X uses even more memory than XP does.

If you are buying a new Apple book you will be receiving Panther. The memory management capabilities of Jaguar and Panther are far better then XP. Those two versions will not use more memory than XP does, in fact it allocates amost 100% of the memory to the front most program. You can also change those settings to control who gets what. Much more efficient than XP.....

The OS manages multitasked apps very well, but has a lot of memory overhead itself too.

Anyways, even with 768 MB RAM, I wish I had more memory in Panther. That is not to say 512 isn't sufficient for some, since even 384 MB is enough for light users, but contrary to popular myth memory management in Panther isn't magic.

 

[dnuggett]

It's not magic... you mean that is a myth? DAMN. :brokenheart: My point was it handles memory allocation alot better than XP, and I do not believe it uses more overhead than XP. I have no facts on the last statement it is just based off my knowledge of Unix vs. Windows and I would be interested to see any documentation you may have to the contrary.

 

[wetcat007]

Originally posted by: axemanxt40
Ok first I am looking to buy a laptop for college, which will be able to play games for the next 4 years. So I was wondering if I could get away with 512 RAM opposed to getting a gig?

And secondly, I basically have this issue of time, I know the best place to get my laptop from would be alienware...but they take a long time. Voodoo...takes maybe a little less time but its way more expensive.

I need a laptop on short notice, I want one with an ATI 9600 gfx card in it...so I am looking at an apple laptop. As you can tell about my question relating to RAM and gaming, I would like to be able to play some games in college. So I was wondering if anyone knows how Virtual PC w/ Windows XP on a apple runs games?

Virtual PC+games=crap lol it's literal, u cant use 3d acceleration that I know of in VPC

 

[Eug]

Originally posted by: dnuggett
It's not magic... you mean that is a myth? DAMN. :brokenheart: My point was it handles memory allocation alot better than XP, and I do not believe it uses more overhead than XP. I have no facts on the last statement it is just based off my knowledge of Unix vs. Windows and I would be interested to see any documentation you may have to the contrary.

Well, some of it has to do with Quartz/Quartz Extreme.

If you run dual monitors and a ton of apps and windows, that can eat up a fair bit of memory (eg. 64 MB) just on its own. See here.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: dnuggett
It's not magic... you mean that is a myth? DAMN. :brokenheart: My point was it handles memory allocation alot better than XP, and I do not believe it uses more overhead than XP. I have no facts on the last statement it is just based off my knowledge of Unix vs. Windows and I would be interested to see any documentation you may have to the contrary.

Well, some of it has to do with Quartz/Quartz Extreme.

If you run dual monitors and a ton of apps and windows, that can eat up a fair bit of memory (eg. 64 MB) just on its own. See here.

Even if I agreed with you, (I'll look at the material you provided), I don't feel your dual monitors, tons of apps example is germane to this kids approach and reason for buying a laptop.

 

[ai42]

which will be able to play games for the next 4 years

Good friggin luck! In 1999 we were playing Unreal Tournament (the original), and GeForce 256 was just being released.

I don't think A GeForce 256 would stand a chance at UT2k3.

 

[StraightPipe]

a good buddy of mine plays tons of games on his dell laptop.

the bottom line is that no laptop is going to beable to keep up with current games for 4 years. (most desktops would be lucky to do that without major $$$ into upgrading)

i definately wouldnt buy a voodoo if it's similar hardware to alienware at a higher price. get your best bang for buck, 512 is a minimum if you wanna play games like battlefield or unreal T 2k3. if you get the 512 on one card you can always drop another 512 in later : )

i'm not even address the apple question (games = mac ? , no!)

 

[Erasmus-X]

I'm primarily an Apple user, like Eug. I'll second the notion that if you're looking for a mobile gamer, Apple is the wrong place to look. The hardware might be up to snuff, but the software support isn't.