How much RAM does your Mac need?

If you are thinking of buying a new Mac, how much RAM should you get? A 20in iMac comes with 1Gb of memory, but when you select it in the store you can choose to upgrade it to 2Gb or 4Gb. Is the 1Gb in a basic iMac adequate or do you need more, and if so, how much?

The amount of memory you need depends on the applicatations you want to run. OS X runs OK in 1Gb and about half that will be free after booting up. However, when you start running applications they can use up quite a lot of memory. Among the most memory hungry applications you can run are the virtual machines that let you run Windows on your Mac, such as VirtualBox, Parallels Desktop and VMware Fusion. They run very poorly on a 1Gb Mac and you need at least 2Gb, with 4Gb being the best.

These aren't the only applications that need a lot of memory and there are others. To prevent OS X from slowing to a crawl due to insufficient memory you should have at least 2Gb. If you can afford it you will find that a 4Gb Mac runs the fastest.

Going back to the question of how much RAM should you buy in your new Mac, I recommend the absolute minimum. Get the basic 1Gb in an iMac. Why? Well the problem is that Apple charges four times the price of other companies for memory modules. Apple charges £50 per gigabyte of memory. Go to the store and click the button to buy an iMac - increasing the RAM from 1Gb to 2Gb costs £50 and upping it from 1 to 4Gb is £150.

If you go to a memory supplier like Crucial you'll be charged just £12 per gigabyte. So 4Gb of memory for your iMac will cost just £47, which is less than just 1Gb extra from Apple (and you'll have a spare 1Gb when you replace it with the 2x2Gb modules). Did someone mention 'Apple Tax' recently?

I like Macs, but I dislike the prices that Apple charges, particularly over here in the UK.

Read More

Apple's new laptops are expensive

After much rumour and speculation Apple has at last launched its new range of laptops - 13in MacBooks and 15in MacBook Pros. They look fantastic and the new styling is superb. The Nvidia graphics chipset is most welcome too. However, I can't help feeling depressed and the problem is the prices.

There was talk of cheap laptops, but instead of the prices coming down, they have actually gone up! Doesn't Apple realise that we are in the middle of a credit crisis and that people are severely cutting down on the amount they spend, especially on luxuries. I fear that Apple's market share will fall instead of increasing - at least here in the the UK and Europe.

To see what I mean, go to the Apple UK store and check out the prices. The new 2.0GHz 13in MacBook, which has a slower processor than the old model, costs £949. Now that is $1,654 (depending on the exchange rate). Wasn't there talk of an $800 laptop only a week or two ago? What happened? We're paying double that here in the UK. Looking at the other end of the range, the new 2.53GHz 15in MacBook costs £1,749, which is over $3,000!

MacBook
13in/2.0GHz = £949
13in/2.4GHz = £1,149
15in/2.4GHz = £1,399
15in/2.53GHz = £1,749

The US prices are much lower, which is why I'm so disappointed with these new laptops. For example, you'll pay just £829 for the 13in/2.0GHz in the US, which is £120 cheaper than we're paying here in the UK.

If you have any FireWire devices like a camcorder or external hard disk drive, you'll find that you won't be able to use them with the new MacBook because the FireWire port has been dropped. Some people have commented that that is enough to put them off upgrading to the new MacBooks. And you'll need to buy an adapter to use a monitor because there's a new type of display port on the new MacBook.

Of course, there is still the old-style white plastic MacBook and there's a single 2.1GHz model with DVD-writer and 1Gb of RAM for £719 ($1,260). However, this means that the cheapest Mac laptop has risen in price and it's now £20 ($35) more expensive than it was previously.
It is interesting to speculate which MacBook is the best to buy right now. Go to the store at the Apple website and you can buy a new MacBook with 2.0GHz processor, 2Gb RAM, SuperDrive, 160Gb hard disk, no FireWire for £949 ($1,654), or you can pop into your local high street store where they are still selling the old MacBooks and the new stock hasn't arrived and get a 2.4GHz processor 2Gb RAM, SuperDrive, 160Gb hard disk, with FireWire for £829 ($1,453). This old MacBook looks good value for money and I'd snap one up immediately before the old stock is replaced with the new kit.

A 13in/2.4GHz MacBook has risen from £829 ($1,453) to £1,149 ($2,001), which is a 39% price increase.

Read More

Windows 7 is looking good

Windows Vista was released two years ago in November 2006, at least to business users, although it wasn't available to the general public until January 2007. Vista is two years old, so why am I still running XP? I'm not the only one and there are huge numbers of XP users who are sticking with the old operating system. Does this make Vista failure?

One of the reasons why many people have not made the switch to Vista is that XP is actually much better than anyone realised. It's a great operating system that runs on any hardware and there's a wide range of software and hardware devices for it. It's not 100% secure, but there are many security products to choose from and some of them are free. It's not 100% stable, but crashes are rarer than some people make out.

Another reason why XP continues to be used is that there doesn't appear to be any software that is Vista-only. If there were even just a few must-have applications or features that only worked on Vista, then a lot more people would upgrade.

Will Windows 7 be better? Yes. In fact, it looks fantastic. Everything I have seen and read about this new operating system is superb and once it hits the stores you will want to upgrade. Underneath it is still Vista, but Vista is actually a good operating system. In 2009 when Windows 7 is likely to be released PC hardware will be much faster than when Vista was launed three years previously, so it will be quick and responsive.

The main differences between Vista and Windows 7 is in the user interface. I don't mean the Aero look, but the tools and utilities that are bundled with it. For example, Paint and WordPad have been given an Office 2007-style make-over and sport new ribbon bars. New taskbar features and Star menu make it easier to access files and applications, gadgets are no longer in a sidebar and are on the desktop, libraries enable you to group documents into virtual folders (a bit like photo organisers let you create albums from images located anywhere on the disk), icons that show stacks of photos, simpler networking and sharing features, easier sharing of devices and media files, and more. There are a zillion new features and they are all to do with making Windows simpler, easier and more fun.

I won't go into detail about the changes because others have done it better, and besides, I don't have a copy of the beta anyway. However, you should check out some of the excellent sites on the web that are covering Windows 7, such as Paul Thurrott's. See part 2, part 3 and part 4 in particular.

Read More

Are Apple's new laptops too expensive?

Apple's new MacBooks look and feel fantastic - you should see them at your local Apple store - and they are equipped with the latest cutting edge technology. However, that makes them very expensive. Although they are fantastic computers, in today's economic climate where the value of our property is falling, the unemployment rate is rising, the stockmarket is in turmoil, and money is tight, it seems like a bad time to introduce such expensive computers. Raising prices across the entire laptop range could well put off some potential purchasers. Steve Jobs with his millions in the bank doesn't know how tough it is for the rest of us.

This is why the computer I bought last month was a Windows laptop. For just under £350 I got a really nice laptop from PC World with a 15in screen, 1.8GHz processor, 2Gb RAM, 250Gb hard disk, Wi-Fi, 4x USB ports, and so on. It runs Windows Vista just fine.

I recently mentioned Microsoft's Live Mesh, a great service that puts a folder on your desktop that is automatically synchronised with every other PC that you use. You can save a file on your desktop PC at home or work, fire up your laptop in Starbucks or wherever you use it and there in the Live Mesh folder on the desktop is your file. It's brilliant if you use several computers.
Dropbox is an identical service that does exactly the same. Install the free software and it creates a folder wherever you want it. I prefer the desktop.

The contents of this folder are automatically synchronised with every other computer you install the software on. Within the folder is a Public subfolder and this is one that others can access. So you can put files in there that others can access on their own computers. The rest of the files remain private. It's very similar to Live Mesh, but the software seems a bit more advanced because there are Windows, Mac and Linux versions whereas Microsoft has only got round to producing a Windows version.

I've no idea how these services make money. Microsoft obviously benefits because it's a Windows service, but Dropbox must have to either start advertising or charging at some point. Hopefully, there will be a two-tier service with a free basic account and a paid account with extra facilities. For the moment it's free, so go and sign up.

*Update: A 2Gb DropBox is free, but you can get 50Gb ofr $99 a year.

Read More

Microsoft Live Mesh

Microsoft's Live Mesh is an interesting project and it is another type of cloud computing service that aims to make your files available anywhere and on any device provided it has an internet connection. At the moment it only works on Windows PCs, but since most computer users in the world currently use them, it's not so bad.

Support for mobile phones and Apple Macs is promised soon though. Everyone has a mobile phone and the top models are very capable hand-held devices, so it will be useful to be able to access files from anywhere - mobile phone access is much more widespread than Wi-Fi. Even Mac users might be tempted away from MobileMe, which has a similar iDisk service.

When you sign in at Live Mesh you'll be prompted to add a device and you can download a small program for 32-bit and 64-bit Windows XP/Vista. You can also access your online desktop too. You get 5Gb of storage space for free and the really cool thing is that when you create a folder on your online desktop, it is replicated on all desktop of all the systems that you connect to Live Mesh with.

Normally folders on the Windows desktop are yellow, but you'll see a blue one and this is a Live Mesh folder. Any files you create or delete in here are copied transparently in the background to all other PCs with Live Mesh installed. What's more, there's a log window that records every action so you can see what has been done and when. It upens automatically when you open the blue Live Mesh folder on the Windows desktop.

It's an incredibly useful service if you work on multiple computers because you can keep your work files in the blue Live Mesh folder on the desktop and no matter which PC you use, you'll always see the latest files. You just open a file, make any changes that are necessary, save it and it's available on every other PC you use without you having to do anything special.

One thing you must remember though, is to give Live Mesh time to synchronise. It takes a little time to update the contents of the blue folder and this morning for example, I booted up and immediately accessed a file only to find it was an old version. I closed it, waited a few seconds and checked again. It was gone - because I had deleted it on another PC earlier. After another few seconds the up to date version that I had created on another PC was available.

Obviously Live Mesh was working through the actions that had taken place and until internet transfers become instantaneous, this update delay will always exist. I'll just have to go and make a cup of coffee after switching on my PC to make sure it has time to sync. Live Mesh even works if you boot up Windows on a Mac too. It'll be even more useful - to me anyway - when there's a native Mac application.

Read More

Don't remove laptop batteries

Although Macbooks are portable computers, they aren't always used away from the office or home and you might occasionally, or even permanently, use one as a neat and compact desktop computer. After all, ignoring the Mac Mini, which isn't even a complete computer because it doesn't have a keyboard, monitor, mouse, or speakers, it is actually the cheapest way to buy a Mac.

Macbooks, being portable laptop computers, have a battery installed so that they can be used away from the home or office, but if you use it as a desktop computer that is permanently plugged into the mains power supply the question is whether to leave the battery installed or to remove it. Will it damage the battery? Will it over charge? Will it reduce its efficiency? These are important questions for people that use Macbooks as their main desktop computer either temporarily or permanently.

There is a very brief article in Apple's support section that says "MacBook and MacBook Pro: Mac reduces processor speed when battery is removed while operating from an A/C adaptor." So the Mac's speed is limited without the battery and it will run more slowly than normal. This is because it is supplied with a pathetic power supply that is not beefy enough to supply the Macbook with all the power it needs. Hey, but it looks cool and it has that clever connector. This is clearly a case of looks being more important than function, something that Apple is occasionally guilty of.

Another reason for keeping the battery in place and not removing it even though it is not needed is because one of the Macbook's feet is on the battery. There are four small feet un the underside, one in each corner, but one of them is on the battery. If you remove the battery then the Macbook wobbles! Not badly and you can live with it, but it definitely isn't as stable with the battery removed.

Will it damage the battery leaving it in and with the Macbook permanently plugged into the mains? Once a battery has been fully charged the power is cut and it stops charging, so you can't over charge it. Batteries leak charge slowly and eventually the charge will fall and the Mac will top it up, but it stops as soon as it is done.

A rechargeable battery can only be charged a certain number of times, so it makes sense to charge it up as infrequently as possible, but there's no evidence that leaving it in the Mac and letting it be topped up as and when required does any harm. Even if it does reduce the life of the battery, it is an easily replaced component and a disposable one that isn't meant to last as long as the computer anyway, so leave it in and don't remove it. You mac will be more stable and it will run faster.

Read More

Chrome is fast, but speed isn't everything

Google's new web browser, Chrome, must be the most talked about on the internet and a huge number of words have been written about it. Most people are praising it, saying how wonderful it is, how much faster it is, and so on. But is it really that good?

Google reckons that it is 10 times faster than Firefox 3. Some speed tests reported at Cnet show Chrome to be what looks like hundreds of times faster than IE7 and perhaps 10 times faster than Firefox 3. However, Firefox developers have produced test results that show that Firefox is faster. It just goes to show that the results of speed tests depend on the test, so don't believe everything you read about Chrome.

Someone else posted figures that show how many milliseconds it takes to display a web page and Chrome was something like 50ms and IE7 was more like 250ms. So what? When you have to wait 10 seconds or more for a web page to download because of the amount of internet traffic, the fact that Chrome shaves a few milliseconds off the rendering time isn't that important. Forget speed tests, just try it. It certainly feels quick, but it is nowhere near as fast as the speed tests suggest and it only feels slightly quicker.

If you run online applications then having a fast JavaScript engine is certainly an advantage, but other parts of Chrome are disappointing. For example, there aren't any add-ons. This isn't surprising because the project was top secret and the browser has only just been released. Add-ons will probably come in time, but till then you are best sticking with Firefox. Bookmark handling is awful and there doesn't appear to be any form of bookmarks manager. You can't delete more than one at a time, and moving them around and reorganising them is awkward.

There are Open All Bookmarks and Open All Bookmarks in a New Window commands. I must have hundreds of bookmarks and Chrome just crashes if I try this. They are pointless commands and only work if you have less than a dozen bookmarks. Chrome's creators obviously don't like or use bookmarks. They should look at Firefox 3 to see what you can do with a good bookmark manager.

Other stuff is missing, like print preview, shrink to fit printing, security (go to eBay or PayPal using Firefox 3 and see how much more reassuring it is), RSS feeds, notes, widgets, blocked content, links list, browsing without images, and so on. Google Chrome is a beta and the version number is 0.2, which is all you need to know.

You need more than a fast JavaScript engine and crashproof tabs to make a good browser. Firefox is much better. Even Opera is better. It's one to watch because it will no doubt get better. For the moment though, it's best avoided.

*Update: New versions have fixed bugs, but it could still be better.

Read More