IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New I would not bother for 2 reasons.
1. Crucial would love to sell you the more expensive RAM if hey could. They could be lazy and not check things out, however.

2. The RAM modules do not connect to the processor they connect to the motherboard. If the motherboard wiring and/or circuitry did not implement the additional memory high-order "address line" needed to deal with 16 GB, you cannot access the upper 8 GB on the module. Besides, planned obsolescence is always a design requirement! :)

Plugged into a properly designed motherboard the i5 would indeed handle 16 GB.

But, if you can find someone who will take back the RAM modules if the don't work for you, you could go through the exercise.
New Thanks. I'll probably skip it.
In looking at things more carefully, I see that I actually ordered 16GB of RAM for J's 13" MacBook Pro in February. It was $88 then. :-/

I don't really need the RAM. I get bored with my computers every few months and feel the need to spend money on them. I need to get out of that habit...

If these sticks drop below $100 again, I'll reconsider. I think they'll work, but if they don't I'll send 'em back. :-)


New Apropos..
Hadn't reported a while back:
Having successfully replaced one of the 2/ea 2 GB boards in my Spring '08 iMac with a 4 GB== 6 total--with no discernible ill effects.. [Rated: 4 GB Max] ...
Later on, a sale at ~ half what I'd paid for the 4 GB and despite iFixit (or similar folk) nixing "beyond 6", for that exact model: I rolled dice. (Other models Had reported varying results, so.. wtf.)
It Did 'recognize' the full 8!

BUT.. thrashing (and perhaps as Alex suggests: result of absence of extra mobo address lines? for all pecuniary reasons) and.. it ran really s l o w ==> doom.
Passed along the board elsewhere, etc.

(I'd believe that firmware may be part of the obsolescence scam. Because it's so Easy.)
But if someone will take-back the stick.. 6 sure beats 4; want 16 too!

New Macs are good and bad in that respect.
EveryMac has good information on machine limits - http://www.everymac....city-of-macs.html - too. :-)

J's black MacBook is limited to 6 GB of RAM. Apparently without pre-screening of 4 GB modules, getting 6 GB to work reliably in some machines was a coin-toss - https://discussions....10356325#10356325 There's lots of black magic in this stuff, unfortunately.

204 pin DDR3 modules in laptops later iMacs can take up to 8 Gbit chips, and up to 8 GB modules are available. So I don't think it's hardware address lines limitation. It probably has more to do with earlier OS assumptions of where memory addresses could be moved to, 32-bitness to 64-bitness transitions, etc., etc. That's my guess anyway.

(Who remembers, like you, when 16 MB was huge!)
New That thread explains much.. Thanks.
Hah! ... <Aliens>It's a bug hunt!!</Aliens> Strange (to me) that RAM-limits could be so vague at the design/execution stages--in 2013.

'X' (with the most posting chops) appears to fall-back on vague suppositions + (an opinion that) 'Apple doesn't arbitrarily limit max memory') while mostly ignoring the L-->Snow Leopard effects throughout the thread.

OWC rep appears to be the most competent there: having deduced a testing means which works--all, of course re the MBPs. But they are (were? haven't checked lately) correct re 8 vs 6 GB on my model iMac.
Guess I'll drop in at OWC and see if their now codified Go/No-GO tests have revealed any combo for 8 GB ..sans kernel panic.

They seem.. to be ahead of Apple re this particular MBP model. But that was 4 years ago.
Will chime in if they Have a new option for me. Unlikely, but this-all gives a view of there being too much magick in the analyses--from Apple more than OWC! [Now it's 4 years later.. are they any better?]

Well, the thread was at least as good as a NYTimes Saturday X-word :-) Thanks again for finding such a relevant example.

     i5-2450M and HM65 with 16 GB of RAM? - (Another Scott) - (5)
         I would not bother for 2 reasons. - (a6l6e6x) - (4)
             Thanks. I'll probably skip it. - (Another Scott) - (3)
                 Apropos.. - (Ashton) - (2)
                     Macs are good and bad in that respect. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                         That thread explains much.. Thanks. - (Ashton)

I am unable to summon the amount of snark that statement requires.
52 ms