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

Welcome to IWETHEY!

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)

Same thing we do every night, Pinky... try to take over the WORLD!
53 ms