Thanks. I'll probably skip it.

Post #384,073 by Another Scott 12/7/13 7:52:02 PM Reply	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. :-) Thanks. Cheers, Scott.
Post #384,074 by Ashton 12/7/13 9:55:29 PM Reply	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!
Post #384,080 by Another Scott 12/8/13 5:08:56 PM Reply	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. Cheers, Scott. (Who remembers, like you, when 16 MB was huge!)
Post #384,087 by Ashton 12/9/13 12:02:12 AM Reply	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.

Welcome to IWETHEY!