Apple Offering 8 GB RAM Kits for 2.93 GHz and 2.66 GHz 15" MacBook Pros [Archive]

MacRumors

Mar 26, 2009, 11:51 AM

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/03/26/apple-offering-8-gb-ram-kits-for-2-93-ghz-and-2-66-ghz-15-macbook-pros/)

http://images.macrumors.com/article/2009/03/26/114809-mbp_ram_500.png

Apple has begun offering 8 GB RAM upgrade kits for the 2.93 GHz (http://store.apple.com/us/memorymodel/ME_15_2_93_MBP) and 2.66 GHz (http://store.apple.com/us/memorymodel/ME_15_2_66_MBP) models of the latest unibody 15" MacBook Pro, despite the published technical specifications (http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/specs.html) claiming support for a maximum of 4 GB in these higher-end models. Apple is not currently offering the 8 GB kit for the entry-level 2.4 GHz 15" MacBook Pro, which also claims support for a maximum of 4 GB of RAM.

While Apple computers frequently support additional RAM beyond the published maximums, Apple typically limits its recommended RAM offerings to those maximums. This requires customers wishing to upgrade to higher RAM kits to either purchase Apple RAM kits intended for other models using the same RAM but supporting the higher maximum or turn to third-party suppliers who frequently offer such kits advertised for models that unofficially support the higher RAM configuration.

Apple's 8 GB RAM kit retails for $1200, significantly higher than similar offerings from many third-party RAM vendors.

Article Link: Apple Offering 8 GB RAM Kits for 2.93 GHz and 2.66 GHz 15" MacBook Pros (http://www.macrumors.com/2009/03/26/apple-offering-8-gb-ram-kits-for-2-93-ghz-and-2-66-ghz-15-macbook-pros/)

j_maddison

Mar 26, 2009, 11:56 AM

Wasn't there some sort of firmware or software limitation stopping the Unibody Macbooks/ Macbook pros from using more than 4Gig of RAM? Is anyone aware of a software update to remedy this?

Maybe 10.5.7 has something to do with this?

Jay

4God

Mar 26, 2009, 12:03 PM

Well maybe I'm missing something or Apple just pulled it 'cause it's not there now. It's only there for the 17" model.

EDIT: Ahh, nevermind, I was just looking at the config page and now I see it on the memory page (accessories).
Funny how they don't yet have it as an option yet in the customize page.

Some_Big_Spoon

Mar 26, 2009, 12:05 PM

http://ramjet.com/ItemDescription.asp?Item=MBALX4G

wgilles

Mar 26, 2009, 12:09 PM

I wonder, would this work for the Penryn MBPs? Using either Apple's kit or a 3rd party?

darrenscerri

Mar 26, 2009, 12:12 PM

What about the 2.53GHz MBP? What's the main difference besides the CPU in the 2.53GHz and 2.66GHz versions? Do they have different logic boards which lets the 2.66GHz version accept 8GB and the 2.53GHz limited to 6GB?

Wotan31

Mar 26, 2009, 12:12 PM

I wonder, would this work for the Penryn MBPs? Using either Apple's kit or a 3rd party?
No.

puckhead193

Mar 26, 2009, 12:21 PM

dam, that's expensive but i guess if you NEED it then why not but it certainly nice to have.

IEatApples

Mar 26, 2009, 12:26 PM

http://ramjet.com/ItemDescription.asp?Item=MBALX4G

Even cheaper at OWC (http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other%20World%20Computing/8566DDR3S4GB/)! :)

Silencio

Mar 26, 2009, 12:30 PM

I wonder, would this work for the Penryn MBPs? Using either Apple's kit or a 3rd party?

I believe the Penryn MBPs and the last generation of white/black plastic MacBooks will go up to 6GB of RAM.

ViciousShadow21

Mar 26, 2009, 12:34 PM

i talked to the "geniuses" at the apple store and they believe that this is a mistake.

Bad Paper

Mar 26, 2009, 12:38 PM

uhhh, wouldn't this also work in the iMac? Why aren't they advertising for that?

not that I would buy RAM from Apple, but still

drlunanerd

Mar 26, 2009, 12:43 PM

Jeez Apple are morons when it comes to RAM :rolleyes:

FFS publish actual technical specifications and not marketing BS, and don't artificially cripple machines either :mad:

NintendoFan

Mar 26, 2009, 12:48 PM

uhhh, wouldn't this also work in the iMac? Why aren't they advertising for that?

not that I would buy RAM from Apple, but still

The new iMacs do support 8GB of RAM.

Macmoney

Mar 26, 2009, 12:56 PM

I got the 2.53 in October...just great apple. I thought I was
buying the mid level MBP now they don't even offer that model
4 1/2-5 months after its introduction.

darrenscerri

Mar 26, 2009, 01:00 PM

I got the 2.53 in October...just great apple. I thought I was
buying the mid level MBP now they don't even offer that model
4 1/2-5 months after its introduction.

Totally agree with you. At least show the 2.53Ghz version in the memory upgrade page! Jeez!

fridgeymonster3

Mar 26, 2009, 01:04 PM

i talked to the "geniuses" at the apple store and they believe that this is a mistake.

In general, whatever the "geniuses" say I try and believe/do/buy the exact opposite (I'm assuming the "s are mocking them too). I've met several that actually don't even know the specifications of their macs very well. I have met some that are extremely knowledgeable and a pleasure to talk to, also, but in my experience, they are a rarity.

Sehnsucht

Mar 26, 2009, 01:21 PM

Apple's 8 GB RAM kit retails for $1200, significantly higher than similar offerings from many third-party RAM vendors.

:eek: Still blows my mind when I see that. :eek: :eek: $1,200...the price of a fully loaded mini...or a 24" ACD and an iPod! :p Oh well, remember in the 80's when RAM was over $100 per megabyte? :D Back then, the same 8GB would have cost about $820,000...and no computer of the time could even address that much anyway. ;)

gmcalpin

Mar 26, 2009, 01:30 PM

Too many emoticons, dude. Lay off the caffeine.

And for what it's worth, I called the Apple Store about whether or not the 8GB would work in the 2.53 GHz, and the saleswoman brought on an engineer, who said there was a "very good chance" it would but that they don't test on older models.

He didn't say anything about it being a mistake, or that 8GB wouldn't work in the 2.6, or anything else that would be rather obvious if that were the case.

Yes, Apple sales people are not necessarily very bright; yes, Apple geniuses are not necessarily very bright; but a dude from engineering probably knows better.

rockinrocker

Mar 26, 2009, 01:44 PM

Well, whatever they say, we're not really going to know until someone actually tries it...

brandon.vong

Mar 26, 2009, 01:48 PM

Would this work (theoretically) for the 2.8 Unibody 15? :confused:

yetanotherdave

Mar 26, 2009, 01:57 PM

According to AI
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/03/26/apple_selling_8gb_memory_upgrade_kits_for_15_macbook_pros.html
all mbp's (including the 2.53.) can take 8gb except the entry level 2.4

Typical apple, this really forces my hand when deciding which MBP to buy, I can't afford 8gb now, but in a year it will be cheap, and I'll want the option. I wanted to buy the entry 2.4 one, but if it's limited to 4gb I'll have to cough up the extra.

ViciousShadow21

Mar 26, 2009, 02:06 PM

In general, whatever the "geniuses" say I try and believe/do/buy the exact opposite (I'm assuming the "s are mocking them too). I've met several that actually don't even know the specifications of their macs very well. I have met some that are extremely knowledgeable and a pleasure to talk to, also, but in my experience, they are a rarity.

oh yes the "s are definitely of the mocking gesture haha. anyway i know what you mean i had an apple "genius" tell me that the new unibody MBP's only allowed 2GB of RAM. i just looked at him, nodded and then told him i had to go on account of my head hurting. he didnt get it but probably for the better

gmcalpin

Mar 26, 2009, 02:31 PM

According to AI
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/03/26/apple_selling_8gb_memory_upgrade_kits_for_15_macbook_pros.html
all mbp's (including the 2.53.) can take 8gb except the entry level 2.4
I'm skeptical of that, though. I've heard every imaginable answer (yes, no, and maybe), all supposedly coming from Apple Sales reps (or the engineer I spoke with).

I'm waiting for proof.

jazz1

Mar 26, 2009, 02:36 PM

I wonder if the money would be better spent on an SSD? Or, if you need that kind of RAM do you really need a MacPro desktop?

iMacmatician

Mar 26, 2009, 02:38 PM

*crosses fingers it works on the 2.4 GHz*

(Because I have a 2.4 GHz. :p)

roberry82

Mar 26, 2009, 02:44 PM

Every purchase I've made at an Apple Retail store has always included a small conversation about RAM, either being started by the specialist or by me. They all end they same way: Get it cheaper some place else, and most of the specialists and genius types and even floor managers, have pointed me to a local tech store or to crucial.com for additional RAM.

I've known a few folks who have sprung for extra RAM during an initial purchase of an Apple product, though we can't seem to see much of a difference when comparing it to my RAM, purchased at crucial.com

skottichan

Mar 26, 2009, 03:38 PM

*crosses fingers it works on the 2.4 GHz*

(Because I have a 2.4 GHz. :p)

Hehe, me too. I'm being poked and mocked by my girlfriend because she got the 2.66GHz model.

gmcalpin

Mar 26, 2009, 04:09 PM

Get it cheaper some place else, and most of the specialists and genius types and even floor managers, have pointed me to a local tech store or to crucial.com for additional RAM.
Sure, they're right. But the news here is that you can put 8GB in the 15" MBPs at all (MAYBE). The fact that Apple sells them for it would mean you're safe buying it from Crucial or whatever instead for cheaper — and it would work.

KindredMAC

Mar 26, 2009, 04:26 PM

I wonder if the money would be better spent on an SSD? Or, if you need that kind of RAM do you really need a MacPro desktop?
Watch out for the SSD if you use the Adobe Creative Suite. There have been warnings from Adobe about using flash based drives for installing their apps onto and possibilities of issues running them.
Anyone have any real world knowledge or experience with this at all?
It scared me off enough to not even consider it.

Hehe, me too. I'm being poked and mocked by my girlfriend because she got the 2.66GHz model.

You know what will shut her up long enough to make her realize what a b!tch she's being???? Swap the hard drives. I can almost guarantee she'll never notice the difference unless she has bastardized her case with flowers or some crap like that. And if she never realizes well then you just got yourself a MBP that can handle 8GB of RAM!!!!

But seriously.... she needs to be "taught a lesson".

excalibur313

Mar 26, 2009, 05:15 PM

You know what will shut her up long enough to make her realize what a b!tch she's being???? Swap the hard drives. I can almost guarantee she'll never notice the difference unless she has bastardized her case with flowers or some crap like that. And if she never realizes well then you just got yourself a MBP that can handle 8GB of RAM!!!!

But seriously.... she needs to be "taught a lesson".

Woah, this must cut a little too close to home, huh? Did you get emasculated by your girlfriend after she dumped you in front of everyone at your last dinner party for not having a processor that was fast enough? ;)

dissdnt

Mar 26, 2009, 05:30 PM

Ooof overpriced poop.

drlunanerd

Mar 26, 2009, 05:32 PM

Watch out for the SSD if you use the Adobe Creative Suite. There have been warnings from Adobe about using flash based drives for installing their apps onto and possibilities of issues running them.
Anyone have any real world knowledge or experience with this at all?
It scared me off enough to not even consider it.

This is false. Adobe badly-worded the system requirements - they meant on USB flash drives, not SSDs. They corrected the advice here. (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2008/11/cs4_solidstate.html)

jlpoore89

Mar 26, 2009, 05:37 PM

This is what an Apple online representative told me about 5 minutes ago.

You are chatting with Brian D, an Apple Expert
Hi, my name is Brian D. Welcome to Apple!
Good afternoon.

Good afternoon

How may I help you today?

I read that Apple is now selling 8GB of RAM for the new MacBook Pro's.

Yes, that is correct.

I recently bought one about 2 months ago but it is a 2.53GHz model and I was wondering if the 8GB is compatible.
On the site it only lists the 2.4, 2.66 and 2.93 GHz models

It's not. Only the new 17" model is.

They just started selling it for the 15" model today.

That's not something I see online or heard about.

http://store.apple.com/us/memorymodel/ME_15_2_66_MBP This is the page for the 15" 2.66 GHz model

I was just wondering if it worked with the 2.53 GHz as well.

Interesting.
It might be a website error.
One moment while I research that for you.

Alright. Thanks.

You're welcome.
It is a website error. Don't get it.

Ok. Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

jlpoore89

Mar 26, 2009, 06:35 PM

Dumbass

yeah thats what i thought

Stridder44

Mar 26, 2009, 06:42 PM

No.

Excellent explanation. :rolleyes:

Is there a hardware limitation to previous MBPs from using 8GB of RAM? Maybe just a software limitation in OS X?

With prices like this (http://eshop.macsales.com/item/Other%20World%20Computing/8566DDR3S4GB/) it's no wonder why this hasn't caught on yet (and that's just for one stick).

mikeinternet

Mar 26, 2009, 06:52 PM

my MB Pro doesn't need more than 4gigs ram, it just needs to keep a wifi connection.

(it's so frustrating. much worse side by side than pc's on the same network)

noodle654

Mar 26, 2009, 07:31 PM

You can buy a MacBook for $1200...not worth it.

chrmjenkins

Mar 26, 2009, 07:34 PM

eddietr

Mar 26, 2009, 07:39 PM

It will work with the 2.4 model, don't worry. The only determining factor is the chipset used, which they are all share. The only way they could block you out is by some evil firmware lockout, and there'd be an uproar over that.

Well, the earlier 2.4's probably won't work right, since the 2.53s don't work?

I guess you mean the new 2.4's. Maybe those work. But what is the cutoff date (or serial number) then?

chrmjenkins

Mar 26, 2009, 07:41 PM

Well, the earlier 2.4's probably won't work right, since the 2.53s don't work?

I guess you mean the new 2.4's. Maybe those work. But what is the cutoff date (or serial number) then?

I'm referring only to montevina, late 2008, unibody models. Everything before that is not included.

eddietr

Mar 26, 2009, 07:46 PM

I'm referring only to montevina, late 2008, unibody models. Everything before that is not included.

No, I understand that.

I'm saying that if the 2.53 Unibodies do not support 8GB (that has been tested by different people), then it seems unlikely to me that 2.4 unibodies sold at the same time would support 8GB.

On the other hand, now that we know that 2.93 unibodies do support 8GB, and presumably 2.66 does also, then I guess it is possible that the newer 2.4s might also. Like if Apple just updated some firmware with the speed bump. And if they updated that in the 2.4 model as well.

But then the question is where is the cutoff?

chrmjenkins

Mar 26, 2009, 07:55 PM

No, I understand that.

I'm saying that if the 2.53 Unibodies do not support 8GB (that has been tested by different people), then it seems unlikely to me that 2.4 unibodies sold at the same time would support 8GB.

On the other hand, now that we know that 2.93 unibodies do support 8GB, and presumably 2.66 does also, then I guess it is possible that the newer 2.4s might also. Like if Apple just updated some firmware with the speed bump. And if they updated that in the 2.4 model as well.

But then the question is where is the cutoff?

I can't imagine it being anything other than firmware. It wouldn't make sense for there to be chipset differences because apple could foresee it would have all the processors it does now. It costs money to have different hardware (motherboard) to account for these differences. The most profitable option is to use the same motherboard and make the CPU a drop in. Additionally, why not sell a 1000 dollar 8GB kit to anyone who wants it?

eddietr

Mar 26, 2009, 08:00 PM

I can't imagine it being anything other than firmware. It wouldn't make sense for there to be chipset differences because apple could foresee it would have all the processors it does now. It costs money to have different hardware (motherboard) to account for these differences. The most profitable option is to use the same motherboard and make the CPU a drop in. Additionally, why not sell a 1000 dollar 8GB kit to anyone who wants it?

Yeah, i'm thinking it's firmware also. Now the question is if/when Apple offers an update for the older boards.

Now, on the other hand, there is one other possibility. It's at least possible that there was something actually wrong with the early boards that prevents 8GB. And that they fixed it in time for the 17s. And then they are now using the new "fixed" rev board on the 15s as well.

That's at least possible.

California

Mar 26, 2009, 08:04 PM

Well if it is only firmware, then it should work on the Mac Books as well?

dmmcintyre3

Mar 26, 2009, 08:26 PM

Has anybody bought it yet?

chrmjenkins

Mar 26, 2009, 09:39 PM

Well if it is only firmware, then it should work on the Mac Books as well?

That would certainly stand to reason.

Eidorian

Mar 26, 2009, 09:41 PM

I was never expecting this turn of events.

mmendoza27

Mar 26, 2009, 09:49 PM

This is so interesting... we need an official answer from Apple somewhere... I don't expect anyone to buy it and let us know, that's $1200. We already know that they don't work on the 2.4 and 2.53 according to other threads. Has anyone tried to put 8 GB on the new Rev B Unibodies?

California

Mar 26, 2009, 09:58 PM

If my 2.4ghz Mac Book Aluminum which I had Apple upgrade to 4 gigs of ram does not take 8 gigs of ram as the MBPs because of a FIRMWARE issue then I am demanding a refund from Apple.

If Apple knows about the Flash Player problem that beachballs every Mac I have -- new intels and old G5 PPCs alike -- and does nothing about it as it renders old machines obsolete and handicaps new ones -- I am thinking about a petition or lawsuit.

These two issues are related, because I bought the Unibody Mac Book in order to overcome the constant beachballing of my older, last revision PPC Macs.

Perhaps Snow Leopard will attend to these issues, but I smell an intentional obselisance problem. Retarding Macs with firmware or lack of a patch or hack to Flash means bigger sales.

The answer could be when Snow Leopard comes out that Apple will say -- hey, we just could not support older macs with the flash problem any longer -- it's been three years since the switch to Intel.

But that does not answer the question now. Flash cripples Macs. Adding more memory helps the Flash issue a little. But how come it exists in the first place? And how come there is no patch for Flash? How come my friend's 2008 iMac with 3 gigs of ram is beachballing? How come my MacBook with four gigs of ram beachballs?

There is something i don't like going on here...

Stridder44

Mar 26, 2009, 10:19 PM

my MB Pro doesn't need more than 4gigs ram, it just needs to keep a wifi connection.

(it's so frustrating. much worse side by side than pc's on the same network)

AMEN. I had to end up buying a USB wireless adapter. Pretty lame for a $2500 laptop. :mad:

gmcalpin

Mar 26, 2009, 10:21 PM

AMEN. I had to end up buying a USB wireless adapter. Pretty lame for a $2500 laptop. :mad:
There is very little chance it's your laptop; it's probably your router, or your ISP.

Does it have the same problem everywhere?
There is something i don't like going on here...
You can believe whatever moronic conspiracy theories you want (Apple makes computers that DON'T work well so that their more expensive computers will sell? Seriously?).

Flash doesn't perform well on Macs because it's programmed by morons. Write your letters to Adobe, not Apple.

California

Mar 26, 2009, 10:27 PM

\
Flash doesn't perform well on Macs because it's programmed by morons. Write your letters to Adobe, not Apple.

Apple needs to write a patch for flash player on Macs. Or are the programmers at Apple that dumb or lazy or underpaid to answer all the reports I have sent to them lately when my Macs crash on Flash?

Apple needs to remove firmware memory restrictions on their computers.

I don't think these are conspiracy theories, I think they are big business tactics. I bought more ram for my new al mac book to overcome the problems of bogged down workflow. This is WHY we buy newer computers and extra ram -- smoother work flow.

And I do love Apple.

joecool99

Mar 27, 2009, 12:04 AM

:confused:

ok, I was really waiting for 8GB ram. Now the "official" still seems shady. The specs. still say 4GB max. Even during purchase on apple website, 8GB option is not offered for the 15".

Many people were asking about 8GB support before and they found that the system can actually only USE 6GB !!!

WHAT'S happening now then ? How come that suddenly 8GB is supported ? There was no firmware update i know of to specifically address the 6GB to 8GB issues.

Anybody tried ? Who has TRULY functioning 8GB ram in 15" MBP 2.53GHz or higher?

LEStudios

Mar 27, 2009, 12:14 AM

I got the 2.53 in October...just great apple. I thought I was
buying the mid level MBP now they don't even offer that model
4 1/2-5 months after its introduction.

Shouldn't be piss you know computer is already outdated when you leave the store. You can sell it on Craigslist and buy the new one with the difference of the sale. I did that with my Mac mini and got a New mac mini 2GHz just upgraded to 4GB DDR3. These computers are not going to last forever! Just use it if you want it sell that one and pay the difference and get the new one. Simple as that just make sure ends justified the means. :D

chr1s60

Mar 27, 2009, 02:37 AM

Wow, I guess Apple could learn a thing or two about "competitive pricing."

tri3limited

Mar 27, 2009, 06:42 AM

whitefang

Mar 27, 2009, 07:28 AM

About This Mac:

Size: 2 GB
Type: DDR3
Speed: 1067 MHz
Status: OK
Manufacturer: 0x80CE

The key difference is that it is DDR3 where as previous models are DDR2 (According to Crucial). Apple's offering is therefore not too over-priced as Crucial UK are selling it for like £815 (inc VAT).

That is a very silent upgrade which makes me even happier I decided to wait and see if the new iMac event would happen to have minor MBP alterations.

You do realize that all unibody MBP are DDR3...........
The chipset on all unibody MBP are the SAME. The Core 2 core is the same on all 3 lines of the MBP therefore they used the same damn chipset. Apple put in the firmware to disable 8gigs of RAM for the 2.4ghz version.

paulyras

Mar 27, 2009, 09:55 AM

Apple put in the firmware to disable 8gigs of RAM for the 2.4ghz version.

Though I will acknowledge that there is something odd that may be preventing the 2.4s from taking 8gb, and perhaps, perhaps not, the 2.53s (no one really eems to know for sure), I'm skeptical that this is a upselling tactic.

A 2.4 equipped with 4gb of ram and the 320gb 5400rpm drive is about $2175, or $325 less than the 2.66, or previously the 2.53. I find it highly unlikely that they would try to force people up to the higher end for $325 more, but in the process give up the opportunity to make MASSIVE margins on a $1200 8gb upgrade down the road.

If I were apple, I'd start offering this on every computer I could stuff them in to. I'm sure they will to, but it might take a bit of time to ensure that they will work (a firmware update or the like).

Being someone who sells high dollar equipment for a living (a heck of a lot more expensive than a MBP), I would never want to limit someone's potential to upgrade or update down the road, simply because they didn't have the need or he money to go to the high end initially. It just doesn't make sense.

whitefang

Mar 27, 2009, 10:06 AM

The chipset on 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.9 are the same. The chipset is made by NVidia. The chipset has support for 8gigs. The chipset firmware has support for 8gigs. The chipset has integrated video and works fine with shared memory and 8gigs.
Apple does not have to do anything to get 8gigs to work because the NVidia chipset automatically handles that and supports it. The processor core is the same. The dedicated/intergrated videocards are the same.

Apple's EFI firmware (which is essentially a BIOS) purposely disables 8gigs if you're using 2.4 or 2.5 by preventing it from working properly.

It's typical Apple. Slow down the machine when the battery is removed, use proprietary connectors, don't allow other ports on the Apple LED monitor.

gmcalpin

Mar 27, 2009, 10:50 AM

Apple's EFI firmware (which is essentially a BIOS) purposely disables 8gigs if you're using 2.4 or 2.5 by preventing it from working properly.
That is not necessarily true, and you know it (or should know it).

It is most likely not a hardware issue, you're right, but it could be disabled in the firmware because 10.5 cannot handle 8gb of RAM for some reason or another.

Considering the contradictory comments from various Apple sources about this, I have a feeling that this product/page getting posted was either a mistake or premature.

Michael73

Mar 27, 2009, 11:05 AM

As you can see in my sig, I have an early '08 8-core MP with 4GB of RAM. Only in certain circumstances which are few and far between do I find that I need more than 4GB.

I've recently started my own company and am now in the market for a new 15" MBP. I had thought about the 2.4 and then hopping over to OWC for a 4GB RAM kit (to upgrade from the default 2GB which I think is too little for my needs) and the new 500GB 7200RPM drive.

So, while everyone is crowing about whether or not MBPs can accept 8GB of RAM, can someone tell me under what circumstance e.g. what programs they are running on a regular basis that would need this amount of RAM?

Fidgetyrat

Mar 27, 2009, 11:15 AM

Virtual machines can easily eat up 8G, especially if you run one or more.

iMacmatician

Mar 27, 2009, 11:16 AM

So, while everyone is crowing about whether or not MBPs can accept 8GB of RAM, can someone tell me under what circumstance e.g. what programs they are running on a regular basis that would need this amount of RAM?In a few years time...

santos79

Mar 27, 2009, 11:18 AM

whitefang

Mar 27, 2009, 11:18 AM

yegon

Mar 27, 2009, 11:23 AM

Michael73

Mar 27, 2009, 11:29 AM

Fair enough...having a large monitor and using Spaces I find I have A LOT of programs open at once including a VMWare instance of Windows XP. What I've noticed though is that I usually have enough RAM with just 4GB if I just shut down some of the programs that aren't really being used. That's not always the case (and probably why I'll get some more RAM soon) but usually is.

I certainly understand the scalability argument but being clear, what I hear you saying is that this a future-proofing discussion, not really about what's needed now.

Anyone who consistently needs 8+ GB of RAM IMHO should be in the market for a MP, not a MBP.

kingtj

Mar 27, 2009, 11:29 AM

First of all, Flash is an *Adobe* product, not an Apple product. No matter how many bug reports you file with Apple's programmers, I would think their hands are tied as far as trying to fix it for you. At best, they have to work with Adobe, waiting on THEM to provide them with code to plug into their operating system or browser.

Additionally, I can't say I've seen Adobe Flash crash or misbehave on my Mac any more often than it does on my Windows XP Pro box? I have a 6 year old kid who loves playing those Flash-based online games on various kids' web sites. For that reason alone, a lot of Flash is used around my house. She experiences fairly regular freezes and odd issues in those games on the Windows box (arrow keys suddenly quit responding to move a character around in the game and so forth) -- as well as the same hassles in OS X from time to time.

I've long ago concluded that Flash is inherently trouble-prone and unstable when used extensively on ANY platform. It's frustrating - but IMHO, has little to do with Apple products specifically.

I'd agree on any firmware restrictions though (if indeed, they do exist). I don't think anyone has proven yet that it's only an artificial firmware limitation keeping any of their notebook products from taking the same memory upgrades as others. It could be a limitation that's *needed* because the motherboard architecture requires it, or there's none at all, but an omission was made in the advertising / web site content?

Apple needs to write a patch for flash player on Macs. Or are the programmers at Apple that dumb or lazy or underpaid to answer all the reports I have sent to them lately when my Macs crash on Flash?

Apple needs to remove firmware memory restrictions on their computers.

I don't think these are conspiracy theories, I think they are big business tactics. I bought more ram for my new al mac book to overcome the problems of bogged down workflow. This is WHY we buy newer computers and extra ram -- smoother work flow.

And I do love Apple.

iMacmatician

Mar 27, 2009, 02:22 PM

I certainly understand the scalability argument but being clear, what I hear you saying is that this a future-proofing discussion, not really about what's needed now.

Anyone who consistently needs 8+ GB of RAM IMHO should be in the market for a MP, not a MBP.The scalability/future-proofing arguments are valid, because if Apple's crippled some MacBook Pros, then 8 GB won't be available in them any time in the future. Plus the Mac Pro is a desktop (workstation), not a laptop.

Sehnsucht

Mar 27, 2009, 02:54 PM

And for what it's worth, I called the Apple Store about whether or not the 8GB would work in the 2.53 GHz, and the saleswoman brought on an engineer, who said there was a "very good chance" it would but that they don't test on older models.

He didn't say anything about it being a mistake, or that 8GB wouldn't work in the 2.6, or anything else that would be rather obvious if that were the case.

Yes, Apple sales people are not necessarily very bright; yes, Apple geniuses are not necessarily very bright; but a dude from engineering probably knows better.

LOL!! But if by "older" model you mean the all-silver MBP, wouldn't the answer be "no"? Those used 667MHz DDR2 and this kit is 1066MHz DDR3. :confused:

chrmjenkins

Mar 27, 2009, 03:03 PM

LOL!! But if by "older" model you mean the all-silver MBP, wouldn't the answer be "no"? Those used 667MHz DDR2 and this kit is 1066MHz DDR3. :confused:

No, by older model, they mean the 2.53 GHZ MBP that was one of two unibody configurations released in 2008. In other words, it's confirming what makes sense all along.

dal20402

Mar 27, 2009, 03:10 PM

Apple needs to write a patch for flash player on Macs. Or are the programmers at Apple that dumb or lazy or underpaid to answer all the reports I have sent to them lately when my Macs crash on Flash?
Flash is an Adobe product, not an Apple product. Do you think that Adobe will just hand over their code to Apple so Apple can fix it? :rolleyes:

Poor Flash performance on Macs needs to be fixed by Adobe.
I don't think these are conspiracy theories, I think they are big business tactics. I bought more ram for my new al mac book to overcome the problems of bogged down workflow. This is WHY we buy newer computers and extra ram -- smoother work flow.
If you have 4 GB RAM, lack of RAM is not the cause of your problems with Flash. This is not some elaborate Apple tactic, it's a decision that the tiny size of the market for 8 GB MacBooks does not warrant testing with 8 GB (and, since there is a problem, the cost of fixing the problem).

In short, it's more profitable for Apple to support only 4 GB, and that's what they do, very openly and honestly.

Also, if you're really determined to upgrade your RAM even though lack of RAM is probably not the source of your problems, your MacBook will work just fine with 6 GB.

whitefang

Mar 27, 2009, 03:14 PM

And for what it's worth, I called the Apple Store about whether or not the 8GB would work in the 2.53 GHz, and the saleswoman brought on an engineer, who said there was a "very good chance" it would but that they don't test on older models.

Since when did engineers start working at Apple Stores? First of all, you probably got a Tier-1/Level-1 technician. Technicians are as clueless as salespeople (it will vary). Notice how they are vague with "a very good chance" and "they don't test on older models".

Bottom line: Apple has purposely disabled 8gigs from working properly on 2.4 and 2.5. It will never be enabled because Apple wants you to buy the next system up. Just like they did with firewire on macbooks issue, the battery slow-down issue, the led proprietary ports issue. They want you to be committed to their platform, they are no-worse than Microsoft.

In short, it's more profitable for Apple to support only 4 GB, and that's what they do, very openly and honestly.

Also, if you're really determined to upgrade your RAM even though lack of RAM is probably not the source of your problems, your MacBook will work just fine with 6 GB.

The 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.9 all use the same chipset, moron. They all use the same chipset firmware. The only thing different is the processor speed. Heck, even the processor core is the same. There is NO DAMN TESTING required to support 8gigs for the 2.4 and 2.5 versions BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME THING as 2.6 and 2.9 except processor speed. Apple purposely disable 8gigs on 2.4 and 2.5 for no reason other than marketing tactics. Just realize that, stupid.

jlpoore89

Mar 27, 2009, 03:32 PM

Until I hear conclusively that 8gb doesn't work in the 2.53ghz, I'm not going to let myself get annoyed yet, as I'll wait till the ram is 1/3rd of the price anyway.

I bought my 2.53 in January, very pleased with it, zero problems, and I don't give a monkeys about the .13ghz increase that appeared a couple of months later - that's computers for you, plus I'd never actually see any negligible difference. Should it transpire 8gb doesn't work in the 2.53ghz though, it'll be purely down to unforgivable pettiness on Apple's part, and then I'll be mightily pissed!

AMEN!!! I couldn't have said it better myself. If it is the case that 8GB doesn't work in the 2,53ghz models I am going to demand an exchange. It would be like Apple intentionally crippled the first gen of the 15" unibody MBP's. And said oops lets fix this and forget about those people who bought them when they came out.

Oh and to all of those people claiming that maybe 8GB will work in the 2.4 and 2.53 models after Snow Leopard comes out. Quit being ignorant. 8GB WORKS in the 17" using LEOPARD, so the lack of snow leopard has nothing to do with it working in one machine and not the other when they use the SAME chipset which is capable of supporting 8GB of ram.

whitefang

Mar 27, 2009, 03:40 PM

At launch event of Leopard, Steve Jobs made a joke about Vista and said "Leopard will come in 3 editions, all of them will cost $129". (He was making fun of the fact that Vista had like 6 editions)

Well guess what? Microsoft has different editions that disable certain functions (like business edition cannot use media center etc) BUT SO DO Apple but with APPLE, it's ON THE HARDWARE SIDE SO it's MORE EXPENSIVE.

Example:
Vista Home Premium = $110
Vista Business = $250

That's about a $140 difference.

Now compare to Apple:
Macbook Pro 2.4 = $1899
Macbook Pro 2.6 = $2500

That's over a $500 difference.

And you say Apple is better than Microsoft.

chrmjenkins

Mar 27, 2009, 03:49 PM

whitefang

Mar 27, 2009, 03:53 PM

You're assuming Apple is going to issue a firmware update that enables it for all of them. Even if they aren't, they have to know it's silly and people will work their way around it easily.

Your analogy doesn't work Microsoft has no control over the hardware.

No, my analogy works. What I'm saying is that Microsoft controls pricing through software, Apple controls pricing through hardware. The end result is that Apple ends up costing more.

chrmjenkins

Mar 27, 2009, 03:56 PM

No, my analogy works. What I'm saying is that Microsoft controls pricing through software, Apple controls pricing through hardware. The end result is that Apple ends up costing more.

No, it doesn't, because we don't know if Microsoft WOULD control hardware if they could. You can't give two parties the means to do different things and compare results on equal grounds.

Besides, we don't have proof Apple is doing this. What we need is someone with a 2.66 or 2.93 to test it and verify it and someone else to use the same RAM with a 2.4 or 2.53 and say it doesn't work.

whitefang

Mar 27, 2009, 04:00 PM

No, it doesn't, because we don't know if Microsoft WOULD control hardware if they could. You can't give two parties the means to do different things and compare results on equal grounds.

Besides, we don't have proof Apple is doing this. What we need is someone with a 2.66 or 2.93 to test it and verify it and someone else to use the same RAM with a 2.4 or 2.53 and say it doesn't work.

The scientific method does not work here when the proof of the hypothesis is so damn obvious, same chipsets, same videocards, same everything except processor speed. It is Apple's EFI module that they purposely made it disable 8gigs on 2.4 and 2.5 versions. It can be fixed with a simple firmware update. Apple is holding out or won't do it. Simple as that.

chrmjenkins

Mar 27, 2009, 04:05 PM

The scientific method does not work here when the proof of the hypothesis is so damn obvious, same chipsets, same videocards, same everything except processor speed. It is Apple's EFI module that they purposely made it disable 8gigs on 2.4 and 2.5 versions. It can be fixed with a simple firmware update. Apple is holding out or won't do it. Simple as that.

That's why I'm asking if someone has tried 8 GB on a 2.66 or 2.93 model? If they have, and it works, there's the proof, but we don't know that either works right now that I know of.

iMacmatician

Mar 27, 2009, 05:33 PM

Bottom line: Apple has purposely disabled 8gigs from working properly on 2.4 and 2.5. It will never be enabled because Apple wants you to buy the next system up. Just like they did with firewire on macbooks issue, the battery slow-down issue, the led proprietary ports issue.And the disabling of display spanning on the iBooks (and probably other Macs back then too).

eddietr

Mar 27, 2009, 06:56 PM

That's why I'm asking if someone has tried 8 GB on a 2.66 or 2.93 model? If they have, and it works, there's the proof, but we don't know that either works right now that I know of.

Yes I've been using 8GB for 2 days now on my 2.93 15". No problems at all.

eth

Mar 27, 2009, 07:09 PM

eddietr

Mar 27, 2009, 07:44 PM

There are TWO different revisions. The first is B2 and the latter is B3.
I think that the former does not support 8GB of RAM and the latter does. That explains why the 17'' has support and now the NEWs 15'' also have, Apple gave the 15'' not only a speed bump but also the newer revision of the chipset!

Ah, good catch. That's interesting.

California

Mar 27, 2009, 07:49 PM

Hi, I think I know why Apple is able to offer 8gb ram support on the revised 2.66 MBP and not on the 2.53 or 2.4 MBP.

Take a look at this:

15'' 2.4-2,53 NVDA Chipset
http://s1.guide-images.ifixit.com/igi/oEmmaxSOKDDvZfZh.large

17'' NVDA Chipset
http://s1.guide-images.ifixit.com/igi/SSLSgODWYbiIuTLL.large

There are TWO different revisions. The first is B2 and the latter is B3.
I think that the former does not support 8GB of RAM and the latter does. That explains why the 17'' has support and now the NEWs 15'' also have, Apple gave the 15'' not only a speed bump but also the newer revision of the chipset!

Then I want my money back. This should have been made obvious when we purchased the 2.4ghz, and I know I bought it for the new Nvda chipset AND NO OTHER REASON.

P.S. This article seems to belie the reasoning that the B3 chip revision has anything to do with maximum ram...

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/670/1049670/nvidia-heat-causing-macbooks-to-fail

chrmjenkins

Mar 27, 2009, 08:50 PM

You got a Nvidia chipset. Even if your computer can only take 6GB RAM, it's not crippled.

Kaliemon

Mar 27, 2009, 11:27 PM

I didn't see anything about the 2.8 mbp that came out last october, could have missed it.

Does anybody know if it's supported?

marbles

Mar 28, 2009, 12:28 AM

Would anyone be able to tell me how much RAM my [early 09] 2.0 whitebook can utilize please?

jasiek13

Mar 28, 2009, 12:36 AM

do you know something about mbp 2.8 ??

tdgrn

Mar 28, 2009, 01:54 AM

One thing that I haven't seen anybody talk about is the L2 Cache that the 2.4 C2D has 3mb vs. 2.53 / 2.66 and up is 6mb. I am not exactly sure why this would limit the memory addressed by the computer, but to me this means that there has to be something different with more than just the chip. I could be totally wrong about this. :confused: Does anybody know if this could affect this?

andrew upstairs

Mar 28, 2009, 02:57 AM

Would anyone be able to tell me how much RAM my [early 09] 2.0 whitebook can utilize please?4GB

Brien

Mar 28, 2009, 03:42 AM

Hi, I think I know why Apple is able to offer 8gb ram support on the revised 2.66 MBP and not on the 2.53 or 2.4 MBP.

Take a look at this:

15'' 2.4-2,53 NVDA Chipset
http://s1.guide-images.ifixit.com/igi/oEmmaxSOKDDvZfZh.large

17'' NVDA Chipset
http://s1.guide-images.ifixit.com/igi/SSLSgODWYbiIuTLL.large

There are TWO different revisions. The first is B2 and the latter is B3.
I think that the former does not support 8GB of RAM and the latter does. That explains why the 17'' has support and now the NEWs 15'' also have, Apple gave the 15'' not only a speed bump but also the newer revision of the chipset!

I thought Nvidia has already come out and said the chipset supports 8GB, regardless of the revision. There were a lot of threads about this last October. I think the issue is on Apple's side.

fatbarstewar

Mar 28, 2009, 05:27 AM

Actually, Ive revised my opinion somewhat after reading around it. Still stinks if the 2.4/2.53(mine) remain forever unable to use 8gb, but it doesn't *really* affect me, even in the long term. I generally aim to use a laptop for 3-4 years, an upgrade to 6gb plus a 512gb+ SSD in a year or two will keep my mbp more than capable for my usage. The loss of dual channel probably wouldn't affect me either.

To be completely honest, power wise, I would have been happy with the higher end MB but I wanted the better quality LED and higher res of the 15". If I was a power user, though, and the situation doesn't change...ouch! Low blow Apple, low blow.

darrenscerri

Mar 28, 2009, 08:53 AM

Huh? Am I the only one seeing this?
Where is the 15" 2.66Ghz (and 2.53Ghz) version?
http://store.apple.com/us/memoryfamily/ME_MBP

Pika

Mar 28, 2009, 10:57 AM

Huh? Am I the only one seeing this?
Where is the 15" 2.66Ghz (and 2.53Ghz) version?
http://store.apple.com/us/memoryfamily/ME_MBP

It's still there: http://store.apple.com/us/memorymodel/ME_15_2_66_MBP

darrenscerri

Mar 28, 2009, 11:01 AM

It's still there: http://store.apple.com/us/memorymodel/ME_15_2_66_MBP

Yes, the direct link is there. But when manually navigating through Apple's pages the 2.66Ghz memory option is omitted.

jb60606

Mar 28, 2009, 11:22 AM

I believe the Penryn MBPs and the last generation of white/black plastic MacBooks will go up to 6GB of RAM.

early 2008 MBPs will take 6GB as well. I don't think they're Penryns. Could be wrong though.

sn00pie

Mar 28, 2009, 11:44 AM

$1200 on a memory upgrade is horrendous...you could pickup another 13" Macbook for another hundred bucks :eek:

Pika

Mar 28, 2009, 12:42 PM

Yes, the direct link is there. But when manually navigating through Apple's pages the 2.66Ghz memory option is omitted.

Well... The RAM for the 17" 2.66GHz is the same as the 15" 2.66GHz one. Maybe Apple is trying to make there navigation simplyer by merging the 17" with the 15" RAMS

If apple desided to not to sell 8GB for the 15", the 15" 8GB page should be dead by now.

marbles

Mar 28, 2009, 06:55 PM

4GB

thanks, what i meant was how much RAM can it take (early 09 whitebook) unofficially .......I know 4Gb is what Apple says but.....

dal20402

Mar 29, 2009, 02:52 PM

thanks, what i meant was how much RAM can it take (early 09 whitebook) unofficially .......I know 4Gb is what Apple says but.....

Officially, 4 GB. Unofficially, 6 GB.

marbles

Mar 29, 2009, 04:44 PM

Officially, 4 GB. Unofficially, 6 GB.
cheers ...that's 1x4Gb and 1x2Gb RAM sticks on order for me then

4God

Mar 30, 2009, 12:02 PM

This thread needs an update, the 8 gig option for the 15" was removed yesterday.

gmcalpin

Mar 30, 2009, 04:56 PM

This thread needs an update, the 8 gig option for the 15" was removed yesterday.
It looks like it's still there to me.

http://store.apple.com/us/memorymodel/ME_15_2_66_MBP

http://store.apple.com/us/memorymodel/ME_17_2_93_MBP

twoodcc

Mar 30, 2009, 07:00 PM

it's about time, though it's a little pricey

iMaggot

Mar 31, 2009, 03:13 AM

LMAO $1200 for 8GB of ram ?, are you nuts Apple lol.

santos79

Mar 31, 2009, 05:45 AM

It looks like it's still there to me.

http://store.apple.com/us/memorymodel/ME_15_2_66_MBP

http://store.apple.com/us/memorymodel/ME_17_2_93_MBP

You do realize that your second link is for the 17-inch model?
If Apple were really offering 8GB for the 15-inch models, we'd be able to configure them directly (choose MBP than 8GB, like is the case for the 17-inch model) and not through just that link.
See the difference between this:
http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MB604LL/A?mco=MzA3MTE3NA
and this:
http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MC026LL/A?mco=NDE4NDI1Ng

IMO it's obviously just an error like when the Unibody MP first went on sale and the backlit keyboard looked like it was an option for the entry-level version.

gmcalpin

Mar 31, 2009, 01:11 PM

You do realize that your second link is for the 17-inch model?

IMO it's obviously just an error like when the Unibody MP first went on sale and the backlit keyboard looked like it was an option for the entry-level version.
Oops. Still, the 15" 2.93 page I meant to link to still lists the 8 GB kit.

http://store.apple.com/us/memorymodel/ME_15_2_93_MBP

These pages are not listed/available from the Memory Family page anymore, though, so yes, apparently it was an error.

http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_mac/mac_accessories/memory

Oddly, the 15" 2.66 and 2.93 pages still exist — they're just "hidden"/inaccessible at the moment. Possibly, they need to be corrected, but it's a weird mistake for someone to have made. Perhaps it was just a premature site update?

Perhaps there a legitimate software reason that these machines can't use 2x4GB chips that (perhaps) a future update might fix, allowing 8GB of RAM in the 2.66 and 2.93 15" MBPs? (One that would be — as it should be — accompanied by an update to their official tech specs.)

Or is it — as the conspiracy theorists assume — an EFI issue deliberately disabling the ability to use 2x4GB chips?

That's what I want to know.

Freecity88

Mar 31, 2009, 02:30 PM

Gooooood deal! in 4 10.

Bubba Satori

Apr 5, 2009, 12:37 AM

LMAO $1200 for 8GB of ram ?, are you nuts Apple lol.

http://rubysdreamhome.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/vaseline.jpg

beestigbeestje

Apr 10, 2009, 05:56 PM

early 2008 MBPs will take 6GB as well. I don't think they're Penryns. Could be wrong though.

You can even put 8gb of RAM in a Santa-rosa Macbook pro, but it will only utilize 6 gb and beyond that, it pages out to the harddrive..

I hope this could be fixed soon, a friend of mine just bought a crappy Hewlett Packerd with 8 gigs of RAM.

nc7r

Apr 10, 2009, 06:09 PM

You can even put 8gb of RAM in a Santa-rosa Macbook pro, but it will only utilize 6 gb and beyond that, it pages out to the harddrive..

I heard people were having really big issues installing 8GB in the SR ones though, so probably not the best of ideas!

baditkoff

Apr 23, 2009, 04:26 AM

I found the memory at newegg for $700.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233081

santos79

Apr 24, 2009, 05:55 AM

I found the memory at newegg for $700.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820233081

What a bargain!

mmendoza27

Apr 26, 2009, 02:39 AM

Don't know if other people have seen this, but OWC is claiming that 8 GB will not work in the late-2008 unibodies and Santa Rosa systems. At least at this moment, whether it's a firmware issue or not, someone will have to dig further. Seems like on 2009 Unibody MBP's can handle the 8 GB's of RAM.

http://eshop.macsales.com/Reviews/Framework.cfm?page=/Benchmarks/6gb_tests.html

sholomp

Apr 27, 2009, 10:28 PM

can you please explain what type of possible new macbook will be coming out by the conference, because I just purchased a macbook 13,3 and im thinking of returning it. anybody?

pdjudd

Apr 27, 2009, 10:33 PM

can you please explain what type of possible new macbook will be coming out by the conference, because I just purchased a macbook 13,3 and im thinking of returning it. anybody?

There are no current rumors on any new notebooks. Apple historically hasn't updated notebooks at wwdc anyway.

ViciousShadow21

Apr 27, 2009, 10:45 PM

can you please explain what type of possible new macbook will be coming out by the conference, because I just purchased a macbook 13,3 and im thinking of returning it. anybody?

your talking november '09 before we see a major upgrade to the MBP. it's a little out of the 14 return policy for apple so if you are happy with your MB i would say keep it. if not you should return it and get the MBP now cause it's going to be a while.

tseitz89

May 12, 2009, 01:23 AM

There must be someone out there tha visits this site that can "hack" the 17'' firmware to work on the 15'' so it can use 8GB of ram, ifixit said the components of both are exactly the same it should work

Riverbird

May 12, 2009, 06:29 PM

dal20402

May 19, 2009, 12:09 AM

I thought it only showed the 2.66 GHz model on the upgrade slots because it replaced the 2.53 GHz model. Its a very small bump in processor speed, why wouldn't 8 GB of RAM work?

I just got this in February and I would like to be able to upgrade to 8GB of RAM in the future to avoid having to buy a new computer. But if I can't, that's just silly!

It's not a matter of processor speed -- it's a matter of changed firmware between the late '08 and early '09 models.

Late '08 = 2.4, 2.53, 2.8 = 6 GB
Early '09 = 2.66, 2.93 = 8 GB

Some people think this is some sort of conspiracy. I think it's more likely that there was some minor problem with the old firmware and 8 GB and Apple just didn't bother to test the configuration. Whichever is true, your machine has the old firmware and won't handle 8 GB correctly.

The failure mode for 8 GB on the older machines is that, when the machine exceeds 4 GB of real RAM in use, it will slow to a crawl and eventually stop entirely.

crackbookpro

May 19, 2009, 12:15 PM

The new iMacs do support 8GB of RAM.

yeah, all you have to do is cough-up a grand!

CrackBookPro:cool:

celtikmind

May 19, 2009, 02:18 PM

It's not a matter of processor speed -- it's a matter of changed firmware between the late '08 and early '09 models.

Late '08 = 2.4, 2.53, 2.8 = 6 GB
Early '09 = 2.66, 2.93 = 8 GB

Some people think this is some sort of conspiracy. I think it's more likely that there was some minor problem with the old firmware and 8 GB and Apple just didn't bother to test the configuration. Whichever is true, your machine has the old firmware and won't handle 8 GB correctly.

The failure mode for 8 GB on the older machines is that, when the machine exceeds 4 GB of real RAM in use, it will slow to a crawl and eventually stop entirely.

Firmware? If it's only firmware couldn't they just make an update and be done with it?

Nah, it would be more likely it's the hardware that different. On the PC side of things stuff like this is always related to motherboard/chipset revisions.

Either way, I realized the other day that most higher spec. PC laptops supports 8Gb today - some with ddr2, some ddr3. It pretty embarrassing the unibody MacBook Pro's from last fall don't. :o