Yes, I can have more than 4GB of RAM assigned across all totality of the VMs. Of course VirtualBox fires up an individual process for each guest that runs, so that's not surprising.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
6GB in MacBook (Pro); Yes it works. - 8GB... well...
- Thread starter ayeying
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes, I can have more than 4GB of RAM assigned across all totality of the VMs. Of course VirtualBox fires up an individual process for each guest that runs, so that's not surprising.
Indeed, but it's seemingly badly broken for multiple monitors, which is a show stopper for me: http://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=22207
3.0.6 apparently adds support for the 64bit kernel, but I've not felt the need or urge to switch to a 64bit kernel.
Which 4 GB RAM module manufacturer is compatible?
To those of you who have succeeded in upgrading your system RAM to 6 or even 8 GB: Can you please tell me what make your 4 GB sticks are? I've purchased one from OWC which is a Hynix but it doesn't seem to work. The official NVidia 9400M RAM compatibility list only includes one 4 GB RAM model, namely from Micron (Crucial), so I thought that might be the cause. On the other hand, if you pick up a 4 GB stick at the Apple Store (I just checked) they'll provide you with a Hynix module as well.
Someone reported success with this ID number: 0x029E, but I couldn't find out who the manufacturer is.
Thanks!
To those of you who have succeeded in upgrading your system RAM to 6 or even 8 GB: Can you please tell me what make your 4 GB sticks are? I've purchased one from OWC which is a Hynix but it doesn't seem to work. The official NVidia 9400M RAM compatibility list only includes one 4 GB RAM model, namely from Micron (Crucial), so I thought that might be the cause. On the other hand, if you pick up a 4 GB stick at the Apple Store (I just checked) they'll provide you with a Hynix module as well.
Someone reported success with this ID number: 0x029E, but I couldn't find out who the manufacturer is.
Thanks!
I purchased direct from Crucial in the UK.
System profiler says that it is:
BANK 0/DIMM1:
Size: 4 GB
Type: DDR3
Speed: 1067 MHz
Status: OK
Manufacturer: 0x802C
Part Number: 0x31364A5353353132363448592D3147314131
Serial Number: 0xEA2709E1
Crucial describe it as:
(CT51264BC1067)
4GB 204-PIN SODIMM 512Mx64 DDR3 PC3-8500 CL7
Thanks fm2503!
Which MacBook Pro do you have? I assume you've got 6 GB installed and are using Snow Leopard in 64-bit kernel mode?
Salut
Which MacBook Pro do you have? I assume you've got 6 GB installed and are using Snow Leopard in 64-bit kernel mode?
Salut
Trouble running 8G on new MacBook Pro
I recently purchased a MacBook Pro 15" 3.06Ghz (mid 2009 running SL) and decided to upgrade memory from the 4G it came with to 8G. After upgrading the system has kernel crashes, after running for a few minutes. I have done all the standard troubleshooting and find that the 4G modules work by themselves but not together. I also see (from Crucial and other forums) that I am not alone. Before I blame Crucial for my woes, has anyone here run the mid 2009 MacBook Pro with 8G? Could it be that I also run a Samsung SSD?
Thanks,
John C.
I recently purchased a MacBook Pro 15" 3.06Ghz (mid 2009 running SL) and decided to upgrade memory from the 4G it came with to 8G. After upgrading the system has kernel crashes, after running for a few minutes. I have done all the standard troubleshooting and find that the 4G modules work by themselves but not together. I also see (from Crucial and other forums) that I am not alone. Before I blame Crucial for my woes, has anyone here run the mid 2009 MacBook Pro with 8G? Could it be that I also run a Samsung SSD?
Thanks,
John C.
sounds like your computer doesnt like the 8GB, which is odd because that computer is meant to support it.
the SSD would have NO effect on anything
MBP4,1 6GB problems SL -> single-channel ?
Hello everyone
I have a macbook pro 4.1 (early 2008) 2.5Ghz and I was thinking to buy new 6GB ram memory from crucial (CT51264AC667 and CT25664AC667).
It seems to be (hardware technical) possible for Leopard but there are a lot off kernel panics with Snow Leopard.
Before buying this upgrade I want to be sure whether the problem with SL could be solved in the future.
Could it be that SL has some problems just with handling single-channel? (It seems to be that apple only sells computers or ram upgrades that perfectly uses dual- or quad channel)
Did anybody yet tried to install an other unix based 64 bit operating system (clean install) and after that tried to use the full amount of 6GB ram (single channel)?
For example a clean install of Ubuntu (64bit) or even better freeBSD (64bit).
If those other OS work perfectly, then it only seems to be a SL bug.
Then it's only a matter off time. Waiting for apple wanting to solve this problem. Or waiting for somebody with enough knowledge off unix programing, to want to make us some hack.
Or am I totaly wrong?
Did anybody tried this, or does anybody want to try ?
Hello everyone
I have a macbook pro 4.1 (early 2008) 2.5Ghz and I was thinking to buy new 6GB ram memory from crucial (CT51264AC667 and CT25664AC667).
It seems to be (hardware technical) possible for Leopard but there are a lot off kernel panics with Snow Leopard.
Before buying this upgrade I want to be sure whether the problem with SL could be solved in the future.
Could it be that SL has some problems just with handling single-channel? (It seems to be that apple only sells computers or ram upgrades that perfectly uses dual- or quad channel)
Did anybody yet tried to install an other unix based 64 bit operating system (clean install) and after that tried to use the full amount of 6GB ram (single channel)?
For example a clean install of Ubuntu (64bit) or even better freeBSD (64bit).
If those other OS work perfectly, then it only seems to be a SL bug.
Then it's only a matter off time. Waiting for apple wanting to solve this problem. Or waiting for somebody with enough knowledge off unix programing, to want to make us some hack.
Or am I totaly wrong?
Did anybody tried this, or does anybody want to try ?
I have a MBP4,1 with SL and 6gb, and it works perfectly. The only kernel panics I have had are caused by my eSATA expresscard.
I guess they could be related--if the eSATA card is getting memory outside the expected 4gb 32 bit address space, it might not work right. Maybe the driver is 32-bit only or something, but I'm using the built-in driver.
Oh, I also had a few KPs due to the sudden motion sensor, but I can't remember if that was with SL or L. I doubt that is related to the extra RAM, though.
I've been running 6gb for probably close to a year now with very few problems overall. I got my 4gb stick from OWC, but I don't know who the manufacturer is.
Any one running 8Gb on a Late 2008 MBP (MacBookPro5,1) 2,53Mhz?
Adicional info:
Adicional info:
Code:
Modelo: MacBook Pro
Identificador de modelo: MacBookPro5,1
Nome do processador: Intel Core 2 Duo
Velocidade do processador: 2,53 GHz
Número de processadores: 1
Número total de núcleos: 2
Cache L2: 6 MB
Memória: 4 GB
Velocidade do BUS: 1,07 GHz
Versão da ROM de arranque: MBP51.0074.B01
Versão de SMC (sistema): 1.33f8
Hasn't this become obvious to you all by now that 2008 MacBook (Pro) will never support 8 GB RAM. Obviously Apple figured it out and switched something on logic board with 2.66 GHz MBP high-end spec bump in Early 2009 which was after the 17" Early MBP officially supported 8 GB.
It just seems obvious to me that Apple had a problem there. All the people hopeful that Snow Leopard would fix because it wasn't addressing memory properly weren't thinking of 8 GB in 17" MBP or 32 GB in Mac Pro long before that easily addressing much greater amounts of RAM.
It has just seen obvious to me for a long time that either Apple dropped the ball with something on the logic board OR Apple doesn't want to support 8 GB and intentionally did something to limit hardware. Nobody, to my knowledge, has ever successfully had another OS running 8 GB on a Late 2008 MBP 2.4/2.53.
Perhaps Apple did it to force upgrades to new MBPs from those wanting 8 GB of RAM. Definitely not out of character... and I guess that would be your only hope that your Late 2008 15" MBP 2.4/2.53 would ever even unofficially allow 8 GB of RAM. One day, three years down the road when most have been passed on to kids or donated away... the 8 GB RAM Late 2008 Firmware update arrives in software update(firmware update) as an unnoticed and not even frontpage MR worthy news... all in time... all in time.
It just seems obvious to me that Apple had a problem there. All the people hopeful that Snow Leopard would fix because it wasn't addressing memory properly weren't thinking of 8 GB in 17" MBP or 32 GB in Mac Pro long before that easily addressing much greater amounts of RAM.
It has just seen obvious to me for a long time that either Apple dropped the ball with something on the logic board OR Apple doesn't want to support 8 GB and intentionally did something to limit hardware. Nobody, to my knowledge, has ever successfully had another OS running 8 GB on a Late 2008 MBP 2.4/2.53.
Perhaps Apple did it to force upgrades to new MBPs from those wanting 8 GB of RAM. Definitely not out of character... and I guess that would be your only hope that your Late 2008 15" MBP 2.4/2.53 would ever even unofficially allow 8 GB of RAM. One day, three years down the road when most have been passed on to kids or donated away... the 8 GB RAM Late 2008 Firmware update arrives in software update(firmware update) as an unnoticed and not even frontpage MR worthy news... all in time... all in time.
If
dropped the ball, now more than ever, we the Mac owners community must not drop the ball.Make your official claim using apple feedback:
http://www.apple.com/feedback/macbookpro.html
Ah, I think you've figured out my issue! I can't believe this didn't occur to me. Obviously the expresscard (specifically it's pci-e interface) is mapped to the memory's address space, which is why when I was running the 64-bit kernel I had perfect stability -- my pci-e expresscard SSD doesn't mount in 64-bit mode and thus I couldn't be pushed beyond 6GB of addressable space as was happening in 32-bit mode.
So to restate:
If you are running 6GB on a MBP that only officially supports 4GB, it looks like ExpressCard devices that connect to the PCI-e bus will address enough additional memory to push you beyond the 6GB barrier and into instability.
Thanks to m85476585 for helping me connect the dots. I'm curious if anyone has any evidence to undermine this theory.
I thought the few people that could afford the 8 Gig of memory with these machines were running fine in 64bit mode.
From the FAQ:
I know this thread is fairly large -and correct me if I'm wrong- but I thought 2008 MBPs -especially the late UB ones- were running 8 Gig fine in 64bit mode?
Now, what I would like to test would be a Late 2008 MBP UB running 8 GB fine in 64bit mode boot into Windows Vista 64bit, Windows 7 64bit , or Linux 64bit and run some tests to see if the memory runs fine there as well.
-P
I upgraded to 8 Gig of Ram
I just wanted to pass along that I upgraded to 8 Gig of Ram in my MBP (5,3) and I would never go back to 4gb. I do lots of VMs and the whole system just flies.
Honest, I think its the best investment I've put in.
If you have questions feel free to ask!
-P
I just wanted to pass along that I upgraded to 8 Gig of Ram in my MBP (5,3) and I would never go back to 4gb. I do lots of VMs and the whole system just flies.
Honest, I think its the best investment I've put in.
If you have questions feel free to ask!
-P
No one has tested the 2.4GHz model... I only know of the 2.53GHz or 2.66GHz models capable of 8GB.
I read all 25 pages and still no answer!! is it really that hard!?
to sum it all up!! is the 2.53 macbook pro 5.1 capable of handling 8gb of ram? yes or no?
to sum it all up!! is the 2.53 macbook pro 5.1 capable of handling 8gb of ram? yes or no?
***** POS product, hope the whole apple team burns alive then!!! took my $2850 with tax for this POS laptop that I cant even upgrade. ***** worthless company!!! back to windows again. f*** that, f*** apple, f*** computers!!