AMEN. I had to end up buying a USB wireless adapter. Pretty lame for a $2500 laptop.
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.
Apple Offering 8 GB RAM Kits for 2.93 GHz and 2.66 GHz 15" MacBook Pros
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
AMEN. I had to end up buying a USB wireless adapter. Pretty lame for a $2500 laptop.
There is very little chance it's your laptop; it's probably your router, or your ISP.AMEN. I had to end up buying a USB wireless adapter. Pretty lame for a $2500 laptop.
Does it have the same problem everywhere?
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.
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.
UNIBODY support 8GB or 6GB as others claimed ?
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?
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?
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.
8gb Ram Upgrade Is Possible
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
An honest question
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?
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?
It's not about what we need this moment, but what we will or may need in near future. I don't think anybody plans to invest $1200 in new memory and buy the 8GB. But they plan to keep their laptops for a few years. And I'm sure 8GB will be then what 2GB is now.
I do a lot of .NET development, run a SQL server, performance and scalability testing all in a virtual environment. Believe me, the more RAM, the better.
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!
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!
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.
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.
Honestly, I don't know what you're going on about?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Poor Flash performance on Macs needs to be fixed by Adobe.
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.
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.
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.
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.