Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Doesn't this mean that we... errm... can do it too?

R

raymondu999

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 11, 2008
1,009
1
I was trying to help my cousin choose his next laptop (he's still not a Mac convert yet, and I'm not big on converting people, so I just looked between Sony, HP, Lenovo and Fujitsu) but I came across this on the HP laptops specs pages.

http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/us/e...owerful&psn=notebooks_tablet_pcs/notebook_pcs

Look at the maximum memory field. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but these probably would run only the current Santa Rosa chipsets, same to our Penryn/Rev. C Merom setups. So does that mean that, if we can just shell out the bucks for 2 4GB SO-DIMM sticks, we can utilize 8GB?
 
Seems like I've struck a note. 70 views and 0 replies. Surely somebody must know the answer? Can we, or can we not, plug in 8GB of RAM into our MacBooks, MacBook Pros, and iMacs?
 
you can, and it would work, but it is very hard to find the ram, and startup would take very long.
 
Are there any sources that sell direct to consumer that sell 4GB 200-pin notebook modules?

And are they standard form-factor modules, or are they something funny with extra heat sinks or an extra layer of chips or something that would prevent them from fitting in all notebooks?
 
They're just SO-DIMM sticks. The FSB is the only bottleneck on memory, and it'll be gone soon :)

No reason why they wouldn't work.
 
The MBP does not support it. And if you needed 8GB of RAM, you shouldn't be using a MBP.
 
I agree, if you need 8 GB of RAM you need something bigger and more powerful than a notebook computer.
 
There is no point of having 8GB with XP, as it will only use 4GB (and that includes any video memory you have).
As far as vista goes, you will need to use 64-bit Vista in order to get it to recognise any more than 4GB, but Vista is crap, especially the 64-bit one. Unfortunately software that runs on normal 32bit vista isn't guarenteed to run on 64-bit vista (I had problems a while ago getting antivirus running on 64bit vista as they hadn't been rewritten for it yet, so they wouldn't install).
 
Depending on the version of XP, it can use more than 4GB (or 8 or 16).
And you'll find the only problems that arise with Vista is if you - or whoever is complaining about it - didn't read the box. On approved hardware, it is very, very stable & really quite quick; a bit like a Mac really, which of course also only runs on approved hardware, but enforces this restriction much more harshly. Both methods have their good & bad sides - Apple gives you (significantly) fewer options, Vista gives you more opportunity to whinge when unsupported hardware keeps causing it to crash :p.

Oh - memory checks at boot - maybe 100ms a GB? Not really going to slow your day down too much. Well, around one and a half seconds with 16GB :D.
 
I'm pretty sure you can use 8Gb, but the 4Gb sticks are, as I recall, expensive and rare. Your money would be better spend on other things ;)

higgalls said:
There is no point of having 8GB with XP, as it will only use 4GB (and that includes any video memory you have).
As far as vista goes, you will need to use 64-bit Vista in order to get it to recognise any more than 4GB, but Vista is crap, especially the 64-bit one. Unfortunately software that runs on normal 32bit vista isn't guarenteed to run on 64-bit vista (I had problems a while ago getting antivirus running on 64bit vista as they hadn't been rewritten for it yet, so they wouldn't install).
Click to expand...

Is there a particular reason you're especially slating the x64 version of Vista? x64 Vista is the best 64bit version of windows there is for the consumer market. Also your information is slightly off, the 32bit versions of XP and Vista can address 3.25 to 3.5Gb of RAM, and the 64bit version can address the full 4Gb.
 
bart rijksen said:
When you startup the computer, it scans the ram. The more ram, the longer it takes.
Click to expand...

Only if it is set to scan the RAM. Most computers only do a quick check of the RAM so there is no slowdown. I didn't notice my computer booting any slower with 6GB's when i upgraded from 2GB.
 
Draeconis said:
Is there a particular reason you're especially slating the x64 version of Vista? x64 Vista is the best 64bit version of windows there is for the consumer market. Also your information is slightly off, the 32bit versions of XP and Vista can address 3.25 to 3.5Gb of RAM, and the 64bit version can address the full 4Gb.
Click to expand...

Just because XP 64bit was terrible, doesn't mean any one that is better than XP must be good.
As I said, Vista 64bit still has software problems, as many programs need to be rewritten to use it (and I used the example of anti-virus software). Over time it will become better, but my experience of it back in January was terrible. Maybe SP1 for Vista has eliminated all that - I have no idea as I switched over to Mac instead.

As for as taking 4GB for the 32-bit versions - sorry... My bad. They take 4GB of address space, so it does work out to be a bit less.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back