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

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by raymondu999, May 26, 2008.

  1. raymondu999 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    #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?
     
  2. raymondu999 thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    #2
    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?
     
  3. bart rijksen macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    #3
    you can, and it would work, but it is very hard to find the ram, and startup would take very long.
     
  4. scienide09 macrumors 65816

    scienide09

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Location:
    Canada
    #4
  5. MattZani macrumors 68030

    MattZani

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2008
    Location:
    UK
    #5
    Ask the Guys at OWC to see if it recognizes the 8Gb
     
  6. speakerwizard macrumors 68000

    speakerwizard

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2006
    Location:
    London
    #6
    is there not a bit of a bottle neck running 8GB through 2 slots?
     
  7. TBi macrumors 68030

    TBi

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #7
    There's no reason why startup would take any longer.

    Nope
     
  8. mkrishnan Moderator emeritus

    mkrishnan

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI, USA
    #8
    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?
     
  9. m1stake macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2008
    Location:
    Philly
    #9
    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.
     
  10. alphaod macrumors Core

    alphaod

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #10
    The MBP does not support it. And if you needed 8GB of RAM, you shouldn't be using a MBP.
     
  11. wgilles macrumors 6502

    wgilles

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2008
    #11
    I agree, if you need 8 GB of RAM you need something bigger and more powerful than a notebook computer.
     
  12. QCassidy352 macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    Bay Area
    #12
    that's just silly. There are plenty of tasks that will max out 4 GB RAM before they max out a 2.5 ghz core 2 duo.
     
  13. JWest macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2007
    #13
    Such...as...?
     
  14. orpheus1120 macrumors 65816

    orpheus1120

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Location:
    Malaysia
    #14
    Photoshop.
     
  15. bart rijksen macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2008
    #15
    When you startup the computer, it scans the ram. The more ram, the longer it takes.
     
  16. orpheus1120 macrumors 65816

    orpheus1120

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Location:
    Malaysia
    #16
    Really? That's the first I heard.

    I wonder how long it takes a mp with 16gb of ram to bootup. :)
     
  17. higgalls macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    #17
    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).
     
  18. Tom~P macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    #18
    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.
     
  19. Draeconis macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    #19
    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 ;)

    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.
     
  20. TBi macrumors 68030

    TBi

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2005
    Location:
    Ireland
    #20
    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.
     
  21. higgalls macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    #21
    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.
     

Share This Page