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

Macbook 5,1 with snow leapord 4Gb, 6Gb, 8Gb?

shadowfax

Can you do me a favor and also test your 6 GB configuration under battery power? I found when trying to run the system with that much RAM, even after the 10.6.1 update, that when I started up away from the AC adapter a kernel panic arose almost immediately. A number of users have been reporting that their systems are kernel panicking under battery power with Snow Leopard, even with stock configurations of RAM installed. What do you make of that?
 
Sounds like the kernel panic is related to something other than RAM. I didn't try mine with battery power, and it's already on its way back to OWC. Do you have any links to these reports?
 
I'll see if I can find where I'd read that forum thread...still looking but I'm sure someone was complaining about it.
I've still not been able to get the 6 GB configuration to work even in Leopard 10.5.8. I'm bringing the notebook in to the Apple Store tomorrow morning to ask them to take a look and refund me if they can't solve the issue. I'll reinstall Snow Leopard again tonight before I drop it off to see if they can find a solution.
 
I stopped off at Apple Care this morning and asked them to check the 4 GB RAM module they'd installed and to verify that the Unibody MacBooks are capable of 6 GB total. The technician informed me that these late '08 models are indeed guaranteed to support 6 GB RAM and he added that they also are capable of handling 8 GB total, although Apple does not officially condone this.

He took the module out and placed it in the bottom slot, restarted the machine and told me all was OK. I was a bit wary to say the least, so I asked what could have been the cause of my frequent kernel panics. He tried to convince me that the RAM hadn't been seated properly; warily, I took back the machine and asked if I could play a bit with it before leaving. Sure enough, within a couple of minutes I was able to show him the dreaded kernel panic screen. He agreed to put back the original 2 GB module and test the 4 GB stick and get back to me, but suggested it must be a software issue.

I was surprised to hear that these units can handle 8 GB of RAM, since someone else reported on another forum that his late '08 MBP had 8 GB RAM installed and Windows x64 refused to start in the Boot Camp partition since apparently the system could only address a maximum of 6 GB, which was causing the Windows x64 to crash on startup. Sounds legit.

I almost broke down and bought a 13" MacBook Pro but am convinced there must be some way to overcome the 4 GB RAM limitation in SL. I've since disabled the option to put the HDD to sleep in Energy Saver, and noted a lot less clicking of the drive, but have to wait until I get my 4 GB stick back to keep experimenting.
 
Mbp53 8gb Sl 10.6.1

ssn/shadowfax, thanks for all the info. I got a new MBP last week and it's been kernel panicing multiple times a day so have been surfing the net for info and came across your posts. It sure appears that SL is not happy with more than 4GB (even on the most recent MBP)

I'll swap back to the stock 4GB tomorrow morning and see if that fixes the issue (right now I have 2x4GB Kingston memory in there) but have the stock Apple 2x2GB modules as well.

I'll post my results tomorrow evening.
 
Hi cavosburgh

I suspect you have a compatibility problem with the Kingstom RAM modules. When running Windows 7 x86 in Boot Camp with 6 GB RAM installed in my uMB I was still suffering from random BSOD's and the system was noticeably slower than with 2 x 2 GB RAM. Based on my experience I would tend to believe that the uMB 2.4 GHz is indeed restricted to 4 GB RAM due to a hardware limitation. My notebook was among the first production runs since I purchased it in early January, so it may be that more recent systems support up to 6 (or perhaps even 8) GB of RAM, at least in 10.5 Leopard.
 
ssn,

Thanks for the post. I agree something is incompatible, I'm just not sure what yet. I've been running with the stock 4GB and the system has been completely stable (where as before every time I fired up a couple of VM's the system would tank after a little use) I checked the Kingston site and the modules purchased appear to be the right ones. In addition I ran techtools and memtest (the latter for 12 hrs) without any issue (but once booted into the OS and under load it would kernel panic multiple times a day)

I'll try re-installing the memory tonight (make sure the 8GB modules weren't just mis-seated) but if that doesn't work I may toss another drive in and install Leo and see if it exhibits the same problem or not to try and see if it's the DIMMs or SL that is the problem.
 
Don't forget to try a single 4 GB RAM stick at a time, just using one slot, to verify compatibility. If the system can handle 4 GB of RAM, it should be able to do it with one slot occupied and the other empty.
 
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 ?
 
macbook 5, 1 booting on the Snow Leopard 64 it kernel??

shadowfax said:
Well, Here I am on my Macbook 5,1 in Snow Leopard with a 64-bit kernel and 6 GB of RAM installed. This test has been really, really, really odd. I booted up, and used eatmem to eat 6 GB of RAM across 3 calls. This pegged out my system, got me a huge page file, and other than being doggishly slow, things were running just right. Then I killed that and freed up the RAM, which is actually the point where I usually saw the kernel panics happen with the 32-bit kernel. Then I ran Parallels and Aperture. Man, Aperture is sweet with that much RAM, it really doesn't skip a beat!

Anyway, things ran great for about 50 minutes. Then, out of nowhere, Skype crashed on me. It wouldn't relaunch, either, just kept crashing during launch. Oddly, the crash reports showed some random unhandled exception rather than what I'd have expected--segfault. I tried to open up other random apps (iCal was first)... Those all crashed on startup, and now they were all segfaulting on startup. I quit all open apps (other than Finder), and tried to relaunch them. No dice, more segfaults. At this point, I was expecting a kernel panic any moment, but it sure never did. I gave up and rebooted, and that's where I am now, still with 6GB loaded.

I really don't think this is a firmware issue. It sounds like a kernel/kext issue, which would account for why switching kernels yields better results.

For what it's worth, this is with my initial stick of RAM from OWC/MacSales. They're sending me a box to return it in exchange for a replacement, which I will test with as well. I also need to check this stick out running solo (4GB single stick alone), assuming that I get it to break again in this session.
Click to expand...


Your macbook 5, 1 booting on the Snow Leopard 64 it kernel??

I just got my copy of snow leopard and running it on macbook unibody late 2008. i have tried applications, a preference pane from some website and holdong down 6 n 4 but no dice.. not able to boot in 64 nbit mode... what am i doing wrong??
 
zulualpha7 said:
Your macbook 5, 1 booting on the Snow Leopard 64 it kernel??

I just got my copy of snow leopard and running it on macbook unibody late 2008. i have tried applications, a preference pane from some website and holdong down 6 n 4 but no dice.. not able to boot in 64 nbit mode... what am i doing wrong??
Click to expand...

Did you do this?
 
I just managed to have my macbook5,1 (running SL 10.6.2) always boot into 64 bit by following the instructions on the page recommended above.

Now I'm eager to know if someone has successfully tried running 6GB on SL 10.6.2.
 
jgarifuna said:
I just managed to have my macbook5,1 (running SL 10.6.2) always boot into 64 bit by following the instructions on the page recommended above.

Now I'm eager to know if someone has successfully tried running 6GB on SL 10.6.2.
Click to expand...

What does the 64 bit kernel get me? (I have a Macbook 5,1)
 
jgarifuna said:
Now I'm eager to know if someone has successfully tried running 6GB on SL 10.6.2.
Click to expand...

It didn't work for me--same stupid kernel panics after some amount of time. At this point I give up till my next laptop.

kellte2 said:
What does the 64 bit kernel get me? (I have a Macbook 5,1)
Click to expand...

Nothing, really, other than 64-bit drivers. I believe all possible advantages hinge on future development. One not-so-great thing it gets you is the inability to tether your iPhone via USB (you have to use BT instead). That's the only annoyance I've come across.
 
shadowfax said:
It didn't work for me--same stupid kernel panics after some amount of time. At this point I give up till my next laptop.



Nothing, really, other than 64-bit drivers. I believe all possible advantages hinge on future development. One not-so-great thing it gets you is the inability to tether your iPhone via USB (you have to use BT instead). That's the only annoyance I've come across.
Click to expand...


Apple really stuck it to their customers with that 2008 Unibody release, didn't they? I still love my computer, but issues like the RAM, not being able to boot directly into 64 bit (without some very techy work around) make me feel like Apple really half-baked this baby or wanted to identify the suckers.

The RAM is particularly inexcusable. They (apple) just started to use a redesigned chipset for the Macbook/Pro line. The Pros got a higher RAM capacity and the Macbook got dumped on with the older whitebook tech. From there, Apple quickly rehashed the computer in June and added the features that should have been on the 1600 machines to start with. All in all, the 4 GB 'supported' RAM cap is tantamount to planned obsolescence while we, the loving Apple faithful, tirelessly try to figure out a complicated workaround (a la the 64 bit trick posted above).
 
I believe that the late 2008 MacBook Pro had similar issues. That is, I am not sure that I understand you right, but it sounds like you're saying they crippled the late 08 MB and not the MBP, and I really don't think that's the case.

I have no idea what their problem with the set up is. Is it intentional? is it a bug? One thing that's not debatable is that they always advertised that its max capacity is 4 GB, and that's what they deliver.

As for the 64-bit hack, again it's not much of a feature that we've been 'excluded' from at this point, and I highly suspect that it's a driver issue more than anything else... If anything is missing a 64-bit driver that they haven't made yet, it behooves them *not* to allow users to use the 64-bit kernel, particularly given it doesn't enhance their performance or usability in any way.

MR is full of tech-savvy users who like to tool around. It disappoints me that Apple didn't leave us the 'easter egg' of full 8GB support, but I don't think it's fair to cry foul like I had a right to any of this stuff that they stripped me of. It's the technology sector, and the problem with being an "early adopter." All in all, I am happy with my MacBook.
 
shadowfax said:
I believe that the late 2008 MacBook Pro had similar issues. That is, I am not sure that I understand you right, but it sounds like you're saying they crippled the late 08 MB and not the MBP, and I really don't think that's the case.

I have no idea what their problem with the set up is. Is it intentional? is it a bug? One thing that's not debatable is that they always advertised that its max capacity is 4 GB, and that's what they deliver.

As for the 64-bit hack, again it's not much of a feature that we've been 'excluded' from at this point, and I highly suspect that it's a driver issue more than anything else... If anything is missing a 64-bit driver that they haven't made yet, it behooves them *not* to allow users to use the 64-bit kernel, particularly given it doesn't enhance their performance or usability in any way.

MR is full of tech-savvy users who like to tool around. It disappoints me that Apple didn't leave us the 'easter egg' of full 8GB support, but I don't think it's fair to cry foul like I had a right to any of this stuff that they stripped me of. It's the technology sector, and the problem with being an "early adopter." All in all, I am happy with my MacBook.
Click to expand...

I agree; I love my computer. However, despite what people on MR like to claim, sometimes you get the feeling that it's not as much technology as it is strategy.
 
shadowfax said:
MR is full of tech-savvy users who like to tool around. It disappoints me that Apple didn't leave us the 'easter egg' of full 8GB support, but I don't think it's fair to cry foul like I had a right to any of this stuff that they stripped me of. It's the technology sector, and the problem with being an "early adopter." All in all, I am happy with my MacBook.
Click to expand...

At the time Apple sold these, 4GB DDR3 dimms were far too expensive for most people. (they're still pretty expensive) I think, then, that it should have been fair to assume that Apple only "supported" 4GB because they only SOLD 4GB upgrades. If I go to the Apple Store site and select the 2.53 GHz MacBook Pro, it shows the $800 8GB upgrade as being available. So what does that mean?

Yes. The OFFICIAL report posted when they RELEASED the machines states 4GB. However, as I said... Apple didn't offer 8GB at that time. It's been OVER a year since then, and Apple now offers 8GB kits. The store, which should have the latest information, tells me I should be able to upgrade my RAM.

I'm highly disappointed with Apple if they intentionally limit older hardware to benefit new hardware sales. I paid MORE for my MacBook Pro than someone would if they bought one today. You could say that it's part of being an "early adopter"... But that's ridiculous, really. You don't want to hurt the early adopters, since you WANT people to buy your products.

If Apple intentionally hurts early adopters, then what's the point to buying a Mac in the first place? Since, arguably, every time a new Mac comes out... that's an early adoption.

The whole concept of "early adoption" as far as computers are concerned is really kind of absurd, since technology changes so often.

Honestly, the Unibody MacBook Pros SHOULD be able to use 8GB (in my opinion). I mean, I paid a premium price for what should be a "top-of-the-line" machine and it can't even support more than 4GB of RAM? Seems like I'll think twice before buying a Mac in the future.

In addition, these issues didn't seem to show up until Snow Leopard (since people were running 6GB on the machines previously) and it only seems to happen when using the 9400 NVIDIA chipset (since it uses shared RAM) according to some testers. This seems like a bug that Apple should fix, to me. I mean, they still sold the 5,1 less than a year ago.

To say that Apple ISN'T to blame is blind fanboyism: "Oh, it's never Apple's fault. It must be the customer's fault."
 
Apollo33 said:
At the time Apple sold these, 4GB DDR3 dimms were far too expensive for most people. (they're still pretty expensive) I think, then, that it should have been fair to assume that Apple only "supported" 4GB because they only SOLD 4GB upgrades. If I go to the Apple Store site and select the 2.53 GHz MacBook Pro, it shows the $800 8GB upgrade as being available. So what does that mean?

Yes. The OFFICIAL report posted when they RELEASED the machines states 4GB. However, as I said... Apple didn't offer 8GB at that time. It's been OVER a year since then, and Apple now offers 8GB kits. The store, which should have the latest information, tells me I should be able to upgrade my RAM.

I'm highly disappointed with Apple if they intentionally limit older hardware to benefit new hardware sales. I paid MORE for my MacBook Pro than someone would if they bought one today. You could say that it's part of being an "early adopter"... But that's ridiculous, really. You don't want to hurt the early adopters, since you WANT people to buy your products.

If Apple intentionally hurts early adopters, then what's the point to buying a Mac in the first place? Since, arguably, every time a new Mac comes out... that's an early adoption.

The whole concept of "early adoption" as far as computers are concerned is really kind of absurd, since technology changes so often.

Honestly, the Unibody MacBook Pros SHOULD be able to use 8GB (in my opinion). I mean, I paid a premium price for what should be a "top-of-the-line" machine and it can't even support more than 4GB of RAM? Seems like I'll think twice before buying a Mac in the future.

In addition, these issues didn't seem to show up until Snow Leopard (since people were running 6GB on the machines previously) and it only seems to happen when using the 9400 NVIDIA chipset (since it uses shared RAM) according to some testers. This seems like a bug that Apple should fix, to me. I mean, they still sold the 5,1 less than a year ago.

To say that Apple ISN'T to blame is blind fanboyism: "Oh, it's never Apple's fault. It must be the customer's fault."
Click to expand...

Well put. The "technology moves so fast" excuse is garbage - not to be insulting to anyone in particular on this message board. As I said earlier, the 4 GB supported cap is likely strategy, not technology. Other Apple notebooks at the time had the capacity to upgrade their RAM to higher than 4 GB. It just feels like a kick in the pants.

We love their products for a variety of reasons. Why else would we be on a mac rumors forum? That being said, Apple really seems like they took some liberties with the 'early adopters' of the first unibody macbook line.
 
Apollo33 said:
To say that Apple ISN'T to blame is blind fanboyism: "Oh, it's never Apple's fault. It must be the customer's fault."
Click to expand...

:confused:

Are you trying to call me a fanboy because I'm not jumping to presumptuous conclusions about whose fault this 'problem' is? Seriously, if you are—what a tired, old ad hominem. And if you're just bandying the term about, doesn't that strike you as a rather dull straw man argument?

Seriously, this issue is not fully understood by us. Every official doc I've read on the topic says max 4GB. I've read anecdotes of people talking to Apple Store techs that think it should work. Honestly, I don't think that's any more official than someone on this forum: It's just people opining based on... I guess the fact that the chipset (9400M) supports 8GB. They are potentially (if not probably) ignorant of the issues at play, and certainly not speaking as the mouth of the company. It doesn't work; Apple never said it should. THey could be pushing the upsell, but they could just as easily have injected a bug that they either don't know about for lack of investigation, or just simply don't care about. It's an unsupported configuration that they have no obligation to test. Yes, it would be cool if they did, and yes, I really wish they did, but I'm seriously flabbergasted that being "OK" with this situation could be construed as fanboyism.

So I'm just going to call you a hater and leave it at that. ;)

kellte2 said:
Other Apple notebooks at the time had the capacity to upgrade their RAM to higher than 4 GB. It just feels like a kick in the pants.
Click to expand...

Can you prove this? It's the second time you've asserted it, and I think you're in error. The late 2008 MBPs seem to have the same issue. According to OWC, the mid-2008 iMac that was available when the late-'08 MB/MBPs were released is 6GB, and I believe that Apple's advertised max is 4 GB (I have one of these w/ 4GB, which was maxed out by Apple). That leaves only the Mac Pro and the XServe as Macs that officially supported >8GB in late 2008. I don't really think that's a fair comparison...
 
shadowfax said:
:confused:

Can you prove this? It's the second time you've asserted it, and I think you're in error. The late 2008 MBPs seem to have the same issue. According to OWC, the mid-2008 iMac that was available when the late-'08 MB/MBPs were released is 6GB, and I believe that Apple's advertised max is 4 GB (I have one of these w/ 4GB, which was maxed out by Apple). That leaves only the Mac Pro and the XServe as Macs that officially supported >8GB in late 2008. I don't really think that's a fair comparison...
Click to expand...

I had my facts twisted. The Last 2008 Macbook Pro didn't allow 8 GB of ram. In that case, I'd be even more aggravated if had gone 'whole hog' and picked up a MBP. My fault, nonetheless.

Despite this, I still think Apple didn't handle the aluminum macbook line properly.
 
kellte2 said:
Despite this, I still think Apple didn't handle the aluminum macbook line properly.
Click to expand...

And that's fair enough. I can understand the frustration (been there, done that, as you can see in this thread). I'm out $20 or so on shipping loss from my 4 GB stick that I returned, not to mention a LOT of hours put in doing tests and fresh installs of the OS for testing. As I said I'm not ready to really blame this on Apple, but it's understandable to me that you might be. And if your assumptions are correct (i.e. that the flaw is intentional and they went out of their way to prevent it from working), I'd be miffed too.

So I was indeed just kidding about calling Apollo33 a hater, and I hope that you guys don't think I'm a 'blind' Apple fanboy. 'Recovering' fanboy, perhaps... I hardly ever post here anymore, though I still read MR news daily and find threads like this one now and then. :)
 
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