New MacMini, 6gb RAM not possible?

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by PiTT, Mar 5, 2009.

  1. PiTT macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2005
    Location:
    Milan, Italy
  2. clickgr macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Location:
    Germany
    #2
    Too many limitations for the new mini. No CPU upgrade, no more than 4GB RAM possible. I have the feeling that we are going see another new mac mini update soon.
     
  3. Tallest Skil macrumors P6

    Tallest Skil

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Location:
    1 Geostationary Tower Plaza
    #3
    And by "soon" you mean "a minimum of six months from now", because everyone who buys one of these would immediately return it otherwise, you know.
     
  4. dal20402 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2006
    #4
    OWC's note is very confusing. They don't actually state that they've tried 6 GB in the mini. They only state that 8 GB doesn't work. I want to see specific confirmation that 6 GB doesn't work before I believe this -- it just seems really odd that Apple would bother imposing a limit on the mini that's not there in the otherwise identical unibody MacBook.
     
  5. clickgr macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Location:
    Germany
    #5
    Soon I mean something like a year from now. Definitely sooner than from last update to now.
     
  6. OldMike macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    #6
    I've been doing google searches to see if there has been any new info on this - but haven't seen anything...

    Has anyone here tried to get the new Mac Mini to utilize 6GB yet?

    If OWC is right, then 2 x 4GB does not work. I'm hoping someone here bought a new mini and has another PC that has a 4GB DDR3 in it, so that they can swap it in and see if 1 x 2GB and 1 x 4GB works and can be utilized.

    If anyone sees anything definitive, please update this thread with a link (I'm keeping my eye on it) ;)
     
  7. azdunerat macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2009
    #7
    Sorry but what in gods name are you going to be using your mini for that requires more than 4 gigs of ram?? Other than VM's but I dont really see the average user trying to run multiple VM's on a mini. Its not what the machine is being marketed for.

    I have last years with 3.3 gigs running and so far I have had iMovie open editing some video, iTunes open listening to music and a couple of browser pages open working on the web and my machine still has some RAM to spare and is very quick to respond.

    I know, everyone else is offering four gigs standard with the ability to upgrade to 8. I just dont see the point. Hell everyone is already up in arms about the price, I could just see what would have happened had apple made 4 gigs the stardard but raised the price another 100.00
     
  8. OldMike macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2009
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    #8
    Right now I'm on a dual core Opteron (2.4 ghz) and I don't feel processor bound at all. I think the 2.0 ghz Core 2 Duo might even be faster than the older Opteron that I have.

    I do have a need to have VMs running at the same time running different environments (Oracle and Sql Server on Solaris and Win2K3 Server), hence the need for RAM. It does work on my box with 4GB, but 6GB would allow me to pop open a third VM when I need to, and also allow the host to run a little smoother.

    Sure, you can say that something like this is a job for a Mac Pro - but the Mac Mini is more than capable if it could take the extra RAM. I also refuse to even contemplate a $2,500+ development box. I have never needed one before...
     
  9. GodWhomIsMike macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    #9

    I am in the exact same boat right now. I just e-mailed OWC to see if they are willing to test it out, and if they are, can they get back to me and let me know if 6GB (4GB+2gb) and 8GB (2x4GB) worked in the new 2009 Mac Mini. I run WMs, and with enough ram, the Mini would be perfect for a development workstation.
     
  10. observer macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    #10
    8GB in **two** mac minis?

    It's even cheaper -- two minis, with 4 GB each. You'd want a smooth way of controlling them though. Can Remote Desktop be set up to control a second machine in a window, is that how it works? Could you set up two screens with control sliding from one screen to the other?

    For big multiprocessor jobs, there's xgrid.

    Hmm. An octocore mini grid is a lot cheaper than a Mac Pro.
     
  11. GodWhomIsMike macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2007
    #11
    OWC technical support just replied to me with the following:

    "We have tested the 6GB and 8GB configurations and they do not work.

    Tech Support
    Other World Computing, Inc."


    :(:(:(:(:(:(:(
     
  12. brand macrumors 601

    brand

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #12
    I doubt a octocore Mini setup would be cheaper than a Mac Pro.

    At a minimum you would need:
    Four Base Model Mac Minis.
    Four Leopard server licenses.
    A switch that would properly handle the load.
     
  13. 63dot macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #13
    For its size and price ($599), it can still do a lot with it's Superdrive and bundled programs. 4 gigs of RAM seems pretty good, but I had no idea that the Macbook could go to 6 gigs. In that context, I also wonder why that is the case?

    Personally, I wouldn't need 6 gigs, on any computer or application I can think of, but I am sure some find it necessary, especially since Macbooks could go that high. Wouldn't 4 gigs make digital video fly? And how would an extra two gigs make that much of a difference?

    Sure, in a few years, 4 gigs of RAM will be the absolute minimum found on any budget computer, but right now, is there that much room to complain in the current Mac mini's specs?
     
  14. observer macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2007
    #14
    Depends on what you want to do. No need for Leopard Server. Remote Desktop is $300. The supercomputers use fast interprocessor connections because otherwise latency eats up your multiprocessor gains, but ethernet is fast enough at this level. And Xgrid is free. Of course, each core is slower than in the Mac Pro, memory access is slower, disks are slower, and you only have fast inter-core connection in 2-core pairs. But it might make sense as a 4-core system, an xmac.
     
  15. brand macrumors 601

    brand

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2006
    Location:
    127.0.0.1
    #15
    No even then.
     

Share This Page