Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #57503 > unrolled thread

True memory limits of systems

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  True memory limits of systems JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-03 04:40 -0500
    Re: True memory limits of systems JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-03 05:25 -0500
      Re: True memory limits of systems Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-04 19:51 -0500
    Re: True memory limits of systems Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-03 14:06 +0000
      Re: True memory limits of systems JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-03 18:22 -0500
        Re: True memory limits of systems Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2014-03-03 21:45 -0800
          Re: True memory limits of systems JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-04 01:02 -0500
    Re: True memory limits of systems Your Name <YourName@YourISP.com> - 2014-03-04 09:10 +1300
    Re: True memory limits of systems Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2014-03-04 15:06 -0800
      Re: True memory limits of systems JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-04 19:26 -0500
        Re: True memory limits of systems Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-05 03:29 +0000
          Re: True memory limits of systems Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-03-09 20:19 +1100
            Re: True memory limits of systems JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-09 05:43 -0400
              Re: True memory limits of systems Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-03-22 15:45 +1100
            Re: True memory limits of systems Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-09 13:59 -0400
            Re: True memory limits of systems Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-09 23:25 +0000
    Re: True memory limits of systems Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-04 19:43 -0500
      Re: True memory limits of systems JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-04 20:05 -0500
        Re: True memory limits of systems Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-07 16:34 -0500
          Re: True memory limits of systems JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-07 16:44 -0500
            Re: True memory limits of systems Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-07 16:54 -0500
              Re: True memory limits of systems Bread <BreadWithSpam@Fractious.net> - 2014-03-10 13:39 -0700
                Re: True memory limits of systems Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-10 17:22 -0400
            Re: True memory limits of systems Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2014-03-07 22:54 +0000
              Re: True memory limits of systems JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-07 18:51 -0500
                Re: True memory limits of systems Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-03-09 20:21 +1100
    Re: True memory limits of systems Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-10 20:51 +0000
      Re: True memory limits of systems Alan Browne <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> - 2014-03-10 17:33 -0400
        Re: True memory limits of systems Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2014-03-10 21:48 +0000
          Re: True memory limits of systems JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2014-03-22 00:09 -0400
            Re: True memory limits of systems Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-03-28 06:18 +1100
        Re: True memory limits of systems Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> - 2014-03-22 15:49 +1100
      Re: True memory limits of systems nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2014-03-10 17:41 -0400

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

#57503 — True memory limits of systems

Crucial tells me the max for a Mac Pro 2009 is 16 gigs, 4 * 4gb.

I tried to order from Crucial however, they no longer offer shipping to
Canada (they insist on UPS which is a deal breaker and that is before I
even consider the $20 shipping cost).

So I went to other on line stores who suggested 8gb and 16gb sticks for
the 2009 Mac Pro.

Apple's tech specs mention 16 gig max with 4 slots filled with either 1,
2 or 4gb DIMMs. But those date from the time the system was produced, so
if 8gig sticks were introduced later, the tech specs don't mention them.


However, for the 2010 model, it mentions 8gb DIMMs which brings the
limit to 32gigs for a single processor system.


Is Crucial the authoritative source of the true memory limits on Macs ?
Or have there been instances where they just took Apple's specs and
didn't bother updating them ?

I am currently at 12 gigs, and based on Crucial I could get an extra 4
gig stick and go to 16. But if I find out that 8 big sticks are
permitted, I might get 2 and then use the 4gb sticks to whatever limit.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#57504

A bit more info:

From:

> http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/datasheets/xeon-3500-series-vol1-datasheet.pdf

System Memory Interface
— Memory controller integrated in
processor package
— 3 channels
— 2 DIMMs/channel supported (6 total)
— 24 GB maximum memory supported
— Support unbuffered DIMMs only
— Single Rank and Dual Rank DIMMs
supported
— DDR3 speeds of 800/1066 MHz
supported
— 512Mb, 1Gb, 2Gb,
Technologies/Densities supported


Would the 24 GB refer to 8gigs for each of the 3 channels ? Is it
possible that Apple only implemented 2 channels on the MacPro 2009 ?

Since 24 gigs is not an addressing path width limit (adding an extra bit
to a 16GN system makes it support 32GB), where does the 24 GB limit come
from ?

Or is it a fair bet that my Pac Pro really has a 24 gig memory limit ?

or is the only way to test this to buy 2 8 GB sticks, and then add 2
extra 4 GB sticks to bring it to 24 and see what the system says when it
boots ? Is it fair to state that if the system recognizes 24 gigs in the
System Profiler that it will make safe use of the memory above 16 gigs ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57601

On 2014.03.03, 05:25 , JF Mezei wrote:
> A bit more info:
>
> From:
>
>> http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/datasheets/xeon-3500-series-vol1-datasheet.pdf
>
> System Memory Interface
> — Memory controller integrated in
> processor package
> — 3 channels
> — 2 DIMMs/channel supported (6 total)
> — 24 GB maximum memory supported
> — Support unbuffered DIMMs only
> — Single Rank and Dual Rank DIMMs
> supported
> — DDR3 speeds of 800/1066 MHz
> supported
> — 512Mb, 1Gb, 2Gb,
> Technologies/Densities supported
>
>
> Would the 24 GB refer to 8gigs for each of the 3 channels ? Is it
> possible that Apple only implemented 2 channels on the MacPro 2009 ?
>
> Since 24 gigs is not an addressing path width limit (adding an extra bit
> to a 16GN system makes it support 32GB), where does the 24 GB limit come
> from ?

https://www.dropbox.com/s/0fsgbxr5st0odsa/Screen%20Shot%202014-03-04%20at%2019.48.40.jpg

Says a Quad Core 2009 Mac Pro is good to 48 GB ("Actual") v. 16 GB 
("Apple").

-- 
    ... it may be that "in the cloud" really isn't the best term
    for the services these companies offer.  What they really
    want is to have us "on the leash."
                   -David Pogue, Scientific American, 2014.02

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57507

In message <53144e06$0$59834$c3e8da3$e074e489@news.astraweb.com> 
  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> Crucial tells me the max for a Mac Pro 2009 is 16 gigs, 4 * 4gb.

The actual max for the 2009 quad core is 48GB. The 8 core can take
128GB. (16GBx3 for the quad core).

> Apple's tech specs mention 16 gig max with 4 slots filled with either 1,
> 2 or 4gb DIMMs. But those date from the time the system was produced, so
> if 8gig sticks were introduced later, the tech specs don't mention them.

Exactly.

> However, for the 2010 model, it mentions 8gb DIMMs which brings the
> limit to 32gigs for a single processor system.


> Is Crucial the authoritative source of the true memory limits on Macs ?

No. MacTracker is. OWC is also usually reliable.

-- 
My little brother got his arm stuck in the microwave. So my mom had to
take him to the hospital. My grandma dropped acid this morning, and she
freaked out. She hijacked a busload of penguins. So it's sort of a
family crisis. Bye!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57530

On 14-03-03 09:06, Lewis wrote:

>> Is Crucial the authoritative source of the true memory limits on Macs ?
> 
> No. MacTracker is. OWC is also usually reliable.

Thanks. Interesting that the app lists 48GB as limit, when the Intel
document on the Xeon 3500 lists 24GB as limit.  But this means it is
very good odds of it being at least 24 GB, and not the 16 Apple claims.

Note that the Intel document mentions only 512Mb, 1GB and 2GB modules
supported. Obviously, bigger modules work since Apple made it work with
4GB modules right off the bat.

The intel doc says 3 channels, each supporting two DIMMs (6 max). The
MacPro 2009 has only 4. Does it use only 2 channels ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57545

In article <53150ea1$0$49662$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> On 14-03-03 09:06, Lewis wrote:
> 
> >> Is Crucial the authoritative source of the true memory limits on Macs ?
> > 
> > No. MacTracker is. OWC is also usually reliable.
> 
> Thanks. Interesting that the app lists 48GB as limit, when the Intel
> document on the Xeon 3500 lists 24GB as limit.  But this means it is
> very good odds of it being at least 24 GB, and not the 16 Apple claims.
> 
> Note that the Intel document mentions only 512Mb, 1GB and 2GB modules
> supported. Obviously, bigger modules work since Apple made it work with
> 4GB modules right off the bat.
> 
> The intel doc says 3 channels, each supporting two DIMMs (6 max). The
> MacPro 2009 has only 4. Does it use only 2 channels ?

It's a little more complicated than CPU specs.

The channels is the concurrency of access.  Not all of the channels need 
to be for main RAM.  Some could be used for I/O or graphics.

A CPU's memory limit doesn't need to be the same as a system's memory 
limit.  24GB is how much RAM the Xenon 3500 internal MMU can map at 
once.  When there's an external memory controller, the operating system 
can use virtual memory page faults to access limitless additional RAM.

From what I've Googled, the memory limit mostly depends on the OS 
version.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57547

On 14-03-04 00:45, Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

> A CPU's memory limit doesn't need to be the same as a system's memory 
> limit.  24GB is how much RAM the Xenon 3500 internal MMU can map at 
> once.  When there's an external memory controller, the operating system 
> can use virtual memory page faults to access limitless additional RAM.

Doesn't Nehalem and beyond use an integrated memory controller in the
CPU chip ? If so, wouldn't the specs for the Xeon 3500 be the true limit ?




Found different specs page:


the W3530 (2010 MacPro quad core): 36 bit address, Max memory 24 GB

Apple quotes the Mac Pro 2010 as 32 GB max.

On those pages, I can't find the "3500", but the "3520" has the same 24
GB limit, 36 bit addressing.

So it is pretty obvious that the CPU limits as listed by Intel are not
"hard" limits since Apple was able to build the 2010 MacP[ro with 32 gig
limit that is above the Intel specs of 24 GB.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57527

In article <53144e06$0$59834$c3e8da3$e074e489@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> 
> Crucial tells me the max for a Mac Pro 2009 is 16 gigs, 4 * 4gb.
> 
> I tried to order from Crucial however, they no longer offer shipping to
> Canada (they insist on UPS which is a deal breaker and that is before I
> even consider the $20 shipping cost).
> 
> So I went to other on line stores who suggested 8gb and 16gb sticks for
> the 2009 Mac Pro.
> 
> Apple's tech specs mention 16 gig max with 4 slots filled with either 1,
> 2 or 4gb DIMMs. But those date from the time the system was produced, so
> if 8gig sticks were introduced later, the tech specs don't mention them.
> 
> 
> However, for the 2010 model, it mentions 8gb DIMMs which brings the
> limit to 32gigs for a single processor system.
> 
> 
> Is Crucial the authoritative source of the true memory limits on Macs ?
> Or have there been instances where they just took Apple's specs and
> didn't bother updating them ?
> 
> I am currently at 12 gigs, and based on Crucial I could get an extra 4
> gig stick and go to 16. But if I find out that 8 big sticks are
> permitted, I might get 2 and then use the 4gb sticks to whatever limit.

The RAM limits are due to various things, including hardware and
software limitations.

Sometimes Apple's official RAM limits are due to the chips available at
the time, but then later newer, higher capacity chips are *sometimes*
released which are compatible and can be plugged in and used perfectly
well. Personally though, I'd just trust Crucial rather than waste money
on chips you find won't work.

My beige PowerMac is works fine with just 288MB of RAM.  :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57586

On 2014-03-03 09:40:21 +0000, JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> said:

> Crucial tells me the max for a Mac Pro 2009 is 16 gigs, 4 * 4gb.
> 
> I tried to order from Crucial however, they no longer offer shipping to
> Canada (they insist on UPS which is a deal breaker and that is before I
> even consider the $20 shipping cost).
> 
> So I went to other on line stores who suggested 8gb and 16gb sticks for
> the 2009 Mac Pro.
> 
> Apple's tech specs mention 16 gig max with 4 slots filled with either 1,
> 2 or 4gb DIMMs. But those date from the time the system was produced, so
> if 8gig sticks were introduced later, the tech specs don't mention them.
> 
> 
> However, for the 2010 model, it mentions 8gb DIMMs which brings the
> limit to 32gigs for a single processor system.
> 
> 
> Is Crucial the authoritative source of the true memory limits on Macs ?
> Or have there been instances where they just took Apple's specs and
> didn't bother updating them ?
> 
> I am currently at 12 gigs, and based on Crucial I could get an extra 4
> gig stick and go to 16. But if I find out that 8 big sticks are
> permitted, I might get 2 and then use the 4gb sticks to whatever limit.

Here is what OWC has to offer. i am not sure of their Canadian shipping 
practices.
< http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory#1066-memory >


-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57598

On 14-03-04 18:06, Savageduck wrote:

> Here is what OWC has to offer. i am not sure of their Canadian shipping 
> practices.
> < http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory#1066-memory >

Thanks, This is interesting and seems to confirm that 8GB modules would
be supported.  I guess I need to do some shopping to see about pricing.
(I might buy 2 8GB,  to make my Pro 2*8GB+2*4GB, and put the extra 4GB
into my Xserve.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57605

In message <53166f4b$0$46171$c3e8da3$3a1a2348@news.astraweb.com> 
  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 14-03-04 18:06, Savageduck wrote:

>> Here is what OWC has to offer. i am not sure of their Canadian shipping 
>> practices.
>> < http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory#1066-memory >

> Thanks, This is interesting and seems to confirm that 8GB modules would
> be supported.  I guess I need to do some shopping to see about pricing.
> (I might buy 2 8GB,  to make my Pro 2*8GB+2*4GB, and put the extra 4GB
> into my Xserve.

16GB modules are supported. Up to 3 of them, for a 48GB maximum. As I said.

The 8 core model can take 128GB.

-- 
"I am enclosing two tickets to the first night of my new play; bring a
friend.... if you have one." - GB Shaw to Churchill "Cannot possibly
attend first night, will attend second...  if there is one." - Winston
Churchill, in response.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57765

On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 03:29:15 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>In message <53166f4b$0$46171$c3e8da3$3a1a2348@news.astraweb.com> 
>  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>> On 14-03-04 18:06, Savageduck wrote:
>
>>> Here is what OWC has to offer. i am not sure of their Canadian shipping 
>>> practices.
>>> < http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory#1066-memory >
>
>> Thanks, This is interesting and seems to confirm that 8GB modules would
>> be supported.  I guess I need to do some shopping to see about pricing.
>> (I might buy 2 8GB,  to make my Pro 2*8GB+2*4GB, and put the extra 4GB
>> into my Xserve.

Sounds like a numbers game for boasting rights since any more
than say 4 GB will make no noticeable difference.

I currently only have 1 GB in my Intel Xserve and it gets a 
Geekbench 2 rating of 10555.

>16GB modules are supported. Up to 3 of them, for a 48GB maximum. As I said.
>
>The 8 core model can take 128GB.

-- 
Loading new sig message
Please wait..........

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57769

On 14-03-09 05:19, Barry OGrady wrote:

> Sounds like a numbers game for boasting rights since any more
> than say 4 GB will make no noticeable difference.

Adobe AfterEffect's encoding engine will use up as many cores as you
tell it to, and split RAM between them IF ENOUGH IS AVAILABLE. 1 gig
isn't enough for it to use 4 cores. it leaves some for OS and needs
enough for each process to perform video work.

My MacPro has 12 gigs, When I upgraded it, I figured it was more than I
would ever need. But run photoshop, bridge, firefox and a few others,
and you wuickly find the 12 gigs are used up and firefox slows to a
crawl. (it wastes a lot of memory).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#58060

On Sun, 09 Mar 2014 05:43:51 -0400, JF Mezei
<jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>On 14-03-09 05:19, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
>> Sounds like a numbers game for boasting rights since any more
>> than say 4 GB will make no noticeable difference.
>
>Adobe AfterEffect's encoding engine will use up as many cores as you
>tell it to, and split RAM between them IF ENOUGH IS AVAILABLE. 1 gig
>isn't enough for it to use 4 cores. it leaves some for OS and needs
>enough for each process to perform video work.

My Xserve has 8 cores so the 1 gig would not be fully utilising it.
I bought 8 gigs from an Ebay seller because it was relatively cheap.

>My MacPro has 12 gigs, When I upgraded it, I figured it was more than I
>would ever need. But run photoshop, bridge, firefox and a few others,
>and you wuickly find the 12 gigs are used up and firefox slows to a
>crawl. (it wastes a lot of memory).

Firefox is such a memory hog, and it is susceptible to attacks, 
and it crashes sometimes, and it ignores some links, and it won't 
work with some pages, and every time an updates comes
out it won't work with my favourite add ons, yet for some reason
I keep using it. I even have Firefox installed on my Solaris machines.

Sometimes I am forced to switch to IE or Chrome to do some things
like talk to the LOM in my HP DL-385 server.

-- 
Creationists only need know that
Evolution is important proven science
and
creation is made up nonsense

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57788

On 2014.03.09, 05:19 , Barry OGrady wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 03:29:15 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>> In message <53166f4b$0$46171$c3e8da3$3a1a2348@news.astraweb.com>
>>   JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>>> On 14-03-04 18:06, Savageduck wrote:
>>
>>>> Here is what OWC has to offer. i am not sure of their Canadian shipping
>>>> practices.
>>>> < http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory#1066-memory >
>>
>>> Thanks, This is interesting and seems to confirm that 8GB modules would
>>> be supported.  I guess I need to do some shopping to see about pricing.
>>> (I might buy 2 8GB,  to make my Pro 2*8GB+2*4GB, and put the extra 4GB
>>> into my Xserve.
>
> Sounds like a numbers game for boasting rights since any more
> than say 4 GB will make no noticeable difference.
>
> I currently only have 1 GB in my Intel Xserve and it gets a
> Geekbench 2 rating of 10555.

That would depend on what the computer is being used for.  Geekbench 
ratings are not an indicator of sufficient memory for a users particular 
needs.

If I have Photoshop running, loaded with a 450 MB image scan, various 
layers;  and Handbrake converting a video, then your 1 GB memory would 
not be sufficient at all.  (Yes - a contrived example).

Add a VM, then you need enough memory for that (or it will be sluggish). 
  (I assign 2 GB to WinXP under Fusion - but I don't run it that often).

Add a few memory hog apps  and ...

Add a Ramdisk (which I find convenient for various things) and more 
memory is useful still.

My machine would be fine with 8 GB (as it was sold), but I wanted margin 
so I added more.  And while I was adding more, I decided it was well 
worth the cost to max out that upgrade, so I added 16 instead of only 8 
(Indeed Lewis pointed out at the time that I didn't have to make a 
symmetrical addition) - so I'm at 24 and that should suffice for the 
life of this iMac which should serve quite through about 2020 - I could 
always swap the 8 GB bank for 16 too...

-- 
   Those who have reduced our privacy, whether they are state
   or commercial actors, prefer that we do not reduce theirs.
                  - Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57808

In message <p9coh99dth0532287g06i50ivfv9md5osk@4ax.com> 
  Barry OGrady <atheist@hotmail.com.au> wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Mar 2014 03:29:15 +0000 (UTC), Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>>In message <53166f4b$0$46171$c3e8da3$3a1a2348@news.astraweb.com> 
>>  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
>>> On 14-03-04 18:06, Savageduck wrote:
>>
>>>> Here is what OWC has to offer. i am not sure of their Canadian shipping 
>>>> practices.
>>>> < http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory#1066-memory >
>>
>>> Thanks, This is interesting and seems to confirm that 8GB modules would
>>> be supported.  I guess I need to do some shopping to see about pricing.
>>> (I might buy 2 8GB,  to make my Pro 2*8GB+2*4GB, and put the extra 4GB
>>> into my Xserve.

> Sounds like a numbers game for boasting rights since any more
> than say 4 GB will make no noticeable difference.

That's ridiculous.

> I currently only have 1 GB in my Intel Xserve and it gets a 
> Geekbench 2 rating of 10555.

How is that relevant?

-- 
'Is it heroic to die like this?' said Conina.  'I think it is,' he said,
'and when it comes to dying, there's only one opinion that matters.'

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57600

On 2014.03.03, 04:40 , JF Mezei wrote:
> Crucial tells me the max for a Mac Pro 2009 is 16 gigs, 4 * 4gb.
>
> I tried to order from Crucial however, they no longer offer shipping to
> Canada (they insist on UPS which is a deal breaker and that is before I
> even consider the $20 shipping cost).

Really?  I bought memory from them in Oct.  $10 by USPS.  Took about 1 week.

There was a "tax and fees" estimate of $24.60.  Was never collected by 
the post office here.

> Is Crucial the authoritative source of the true memory limits on Macs ?
> Or have there been instances where they just took Apple's specs and
> didn't bother updating them ?
>
> I am currently at 12 gigs, and based on Crucial I could get an extra 4
> gig stick and go to 16. But if I find out that 8 big sticks are
> permitted, I might get 2 and then use the 4gb sticks to whatever limit.

Try OWC too.

-- 
    ... it may be that "in the cloud" really isn't the best term
    for the services these companies offer.  What they really
    want is to have us "on the leash."
                   -David Pogue, Scientific American, 2014.02

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57602

On 14-03-04 19:43, Alan Browne wrote:

> Really?  I bought memory from them in Oct.  $10 by USPS.  Took about 1 week.

Got an email back from Crucial stating that USPS should work and that I
should try on a different browser or zap all my cookies.

Interesting how the 4GB sticks are all ECC Ubbuffered, but when you get
into 8GB sticks, most are regustered without ECC. So gotta be careful
choosing them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57712

On 2014.03.04, 20:05 , JF Mezei wrote:
> On 14-03-04 19:43, Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Really?  I bought memory from them in Oct.  $10 by USPS.  Took about 1 week.
>
> Got an email back from Crucial stating that USPS should work and that I
> should try on a different browser or zap all my cookies.
>
> Interesting how the 4GB sticks are all ECC Ubbuffered, but when you get
> into 8GB sticks, most are regustered without ECC. So gotta be careful
> choosing them.

Crucial do a good job stating which machines need which spec memory. OWC 
too.


-- 
   Privacy has become an essential personal chore that most
   people are not trained to perform.
                  - Jaron Lanier, Scientific American, 2013.11.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57716

On 14-03-07 16:34, Alan Browne wrote:

> Crucial do a good job stating which machines need which spec memory. OWC 
> too.

In the case of the 2009 MacPro, Crucial says 16GB, OWC says 48GB.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 2  [1] 2  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web