More RAM in my laptop

[Robert]

Finally ordered more memory for my Macbook Pro. It shipped with 2GB, and yesterday I put in an order for 2 x 2GB memory sticks. Should be easier now to do HD video and multi-tasking with more memory. It actually has worked tremendously well with only 2GB, but I am expecting a performance improvement with doubling the memory. :AOK:

RAM is cheap these days, it seems. I got these 2 memory sticks for $47 Canadian bucks at www.newegg.ca.

 

[MichaelE]

RAM is incredibly cheap compared to twenty years ago.

NewEgg is where I buy all of my computer related gear. They usually have the best prices anywhere, shipping is fast and cheap, and they have a good return policy for the most part.

 

[Spudman]

RAM is incredibly cheap compared to twenty years ago.

It is but I'm still trying to figure out why the old ram (sdram) is more expensive than the new stuff. My computer wont take the newer version.

 

[marnold]

It is but I'm still trying to figure out why the old ram (sdram) is more expensive than the new stuff. My computer wont take the newer version.

Supply and demand. There's too much of the new stuff on the market so there's a bit of a glut right now. Nobody's making the old stuff anymore so there's precious little supply around.

 

[deeaa]

Finally ordered more memory for my Macbook Pro. It shipped with 2GB, and yesterday I put in an order for 2 x 2GB memory sticks. Should be easier now to do HD video and multi-tasking with more memory. It actually has worked tremendously well with only 2GB, but I am expecting a performance improvement with doubling the memory. :AOK:

RAM is cheap these days, it seems. I got these 2 memory sticks for $47 Canadian bucks at www.newegg.ca.

How is it with macs, at least on Xp 32bit systems the total maximum is 4 gigs including the display memory, which means you can only use 3G plus whatever you have on your display card. Which is not a good idea since with 3 gigs you can't use them in dualchannel mode > slower with 3G than 2 gigs. I tried 4 gigs but it only recognized 2g because I have 512mb display memory. Then I tried 3 gigs but it was clearly slower than just 2.

It's another story I understand with 64bit systems, and also AMD triple-core systems on which you can arrange the memory in triple channel use.

But if the mac OS is 32bit, 4g should be the maximum. Which is OK if it doesn't have a separate display memory that would push it over the 4g barrier.

 

[SuperSwede]

but I am expecting a performance improvement with doubling the memory. :AOK:
[/url].

Yup, my brother did the same thing with his macbook pro and it was quite the difference (especially with photoshop).

 

[marnold]

How is it with macs, at least on Xp 32bit systems the total maximum is 4 gigs including the display memory, which means you can only use 3G plus whatever you have on your display card. Which is not a good idea since with 3 gigs you can't use them in dualchannel mode > slower with 3G than 2 gigs. I tried 4 gigs but it only recognized 2g because I have 512mb display memory. Then I tried 3 gigs but it was clearly slower than just 2.

That's only if you don't have a dedicated video card with its own memory. That will introduce a pretty big performance hit all on its own, much less the fact that it eats up system memory. Unfortunately that's the way most inexpensive laptops are set up.

 

[deeaa]

That's only if you don't have a dedicated video card with its own memory. That will introduce a pretty big performance hit all on its own, much less the fact that it eats up system memory. Unfortunately that's the way most inexpensive laptops are set up.

No, even if you have a dedicated card it's memory is still part of the overall system memory space, which cannot exceed 4 gigabytes.

If I put in 4 gigs of ram I need to take out the dedicated 512mb display card and only use the internal card to get all 4g into use, because the memory space the computer needs to handle is 4608 megabytes and that doesn't work in 32 bit systems; it will simply not use one 2048mb chip, and the system memory space reads as 2560mb.

But I'm unsure if macs somehow work around that issue.

 

[deeaa]

Check this:

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000811.html

 

[deeaa]

"
Here's one parting bit of advice: if, like me, you're planning to stick with a 32-bit operating system for the next few years, don't waste your money on 4 GB of RAM. You won't be able to use it all. Buy 3 GB instead. Every motherboard I'm aware of will happily accept 2 x 1 GB and 2 x 512 MB DIMMs."

 

[deeaa]

...but with 3 gigs you lose the dualchannel, unless running an AMD x3 system.

64 bit OS's are a different story.

 

[marnold]

Check this:

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000811.html

I question parts of that article. If everything he says is correct, then the amount memory you have is irrelevant because you still will be missing whatever you map there. Thus if you install 3G you still wouldn't have 3G to play with. Some of these things in that article are also Microsoft-specific even though he claims they have nothing to do with Windows.

Nonetheless, generally speaking mo' memory = mo' betta. It's the cheapest way to improve the performance of your computer.

My guess is that a Mac's memory management would be more akin to BSD than Windows since OS-X is based on a BSD kernel.

 

[mrmudcat]

Robert I ordered 4 gigs to start and will be maxing it out to 8 gigs soon,along with snow leopard o.s.:bravo:

 

[Robert]

Robert I ordered 4 gigs to start and will be maxing it out to 8 gigs soon,along with snow leopard o.s.:bravo:

Sweet! :beer:

My MBP is 1 year old, and 4 GB is my max on this baby.

 

[deeaa]

I question parts of that article. If everything he says is correct, then the amount memory you have is irrelevant because you still will be missing whatever you map there. Thus if you install 3G you still wouldn't have 3G to play with. Some of these things in that article are also Microsoft-specific even though he claims they have nothing to do with Windows.

Nonetheless, generally speaking mo' memory = mo' betta. It's the cheapest way to improve the performance of your computer.

My guess is that a Mac's memory management would be more akin to BSD than Windows since OS-X is based on a BSD kernel.

You're quite right. Hence the 'memory hole' settings in BIOSes of computers.
Check Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/32-bit

Only 4 gigabytes of memory space possible on 32 bit systems.

Although great for many cases, sometimes it just isn't good to add more memory. Like on my machine, anything over 2 gigabytes significantly slowers memory processes down. It cn be seen in Sandra, 3DMark etc. easily. It doesn't even help setting /3 switches in io.sys.

It's just a simple fact that on 32bit systems...

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/64-bit-vista-gaming,2250-4.html

" if you have 4 GB or more of RAM installed in your system, you are wasting hardware to run anything but a x64 OS "

I should say the same basically goes for using more than 2 core CPU's with todays 32bit programs.

IMO the cheapest and the best way to improve desktop performance is buying two smaller, like 500G hard disks instead of one 1Tb disk and running a RAID-0 configuration. THAT really gives you a performance boost in everyday use.

My main PC is a 3GHz Intel E8400 dualcore, and I run it at 3,61GHz with 2 gigs 1024MHz memory (overclocked from 800Mhz) bus in dualchannel, and it runs circles around the studio's new quadcore Mac in any way imaginable and cost me peanuts self-built into my old chassis. What, like $100 for the CPU and a couple of tenners for the RAM, another hundred for 7200rpm harddisks for the RAID. Has never failed or BSOD'd on me or anything, which the mac has done several times after several-day sessions mixing in Cubase.

But Macs always tend to be crazy expensive compared to their performance as a rule. You want performance, forget macs and build your own machines.