[joebells]

I got a replacement from apple for a macbook and I just popped the stock ram and it has white crusty stuff on it. Kind of chalky. It looks almost like a water line, a salt water residue. Anyone here ever had this?

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

it might be a paste used for cooling the ram but im not sure

[HouseSold]

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO

it might be a paste used for cooling the ram but im not sure

The paste, when first reported, was thought to be an anti-oxidant (ensuring good contact without corrosion over time), some conjectured it was resin from the circuit board and others thought the memory chips had been milled to fit the sockets without the almighty force required by the units produced through August.

Having early production and later production MacBooks here (where the memory seemed to glide into the socket compared to the finger sticking/breaking earlier ones ) it seems to be a production lubricant and the board thickness of the factory memory seems microns less (thinner), too.

When Apple Stores started reporting internally, they too were having 'difficulty' installing, replacing or upgrading RAM, is when things began to change in production.

Anyone notice how much easier new machines seem to be upgrading memory RAM ?

[hookem2oo7]

hmm...i noticed that on my iBook g4 i had to push MUCH harder than I expected to get the memory to slide in. maybe it's a similar situation

[joebells]

It was easier to install the ram this time actually. Its still kind of disconcerting to see all that on there though.

[danalmasy]

Hey guys, I just wanted to bump this post in case anyone else was curious about this.

I came across an Apple support doc detailing this particular issue, and they confirm that it is in fact a special lubricant used to make installing RAM easier.

They also state that it's 100% normal and safe. Here's the link:

MacBook: White substance on memory cards or slots

I just installed 2GB of Crucial RAM into my 2.16Ghz model, and I noticed the "substance" too. I was pretty worried until I found that page. Hope this helps!

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

Originally Posted by danalmasy 

Hey guys, I just wanted to bump this post in case anyone else was curious about this.

I came across an Apple support doc detailing this particular issue, and they confirm that it is in fact a special lubricant used to make installing RAM easier.

They also state that it's 100% normal and safe. Here's the link:

MacBook: White substance on memory cards or slots

I just installed 2GB of Crucial RAM into my 2.16Ghz model, and I noticed the "substance" too. I was pretty worried until I found that page. Hope this helps!

Why did you revive a year old thread?

[jlgrandam]

I can confirm that my girlfriends macbook (about 5 months old) also had a small amount of the paste on the factory ram sticks. My sisters macbook, a early generation did not and the ram was near impossible to seat properly.

[kerosen]

Finally the answer, thanks ! I was a bit concerned about this issue.
I did the upgrade two weeks ago and I've noticed that too:
http://i.pbase.com/o4/12/281912/1/91...J.IMG_0066.JPG
Now the MB has 4Gb RAM, Crucial, and it's flying.

[Bearsfan34]

Originally Posted by C.A.T.S. CEO 

Why did you revive a year old thread?

Uh, I think this first line explains it:

Originally Posted by danalmasy

Hey guys, I just wanted to bump this post in case anyone else was curious about this.

Why start another thread when it's better to add to an older, already existing one?

[ibook_steve]

Because it's more useful to start a new thread and reference the original one, if necessary, instead of bringing an old thread back from the dead. People sometimes read old posts in an old thread without looking at the date, thinking it's current info, when it may very well not be.

Steve

[Bearsfan34]

Originally Posted by ibook_steve 

Because it's more useful to start a new thread and reference the original one, if necessary, instead of bringing an old thread back from the dead. People sometimes read old posts in an old thread without looking at the date, thinking it's current info, when it may very well not be.

Steve

Thing is, even the first few posts of this "old" thread are still relevant today, as recently the very same issues came back up mirroring the original issue from 2006.

So kudos for resurrecting this "old" question. This could've been done either way; new thread with reference, or this still relevant question that still has some people questioning two years later.

[C.A.T.S. CEO]

Originally Posted by Bearsfan34 

Uh, I think this first line explains it:



Why start another thread when it's better to add to an older, already existing one?

The forum rules say not to revive a thread over 6 months old.

[Simon]

Yeah, what's with all this blabbering about why it could have, would have, should have made sense, blabla. Forum rules tell you to not revive a more than 6 month old thread. A mod has even explained to you (in a kind way) why those rules exist. What is there to bitch about?

[Eriamjh]

Ewww! Nasty!