Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Hardware - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Mac Notebooks > Is 8GB of RAM possible in the new notebooks?

Is 8GB of RAM possible in the new notebooks?
Thread Tools
GSixZero
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2008, 03:25 AM
 
Is the 4GB limit on RAM a hardware limitation or a limitation on the ability to get 4GB modules?

ImpulseResponse
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2008, 01:28 PM
 
It's a chipset limitation; one of the downsides of going with nVidia instead of Intel.
     
chipchen
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2008, 02:25 PM
 
Yea... I was a bit bummed with that... because I've been noticing that 8GB of RAM has been a real sweet spot for power users... I guess I'll live with 4 for now. BTW, crucial already has the RAM for $141... not bad.
     
Yawn
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2008, 04:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
It's a chipset limitation
Link? nvidia specs don't mention a RAM limitation at all actually.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 16, 2008, 10:12 PM
 
Disregard, I can't find it anymore.

Even if the chipset supports 8GB, this wouldn't be the first time Apple crippled the memory capacity in firmware.

4GB DDR3 SODIMMs are readily available for reasonable prices ($500ish), so that isn't the reason.
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2008, 03:40 AM
 
Newegg is slacking once again. They don't have a single 4 GB DDR3 SO-DIMM in stock yet.

Oh well, won't be long until they do. I'm really tempted to buy two 4 GB SO-DIMMs, plug them in, and just see what happens. As another poster already pointed out, NVIDIA isn't offering a whole lot of specs.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2008, 05:01 AM
 
I have neither found something on the hardware limit of the chipset nor have I seen 4 GB DDR3 SODIMM on sale. Does someone have a link? I've googled quite a bit, but so far haven't been able to come up with something.

In any case, Apple usually gives a max RAM limit in terms of modules available at that particular time, even though the chipset can address more than that.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Eug
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Caught in a web of deceit.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2008, 05:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I have neither found something on the hardware limit of the chipset nor have I seen 4 GB DDR3 SODIMM on sale. Does someone have a link?
CT51264BC1067 - 4GB, 204-pin SODIMM , DDR3 PC3-8500 from Crucial.com

Only $589.99 each!

I guess the good news is that it's actually 1¢ cheaper to get two of those than pay for the 8 GB kit.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2008, 05:06 AM
 
According to iFixit, the chipsets being used are still 32-bit, thus the 4GB limit. Surprising given that the Core2 has been in use for so long.

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2008, 05:17 AM
 
I see. Fortunately I still have a year or so before I upgrade, so I hope they'll fix that in the meantime
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2008, 07:36 AM
 
Originally Posted by mduell View Post
Disregard, I can't find it anymore.

Even if the chipset supports 8GB, this wouldn't be the first time Apple crippled the memory capacity in firmware.
No, but even more common that they report the highest size that they have tested with but there are address lines for much more. Almost every PPC Mac ever is like that.

Can't find any official word from nVidia for the mobile chipset. The desktop chipset by the same name supports 8 gigs with 2 sockets per channel.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2008, 07:59 AM
 
Hmmm, one aye one nay … I hope the chipset already supports 8 GB. That'd be great, running 64 bit Aperture with 8 GB on my next MacBook (Pro?) … 
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
driven
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2008, 08:34 AM
 
Actually it seems that the ONLY Mac product that supports more than 4GB RAM is the Mac Pro. I guess it's not a huge deal for most .... I just realized thought that I have 8GB in my Dell Latitude, so I just assumed I'd be able to do the same with an MBP.
- MacBook Air M2 16GB / 512GB
- MacBook Pro 16" i9 2.4Ghz 32GB / 1TB
- MacBook Pro 15" i7 2.9Ghz 16GB / 512GB
- iMac i5 3.2Ghz 1TB
- G4 Cube 500Mhz / Shelf display unit / Museum display
     
EndlessMac
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2008, 03:15 PM
 
The announcement of the 4GB limit was rather disappointing. 2GB isn't enough for what I do and 4GB is just adequate now which means that if I keep the MBP for a few years then it will probably not be good enough. I'm hoping there will be a fix for this soon.
     
driven
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2008, 03:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by EndlessMac View Post
The announcement of the 4GB limit was rather disappointing. 2GB isn't enough for what I do and 4GB is just adequate now which means that if I keep the MBP for a few years then it will probably not be good enough. I'm hoping there will be a fix for this soon.
Yeah ... I think the 4GB puts about a 3 year shelf-life on these boxes. I do Windows development under VMware fusion and I often have Vista, XP and/or Windows 2003 open. At present I can only open about 2 VMs at once. With 8 GB I could do much more.
- MacBook Air M2 16GB / 512GB
- MacBook Pro 16" i9 2.4Ghz 32GB / 1TB
- MacBook Pro 15" i7 2.9Ghz 16GB / 512GB
- iMac i5 3.2Ghz 1TB
- G4 Cube 500Mhz / Shelf display unit / Museum display
     
ciparis
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2008, 05:32 PM
 
I don't know what people are reading, but the chipset in question supports 16GB in standard desktop form (4 RAM slots). I haven't seen anything that would suggest that a 2-slot implementation wouldn't follow the same specs, which would give a max of 8GB.

There is plenty of precedent for Apple machines ending up supporting more RAM than advertised as common memory densities change.

In other words: someone needs to test this. It could go either way, but there is no basis for assuming anything as a certainty.
     
EndlessMac
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2008, 06:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by ciparis View Post
I don't know what people are reading, but the chipset in question supports 16GB in standard desktop form (4 RAM slots). I haven't seen anything that would suggest that a 2-slot implementation wouldn't follow the same specs, which would give a max of 8GB.

There is plenty of precedent for Apple machines ending up supporting more RAM than advertised as common memory densities change.

In other words: someone needs to test this. It could go either way, but there is no basis for assuming anything as a certainty.
On Apple's website they only mention being able to upgrade to 4GB. Whether the chipset can support more than 4GB is yet to be determined until someone can test it out, but Apple's official stance seems to be 4GB maximum. That's why we are all mentioning 4GBs. I think most of us would rather not rely on hope that it will unofficially support more than 4GB...I believe that's really where the issue stands. It should have been officially upgradable to 8GB or more.
     
Karim
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2008, 07:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by EndlessMac View Post
On Apple's website they only mention being able to upgrade to 4GB. Whether the chipset can support more than 4GB is yet to be determined until someone can test it out, but Apple's official stance seems to be 4GB maximum. That's why we are all mentioning 4GBs. I think most of us would rather not rely on hope that it will unofficially support more than 4GB...I believe that's really where the issue stands. It should have been officially upgradable to 8GB or more.
Apple has, several times in the past, introduced laptops that had maximum ram stated in the specs when in fact, you could go higher. This really needs to be tested. When I get my machine on Tuesday I might just order some 4GB sodimms and check it out.
     
EndlessMac
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2008, 08:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Karim View Post
Apple has, several times in the past, introduced laptops that had maximum ram stated in the specs when in fact, you could go higher.
The problem is how will average users know that they can go past 4GB even if it is found out later that they can? The average user will rely on what Apple tells them so they won't even attempt to go past 4GB because they don't go on forums like these nor do they keep up with the latest technology news.

As I have mentioned hoping that the new laptops can go past 4GBs isn't exactly comforting. I know that it has been possible in the past. I'm hoping that it's still possible but there still is a chance that it won't or that it won't be much of an increase over 4GB.

The issue is that Apple should have thought about that limit from the start considering MBP are also used by power users.
     
Karim
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Santa Barbara, CA, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2008, 09:20 PM
 
I agree with you.

In some cases, the memory densities were just not even available at the time Apple released the particular computer, so they didn't bother to list the maximum ram allowed beyond the then-available modules.

It would be "nice" if Apple stated the theoretical maximum ram, regardless of what densities are currently available.
     
EndlessMac
Senior User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 17, 2008, 09:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Karim View Post
It would be "nice" if Apple stated the theoretical maximum ram, regardless of what densities are currently available.
Yes that would be nice.
     
ciparis
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2008, 01:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by EndlessMac View Post
Whether the chipset can support more than 4GB is yet to be determined
While it's up to the vendor what they support, the chipset is certainly capable. There have been motherboard vendors touting this for months, and some are now available.

Check out the Zotac Geforce 9300.
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2008, 11:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by ciparis View Post
While it's up to the vendor what they support, the chipset is certainly capable. There have been motherboard vendors touting this for months, and some are now available.

Check out the Zotac Geforce 9300.
That is the desktop version (MCP7A) which we supports know more than 4 gigs. Whether the laptop version (MCP79) does the same is not known at this point.

Originally Posted by Karim
In some cases, the memory densities were just not even available at the time Apple released the particular computer, so they didn't bother to list the maximum ram allowed beyond the then-available modules.

It would be "nice" if Apple stated the theoretical maximum ram, regardless of what densities are currently available.
On the original Mac, the hardware designer (Burrel Smith) added extra address lines to make memory upgrades possible, and purposefully hid this from Steve Jobs - always opposed to users making upgrades of their own. Not even Apple knew that the design supported 512 KB of RAM until those chips came available and people could test.
     
ciparis
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 18, 2008, 12:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
That is the desktop version (MCP7A) which we supports know more than 4 gigs. Whether the laptop version (MCP79) does the same is not known at this point.
Ah, gotcha. Time for some more digging.

Good ol' Burrel...
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2008, 06:20 AM
 
     
jonnyz1245
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: May 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2008, 01:04 PM
 
it will be interesting to see if someone tests 8 gigs, as to whether or not it will work.
     
GSixZero  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2008, 09:41 PM
 
Who wants to be the guinea pig? Link

ImpulseResponse
     
Kodachrome_Project
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Oct 2008
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 20, 2008, 11:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by GSixZero View Post
Who wants to be the guinea pig? Link
Spennnnnnndy!

By the time 4GB modules are actually affordable, the MacBook Pro will officially support them...
     
rmansfield
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Kentucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2008, 01:02 AM
 
YES it is! NVidia says so.
     
driven
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2008, 09:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by rmansfield View Post
YES it is! NVidia says so.
From the end of the article:

While this hasn't been officially confirmed by Apple yet, it should work. However, DO NOT take my word for it, Apple could have a software limitation which prohibits the full abilities of the chipset being used. I am hoping someone out there can confirm this so that those of us who can afford 8Gb of RAM (not I) can go ahead and shovel our cash towards Crucial.
- MacBook Air M2 16GB / 512GB
- MacBook Pro 16" i9 2.4Ghz 32GB / 1TB
- MacBook Pro 15" i7 2.9Ghz 16GB / 512GB
- iMac i5 3.2Ghz 1TB
- G4 Cube 500Mhz / Shelf display unit / Museum display
     
rmansfield
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Kentucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2008, 10:06 AM
 
Hopefully, Apple has not put any such limitations in place. I just ordered the 2.8 ghz MBP, and if I can upgrade the RAM to 8 gb (once the prices come down--which it eventually will), this will certainly lengthen the life of this laptop. This is made even more so by the case with the easily swapped out hard drives.

Of course Apple may not want us to keep our laptops long term for obvious reasons. Hopefully someone with deep pockets will test this soon.

At least we now know that Nvidia hasn't set any limitations.
     
driven
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 21, 2008, 10:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by rmansfield View Post
Hopefully, Apple has not put any such limitations in place. I just ordered the 2.8 ghz MBP, and if I can upgrade the RAM to 8 gb (once the prices come down--which it eventually will), this will certainly lengthen the life of this laptop. This is made even more so by the case with the easily swapped out hard drives.

Of course Apple may not want us to keep our laptops long term for obvious reasons. Hopefully someone with deep pockets will test this soon.

At least we now know that Nvidia hasn't set any limitations.
It will probably work. I was going to test it with the RAM from this Dell I have (which has 8GB), but I noted that the Mac has DDR3, while this dell has DDR2. I doubt it would work.
- MacBook Air M2 16GB / 512GB
- MacBook Pro 16" i9 2.4Ghz 32GB / 1TB
- MacBook Pro 15" i7 2.9Ghz 16GB / 512GB
- iMac i5 3.2Ghz 1TB
- G4 Cube 500Mhz / Shelf display unit / Museum display
     
GSixZero  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Seattle, WA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 08:54 PM
 
Looks like the hardware can see 8gb of ram but the software can't address the additional memory.

Seeing this encourages me that my new MBP will be able to use 8GBs of RAM in it's lifetime.

http://www.macrumors.com/2008/10/24/...b-ram-for-now/
Preliminary results show that while the new MacBook Pro did recognize the entire 8GB of RAM, during actual usage, the computer appeared to be limited to 4GB:



The machine would hit an invisible wall at 4GB and act like it had run out of memory. In the larger screenshot, two instances of Parallels can be seen (both set to 2GB of RAM). The second instance, however, only occupies a small portion of RAM expected. It's unclear why this limitation exists, as Mac OS X is able to use more than 4GB on Apple's Mac Pro. As a result, MacBook and MacBook Pro owners should not expect to be able to upgrade to 8GB of RAM at this time.

ImpulseResponse
     
driven
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 24, 2008, 09:51 PM
 
Weird. Seems like OSX is using a 32-bit address space on the Intel processor on this machine. Maybe Snow Leopard will change things.
- MacBook Air M2 16GB / 512GB
- MacBook Pro 16" i9 2.4Ghz 32GB / 1TB
- MacBook Pro 15" i7 2.9Ghz 16GB / 512GB
- iMac i5 3.2Ghz 1TB
- G4 Cube 500Mhz / Shelf display unit / Museum display
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2008, 04:04 AM
 
So at least there's no 4 GB limit in firmware. But it looks like the OS is not playing along nicely (yet). We'll see what future updates do.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2008, 04:35 AM
 
Ditto.
It seems that the kernel just doesn't allow access to RAM over 4 GB, but since all 8 GB are recognized by the OS, I'm sure Snow Leopard will

Edit: ifixit was able to address all 8 GB from the command line. It's just a matter of time until the new Books can use 8 GB from the GUI
( Last edited by OreoCookie; Oct 25, 2008 at 09:10 AM. )
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Brien
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2008, 12:41 PM
 
5GB works fine in the new MB/Ps according to ifixit, and I know that 5/6GB works on the Feb '08 MB/P's so it seems to be an issue with 8GB and OS X. o.O
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 25, 2008, 05:19 PM
 
How strange, shouldn't it be running the same OS (kernel, userland, etc) as the Mac Pros?
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2008, 04:14 AM
 
Nothing strange about that. It is the same OS, but of course the new Macs will ship with a newer build number than the MPs have. Next decimal upgrade will change that. And again the same partition that boots a MP will be able to boot a MB. The point is that right now the OS' support for two totally different chipsets (Seaburg vs. 9400M G) is obviously different. Especially when one is well established while the other is brand new.

It's totally possible Apple will integrate 8 GB support in the near future. Since they advertised a 4 GB limit they were probably in no special hurry to get that in there for the initial release. OTOH it's actually quite possible they refrain from adding 8 GB support (especially on the MB) for marketing reasons.
     
Pao|o
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2008, 07:42 AM
 
How many here are willing to drop around $1200 for a pair of 4GB SODIMMs?
     
Maflynn
Professional Poster
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Boston
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2008, 07:57 AM
 
I'd hazard a guess between -1 and 0
~Mike
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2008, 08:04 AM
 
Apparently the current firmware (or less likely 10.5.5) can see 8GB but cannot access it:

http://www.macrumors.com/2008/10/24/...b-ram-for-now/

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2008, 08:44 AM
 
@BigMac
Have you read the link? You can access all 8 GB, just not from the GUI. With command line apps, you can use the whole memory. There is no firmware limit, it's a limitation by the OS.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2008, 08:54 AM
 
I didn't read it all that closely, actually. Sorry about that. That's even stranger then, though. What would account for that behavior?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2008, 09:56 AM
 
I'm not entirely sure. But I am sure that this will be resolved with a future update of OS X. It also seems that the 4 GB memory sticks don't play 100 % nice with the system which could necessitate a firmware update to improve stability. In the PC world, this is nothing out of the ordinary, especially when a new memory ceiling is broken.

Right now, I think it's mostly a theoretical problem as 8 GB RAM (or 1x4) are (for most) prohibitively expensive. This will change and I guess in a year or so, 4 GB sticks will be available at much more reasonable prices. In either case, it's great that there is no `artificial' limits as to the amount of RAM you can install.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
mduell
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 26, 2008, 09:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Simon View Post
Nothing strange about that. It is the same OS, but of course the new Macs will ship with a newer build number than the MPs have. Next decimal upgrade will change that. And again the same partition that boots a MP will be able to boot a MB. The point is that right now the OS' support for two totally different chipsets (Seaburg vs. 9400M G) is obviously different. Especially when one is well established while the other is brand new.
The different chipsets will certainly have different drivers, but shouldn't the most recent kernel run everywhere with full features?
     
Simon
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: in front of my Mac
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2008, 03:50 AM
 
I don't see how that's imperative. The kernel can and will run differently on different chipsets and/or different firmware. It's been that way ever since OS X started.

And for the record, these are "full features". Apple has never promised more than 4 GB of RAM support. Anything beyond that is an extra. I reject this notion that people aren't getting the whole deal just because they expect to get more than what Apple specifies and advertises.
( Last edited by Simon; Oct 27, 2008 at 04:14 AM. )
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2008, 07:19 AM
 
As I understand it, the current kernel is running a sort of Three Card Monte with PAE and 32-bit pointers to pretend that it is doing real 64-bitiness. This little hack is only enabled on Mac Pros, at least for now. Snow Leopard will change this, and even the current beta can be set to run in 64-bit mode on the latest MBPs according to the release notes.
     
Big Mac
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2008, 07:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by P View Post
This little hack is only enabled on Mac Pros, at least for now.
What about G5 towers?

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." TJ
     
P
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Gothenburg, Sweden
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 27, 2008, 09:06 AM
 
As PAE doesn't exist on PPC, it can't be that. Either it's some other hack, or it's really 64-bit memory pointers. I suspect the latter - PPC is much more transparent wrt the 64-bit transition, as the instruction set was designed for 64-bit computing all along.

The Snow Leopard release notes only talk about the Intel versions, that I can see.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:49 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,