Quantcast
Subscribe to magazine
You are not logged in, click here to log in.
Up to Discussions in Story Discussion
20 Replies Last post: Mar 1, 2007 9:49 AM by bgarlock   1 2 Previous Next
Click to view Macworld.com's profile Enthusiast
Macworld.com
1,900 posts since
Feb 6, 2004
Reply

Oct 24, 2006 1:50 PM

Editors' Notes Weblog: MacBook Pro memory matters

Sure, the newly updated MacBook Pros now run on Intel Core 2 Duo chips. But the addition that really caught Jonathan Seff's eye is the increased installed RAM on two of the configurations. more
Reply
Click to view Dimwhit's profile New Member
Dimwhit
84 posts since
Jul 7, 2003
1. Oct 24, 2006 5:18 PM in response to: Macworld.com
Re: Editors' Notes Weblog: MacBook Pro memory matt
I think the memory bump is GREAT news. I have 1MB on my current MBP, and it seems more than enough. 2GB is very generous to offer out-of-the-box. Glad to see Apple do this. I'm hoping the iMacs follow suit before I buy one next February.
Reply
Click to view MacTel's profile Enthusiast
MacTel
1,028 posts since
Jun 6, 2005
2. Oct 24, 2006 5:51 PM in response to: Macworld.com
Re: Editors' Notes Weblog: MacBook Pro memory matters
Quote:<hr />
But how many people really need 4GB of RAM in any Mac, much less a portable?


<hr />


That's the million dollar question. With Leopard coming out in the first half of 2006, we don't know what the memory requirements are yet. If Vista is any indication then 1Gb might be the recommended amount with 2Gb or more being quite suitable.
Reply
Click to view Nobody's profile New Member
Nobody
58,347 posts since
Oct 18, 2007
3. Oct 24, 2006 5:58 PM in response to: Macworld.com
Re: Editors' Notes Weblog: MacBook Pro memory matters
At least 2 GB RAM should be standard now. Chep PC boxes have had 1 GB standard RAM for years now!!!
Reply
Click to view brycesteiner's profile New Member
brycesteiner
183 posts since
Apr 29, 2005
4. Oct 24, 2006 6:00 PM in response to: MacTel
Re: Editors' Notes Weblog: MacBook Pro memory matt
Vista looks awful. It's a memory hog and something that OSX could do nearly 5 years ago on much less. I've also read that you cannot put Vista on another computer and I'm not talking about at the same time. Once it has been installed on one you cannot uninstall it and put it on another -- legally. MS has changed the license agreement. I'm not sure how they can say this. If you buy the software you should be able to do with it what you want (I'm not talking about giving it to someone either).
Reply
Click to view MacTechAspen's profile Member
MacTechAspen
251 posts since
Oct 15, 2004
5. Oct 24, 2006 6:10 PM in response to: brycesteiner
Re: Editors' Notes Weblog: MacBook Pro memory matt
Quote:<hr />
If you buy the software you should be able to do with it what you want (I'm not talking about giving it to someone either).

<hr />
As a software publisher I can assure you, you do not often BUY software, you license the right to use it.

The license may be very broad or very specific, but almost every bit of software you pay for has a End Users License Agreement.

This makes almost anything possible, even when it seems far from fair.
Reply
Click to view MacTel's profile Enthusiast
MacTel
1,028 posts since
Jun 6, 2005
6. Oct 24, 2006 6:37 PM in response to: brycesteiner
Re: Editors' Notes Weblog: MacBook Pro memory matt
Quote:<hr />
I've also read that you cannot put Vista on another computer and I'm not talking about at the same time. Once it has been installed on one you cannot uninstall it and put it on another -- legally.

<hr />


It is called software activation. One copy of XP could be installed several times on several computers but only one copy could be activated in Microsoft's database. You could switch which computer was the active version any number of times. If you didn't activate XP then the OS would cease to function after a given period of time.

With Vista you can only transfer it once, which means only two computers (based on MAC address) can exist in Microsoft's database for that particular copy of Vista. Anything beyond that is not allowed. I'm sure you can register Vista several times for the same computer, as installing M$ OSes on an annual basis is the norm.
Reply
Click to view davebarnes's profile New Member
davebarnes
146 posts since
May 12, 2004
7. Oct 24, 2006 7:36 PM in response to: Macworld.com
Re: Editors' Notes Weblog: MacBook Pro memory matt
Our esteemed editor wrote: "But how many people really need 4GB of RAM in any Mac, much less a portable?"

Well, everyone who wants to run Parallels (and Windows 2000/XP).
Well, everyone who wants to run MS Office, Adobe Illustrator, Adobe Photoshop and any other application that requires Rosetta.

I have a Power Mac G5 with 4GB of memory. I find that I easily use 2+GB all the time. I very seldom get to 4GB, but very often use up 3GB. And, of course, I don't run Parallels, nor Rosetta.

My partner has a new iMac with 2GB. It is not enough. To run Parallels with decent performance, she needs to shut down the Microsoft and Adobe apps. I think 3GB would be OK.

,dave
Reply
Click to view schoonerman's profile Member
schoonerman
263 posts since
Oct 16, 2004
8. Oct 24, 2006 7:53 PM in response to: Macworld.com
Re: Editors' Notes Weblog: MacBook Pro memory matters
No one will ever need more than 640K of memory.
--Some guy living in a shack on the lake
Reply
Click to view Jon Seff's profile Macworld Editorial
Jon Seff
674 posts since
Dec 13, 2000
9. Oct 24, 2006 8:19 PM in response to: davebarnes
Re: Editors' Notes Weblog: MacBook Pro memory matt
For what it's worth, I have 2GB of RAM on my MacBook (regular, not Pro), and that's plenty for running XP using Parallels--works better than any actual PC I've been forced to use.

My point is just that I think very few people would max out a MacBook Pro to 4GB. That said, I hope Apple starts using new chip sets that allow people to have that option.

Jon Seff - Senior News Editor, Macworld
Reply
Click to view barakthecat's profile New Member
barakthecat
19 posts since
Oct 18, 2006
10. Oct 24, 2006 9:13 PM in response to: Macworld.com
Re: Editors' Notes Weblog: MacBook Pro memory matters
I don't get it, they said this is a case of 2 steps forward and 1 step back. What's the step back? Did previous MacBooks or PowerBooks support more than 3 GB of RAM, or is that just some cute phrase used that doesn't really mean anything? I guess the MacBook Pro must be looking pretty good if we have to resort to making up flaws.
Reply
Click to view booga's profile Member
booga
284 posts since
Jan 14, 2005
11. Oct 24, 2006 9:18 PM in response to: Macworld.com
Re: Editors' Notes Weblog: MacBook Pro memory matters
I'm having trouble understanding how the 3GB limit could be an "addressing" issue since 3GB is not an even power of 2. 2^31 is 2GB, and 2^32 is 4GB. Do they have half of an address line going around?
Reply
Click to view brycesteiner's profile New Member
brycesteiner
183 posts since
Apr 29, 2005
12. Oct 24, 2006 10:04 PM in response to: MacTechAspen
Re: Editors' Notes Weblog: MacBook Pro memory matt
Quote:<hr />
Quote:<hr />
If you buy the software you should be able to do with it what you want (I'm not talking about giving it to someone either).

<hr />
As a software publisher I can assure you, you do not often BUY software, you license the right to use it.

The license may be very broad or very specific, but almost every bit of software you pay for has a End Users License Agreement.

This makes almost anything possible, even when it seems far from fair.

<hr />


I do agree with you that sometimes the license agreements don't seem fair, but if I pay the license fee (buy the right to use the software), I fully expect to be able to put it on any one computer that I choose no matter how many times I choose to do this. Not what a software publisher chooses. I don't think this could stand up in a court of law either.
Reply
Click to view heisetax's profile Member
heisetax
445 posts since
Oct 2, 2003
13. Oct 25, 2006 1:28 AM in response to: booga
Re: Editors' Notes Weblog: MacBook Pro memory matt
Quote:<hr />
I'm having trouble understanding how the 3GB limit could be an "addressing" issue since 3GB is not an even power of 2. 2^31 is 2GB, and 2^32 is 4GB. Do they have half of an address line going around?

<hr />



It seems that the addressing space includes all memory that is addressable. This would include the system ROM, maybe to video card, cache memory & other types of memory. This would put the limit below the 4 GB that may be addressable. Also mentioned was Chipset limits & constraints.

With a 64-bit processor one would think that the system would not be limited to
32-bit memory schemes. 4 GB or more would be nice in the Intel MacBook Pro.

I'm still running my Intel Mac Pro on 1 GB of memory. When running Parallels with some Mac Apps things sometimes slow down a lot. 2 GB standard would have been nice.

Bill the TaxMan
Reply
Click to view heisetax's profile Member
heisetax
445 posts since
Oct 2, 2003
14. Oct 25, 2006 1:32 AM in response to: barakthecat
Re: Editors' Notes Weblog: MacBook Pro memory matt
Quote:<hr />
I don't get it, they said this is a case of 2 steps forward and 1 step back. What's the step back? Did previous MacBooks or PowerBooks support more than 3 GB of RAM, or is that just some cute phrase used that doesn't really mean anything? I guess the MacBook Pro must be looking pretty good if we have to resort to making up flaws.

<hr />



The step back could have been the fact that only one of the DIMMs can be 2 GB with the 2nd at only 1 GB. Usually memory capacity would double , i.e. 1 GB to 2 GB. 2 GB to 4 GB & so forth.
Reply
Go to original post 1 2 Previous Next

Actions

More Like This

Macworld powered by Jive Software's Clearspace ® -1.10.1 (Version: {3}) - Submit product feedback
© Jive Software