[turtle]

The only caveat being that only 3.3GB or so are actually usable by the system, correct?

[PB PM]

Yup.

[chucker]

I think the chipset is limited to 2 or 3 GB? The MacBookPro1,1's is to 2.

[turtle]

Originally Posted by chucker I think the chipset is limited to 2 or 3 GB? The MacBookPro1,1's is to 2.

My Macmini2,1 shows 4GB of RAM but I recall it being limited by the chipset to 3.3GB even though the system shows 4GB. Wouldn't MacBook/Pro1,1 be under the same limitation giving it that 3.3GB ceiling?

Surprisingly, It just checked the name for my G4 Mini and it's PowerMac10,1. I wonder what the limit is for a Macmini1,1? That must be the Core Solo model.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by turtle2472 My Macmini2,1 shows 4GB of RAM but I recall it being limited by the chipset to 3.3GB even though the system shows 4GB. Wouldn't MacBook/Pro1,1 be under the same limitation giving it that 3.3GB ceiling?

That's something different — that's a limitation to how it maps memory in 32-bit: the remaining ~700MB are used by devices, such as your GPU. PowerPC handled this differently, so a 32-bit PowerPC system could in fact use all 4GB. To further complicate matters, some x86 CPUs have PAE, which allows 36-bit (64GB RAM) total.

Are you sure, though, that it's still 3.3GB in Snow Leopard? Most of the processes should run in 64-bit, so you should be able to access the full 4GB?

Surprisingly, It just checked the name for my G4 Mini and it's PowerMac10,1. I wonder what the limit is for a Macmini1,1? That must be the Core Solo model.

Apple didn't introduce new model identifiers until they switched to Intel — the iBook, Mac mini, iMac, eMac, etc. were all called "PowerBook" and "PowerMac", respectively. Not exactly sure why.

According to Mactracker, and this matches my memory, the MacBook1,1 is limited to 2GB. The MacBook2,1 (Core 2 Duo, late 2006) is limited to 3GB "actual", 2GB "Apple". The mid-2007 model is another 2,1; the late 2007 one (3,1) allows for 6GB "actual", 4GB "Apple". The Macmini1,1 (early 2006 and late 2006) is limited to 2GB; the 2,1 (mid-2007) to 3GB "actual", 2GB "Apple"; the Macmini3,1 (early 2009) to 4GB.

[turtle]

Originally Posted by chucker That's something different — that's a limitation to how it maps memory in 32-bit: the remaining ~700MB are used by devices, such as your GPU. PowerPC handled this differently, so a 32-bit PowerPC system could in fact use all 4GB. To further complicate matters, some x86 CPUs have PAE, which allows 36-bit (64GB RAM) total. Are you sure, though, that it's still 3.3GB in Snow Leopard? Most of the processes should run in 64-bit, so you should be able to access the full 4GB?

Well, is there a way I can test how much is being used? System Profiler shows 4GB in SL on Macmini2,1. Activity Monitor shows Intel, Intel (64 bit), and PowerPC processes, most are 64 bit.

Apple didn't introduce new model identifiers until they switched to Intel — the iBook, Mac mini, iMac, eMac, etc. were all called "PowerBook" and "PowerMac", respectively. Not exactly sure why. According to Mactracker, and this matches my memory, the MacBook1,1 is limited to 2GB. The MacBook2,1 (Core 2 Duo, late 2006) is limited to 3GB "actual", 2GB "Apple". The mid-2007 model is another 2,1; the late 2007 one (3,1) allows for 6GB "actual", 4GB "Apple". The Macmini1,1 (early 2006 and late 2006) is limited to 2GB; the 2,1 (mid-2007) to 3GB "actual", 2GB "Apple"; the Macmini3,1 (early 2009) to 4GB.

Interesting, I don't know that I ever paid attention to the identifier before now. I'm tempted to pull my 4GB our of my MacBook3,1 and put it in the MacBook1,1 and see what happens.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by turtle2472 Well, is there a way I can test how much is being used? System Profiler shows 4GB in SL on Macmini2,1. Activity Monitor shows Intel, Intel (64 bit), and PowerPC processes, most are 64 bit.

Activity Monitor's System Memory tab has a pie chart; I believe the number below it is the relevant metric.

[turtle]

Ok, Macmini2,1 shows 3GB in Activity Monitor under the System Memory tab even though it shows 4GB elsewhere. My MacBook3,1 shows 4GB. My MacBook1,1 fails to boot with anything more than 2GB. I went ahead and pulled my RAM out of my 3,1 and put it in 1,1 only to have it fail to even make it to POST. Wall-E didn't wake up.

Edit: Maybe a Mod can add "No" to the end of the thread title.

[leo]

Hello Chucker, I have a mid-2007 black MacBook, running SnowLeopard in 32bit mode because this model does not run in 64bit. This 3rd generation Macbook has a 2.16 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo which uses DDR2 SDRAM 667Mhz memory chips. Currently I use two 1 Gb Ram memory for a total of 2Gb.
If I replace only one 1Gb Ram Memory chip with a 2Gb memory chip I will be able to run on a total of 3Gb (according to another user in another tech forum). But I wonder if that causes a problem, the fact that I would have a mixed chip set 1Gb with a 2Gb?

My second question is if I replace both 1Gb Ram memory chips with 2x 2Gb, will I obtain 3,3Gb instead of 3Gb?

[chucker]

Except for the very first revision, every MacBook runs applications in 64-bit. Not the kernel, but that's a different matter. Run Activity Monitor to confirm that most of your applications do in fact run in 64-bit mode.

Originally Posted by leo If I replace only one 1Gb Ram Memory chip with a 2Gb memory chip I will be able to run on a total of 3Gb (according to another user in another tech forum).

Yes.

Originally Posted by leo But I wonder if that causes a problem, the fact that I would have a mixed chip set 1Gb with a 2Gb?

No, it won't cause any problems.

There is a slight performance gain by having matched pairs, but it's very likely outweighed by having a greater overall amount of memory available.

Originally Posted by leo My second question is if I replace both 1Gb Ram memory chips with 2x 2Gb, will I obtain 3,3Gb instead of 3Gb?

No. This limitation is unrelated to 32-bit and instead has to do with the chipset only handling a maximum of 3 GB.

[leo]

Thank you for your quick reply!

Yes it does run the 64 bit applications.

When you say: «There is a slight performance gain by having matched pairs, but it's very likely outweighed by having a greater overall amount of memory available.»

I do not understand what you mean by «outweighed by having a greater overall amount of memory available».

In the discussion here and others that I have read, some talk about 3,3Gb available when 2x 2Gb are installed. I understand from your last answer that whether I have 2x 2Gb or 1Gb + 2Gb I will have only 3Gb and no more.

But a matched pair will have a slight performance gain, is it really worth it. I run a lot of Mac application at the same time and one window 7 corporate app with Parallel Desktop. Will the slight performance gain be really worth the investment in a 2nd 2Gb Ram memory chip?

[chucker]

I meant that 2+1 GB (i.e. more memory) outweighs 1+1 GB (i.e. matched pairs).

[leo]

Thank you for your input!

[chucker]

I just saw your PM; just to be clear, I'm not positive whether you can insert 4 (2+2) GB or not. It may be that the chipset will simply treat them as 2+1, but it may also be that it will refuse to boot. You should probably go with 2+1 either way.

[PB PM]

chucker, I know people who installed 4GBs of RAM in systems with that chipset, it should boots fine, and shows 3.3GB RAM. Honestly though, I doubt it is worth the extra money for 300MB of RAM.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by PB PM chucker, I know people who installed 4GBs of RAM in systems with that chipset, it should boots fine, and shows 3.3GB RAM.

In that case, Mactracker's listing must be wrong? If it supports 64-bit, and can handle more than 3 GB, it should be able to handle 4 GB, no?

[PB PM]

Edit, sorry mixed up model numbers, Mactracker is correct.