iMac 4GB RAM limit
in [UK Mac]
|
Prev: Google Translate
Next: PureFTPd - great FTP server
From: Tim Gowen on 12 Feb 2010 11:49 Jaimie Vandenbergh <jaimie(a)sometimes.sessile.org> wrote: > Because for a long time Windows 64bit was extra useless (feck all > drivers) Still is if you've got a Nikon LS-5000 film scanner, and with no plans for a change, They'll implement 32-bit Win 7 drivers, though. There are work-arounds, though. Tim -- Tim Gowen
From: Rowland McDonnell on 12 Feb 2010 19:09
Richard Tobin <richard(a)cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > D.M. Procida <real-not-anti-spam-address(a)apple-juice.co.uk> wrote: > >Why do these Intel logic boards support such little RAM? > > So there's a reason for people to buy Mac Pros. I had a 6.5GB RAM 2.5GHz 4G5 (not maxed out at all, and a lot older than the iMac I'm now using). It died before its time, and Apple offered me a replacement because Amsys was unable to repair the 4G5 (it had already `repaired' the machine six times, IIRC. If this iMac ever needs repairing, I'll be taking it to an Apple store; Amsys is hopeless) The resulting 4GB 3.06GHz C2D iMac is notably slower at some things[1] - even though I had Apple fit it with the better graphics card. I just find it hard to put `4GB' and `pitiful amount' together in my mind... On the other hand, I've got a 1200dpi scanner and loadsaram comes in handy when you're dealing with 1200dpi over A4 sized images. FWIW, my new 3.06GHz Intel iMac is definitely less `snappy' in UI response than the old 4G5; not a lot, but a bit. Rowland. [1] The G5 CPU has a party trick, such that the benchmarks show that my old 4G5 can /hammer/ the iMac at some jobs - while being hammered in return when it comes to most. But... But if code happens to be G5 optimized and makes good use of the CPU's party trick, it's very snappy indeed. -- Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell(a)dog.physics.org Sorry - the spam got to me http://www.mag-uk.org http://www.bmf.co.uk UK biker? Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking |