>As far as I know, there are two slots in that machine. However, one of
>them is easilly accessible ("User installable") while one is in the
>innards of the machine ("Apple/Dealer installable"). The latter may be
>reached, but it takes patience and maybe some special tools.
>According to MacTracker, both slots are designed for 512MB chips..

Signature
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
> >As far as I know, there are two slots in that machine. However, one of
> >them is easilly accessible ("User installable") while one is in the
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> Do we know that 1GB chips did NOT work; or only that they were not
> available/tested when MacTracker was updated?
No, we do not. But MacTracker is usually pretty good at updating things
like that (note, e.g., the iBook G4 first generation, where it says 640
(Apple) 1.12 (Actual)).
> >Please note that you need two physically different chips in the two
> >slots, see
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> several iBooks that could use the OTHER RAM chip swapped out as
> well.
If you mean iBooks ever had two replacable chips, the answer is no, they
never did. And if you do not mean that, then I don't understand what you
mean, sorry. :-(
> At least the MacBooks have dropped it; both chips are the
> same size & accessible.
Yes, and the modern iMac as well, and the Intel Mac Mini. Actually I do
not think the original iMac and flat-panel iMac is a "trick" as much as
a result of pretty tight engineering to make things fit in a very
cramped and unusually shaped casing, but of course I could be mistaken.
It is hard to disprove a conspiracy... ;-)

Signature
/Jon
For contact info, run the following in Terminal:
Mail: echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc
Skype: echo 139576319600233690471689738P|dc
David Lesher - 17 Sep 2006 19:21 GMT
>> Do we know that 1GB chips did NOT work; or only that they were not
>> available/tested when MacTracker was updated?
>No, we do not. But MacTracker is usually pretty good at updating things
>like that (note, e.g., the iBook G4 first generation, where it says 640
>(Apple) 1.12 (Actual)).
Side note: I use Crucial.com as a check on such. They do top out at 512
as well. Grumble.
>> >Please note that you need two physically different chips in the two
>> >slots, see
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>> several iBooks that could use the OTHER RAM chip swapped out as
>> well.
>If you mean iBooks ever had two replacable chips, the answer is no, they
>never did. And if you do not mean that, then I don't understand what you
>mean, sorry. :-(
What I mean is it's stoopid to build a machine with deeply buried
RAM that can't be upgraded easily. I don't know details on the iBooks
but for Bondi Blues you had in effect A) Remove all components except
for the fuseholder in the upper lefthand corner... B)....
to replace the other chip.
It's worse when the chips are different types...and guess what...
Do I add "Which iMac?" as there have been as many wildly different
ones as there have been "Dodge Chargers"... yet there are no
definitive model #'s....
>> At least the MacBooks have dropped it; both chips are the
>> same size & accessible.
>Yes, and the modern iMac as well, and the Intel Mac Mini.
Glad to hear that is finally true....

Signature
A host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com
& no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
patrick j - 17 Sep 2006 19:57 GMT
> What I mean is it's stoopid to build a machine with deeply buried
> RAM that can't be upgraded easily. I don't know details on the iBooks
> but for Bondi Blues you had in effect A) Remove all components except
> for the fuseholder in the upper lefthand corner... B)....
> to replace the other chip.
I've done that operation. If we're talking about the original bondi
iMac. I don't think it was too bad myself. It is a long time ago that I
did it, but one chip was quite easy, the other was buried I think.
> Do I add "Which iMac?" as there have been as many wildly different
> ones as there have been "Dodge Chargers"... yet there are no
> definitive model #'s....
The impression I get is that there is no definitive model numbering
system either. It strikes me as amazing if it's true. Every Mac I've
dealt with has always involved a bit of detective work (usually
visiting relevant web-sites) to find out which particular version it
is.

Signature
Patrick
Brighton, UK
Jon - 17 Sep 2006 20:24 GMT
> I've done that operation. If we're talking about the original bondi
> iMac. I don't think it was too bad myself. It is a long time ago that I
> did it, but one chip was quite easy, the other was buried I think.
AOL, both points.

Signature
/Jon
For contact info, run the following in Terminal:
Mail: echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc
Skype: echo 139576319600233690471689738P|dc
Jon - 17 Sep 2006 20:24 GMT
> The impression I get is that there is no definitive model numbering
> system either.
There is, but no-one outside the techie and very much inside Apple
circles use it. My PowerBook, for instance, is called "PowerBook6,2".
Challenge: find out which model it is! :-)

Signature
/Jon
For contact info, run the following in Terminal:
Mail: echo 36199371860304980107073482417748002696458P|dc
Skype: echo 139576319600233690471689738P|dc