 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / General / Hardware / September 2008Intel Mini with 800mhz ram?
Is this possible? Or can it only accept 533mhz and 667mhz ram? I may have a chance on getting a good deal and was wondering if it would work in an Intel Mac Mini. > Is this possible? Or can it only accept 533mhz and 667mhz ram? I may > have a chance on getting a good deal and was wondering if it would work > in an Intel Mac Mini. If I were you, I would get the kind of RAM meets Apple's specs. This is easy to do simply by downloading and running the free RAM tool from http://www.crucial.com > Is this possible? Or can it only accept 533mhz and 667mhz ram? I may > have a chance on getting a good deal and was wondering if it would work > in an Intel Mac Mini. 533 MHz wouldn't work. The earliest Intel Macs required 667 MHz (PC2-5300). According to Crucial, higher speed DDR2 memory is compatible with machines which expect lower speeds, e.g. PC2-6400 will work in a machine which expects PC2-5300 (like the the Mac Mini). http://www.crucial.com/support/memory_speeds.aspx This might not apply to some other brands. Some might have taken shortcuts and not be correctly set up to operate at slower speeds. It also depends on whether the basic type of memory is compatible with the Mac Mini's requirements (unbuffered, not registered, not ECC). If you are having to buy the memory, I'd prefer to err on the side of caution and buy memory which is specified to work on the computer in question.  SignatureDavid Empson dempson@actrix.gen.nz > > Is this possible? Or can it only accept 533mhz and 667mhz ram? I may > > have a chance on getting a good deal and was wondering if it would work > > in an Intel Mac Mini. > > 533 MHz wouldn't work. The earliest Intel Macs required 667 MHz > (PC2-5300). Oh really? I'm using a pair right now. I'm trying to upgrade to the 667mhz speed. So if anyone knows please reply here. Some 800mhz ram is cheaper than 667mhz now. > > > Is this possible? Or can it only accept 533mhz and 667mhz ram? I may > > > have a chance on getting a good deal and was wondering if it would work [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Oh really? I'm using a pair right now. Then you're out of spec. The slowest Intel mini ever is quoted as taking 667. > I'm trying to upgrade to the 667mhz speed. > > So if anyone knows please reply here. Some 800mhz ram is cheaper than > 667mhz now. Cheaper isn't always the best goal to be looking at for RAM. You do tend to get what you pay for. 2GB of fully-compliant, guaranteed RAM from one of the most reputable vendors in the word is $42. How much can you really save? Signature"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?" - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix > > > > Is this possible? Or can it only accept 533mhz and 667mhz ram? I may > > > > have a chance on getting a good deal and was wondering if it would work [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Then you're out of spec. The slowest Intel mini ever is quoted as taking > 667. Of course. That's why I need to upgrade! > > I'm trying to upgrade to the 667mhz speed. > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of the most reputable vendors in the word is $42. How much can you > really save? I see 2gb pairs (2 x 1gb) go for way less than half of that! And I need a pair for someone else too, perhaps 2 other people. How do I know if ram is "fully-compliant"? It sounds like an Apple term for buying their overpriced computer parts. :) > > > So if anyone knows please reply here. Some 800mhz ram is cheaper than > > > 667mhz now. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I see 2gb pairs (2 x 1gb) go for way less than half of that! And I need > a pair for someone else too, perhaps 2 other people. As I said, you often get what you pay for. To me, the hassle that all-too-often comes with crap RAM isn't worth saving $20-25. At $42 from Crucial, even if you told me you were getting the stuff *free* I wouldn't consider it worth the risk unless you could tell me whence it came. > How do I know if ram is "fully-compliant"? You know if RAM is fully compliant if you look up the requirements for the RAM that Apple specifies for the machine - generally some JEDEC document - and then you go to a reputable vendor and ask them for parts that match that. > It sounds like an Apple term > for buying their overpriced computer parts. :) Considering that most people never buy RAM from Apple beyond the stock complement that you can't avoid, it shouldn't sound like that at all. It also wouldn't sound like that to anyone who did even a modicum of research, given that Apple's easily-found price for the parts I described is *much* higher than I quoted. FWIW, RAM is about the only computer part on which Apple is "overpriced" and they, like every other system vendor on the planet, charge more for RAM than direct sales merchants do because they sign long-term contracts involving several parties who all add their own padding to protect themselves. Not one platform vendor has decent RAM prices because not one of them buys on the spot market. Signature"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?" - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix > FWIW, RAM is about the only computer part on which Apple is "overpriced" Wow - you are really out of touch with prices. Check out the Apple store and then check the same prices at any high volume computer parts discounter. Apple's prices are so high its just silly. Wake up Apple users! > and they, like every other system vendor on the planet, charge more for > RAM than direct sales merchants do because they sign long-term contracts > involving several parties who all add their own padding to protect > themselves. Not one platform vendor has decent RAM prices because not > one of them buys on the spot market. Whatever. If they can't compete, they can't compete. Time to alter their buying so they can compete. Mac users always have some lame excuse as to why Apple can do no wrong. Its pathetic. > > FWIW, RAM is about the only computer part on which Apple is "overpriced" > > Wow - you are really out of touch with prices. Nope. You've just confused the notions of "cost" and "value." And made the mistake of assuming that anyone other than you who uses Apple equipment necessarily does do from a position of ignorance and thus won't be able to refute your own spurious claims. > > and they, like every other system vendor on the planet, charge more for > > RAM than direct sales merchants do because they sign long-term contracts [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Whatever. If they can't compete, they can't compete. True. On RAM. Neither can Dell ($65 on sale). Or HP ($96 after rebates). Or Lenovo ($70). Or Toshiba ($72-$180 on sale). If you buy more RAM from a system vendor than the stock complement, you're a sucker. Happily, I never implied anything otherwise. The point was, that *you* were speaking from a position of ignorance in dismissing a valid criterion ("must comply with readily-available, well-documented 3rd-party specs to be reliable or supported") as code for "must pay Apple prices." That was false, plain and simple. And now you're trying to distract from that, which leads me to believe your original "mistake" was intentional. > Time to alter their buying so they can compete. They *can't* compete on RAM. No system vendor can. Did you not understand what I wrote about why that is, or did you not even bother? You might as well have responded by copying and pasting the word "blah" 20 times for all the sense you made. > Mac users always have some lame > excuse as to why Apple can do no wrong. Its pathetic. Oh, good. And let's end on a non sequitur and an ad hominem. You're a troll, then? You could've mentioned that up front and spared us the effort. Signature"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?" - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix > > > FWIW, RAM is about the only computer part on which Apple is "overpriced" > > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > a system vendor than the stock complement, you're a sucker. Happily, I > never implied anything otherwise. Well only an idiot pays more than necessary. Its a free world, at least in this hemisphere. > The point was, that *you* were speaking from a position of ignorance in > dismissing a valid criterion ("must comply with readily-available, > well-documented 3rd-party specs to be reliable or supported") as code > for "must pay Apple prices." That was false, plain and simple. And now > you're trying to distract from that, which leads me to believe your > original "mistake" was intentional. Huh? Apple's prices are insane. Most everybody knows that. And I find Apple machines far more tolerant of ram than most PC's! So its brain dead easy to shop on the used market for ram for your precious Mac. There is just no excuse except for laziness to pay anything more than $20 for a couple of gigs of ram these days. Recently I saw a pair go for just over half of that! But if you need to spend $42, go right ahead. Its just typical of Apple users that they seem incapable of shopping smart. > > The point was, that *you* were speaking from a position of ignorance in > > dismissing a valid criterion ("must comply with readily-available, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Huh? Apple's prices are insane. On RAM, yes. As with every other system vendor. On other equipment, no. And, again, off the point. I never said Apple's prices on RAM weren't insane. I never said a peep about Apple's prices until you drew a drastically wrong inference about the simple word "compliant." > Most everybody knows that. "Most everybody knows that" is a false statement if "that" means the idea that Apple equipment is in general overpriced. A large number of people ignorantly believe it because either they've completely confused the concepts of cost and value or because they've been told by someone else that it's the case and never bother to check on their own. Then, of course, a relatively small number of people know the truth and lie outright because it suits some agenda they have. Those people should stay in comp.sys.mac.advocacy where they won't get in the way of civilized people trying to get things done. > And I find > Apple machines far more tolerant of ram than most PC's! So its brain > dead easy to shop on the used market for ram for your precious Mac. My Mac is not precious. Your phrasing and attitude show just how far off the track of objectivity you've gone. > There is just no excuse except for laziness to pay anything more than > $20 for a couple of gigs of ram these days. In your uninformed opinion. I say it takes laziness to assume that "cheap" is a synonym for "good deal." > Recently I saw a pair go for just over half of that! Irrelevant. As I said, I wouldn't even take free RAM unless I could verify its provenance. There's more to value than up-front cost, and I will happily pay a few tens of dollars up front to buy from a vendor whose failure rate is virtually 0% and who's known for an utter lack of hassle for customers in the very rare cases when failure does occur. I paid $1000 for my washing machine when the typical sale price on a washer was a little less than half that. I'm a sucker, right? Except that in less than 5 years, the savings from reduced use of detergent, softener and water in comparison to those $500 machines paid for it. Not for the $500 difference, but for the whole $1000. And every year after that has been gravy. A couple of years ago I had my roof reshingled for the first time since I bought it. I paid about 20% more than I strictly needed to. I'm a sucker, right? Except I got shingles that are, effectively, guaranteed to outlive me instead of ones that I'll likely need to replace twice before I die. Since I'm not planning on moving, that works out pretty well. Value. Different from cost. Learn it. > But if you need to spend $42, go right ahead. Its just typical of Apple > users that they seem incapable of shopping smart. I know what my time is worth. I know the failure rates of crap RAM make the risk that I'll have to spend time swapping it out more expensive than the $20-25 I'll save up front. Now who's shopping smart? Signature"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?" - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix > > There is just no excuse except for laziness to pay anything more than > > $20 for a couple of gigs of ram these days. > > In your uninformed opinion. I say it takes laziness to assume that > "cheap" is a synonym for "good deal." Apple people just refuse to shop the market. You are a perfect example. If I was an Apple stockholder I would treasure your existence. > > Recently I saw a pair go for just over half of that! > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > whose failure rate is virtually 0% and who's known for an utter lack of > hassle for customers in the very rare cases when failure does occur. Typical Apple response. See above. > I paid $1000 for my washing machine when the typical sale price on a > washer was a little less than half that. I'm a sucker, right? Except > that in less than 5 years, the savings from reduced use of detergent, > softener and water in comparison to those $500 machines paid for it. Not > for the $500 difference, but for the whole $1000. And every year after > that has been gravy. > A couple of years ago I had my roof reshingled for the first time since > I bought it. I paid about 20% more than I strictly needed to. I'm a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > well. > Value. Different from cost. Learn it. We're not talking roofs or washing machines. Its electronics and its pretty cut and dried. > > But if you need to spend $42, go right ahead. Its just typical of Apple > > users that they seem incapable of shopping smart. > > I know what my time is worth. I know the failure rates of crap RAM make > the risk that I'll have to spend time swapping it out more expensive > than the $20-25 I'll save up front. Now who's shopping smart? Me. The only people that think that Apple prices are sane are people out of touch with computer part prices. A 10 year old can assemble a computer out of parts. The savings are enormous. Look at the prices of Apple's monitors, hard drives, video cards, raid cards, and anything else (except the Ipod which is a marvelous product at a sane price). > > > There is just no excuse except for laziness to pay anything more than > > > $20 for a couple of gigs of ram these days. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Apple people just refuse to shop the market. You are a perfect example. Considering that I *do* shop the market, I'm a terrible example of your unsupported prejudice. You're the one who's uninformed in this discussion, not I. Perhaps you haven't yet matured enough to understand that not everyone has the priorities as you. Or maybe you're just arguing to save face now because you've realized how utterly ignorant your stance is. > > A couple of years ago I had my roof reshingled for the first time since > > I bought it. I paid about 20% more than I strictly needed to. I'm a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > We're not talking roofs or washing machines. Its electronics and its > pretty cut and dried. Only if the quality of the components is always equal or, at least, known. It's not. Therefore there's a difference between cost and value. As I said, I know what my time is worth, to me and to others. I know how long it takes to swap the RAM in an Intel mini. Therefore I know how much it costs me to do a RAM upgrade to an Intel mini. My experience of the anecdotal failure rate of "cheap" RAM leads me to the conclusion that it's likely the up-front savings of $20-25 will be offset by the risk of needing to either swap out the memory twice more or once more with noticeable downtime (aka opportunity cost) while I wait for the replacement parts. You still want to suggest that *you're* the informed consumer in this discussion? G Signature"Harry?" Ron's voice was a mere whisper. "Do you smell something ... burning?" - Harry Potter and the Odor of the Phoenix |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.