Hi:
There has been a lot of info. lately about bad Kingston memory. Check
out MacInTouch.com forums. You may simply have bad RAM (and then again,
you may not!).
... e
On Jan 22, 2004, at 12:49 PM, Dave Bonhoff wrote:
I'm running 256 in both slots right now, but I can't recommend it for
This is my set up, got it from OCW. It s fine. And not expensive from them.
16/1/04 9:58 PM -0800 Adam Thayer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Officially, the bottom slot can take a 128 low-profile DIMM and the upper
slot can take a 256. Unofficially, many people have put 256MB low-profile
DIMMs in the
I'm running 256 in both slots right now, but I can't recommend it for
Panther. The installer refused to complete with this configuration.
No amount of zapping pram, open firmware resets, processor card
manipulation, RAM swapping, drive reformatting, etc would work. I was
forced to remove
On Jan 22, 2004, at 12:49 pm, Dave Bonhoff wrote:
I have read in various places that 384MB is now the limit for Lombards
running Panther.
Dave
I have Panther running with 512MB on a Lombard and have not yet
experienced what you described.
Alan
--
G-Books is sponsored by
Tsuki, [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
I have often heard that for OS X, the more RAM you
have, the better it runs. I want to know how much RAM would be sufficient
to run Panther smoothly on this machine.
There have been some agreement in many circles I frequent that 384 MB is
a magic number for
Greetings:
My wife has a Lombard 333mhz with 384MB RAM and it runs 10.3.2 very
nicely. I have been told by the local Apple tech that 256 MB is the
largest that will fit in each slot.
George
I have a Lombard (333mhz) running OS 9, which I would like to upgrade to
Panther. I have 192megs of
I was thinking about getting a 256 and using it with my 128 for a total
of 384. Think that would be enough?
And I'm sure this problem has been discussed before, but I have
heard often that any more than 256 megs of RAM in a Lombard causes
problems with OS X.
Should this still be a concern,
gf sciacca said at ÒSubject: Re: RAM needed for OS X on LombardÓ.
[19/Jan/2004 01:46]
It runs fine (and by far more stable) under OS X, but not half as fast as
under OS 9.2.2, specially when using many apps at a time as I do. Special
concerns (in my case) are very slow Finder actions,
I was thinking about getting a 256 and using it with my 128 for a total of
384. Think that would be enough?
And I'm sure this problem has been discussed before, but I have heard often
that any more than 256 megs of RAM in a Lombard causes problems with OS X.
Should this still be a concern, or
On Jan 17, 2004, at 8:12 PM, Tsuki Hoshijima wrote:
I was thinking about getting a 256 and using it with my 128 for a
total of
384. Think that would be enough?
And I'm sure this problem has been discussed before, but I have heard
often
that any more than 256 megs of RAM in a Lombard causes
I have a Lombard (333mhz) running OS 9, which I would like to upgrade to
Panther. I have 192megs of physical memory installed, 128 on the top slot
and 64 on the bottom. I have often heard that for OS X, the more RAM you
have, the better it runs. I want to know how much RAM would be sufficient
Officially, the bottom slot can take a 128 low-profile DIMM and the
upper slot can take a 256. Unofficially, many people have put 256MB
low-profile DIMMs in the lower slot for a total of 512MB RAM. OWC seems
to be a good source for this because of the lifetime warranty and
guarantee that they
on 17/01/04 00:44, Tsuki Hoshijima at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a Lombard (333mhz) running OS 9, which I would like to upgrade to
Panther. I have 192megs of physical memory installed, 128 on the top slot
and 64 on the bottom. I have often heard that for OS X, the more RAM you
have,
13 matches
Mail list logo
