Video, memory issues with MacBooks being reported
Early adopters of Apple's latest MacBook Pros and MacBooks (shown here) are reporting glitches with the laptops.
(Credit: CNET)Problems with Apple's newly redesigned MacBooks are being reported on Apple discussion boards and across the Internet.
The new notebooks, which have already run into problems with the trackpad, are said to have problems with video performance, third-party memory chips, and staying in sleep mode. It's always difficult to get a sense of how widespread such problems are from tracking message board posts--and every computer ever made has had problems--but the volume of such complaints regarding the new systems seems to be increasing.
Gizmodo collected some of the more pressing problems in a post Monday. The memory issue involves crashes that appear to be linked to adding third-party memory chips into the new MacBooks and MacBook Pros. Apple charges way more for memory upgrades than other companies such as Crucial or Other World Computing, so savvy Mac users interested in adding memory on their own often choose one of those products.
That post also highlights an issue that involves the MacBook Pro being unable to stay in sleep mode, turning itself on when closed every minute or so, or freezing when woken up by the user. That issue doesn't seem as serious as the memory one, but if you've noticed this problem resetting your MacBook's PRAM seems to have worked for some people.
And on the video front, Apple could still be having problems with graphics chips from Nvidia. The company was one of the notebook makers affected by Nvidia's problems with manufacturing their graphics chips, and after The Inquirer took apart one of the new MacBook Pros it discovered the new discrete graphics chip in those systems are using similar materials to the graphics chips that Nvidia agreed to replace earlier this year.
Posters on Apple's site have been reporting crashes when running games on the 9600 discrete chip--the focus of the Inquirer's investigation--suggesting that the issue doesn't involve the 9400 integrated graphics chip in the MacBook. Nvidia told the Inquirer that the 9600 chip is not using the same materials that were prone to failing under intense heat, but a lab analyzed the composition of the bumps that are used to attach the chip to the motherboard, and concluded otherwise.
Tom Krazit writes about the ever-expanding world of Internet search, including Google, Yahoo, online advertising, and portals, as well as the evolution of mobile computing. He has written about traditional PC companies, chip manufacturers, and mobile computers, spending the last three years covering Apple. E-mail Tom.
Apple isn't alone in this viewpoint. It's pretty common in the laptop industry for OEM's to insist that you use only their approved components, and from a design and support viewpoint, you can see why based on these reports of problems.
Most of the time you'll be fine, but if you have problems, put the original memory back in and hope it works then.
Apple still honors everything up to any damage that is directly caused by using 3rd-party RAM (or any 3rd-party part for that matter).
All that said - if something goes wrong, you remove the 3rd-party RAM and put in the original. If all is right again after that, you take the 3rd-party RAM back for a replacement or refund. If something is still broken, the problem most likely does not lie with the RAM anyway (unless you're a total moron and somehow manage to jam it in backwards or something). Usually for most home users, it's best to get a brand that certifies that their RAM is fully compatible with the machine you intend to use it in (e.g. Crucial), so you get a solid warranty from both computer OEM and the RAM vendor.
When you point out that Apple and others won't cover the memory you added, that's a fair point. Why would they? They didn't provide it, the maker offers it's own warrantee. That's also standard.
Apple actually charges $300 for 4GB of RAM, compared to Crucial at $125.99.
However Apple will "buy back" 2 GB of RAM pre-installed on a machine for $150, so an upgrade from 2GB to 4GB nets $150 after the buyback.
So basically, no matter how you slice it, your still paying $150. And they recycle that 2 GB stick that you have no use for, so its better for the environment.
I'm not sure where you're looking at but according to:
http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MB470LL/A?mco=MTkzOTI0Mg
&
http://store.apple.com/us/configure/MB467LL/A?mco=MTkzOTI0Mw
upgrading to 4 GB of ram is 150$.
You actually made my point. Apple charges $150 for the extra 2GB of RAM, which comes up to be $75 per GB.
As opposed to Crucial which is selling you a full set of 4 GB RAM for just $125, or $31.25 per GB. Plus you can the sell the original 2x1GB modules which came with the laptop and get even more money back. Your effective price could be as low as $25 per GB.
So Apple's RAM prices are effectively 2 to 3 times higher than market value. Note that Apple doesn't make their own RAM... some of the third-party modules are the *exact* same modules Apple use.
Also Apple's warranty is only 1 year (or 3 years with Apple Care if the memory is bought at the same time as the laptop) -- whereas most third-party RAM have lifetime warranties.
But I think you're quibbling over small things here. The buyer pays $150 for the upgrade. That is what the majority of consumers look at when they go to buy a new MacBook or MacBook Pro. So you can complain all you want about Apple, but in the end, its $150. Period. Seems reasonable to me. And at least its DDR3. You can's say the same about 90% of Windows manufacturers...
Ok, fine, whatever floats your Windows troll boat. Buts its running at 1066 Mhz, compared to 800 Mhz on DDR2. And if the theoretical numbers aren't enough for you, here's the Speedmark tests run by Macworld: 12% increase in overall score. If that's not faster than DDR2, I don't know what speed increases your looking for.
You know those benchmarks purposefully ran DDR3 at 1066 but only ran the DDR2 at 800. Why is that, when DDR2 1066 parts have been around for some time now? To make Mac hardware seem better than reality to Apple consumers who aren't as tech savvy.
DDR2-1066 runs at the EXACT SAME 533 MHz rate as DDR3-1066, and has the EXACT SAME peak transfer rate of 8533 MB/s.
AnandTech did a real-world comparison of DDR2 and DDR3 at the same clock speed (1066) and found that DDR2 had better latency and the same bandwidth (around 4550 MB/s.)
The comparison also shows that DDR2-1066 can actually be FASTER than DDR3-1066 because of improved timings. DDR2-1066 with 4-4-3-11 clocked in at 4926 MB/s compared to 4547 for DDR3-1066.
At 533 MHz you're just paying premium dollars above DDR2 while virtually reaping no benefit from it (you get slightly lower RAM power consumption, but as a percentage of total system power consumption it's negligible.)
DDR3 is great for speeds higher than 533 MHz but no Macs can make use of these higher speeds. You'd have to buy a PC for that. ;-)
Having said that, the laptop manufacturer is not responsible for supporting components that they didn't provide. If third-party memory is causing problems, and the manufacturer says that it's compatible with that laptop, then it's the memory manufacturer's responsibility to fix it.
you can pay for Apple Certified 3rd party memory and still save money, just not as much as you would if you buy the bargain basement RAM
the vast majority of issues I saw in 2008 with Mac Book Pros and MacBooks have been caused by cheap RAM we had left over from the days of 10.3 and faulty hard drives. We have definitely gotten ROI on our AppleCare warranties in 2007 and 2008.
You think with their huge propaganda machine they could fix these things before production, or at least have this story buried with automatons bloggin in denial !
Yes, form over function. I just got a MacBook. Thus fare it's a great platform in that everthign works even with Vista installed. But when it comes to working with the thing the missing keys, the keyboard layout, the location of the USB ports (too close together) etc. It's not the best design for getting things done. Oh, but it's cute. Just not cute enough for me to overlook it's flaws for my next upgrade. I'll be looking at a hackintosh on a ThinkPad.
Sorry but Vista deserves it's bad rep. The first laptop I got Vista to work like it should on was a freaking MacBook. Man I love the irony. 3 Other Vista Capable machines crashed and burned, though I did eventually get it working on one of them.
Anyone getting this camera problem?
-
by mpitogo
December 9, 2008 7:59 PM PST
- I agree with the 3rd party memory part. When dealing with Data Center HP servers we once took a chance on using less expensive (by about $140) 3rd party RAM. The server kept hanging or crashing. We called HP tech support and replaced the motherboard, but the problem persisted. We went out and bought HP RAM which solved the problem. Trying to save $140 cost us more than buying HP branded server RAM. Cost in downtime due to hangs crashes, Data Center staff visits and such. Since then every server purchased only had HP RAM. This is especially critical for the VMware ESX servers which have 32+ GB of RAM. Eventually 3rd party makers will figure out what will make their RAM certified. In many cases 3rd party RAM will work well and compatibility varies by vendor.
-
Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (62 Comments)To end with a quote I've read somewhere, "I'd save more money if I didn't keep trying to save money."