3 ms·
I had the same issue until I upgraded to 8 GB. I'd recommend to anybody to go for 8GB directly. For me (or any other heavy user), 4GB is just not enough to run
by lysium 15y ago
I had the same issue until I upgraded to 8 GB. I'd recommend to anybody to go for 8GB directly. For me (or any other heavy user), 4GB is just not enough to run MacOS X (the 'kernel_task' alone takes >500MB).
- weaksauce 15y agoI just upgraded to 16 gigs and it's amazing. The time for a suspend and restore of a parallels virtual instance went down by a large factor; it's now just 10 seconds to restore and 5 seconds to suspend with 2 gigs allocated to it.
- pgebhard 15y agoI wanted to pipe in to say the same thing. For the longest time, I thought my Late 2008 15" MBP couldn't handle 8GB (chipset issue, I though). I figured 6GB was the largest, and I just stayed with the 4GB as it came from the factory. Then one day late last year, I realized that a) the Late 2008 15" MBP can take 8GB and b) 8GB of RAM was now VERY affordable. It made a huge difference. No more constant thrashing of the HDD as it tries to manage a large swap file.
- jodrellblank 15y agoAnd here's a link with some evidence for 8GB in that MacBook Pro, for posterity: http://blog.macsales.com/9102-secret-firmware-lets-late-08-macbooks-use-8gb http://blog.macsales.com/9102-secret-firmware-lets-late-08-m...