1GB RAM chips in Quicksilver 2002?

[TRI]

I have a Dual 1 GHz Quicksilver 2002 and the three RAM slots each have a 512MB RAM chip. The total 1.5 GB RAM is what "they tell you" is the max.

I just noticed a 1 GB chip on eBay: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1GB-168pin-PC133-Sdram-Memory-3-3V-Non-ECC-Unbuffered-64x8-based-/150978407774?pt=US_Enterprise_Router_Memory&hash=item232703ad5e&afsrc=1&rmvSB=true

I use PC100 or PC133 RAM, OWC tells me either is fine, and didn't know if 1 GB RAM chips would work. They said they probably aren't for Mac, but I have been using Dell chips in Macs for a long time, mixed with Apple chips and others.

Does anybody know if the Quicksilver could use the 1 GB RAM chips? I'd have 3GB total if it could.

This is a duplicate of a thread I have posted on the Mac Forums website.  The only response I've got so far there is to try the chips and return them if they don't work.  My concern there is that using "the wrong chips" could damage my machine or the chips and even if it did work, if it would perform consistently.

Thanks, I really appreciate this site, I've detested OS X from the start.

[miracman]

Hello TRI,

   Simple answer: stay with 1.5 and don't buy anything hehe.

everymac is pretty reliable regarding this issue, here's a list and whatnot:
http://www.everymac.com/actual-maximum-mac-ram/actual-maximum-power-mac-g4-ram-capacity.html

(notice the asterisks on all the 2GBs models.  Once you look closer they all say max 1.5 GB on OS 9)
(notice also that it implies "less than 1.0 GB per application"; I've never tried to allocate that much memory to one app.. but it's an important thing to remember I guess ) )
 
Here's a nice thread from guess where:
http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=2101.0

It's kind of weird that the gigabit ethernet model could use 2 GB while later Quicksilver models couldn't, BUT, anyways, when booting OS 9, those GE models (and MDD ones for that matter) can only use 1.5 Gbs of RAM whatever's installed.

Also, after having read about this a lot (without testing it myself I must say), it's a bit unclear how you can use 1 GBs RAM modules in the G4s slots.  Simply put, it's not that simple.  People who came up with good results in MDD models will say.. "1-2 slots didn't work, but 1-4 did.." or 1-3.. whatever.

Then people will say "I see those 2 modules"...  which is already something, but "seeing" and "using" are two things.  (Here I recommend 2nd link).

So.. yeah.. until a better answer comes up; you've reached the max on your model...  Try to make the better out of it... 
If you haven't done that, do some tests in allocating memory maybe..

Or, if you're like me, learn to quit applications.

I hope this was helpful.

[supernova777]

the memory controller of the quicksilver will never show you more then 1.5gb of ram
even if it can recognize a 1gb chip this is just to say that u could have a configuration of 1 x 1gb + 1 x 512mb adding up to 1.5gb
but 3 x 512gb is what i consider the optimum. its what i have in my qs.. actually i think i only have 2 x 512mb adding up to 1gb
more ram for mac os 9 really isnt neccessary in my opinion.... it just isnt a memory hungry os
and we have had people say that they have had faster performacne with LESS ram
and i would believe this to be true in some cases 100%.
these machines were sold with under 256mb ram and they work with that much ram in mac os 9 just fine too
i dare u to try it.. take out 2 chips and run it with 512mb ram for a few days..
u will probably not notice a difference at all.
more ram does not equal more performance on mac os 9.

[DieHard]

Unfortunately, even MDDs are an issue; some 1 GB Memory Modules will work, but system still peaks out at 2 GB, even with 3 or 4 of them installed

[MacTron]

everymac is pretty reliable regarding this issue,

... may be... but we have made them some corrections from here ... LOL

(notice also that it implies "less than 1.0 GB per application"; I've never tried to allocate that much memory to one app.. but it's an important thing to remember I guess ) )

... not at all, in general this was proven to be a myth.
... but maybe it is true for some very old systems.

more ram does not equal more performance on mac os 9.

Totally agree. The main point is have enough RAM to to avoid using virtual memory. And this is very easy in Mac Os 9

[TRI]

Thanks everybody for your comments.

It sounds like it's unlikely it would be smooth sailing if it worked at all.

I use my Quicksilver 2002 for Cubase 4.1r2, but only for MIDI, not audio, so 1.5 GB RAM is overkill for that.  But I also run OS X on it because I need a later version of Photoshop than OS 9 will run, and 1.5 GB RAM is too little when I get lots of layers going on.

[IIO]

what diehard says.

the definite MacOS9 limit is 1.5, and the "safe side" limit of G4 is 2.0 (in OSX/unix/linux)

even a configuration of 2*1gb only has negative effects, 3*512 is not only proven, it is also faster for OSX.