> actually the whole text I wrote was not directed only to you

I find it strange that you write "I really like boot_wb's list" which obviously can't be directed at boot_wb (else it would read "...your list"), and in the next sentence you suddenly mean to direct at him and thank him, but without explicitly addressing him neither in that sentence nor before. That's not reasonable in my book, but maybe it's just me and my desire for (con)textual coherency ;-)

> but to anybody who is interested, maybe. Just my two cents, and I quoted
> you just to refer to a certain context.

Keep in mind that this forum engine uses real threads (see threaded view), even if you personally might use flat view only. With consideration of the thread concept it doesn't make sense to hit reply to a certain posting and also answer other postings and other users with one and the same posting of yours.

>> that's PowerMac1,2, not PowerMac3,1.

> Sure, I know.

Good, then I take it you also know that the fact that PowerMac1,2 supports only 1 GiB maximum doesn't explain boot_wb's statement that PowerMac3,1 supports only 1 GiB maximum, which the part of my posting you answered to was about.

> imho this is kind of boring and confusing.

I don't understand. What's boring and confusing?

> I don't see the point in searching for a pointer.

I hoped that boot_wb would give it. As he obviously took that information from somewhere I conclude that he wouldn't even have to search because he'd know where that information is located.

> What would that be good for?

Just to know where that information stems from, call it curiosity. And btw, if you're not interested in what the source for it is then you shouldn't have answered my wondering with your easy to refute theories in the first place :-P

> If I had always followed Apple's advice...

I think you're assuming too much. I'm not talking about following Apple's advice.

> I guess we are just interested in different aspects

Maybe, but not in the way you think.

> though I'm prepared to take note of a company's "official" documentation on their
> products, I consider third-party information on what customers can actually do
> with a product to be even more valuable.

Same here. But it seems boot_wb is not of our opinion, else he wouldn't list the official but inaccurate specs more prominently than the more factual but inofficial specs. In fact, the inofficial specs are hidden in a way that even analogkid missed them.

> You mean "technically" specifying, in a sense that it would be possible to use
> memory bars which at the release date of a mainboard did not even exist?

It's only *your* idea that 512 MiB modules didn't exist back then, not mine. Fact is that Apple listed the PowerMac3,1 at release time *in 1999* as supporting up to 1.5 GiB RAM which is only possible with 512 MiB bars in existence. So your idea that they might have listed the PowerMac3,1 as only supporting up to 1 GiB RAM because no 512 MiB bars were available is nonsense in two regards:
- They didn't list it as supporting up to only 1 GiB RAM in the official specs, but as supporting up to 1.5 GiB RAM. See my link for reference.
- They explicitly listed 512 MiB modules as an option in the official specs. See my link for reference. And ask yourself how Apple could have tested the machine with 1.5 GiB RAM without 512 MiB modules being available.

> No, of course Apple would not unnecessarily restrict their (at the time)
> Power Mac G4 flagship series unless this is technically necessary (or unless
> Apple profit in other ways from such behaviour, e.g. by using cheaper components).

But that's the whole point of my wondering. Opposed to what boot_wb's list says I do *not* believe that Apple restricted the PowerMac3,1 in specs to 1 GiB RAM because I have *proof* (see my links) that they listed it as supporting up to 1.5 GiB RAM at release time in 1999. See the Apple press release for reference:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040529100946/www.apple.com/pr/library/1999/aug/31powermac.html

> Thus, Apple did not technically prevent their customers from using
> 4 x 512MB in one of the first PowerMacs, G4 (AGP).

Yes, of course, nobody said otherwise, but I'm afraid you don't understand what I'm talking about. I'm *not* talking about Apple preventing anybody from doing anything, but to the contrary about them *not* preventing (neither technically nor in specs only) anyone from putting more than 1 GiB RAM (and up to 1.5 according to specs and even 2 technically) into the PowerMac3,1. That's my whole point. You were arguing that Apple might have had reasons for restricting it to only 1 GiB RAM in specs, for instance because 512 MiB modules were not available at release time (and thus the maximum would indeed have been only 1 GiB, i.e. 4 x 256 MiB). But as they obviously didn't ever restrict it to 1 GiB in specs your arguments were void.
This reasoning has nothing to do with the reasons Apple might have had for restricting it to 1.5 GiB in specs instead of specifying it up to 2 GiB RAM the machine can really take.