More RAM?

PC eye said:
The Ultimate edition is loaded with not only more features being a premium edition but offers networking support not seen with the Home Premium and Basic editions. The memory usage however isn't that much more despite that.
Click to expand...

right, so, my point is still valid...
 
PC eye said:
What model is the Compaq laptop there? An actual look at specifications in the front of the manual as well as in the product information at HP will show if it takes 4gb in two dimm slots(2x2gb dimms) which it sounds like it does.

A pair of matched sized and speed dimms is always the ideal amount while it will still run in single not dual channel mode. You simply lose out on the full benefits and performance when limiting the board's capacity. In the full dual channel mode you would see the large noticable difference right away over simply tossing in one large dimm.
Click to expand...


It's a Presario C700. HP help & support says the limit is 2GB. But it def sees the 2.5.

Btw, if I popped another 2GB in there to get 2x2, will Vista see 3 or 3.5. I`ve heard both figures. And will the extra RAM cause any probs. I read somewhere that if you tried to add too much RAM to earlier MS OS`s - like 98, 2000, etc - the systems tended to become ``unstable``.
 
sc_1004 said:
It's a Presario C700. HP help & support says the limit is 2GB. But it def sees the 2.5.

Btw, if I popped another 2GB in there to get 2x2, will Vista see 3 or 3.5. I`ve heard both figures. And will the extra RAM cause any probs. I read somewhere that if you tried to add too much RAM to earlier MS OS`s - like 98, 2000, etc - the systems tended to become ``unstable``.
Click to expand...

The C700 number is for the C700 series of models not the specific model number just to clear that up. The first in the series maxes at only 1gb with the rest seeing a 2gb max. at http://h10010.www1.hp.com/wwpc/th/en/ho/WF25a/321957-321957-3329742-89318-89318-3466274.html

I'm surprized that you got the 2gb dimm to even work in the first place. But the advice earlier was for a matching pair of 1gb dimms to see a 2gb total being it's a laptop seeing only two dimm slots. What you have now is a 4 to 1 ratio of 2gb on one channel and only 512mb on the primary.

You are almost in a single channel mode with that large a mismatch and simply adding a second 2gb dimm on a unit that maxes at 2gb total(2x1gb) can't be advised. That would be exceeding the specifications. Is the post screen or Windows reporting a full 2.5gb installed? The bios may only report 1.5gb while the larger dimm is still working.

With the older versions like 9X-ME(ME allowing more then 98) the 512mb barrier was overcome by one of two methods. Either the system.ini file saw an edit as advised at MS. Or you followed a much more effective method of simply adding one line of text into the autoexec.bat file namely: "maxphyspage= (large space across screen) 30000" under the 386ENH section. I always slapped 50000 to insure it worked in those days.

For 2000/XP/Vista without SP1 the 3gb barrier was seen for the later versions. SP1 now sees Windows report the full amount of memory installed breaking the 3-3.12gb barrier with the 32bit kernel. But unlike the 9X family wherre Windows would actually stall with more then 512mb in the later versions simply don't report all memory installed while still running without issues except when installing a 64bit edition of Vista where MS advises removing all but 2gb when seeing 4gb or more installed prior to SP1.
 
PC eye said:
For 2000/XP/Vista without SP1 the 3gb barrier was seen for the later versions. SP1 now sees Windows report the full amount of memory installed breaking the 3-3.12gb barrier with the 32bit kernel. But unlike the 9X family wherre Windows would actually stall with more then 512mb in the later versions simply don't report all memory installed while still running without issues except when installing a 64bit edition of Vista where MS advises removing all but 2gb when seeing 4gb or more installed prior to SP1.
Click to expand...

Its not a 3gb barrier its 4gbs. Some amount for hardware addresses are reserved and if you have 4gbs or more installed you will have somewhere between 3gbs. and 3.75gbs. of usable memory.

SP1 did not remove the barrier from Vista 32bit. It only allows Windows to (SHOW) the full amount of Memory installed. it still has the same 4gb. barrier - period!
 
I never stated it removed any barrier but now reports the total amount installed. And the barrier surrounds the 3gb mark not 4gb. http://www.dansdata.com/askdan00015.htm

The reference to 4gb is in regards to problems seen when going to install a 64bit edition of Vista and running into problems where the MS advice is simply to remove anything over 2gb until Windows is up and running. The main item of concern as far as sc 1004 is concerned however is going by the specifications for that line of laptops revealing those support a max of 2gb of DDR2 667 memory.
 
PC eye said:
I never stated it removed any barrier but now reports the total amount installed. And the barrier surrounds the 3gb mark not 4gb.
Click to expand...

Yes you did!

Its 4gbs. not 3gbs.! If its 3gbs. then explain how 2000/XP and Vista 32bit can utilize more than 3gbs. I,ve got XP on a system right now that has 4gbs. and has 3.25gbs of usable memory. When you run 4gbs. or more the system will reserve memory for hardware addresses which will put you in under 4gbs of usable memory.

From you own link.

If you install ((4Gb)), there is no way to make all of the RAM between 3Gb and 4Gb available without installing a 64-bit OS

The reason why not quite all of even three gigabytes is usable is related to the ((4Gb)) problem, as we'll see

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx#memory_limits

32-bit Windows uses a flat memory address space, thus is limited to 4 GB of memory addresses. This is divided up 2 GB for individual user programs, and 2 GB for the operating system. It doesn't matter if you have 4 GB of RAM, or 512 Mb of RAM, it's the same virtual memory address space. This means that in order to directly address the memory used by video cards, and other such things on your computer, the OS has to be assign those specific addresses to that memory, and it's locked away and can't be seen - effectively making your memory address space smaller. But each user program that runs gets its own 2 GB of virtual memory address space, regardless of the RAM in your machine. There are even programs that can access >2 GB of memory address space, IF you configure Windows to allow it - using the /3GB boot switch. This effectively limits the OS to only 1 GB of virtual memory address space for its own operations, however, causing the operating system to effectively starve if there's a lot of I/O or other demands on the OS itself, so it isn't recommended for ordinary usage. Especially since only specially written programs can take advantage of it.
http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2008/03/18/32-bit-memory-in-x64-windows.aspx

http://www.brianmadden.com/blogs/br...ws-memory-limit-what-does-it-really-mean.aspx

4GB address space
http://members.cox.net/slatteryt/RAM.html

the maximum amount of memory that can be supported is 4 GB

Windows XP Professional and Windows Server 2003 Memory Support. The maximum amount of memory that can be supported on Windows XP Professional and Windows Server 2003 is also 4 GB.

http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/pae/paemem.mspx

However, Microsoft intentionally limited desktop XP and Vista to 4 GB of RAM because many third-party drivers did not work properly when trying to access a memory address above 4 GB. Rather than risk crashes and system problems, Microsoft made it impossible to do.

This issue is compounded by hardware, particularly video boards, that map some of their memory into the 4 GB address space. Windows can do that fine, but in the process it maps some real RAM into the space above 4 GB where it won't be accessed by either applications or the operating system itself. That's why you'll often see Windows use much less than 4 GB RAM on 32-bit XP or Vista, even if you've installed 4 GB of physical memory.

I completely understand why Microsoft instituted the 4-GB limit
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/07/windows_memory.html

all 32-bit versions of Vista support up to 4GB of memory

but the actual usable address space will be less than 4GB. The reason for this is that a section of the memory is set aside for memory map interfaces.

Typically, a system with 4GB of RAM will report only 3.5GB of addressable space.

http://compreviews.about.com/od/memory/a/Vista4GB.htm

PC eye said:
For 2000/XP/Vista without SP1 the 3gb barrier was seen for the later versions. SP1 now sees Windows report the full amount of memory installed breaking the 3-3.12gb barrier with the 32bit kernel.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Why is the memory thing still even an issue...?

32-bit sees some....64-bit sees all....

why is this an issue!?!?@?@#
 
scooter said:
Why is the memory thing still even an issue...?

32-bit sees some....64-bit sees all....

why is this an issue!?!?@?@#
Click to expand...

Some people simply want to try and make a mountain out of a mole hill. The best advice you can give them however is simply put: "Get a life!". :P
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top