Install 4GB into laptop whose manufacturer claims 2GB as MAXIMUM

Ian
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>You're running Server, and Server has the PAE extensions, therefore
>it can use more than 4GB by paging.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

HUH? Do you know what you are saying at all. PAE or the 3GIG switch has nothing to
do with this. What you were thinking was probably AWE.


Also NUMA support


Some more reading


--
Peter

Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.

"Ian D" <taurus@nowhereatall.com> wrote in message
news:eiAxlDV8JHA.1380@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> "Peter Foldes" <okf22@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uJjDphU8JHA.4172@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> Ian
>>
>> I am running a 32 bit system and I have more than 4gigs of Ram installed and
>> showing
>>
>> W2K3 SP2 Enterprise 32bit
>>
>> --
>> Peter
>>
>> Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others
>> Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged.
>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
> You're running Server, and Server has the PAE extensions, therefore
> it can use more than 4GB by paging. I wasn't talking about OS's. I
> was talking about the memory use capabilities of 32 bit applications.
>
>
><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> "Ian D" <taurus@nowhereatall.com> wrote in message
>> news:uquCssT8JHA.2604@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>>
>>> "Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com> wrote in message
>>> news:eqzoQjR8JHA.200@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>> Technicalities. Point is you can't use 4 GB RAM unless you have 64 bit
>>>> hardware running a 64 bit OS.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Even if you have 64 bit hardware running a 64 bit OS, odds are
>>> you won't be able to use all 4GB, unless you're running a 64 bit
>>> application. Most 32 bit applications can't use more than 2GB
>>> of address space, and the ones that are large address aware
>>> can usually only use 3GB. The OS may use 100 - 200MB above
>>> the 3GB division. Photoshop Elements 6 & 7, 32 bit Photoshop
>>> CS4, and MS Flight Simulator X with SP1+SP2, are some apps that
>>> are large address aware.
>>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

JEWboy wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> OK, if anyone gets MORE than 4GB they're cheating with extra <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

I am not sure you can call it cheating. It is how paging works. There
are different paging modes that gives you different amount of bits to
address with.

XP and Vista runs in PAE mode by default, the kernel just ignores the
additional addressing bits.

 

I don't know, maybe i am wrong.

But his OS is not trully 32-bit addressing.
Where do you get 4GB limit anyways? Well if you took a course in Switching
Systems (aka Boolean Algebra applie dto electronic circuits), AND if you
were introiduced into Combinatorics branch of higher math, you will know:

2^10 = "Kilo" (k small)
2^20 = "Mega" (M capital)
2^30 = "Giga" (G capital)

B = byte, b = bit

Now 32-bits address provides for 2^32 possible unique binary combinations
(each is a 32-bit word).
But 2^32 = 4 * (2^30) = 4 Gigabytes.
Thais is a maximum address space one can achieve from 32 bits by definition.

Arguing with this is like arguing that 2+2 is nto equal 4 in decimal system
in Eucledian world (which is our Universe).
OK, if anyone gets MORE than 4GB they're cheating with extra
bits/extensions, so while Windows Server is called 32 bit, thats for a
simple user who doesn't go deep into Engineering, it's NOT 32-bit when it
comes to addressing bus width. It's 32 bit for somethign else... whatever.
You get the idea of where 4GB comes from now.

Now if you're curious about the maximum memory for 64-bit OS AND hardware
(CPU & chipset & data/address busses), you bet it's:
2^64, it's a GIGANTICLALY LARGE NUMBER which you migh tbe dead before
manufacturers will exhaust that memory space.

But who knows, we might witness 64-bit address also fille dup heheh!!! You
never know....I remember when 1GB harddisk was state-of-the-art available
only to superich!

 

Re: Install 4GB into laptop whose manufacturer claims 2GB asMAXIMUM

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 21:21:25 -0700, Frank wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> ray wrote:<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:02:02 -0400, Eric wrote:
>> <!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
>>> Technicalities. Point is you can't use 4 GB RAM unless you have 64
>>> bit hardware running a 64 bit OS.
>>>
>>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>> Using PAE hardware and PAE aware software (Page Address Extension) one
>> can address up to 64gb of RAM with a 32 OS. Several MS server versions
>> do that - so does Linux.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Big deal! So what is the point? I've never seen nor do I know of, any
> mobo's that will hold 64 gigs of RAM. Do you?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

I know of several that will hold more than 3gb. So, yes, it could be a
big deal. I also like to see accuracy in statements. I guess that doesn't
bother frankie at all.

 

Then might be slower than true 64bit hardware+OS.

Look there's a reason for 64-bit processors coupled with 64bit OS, else
they'd be playing with 32bit OS & paging forever.
But I might be partially wrong.
There're many confusions in USA, unlike other leading Engineering countries
e.g. Japan, Germany, and hell even x-USSR.
Confusions are caused by commercialization, when companies assign catchy
eye-candy (or ear-candy?) labels to new products

Here're 2 confusions:

1)
A 64bit processor is only required to have 64-bit DATA BUS, but ADDRESS BUS
can be whatever. It's rare that address bus is not a multiple of 2 due to
binary logic.
For example 16-bit Intel 8086 (?) or whatever, I am beginning to forget
history!; was either 8-bit or 16-bit address. Somethign to that effect - 16
bit CPU was allowed to have shorter address bus to reduce cost. Moreover,
if you design IC chips, you know often to reduce cost data/address are
multiplexed onto the same bus!!-->reduces speed, increases soft complexity
but sharply reduced hard complexity which was driving the marked a decade
ago. Now soft/middle/firmware is driving the cost, not hardware.
So how we define hardware bitwidth should be clarified for each case, in
this case we only talk about Address, but it's extremely rare, if not
impossible, to have Data bus shorter than Address, usually Address can be
shorter or equal to Data bus.

2) Since years ago suddenly storage manufacturer began lying to increase
sales, by defning a Kilobyte as 1000 bytes, Megabyte as 1000 Kilobytes, and
Gigabyte as 1000 Megabytes.
These are totally wrogn definitions, but they inflate storage capacity for
street folks, who don't know Boolean Algebra.
However it is now acccepted than GB is defined one way for data
transmission/semiconductor (RAM) memory, and another way for magnetic media
(harddisk).
Because a true Gigabyte is not 1000, but 1024 MB, and so on....

I could also mention that DB9 connector still in use for power & some serial
interfaces, is actually DE9. DB9 is a totally different connector.
This is what happens when multiple commercial player play the market and not
regulated by the Government.

They lie even about capacity definitions in TB, GB, MB, etc.

I will shutup now, sorry.. Been out of work for 2 months and miss my design
work.

 

"JEWboy" <Nojunkmetalblade@nojunkprodigy.net> wrote in message
news:uMcVwDf8JHA.1252@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Then might be slower than true 64bit hardware+OS.
>
> Look there's a reason for 64-bit processors coupled with 64bit OS, else
> they'd be playing with 32bit OS & paging forever.
> But I might be partially wrong.
> There're many confusions in USA, unlike other leading Engineering
> countries e.g. Japan, Germany, and hell even x-USSR.
> Confusions are caused by commercialization, when companies assign catchy
> eye-candy (or ear-candy?) labels to new products
>
> Here're 2 confusions:
>
> 1)
> A 64bit processor is only required to have 64-bit DATA BUS, but ADDRESS
> BUS can be whatever. It's rare that address bus is not a multiple of 2
> due to binary logic.
> For example 16-bit Intel 8086 (?) or whatever, I am beginning to forget
> history!; was either 8-bit or 16-bit address. Somethign to that effect -
> 16 bit CPU was allowed to have shorter address bus to reduce cost.
> Moreover,<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
<snip>


8086 had a 16-bit data bus and 20-bit address bus.

 

OK, I don't remember (we used different part# in Russia, and Z80 made in
Europe ]designed in USA] was popular in addiiton to Intels).

I just wanted to point out people who don't do it for a living, don't always
understand which bitwidth they refer to - data or address, which contrary to
common sense are not always identical.
Whenever we speak of Maximum Addressable memory (directly), we only refer to
address bus, not data bus width.

I need to shut up, thi sthread has grown... but I wish to save it, as some
folks told me things I didn't know/
Such as 32-bit WinServer able to address more than 4GB

 

yes 20 bit address, I was trying to dig ou tof my antique memory another
processor part#, and typed wrong, sorry.
So it couldn't address more than 2^20 = 1MB where each dataword is 16 bit.

The full memory specs for that historic processor then should be:
16x1MB Ridiculous by modern standards.

So what I meant is memory full specs is [databusXaddressbus], but many
nonprofessional peoople when talking about "32bit" or "64bis" bit don't know
what the heck they're talking about!
They forget what data & what address bitwidth are, which can and often are
different.
So memory can be configured differently despite same "32" bit in its specs,
depending what 32 refers to, in this case Address AND Data (identical), but
not always.
I am seriously crazy this time writing too much, but ummm
when we say 4GB is max for 32-bit addressing, we actually mean this spec:

4x2^32 bits = 4x4xGB where B (Byte) = 8 bit
You see 4 in front instead of 32 databus due to dividing by 8 to get Bytes
expression, as this is how regular people think (they dont understand
bit/byte/dat/address relationship, they just buy "more gugabytes").

You can have TWICE more memory by either adding an extra bit to Data or to
Address, if you add to both you get 4x more memory.
I've yet to study new 64-bit processors architecture, don't know.....

I am tired of it all, good night.

 

Asus made one MB that claimed 2GB but you would only get up to 1.5 in
reality because of a missed design fault on the address bus. Maybe the
maximum limits stated were put there because of similar defects on
earlier version boards? On the Asus board (A777M I think but not sure
now) installing 2GB showed almost no memory at all and no BIOS update
ever fixed it

So I think your suggestion is probably quite correct and your info on
the chipset seems right I would not rule out early design faults in the MB.

JEWboy wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Now as an Electrical Engineer I proved this point and upped my HP to 4GB
> w/3.25GB usable:
>
>
> If your chipset is Intel945 - as in my HP dv8408us & MANY NEWER HP
> laptops (Pavilions/MediaCenters), ignore HP claim of maixmum memory = 4GB.
>
> You can install 2GB+2GB sticks, you'll get 3.25GB usable by Windows, I
> know you waste about 1GB but it still makes sense. Intel945 chipset is
> hardwired for 32-bit adddresses so Windows whether it be 32 or 64bit is
> not a limitation, it's the chipset which is a limitation, STILL it can
> address 4GB, not 2GB as HP claimed on my laptop specs. I've done the
> same with IBM Thinkpads, where they claimed 512MB to be max 5 years ago,
> but I was running with 1GB. It appears idiots sometimes write these
> specs because 2GB laptop SDRAM modules were unavailable at that time at
> reasonable price/pinout?
>
> By the way if your Windows is 32bit - that is a software limit at 4GB,
> chipset - is a hardware limit. Th eoverall system limit is obviously
> SMALLESt of these numbers.
> The only way to use over 4GB is if both hardware + Windows are 64-bit,
> AND BIOS is updated.
> Also the trick above may give you BLUE SCREEN of DEATH if your HP laptop
> BIOS is not latest, and you never get full 4GB due to memoryhole in
> older laptops, and I/O overhead which wastes 0.7GB
>
> I use strictly CORSAIR memory - not their Valueselect series, but
> regular Corsair - made in Colorado, CA, world's top
> speed/US-designed/US-made maker, with their valueselect line outsourced
> to Taiwan but regular still made in USA. This is in the same class as
> QCZ & Mushkin, etc but made in USA with all premium
> manufacturing/semiconductors/quality. They continue mislabel some SDRAm
> modules as "for Mac", but they're dual Mac/PC since Apple is using Intel
> chipsets now, that is one problem with Corsair they didn't listen to my
> complaint and lose revenues when nontechnical people don't realize what
> Corsair labeled as Mac, is for PC.
>
> So 3.25GB here on a laptop claiming to be 2GB max. I can appreaciate
> extra 1GB+ (55% increase!) for CAD & Engineering simulation wares som
> eof which list 8GB as 'recommended"
> (Autodesk Inventor2010 Profressional with assemblies over 5,000 parts,
> Agilent ADS RF simulation suit - wants quad core, 8GB)<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

"Ian D" <taurus@nowhereatall.com> wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
>"Eric" <someone@idontwantspam.com> wrote in message
>news:eqzoQjR8JHA.200@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> Technicalities. Point is you can't use 4 GB RAM unless you have 64 bit
>> hardware running a 64 bit OS.
>><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
>Even if you have 64 bit hardware running a 64 bit OS, odds are
>you won't be able to use all 4GB, unless you're running a 64 bit
>application.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Not so. The 64-bit OS will use all that memory to keep more of your
apps in RAM, both 64-bit and 32-bit apps. A 32-bit app can't address
more than 4GB, and the way Windows does things usually restricts it to
2GB (the other 2GB is for the OS), but this is VIRTUAL memory, not
physical RAM. Parts of MANY virtual memory spaces will be in RAM at
the same time. Other parts will be in the swap file and will need to
be brought into RAM from time to time. Extra physical RAM in a 64-bit
system will keep this page swapping to a minimum.



--
Tim Slattery
MS MVP(Shell/User)
Slattery_T@bls.gov

 

no... it was due to avaialble RAM modules at the time being 1Gb+1GB maximum,
but I945 accepts 4GB fine - just like a normal 32 bit chipset & CPU.
So I am happy to once again ingore manufacturer specs and stick 4GB into
lovely HP Pavilion.

 

On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 10:20:00 -0500, JEWboy wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
> > If your chipset is Intel945 - as in my HP dv8408us & MANY NEWER HP
> > laptops (Pavilions/MediaCenters), ignore HP claim of maixmum memory =
> > 4GB.
> >
> > You can install 2GB+2GB sticks, you'll get 3.25GB usable by Windows, <!--colorc--><!--/colorc--><!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->


As I've said here numbers of times, that is not correct. *You* may
have gotten 3.25GB, but not everyone gets exactly that amount. The
actual amount can be more or less than that.

Here's the correct info:

All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just Vista/XP) have a 4GB
address space. That's the theoretical upper limit beyond which you can
not go.

But you can't use the entire 4GB of address space. Even though you
have a 4GB address space, you can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM.
That's because some of that space is used by hardware and is not
available to the operating system and applications. The amount you can
use varies, depending on what hardware you have installed, but can
range from as little as 2GB to as much as 3.5GB. It's usually around
3.1GB.

Note that the hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual
RAM itself. If you have a greater amount of RAM, the rest of the RAM
goes unused because there is no address space to map it to.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup