Temptation

My 30 came with a dual os. XP Pro installed and running and Vista Business. I keep wanting to fiddle with it. Has anybody tried this? If I do it will I hate myself in the morning? I am under the impression that Vista will see over 3g of ram. I can never leave well enough alone.

 

Vista will only see over 3GB (3.2 to be exact) of ram, if you are running the 64-bit version.

 

3.2 is not exact, my XP sees 3.5.

 

He said vista not XP

 

If your on 64 bit it can see up to and abov 4 GB, 32 BIT can recodnise up to 3.3 GB usually, because 32-bit correct me if im wrong has a 4 GB total memory allowance for all system busses, so e.g. if you had a 128 mb gfx card thatd now take 128 mb of the total ammount up to 4 gb that it could recodnise..


I'm really bad at explaining and probabl in the wrong? Somone try and expand please xD

 

Great idea

If you have 4gb of ram
Windows xp will see 3.24gb
Vista will see 3317mb
Applicable on the 7500 chipset on my cf-30 mk-2

I have not found any applications in my normal use to even get over 2gb

Panasonic restore disks are limited to Vista 32bit at this time

I have 2 caddy’s and use both o/s


Alex

 

Question Does XP see 3.xx gb of ram because it is resident in the other 780 mb +/- and that is what's left, or will it only see the 3.2 +/- and it doesn't see the rest at all? I believe Mnem posted the 780mb figure and he seems to know stuff.
CAP

 

My Vista says the same

 

Cap

This is complicated

Lots of speculation, and probably since none of us here really care about the extra since we would have a very difficult time finding an application that will use over 2gb of ram anyways

It has to do with chipset and o/s limitations


But here is something to think about

A quiz

Question

If the hardware example video takes up 780 mb +/-on a 4 gb system so that Windows only reports 3.25gb or so , why doesn't the hardware take up 780 mb 2 gigabyte system so that Windows only reports 1.25 gb?

You see in the 2gb example my cf-74 has 2gb and reports the full amount in task manager

Some of that extra ram is lost when you exceed 3.5gb

 

mr__bean has already given a short explanation as far as I can tell: the OS can only address up to 4GB worth of memory, regardless of the actual amount of memory installed. The hardware will need some of these addresses in order to be used. However, the hardware does not necessarily actually use up that amount of system RAM; it needs just the addresses, and those are taken from the region between about 3 and 4GB, give or take.

On a system with 2GB of RAM, the OS can still handle 4GB worth of memory addresses. Of these it will use the reserved high addresses (above the 3GB-address) for the hardware and still have more than enough addresses (everything up to the 3GB-address) left for handling the RAM. On a system with 4GB RAM the reserved addresses again go to the hardware, which only leaves about 3GB of addresses for handling the 4GB of RAM. Thus some parts of the RAM don't get an address, and they can't be accessed and won't be used by anything (including the OS itself) under normal circumstances.

That being said, I have several computers where hardware components like the built-in graphics do not come with their own memory, and they do use up regular RAM (not just the addresses). In those cases Windows will report an amount of memory equal to the RAM installed minus the graphics requirement, for example 496MB on an old notebook which has 512MB installed and a graphics adapter that takes 16MB.

 

My Dell 720 will not read over 2.8 gig and there is 4g onboard with XP Pro 32.

 

I got a desktop running XP Pro 32 bit OEM and it has 4GB of DDR3 in their (spent a crap load on it btw) and it only regonizes 2.5GB

 

I am told that Vista would up the RAM recognition. Is that what you have heard?

 

As I have said its a relation between the hardware, "motherboard chipset" and the o/s
64bit xp and vista support and will see 4 gb and above , but your hardware has to support it as well

The only toughbook that I own that has the capability to use 4gb with a 64bit o/s is my new cf-30 mk-2

But as I say, you will not need over 2 gb total




Alex

 

I don't know who told you that but they were WRONG... its a 32 bit limitation... has nothing to do with the OS...

 

My custom built desktop Asus, intel quad will see and use all of its 8GB of ram. I run Vista 64 bit. When I had vista 32 bit it would only see 3.25 or something like that.

 

Believe it was Dell. On another thought. I mentioned that my cf30 came is running XP Pro but came with a Vista CD. Since I wanted to experiment with Vista, since I have the coa could I stick it in another laptop running XP Pro?
The hardware would be a Dell 630 with 3g of ram. I just don't want to abuse my panny.

I don't know who told you that but they were WRONG... its a 32 bit limitation... has nothing to do with the OS...
__________________

 

That restore disk is not a retail vista or even a oem vista disk
The restore disk that you have is a Vista restore, or an image only for your cf-30
It will only install on your cf-30 as it checks for a model # in the bios as it install’s and will not work on other models

We are not allowed on the forum to talk about windows install’s on multiple computers as it is considered piracy,and toughbook gets mad
He would get even madder if he see’s it’s a Dell you want to install it on


Now if you want to install windows 7 beta on the other laptop , that’s allowed
Microsoft has it available legally here

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/beta-download.aspx

I am beta testing on my cf-74 and have most things working except the hot keys, so I am unable to dim the screen

I just installed it and so far is similar to vista but with less driver compatibility, and includes ie8 which I don’t like, uses less ram to run, about 700mb in comparison to 1.1gb in vista, and seems a bit more responsive than vista


Alex

 

Yeah, what I was referring to was the amount of memory used by the Kernel - for a fresh boot of XP, just idling (this means no ADDITIONAL TSRs other than those launched by the OS) XP-SP2 sits on around 170MB; a lean build (useless stuff either turned off in msconfig or stripped out with nLite) I can usually get it down around 100-120MB. 2K will run quite happily at a kernel size of about 90MB (70MB if you disable active desktop), but my brand new (D-WORD) XPS-M1330 comes through with Vista sucking up 700-800MB right out of the gate. Big shocker that at 1GB RAM, it was slower than mold and hashed that 7200RPM SATA drive like a pinball machine...

As far as the REAL limits of RAM, that is a function of BOTH the hardware AND the OS, and is related to the "architecture" of a PC. A PC using "32-bit" architecture can address an ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM of 2^32 bytes (4,294,967,296 bytes) or 4 gibibytes (a gibibyte is slightly more than a gigabyte) of TOTAL memory; this includes memory addresses reserved for Video, IRQ, DMA, I/O & IRQ assignments. Therein lies the "Missing" RAM - first off, there is a difference in how RAM is counted VS how other storage is counted - RAM is counted in "binary bytes", or multiples of 2*8 - therefore, a "Binary MB" is actually 1024 Bytes rather than 1000 bytes as is commonly used for "storage". Also, as mentioned before, the OS reserves some memory addresses for housekeeping - these addresses are NEVER available for workspace and are often never even used - so there is the rest of the RAM the OS cannot see.

Multi-processor OSes get around this because even with 32-bit processors, the actual addressable memory becomes 2^32(NUMBER of PROCESSORS); this is how we had supercomputers in the 90s with 12GB of memory.

Now a 64-Bit architecture has a theoretical maximum of 2^64 bytes or 16 exbibytes = 16* 1,152,921,504,606,846,976 bytes - (again, an exbibyte is slightly more than an exabyte) of addressable memory; we really have no means of testing this limit as we haven't actually manufactured anywhere near that much RAM. EVER. In the WHOLE WORLD. As a result, THERE the limitation is in the OS - we actually have enough memory addresses to even give the sectors on a HD their own memory addresses, thereby eliminating the need for LBA (Logical Block Addressing); the magic that overcame 16-bit architecture's 137MB limitation on HD size.

I believe it will be interesting to see what happens when someone actually writes a scalable OS that can operate in "real-mode" like the old, fast machines of my youth - but STILL can address the resources of a modern 64-bit machine that we were unable to even IMAGINE back then.

mnem
Dell makes a spiffy laptop for people who live in cubicles. For the rest of us, there's ToughBook.

 

So, the big question I have is, are we going to have a test on this, if so, will it be open book?

 

Ummm... actually... this IS the Cliff's Notes version. The FULL version is here:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/07...ls?ie=UTF8&me=&qid=1232301065&sr=11-1&seller=

Note the product description; you read that right - 1584 PAGES.

But... it IS the BIBLE of PC SERVICE. PERIOD.

mnem
All hail Scott Mueller... All Hail...

 

I knew I should not have done it. I activated Vista Business and everything seemed to go well. Not! GPS no longer functioning. Went to find hyperterminal to trouble shoot. Guess what? No hyperterminal. Gone from Vista. Out of ideas. Anybody got suggestions? The system is a cf30 with internal gps. One of these days I will wise up.

 

The BEST idea is to trash Vista and reinstall XP Pro... But somehow I don't think that is the answer you were looking for.

... What were you thinking?

 

I know. I really feel like Forest Gump. There is no reason that GPS is not working. I used the Panny install disk. I went to support and did not see drivers listed for the GPS. Just for a registry fix. I will roll back if I have to but I like to solve problems like this when they pop up even if I have created them myself.

 

Install winfast navigator
And any applications that you use with your gps
Your GPS is com port 3 4800 baud
It works fine on my cf-30 vista install using the restore dvd
Most of the driver files and patches are not applicable using the restore disk




Alex

 

Agreed. If you want more battery life, faster loads, and more stability go with the lighter OS....

Btw if you run 64Bbit XP it will run smoother on a dual core than 32Bit XP. I rock 64Bit XP on my gaming system and run 16GB of RAM!! LOL I use almost all of it easily with virtual machines.

 

You can use the unused rest of the 4GB Ram under 32bit WindowsXP on the CF-19 and CF-30. I do it also and use it as RAM-DRIVE-Swap-Partition. This will really accelerate Your System. So i have 3.25GB RAM and a 768MB RAM-Disk for the fixed 760 MB swapping file on it. U should google for "Gavotte Ramdisk 1.0.4096.4". And think on "/PAE" in the Boot.ini ;-)

 

I thought about 64 bit but the driver issues and software issues there would make as big a PITA as Vista, probably.