Just trying to clarify something about RAM and 64-bit.
in [Hardware]
|
Prev: ports are not shown
Next: PSU power consumption
From: SC Tom on 6 Feb 2010 15:35 "Brian V" <BrianV(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:B0B5F89E-98A6-492C-936F-2FBB5D65DA82(a)microsoft.com... > And do you have to put the BIOS onto a diskette? Can it be done by usb, > dvd-rom or anything else? Are disks more stable in theis context? It can be done from within Windows, depending on the BIOS manufacturer and the method they allow. I'll tell you a true story, and you decide if you want to risk it or not: I've been flashing my BIOS for quite a long time now, but only when the new BIOS had a new addition that I needed for what I was wanting to do. Most of them involved updating to a faster CPU, and needing a new BIOS to be able to do it. I've done probably 15-20 boards over the years without a hitch. About two years ago, I was looking to put a faster AMD in my ASUS MB, and needed the newer BIOS in order for it to be recognized correctly. I updated from rev11.5 to rev12.3 (let's say) with no problem. But I figured I'd go ahead and bring it up to rev14.1 just in case I needed its properties sometime in the future, even though all I needed at the moment was rev12.3. After the first flash to 12.3, I had no problems bringing the PC back up, and having it recognize the new CPU. After a couple of days of making sure everything was fine, I went ahead and flashed to rev14.1. I followed the same method as before, backing up my old BIOS before proceeding, shutting down my AV and firewall, etc. All went well until I rebooted. Uh-oh, no boot. It got to the POST screen and went no further. I tried clearing the CMOS by pulling the battery- no joy. Then I remembered that ASUS has a "Crash-Free BIOS," meaning that I could (supposedly) boot from the original driver CD, and write the original BIOS back to the board. I must have tried booting and re-flashing from the CD 4 or 5 times with no success whatsoever. I was very bummed, believe me. Then when I was about to say screw it and buy a new board, the CD "took" and I was able to recover back to rev11.5, which was what came with it originally. I then flashed to 12.3 again with no problem and stayed there. Now, I'm not condoning or urging anyone to flash their BIOS, but if it's necessary for an upgrade you feel you need, then you'll have to decide whether you want to try it or not, or to let a "pro" attempt it, with no guarantee that it'll work for him either. Is the upgrade worth the risk? Your decision. If everything is running well right now, then it may not be worth the risk of having to buy a new board, or sending your board off to the manufacturer to fix (which would probably be weeks to do, and cost near as much as a new board). Like I said, I had done a number of flashes with no problems at all, but the one flash that went bad kinda cured me of doing it again any time soon. But if I have to, I will try again, and odds are, won't have any problems. But the doubt is there now. . . -- SC Tom
From: 20100206 on 6 Feb 2010 16:07 Yes 64 bit machine will recognize more than 4 GB. The systems maker are defrauding its customers by saying a 32 bit machine can recognize 4 GB (in fact one vendor in London was telling a customer that its 32 bit machines can recognize 8 GB ram!). Also please make sure that the vendor is not trying to fool you to make you buy more rams for your 32 bit machines because even if you can fit extra memory (I doubt you can but just in case ....) the Windows OS won't recognize it and very likely to keep crashing. I don't know why HP keeps selling 32 bit machines with more than 4 GB memory capacity! Mind boggles! hth "Brian V" <BrianV(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:68D0FF69-1C84-438D-829D-0FF2D48F6EE5(a)microsoft.com... > I'v asked a lot of questions about my pc and have gotten a lot of > responses. > I think this should be the last one in this regard. I have read some info > and > it seems to be a bit unclear to me. I may not be specific enough, and I am > happy with what answers I got so far. I hate to beat this topic to death. > Here goes. > > My motherboard is a EM61SM/EM61PM. In the manual it says it has 4Gb > capacity > with RAM. On crucial.com it says 4Gb. In PcWizard, an Acer application and > I > think the DirectX programs that scan the hardware: They say my mobo can > actually take 12Gb or RAM. > > I understand that a 32-bit OS only recognizes 4Gb, but it doesn't/can't > recognize all of it, usually 3Gb and something. > > People keep telling me: to fully utilize the RAM in my system, I should > switch to 64-bit. Now I don't care if I went with Windows Vista or 7. The > only thing I am unclear of is: Would a 64-bit platform recognize the 12Gb > limit? Or just the 4Gb? From the posts I have gotten back, the web-pages > given and the web-pages I found myself: Nothing has really said. Or the > reply > has said I can get the 4Gb. Nothing is really mentioned about this > discrepency. If it was, I missed it. > > In my BIOS, it shows something about 4Gb. I assume that is what the mobo > and > BIOS communicate. But is the OS communicating the 4GB to the BIOS? If so, > does that mean a 64-bit OS may potentially communicate the apparent 12Gb > limit of RAM? > > Is this related to overclocking? I do not intend to overclock. It appears > to > have to be too elaborate and potentially dangerous. I plan on not dealing > with that. But would like to know about it's potential relation to this > situation. > > Ideally, if my motherboard can handle such a high number of RAM, I should > be > able to access, it. Right? But if this is something typically done with > mobos > and other hardware: to protect the components, a limitation of somesort or > as > a scam or whatever: I just want to know. > > Thank you.
From: 20100206 on 6 Feb 2010 16:08 "DL" <notvalid(a)spoofaddress.co.uk> wrote in message news:eOOGpikpKHA.1548(a)TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl... > According to google max memory is 4gb > You are a jobless scrounger and so talking rubbish. GET A JOB BOY!
From: SC Tom on 7 Feb 2010 08:13 "Brian V" <BrianV(a)discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message news:52BBAAFC-F6AC-403A-9781-29AEA88BC9AC(a)microsoft.com... > Usage of pc: Not professional or for work. I am on it for art/creativity > fairly heavily. Some programs are in the earlier stages. But I am on more > of > an intermediate level with others. I have been messing around/looking at > the > video software I have. Most can run well on what I have. The problems I > can > infer and see right now, if/when I get heavily into some of these programs > is > what I am trying to prepare for. If certain people ask me to work on their > stuff, I don't see the problem. i am not advertising though. I still have > work to do, if I get it out for work. :-) > > Eg: With making/recording music. I can make a song from start to finish. I > am getting better at the mastering of the whole song. I can do it, but to > get > good takes a lot of years. Now the mroe tweaking I do the more it's > lagging > the system. I do each individual sound. and thent he whole thing. I'm > getting > better and the system is slowing down. More RAM will help, I'll get it in > the > short term. But I can only put so much in there since my system cannot > handle > "an orchestra". Most songs do not require "an orchestra", but you make a > few. > And you understand how to make "an orchestra", if that is your thing. > Because > that could be your legacy or that is the one or two 7-12 minute tracks > that > are big.......You go big or you go home.......Too much at once is bad. You > learn to mix it all properly and give each sound it's place. Sometimes I > just > have to export it, since it will run choppy. I use some midi, but I like > dealing with audio files (usually .wav). They are more demanding on the > computer, but certain editing features are only available in non-midi. So > I > have to use heavy audio files with my current set-up. > > Having all the files on the hard-drive an dnot the dvd helps speed > everything up. The lag can be bad with dvd's. Too choppy and unrealistic > for > playback. > > With the music example above, I will apply it to the future with video > editing. It's even bigger most times. Add in all those effects, > transitions > and rendering. I'm not professional, but I am trying to learn....So I'm > trying to figure out how far I can go. AVCHD files (hi-def) need lots, > going > in as those files, or you have to compress them, and export the high > quality > as you like. I need to avoid compressing as much as possible. But PLENTY > of > professionals compress imports and export the high quality as required. > > I gotta say I checked Corel Draw 13 or 14 (the newest one out on > corel.com). > The imaging programs don't seem to take up as much as music or video. But > I > don't know fully yet. That is later. Another thing you need to consider is if you go to a 64-bit OS, will the program(s) you are using now run in it? If you're not going to upgrade to a 64-bit version of these programs, there's no real advantage to upgrading to a 64-bit OS. A 32-bit program will still run as a 32-bit program no matter what OS you use. -- SC Tom
From: Daave on 8 Feb 2010 10:22
Brian V wrote: > Why would the manufacturer put an updated BIOS on their site, though? To fix an old problem or to add new functionality. If there was a compelling reason to update your particular BIOS, you would already know. If not, then, as they say, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. :-) |