RAM Inefficiency
in [Dell]
|
Prev: Dimension 8100 Power Supply Problem
Next: Cloning FYI
From: Ben Myers on 30 Apr 2010 21:14 On 4/30/2010 6:19 AM, Ctrl�/Alt�/Del� wrote: > Why does Dell utilize motherboards that can support only 4GB of RAM? Because the motherboard chipset only supports 4GB? Because there were no good 64-bit operating systems to run with more than 4GB? BTW, due to hardware addressing limitations, 32-bit Windows and 32-bit Linux really only use 3GB of memory (more or less), so why would you even want 4GB? And which motherboards are we talking about? The Intel 865, 875, and 925 chipsets used in many Dell models support no more than 4GB, same as in the computers made by competitors like HPaq and Acer-eGateMachines. Sorry, was this an essay question, true-false or multiple choice? .... Ben Myers
From: Keith on 30 Apr 2010 12:30 I thought 4 GB with a limit of 32 bit operaitng systems, not a hardware limitation. These is not enough address space in a 32 bit system to address more the 4 GB of RAM (unless you are running a server OS with some clever workarounds) "Ctrl�/Alt�/Del�" <Ctrl�/Alt�/Del��@Ctrl�/Alt�/Del��.net> wrote in message news:1jblt59pmbe4ikp55mut0v4j6vmhu2d03l(a)4ax.com... > Why does Dell utilize motherboards that can support only 4GB of RAM? > -- > All of Usenet is in a psychological, emotional, and antisocial free fall > into an abyss and fully immersed in a drowning pool of mental illness. --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: news(a)netfront.net ---
From: Keith on 30 Apr 2010 12:30 I thought 4 GB with a limit of 32 bit operaitng systems, not a hardware limitation. These is not enough address space in a 32 bit system to address more the 4 GB of RAM (unless you are running a server OS with some clever workarounds) "RnR" <rnrtexas(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:5gglt5lbqbui88crgh95mundho8238ac3t(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 05:19:20 -0500, Ctrl�/Alt�/Del� > <Ctrl�/Alt�/Del��@Ctrl�/Alt�/Del��.net> wrote: > >>Why does Dell utilize motherboards that can support only 4GB of RAM? > > > Ineffiiciency ??? In what way??? There is overhead to consider. > Or do you really mean why stop at 4GB of ram rather than say 6 or 8?
From: RnR on 2 May 2010 01:08 On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:30:10 -0700, "Keith" <keithtucaz(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >I thought 4 GB with a limit of 32 bit operaitng systems, not a hardware >limitation. These is not enough address space in a 32 bit system to address >more the 4 GB of RAM (unless you are running a server OS with some clever >workarounds) Right, the 4GB is the limit for the 32bit Microsoft OS. When I wrote that post I was clearly thinking 32bit which is what I was assuming Dell was too. Therefore on this basis I didn't think it was inefficient. I should have been more clear on that post.. Thinking on this thread further, another possible answer might be to keep mfg'g cost down since this motherboard was probably meant for low cost systems with low profit margins for Dell.
From: Ben Myers on 2 May 2010 08:47
On 5/2/2010 1:08 AM, RnR wrote: > On Fri, 30 Apr 2010 09:30:10 -0700, "Keith"<keithtucaz(a)hotmail.com> > wrote: > >> I thought 4 GB with a limit of 32 bit operaitng systems, not a hardware >> limitation. These is not enough address space in a 32 bit system to address >> more the 4 GB of RAM (unless you are running a server OS with some clever >> workarounds) > > Right, the 4GB is the limit for the 32bit Microsoft OS. When I > wrote that post I was clearly thinking 32bit which is what I was > assuming Dell was too. Therefore on this basis I didn't think it was > inefficient. I should have been more clear on that post.. > > Thinking on this thread further, another possible answer might be to > keep mfg'g cost down since this motherboard was probably meant for low > cost systems with low profit margins for Dell. 32-bit Linux is similarly limited... Ben Myers |