Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

DELL XPS M1530 RAM & HD display...

  • 15-03-2008 12:31pm
    #1
    Ronan H
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,058 ✭✭✭


    My machine is supposed to have 4GB RAM and a 320GB HD. However, system information tells me I have 3.5GB RAM and the two HD's (285GB + 9.99GB Recovery) only add up to 295GB.

    It's Windows Vista HP edition.

    Is this just the way the RAM and HD is displayed or are they actually smaller than they should be? Maybe it's a Vista thing, it's my first time using it...

    Thanks...

    Head


Comments

  • #2
    Tom Dunne
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,212 ✭✭✭✭Tom Dunne


    Head wrote: »
    Is this just the way the RAM and HD is displayed

    Yip, that's it.

    Vista/XP can't see the full 4Gig of Ram. As for the HD, there is usually a hidden partition. Or, there is the whole 1000Mb vs. 1024Mb way to measure Gigabytes. Don't go there.


  • #3
    Alanstrainor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,157 ✭✭✭✭Alanstrainor


    Ye everything sounds right there, i couldn't explain it myself so here's some google mess i found:):
    Your hard drive is advertised as having a 60GB capacity, but your computer shows only 55.8GB. What gives? The discrepancy is the result of having two methods of measuring memory. Computers are binary, or "base two," mathematical systems, and in a binary world a kilobyte is 1024 bytes (2 to the 10th power). When computers were new, the geekerati referred to this as a "kilo." Noncomputer folks, however, understood kilo to mean thousand, and thought that 1000 bytes should equal a kilobyte. So, two different measurements of hard drive space were born. In 1998, the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) weighed in, defining 1 "gigabyte" as 1 billion bytes. Hard disk manufacturers agree, marketing their products using the rounder decimal value instead of the binary system. So, your drive is labeled as decimal ("giga") and your PC reads binary (IEC's term, "gibi"). Either way, you're getting the same bunch of bytes.


  • #4
    Voodu Child
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,706 ✭✭✭Voodu Child


    Vista SP1 (final public release in a few days) is able to 'see' the full 4Gb, so it'll tell you 4 in the system info etc. But it still won't be able to use any of it over 3.2Gb as actual system ram.

    The Dell also has a 'media direct' partition in addition to the recovery mentioned above. And another small partition, can't remember what it was for.


  • #5
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,729 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Hard Drive vendors always advertise the unformatted capacity of their drives. So, if you go buy a 250GB drive you will really only get 232 GB out of it.

    As for the ram it is a problem inherent with the 32-bit editions of vista. I dont know about a SP1 patch fixing it but I do know it is something related to the limits of 32 bit processing. Vista 64-bit will read all 4gb of ram.


  • #6
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,125 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    Overheal wrote: »
    Hard Drive vendors always advertise the unformatted capacity of their drives. So, if you go buy a 250GB drive you will really only get 232 GB out of it.

    As for the ram it is a problem inherent with the 32-bit editions of vista. I dont know about a SP1 patch fixing it but I do know it is something related to the limits of 32 bit processing. Vista 64-bit will read all 4gb of ram.
    It's not a problem, it's an unavoidable limitation. 32-bit memory addressing only allows 4GBs for memory addressing. Some of this has to be used for the graphics card, pci bus etc so there is only around 3GBs or so left for the ram. A 64 bit operating system should have about 20 exabytes for memory addressing, which is quite a lot.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Ronan H
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,058 ✭✭✭Ronan H


    voodoo_child wrote: »
    Vista SP1 (final public release in a few days) is able to 'see' the full 4Gb, so it'll tell you 4 in the system info etc. But it still won't be able to use any of it over 3.2Gb as actual system ram.

    If thats the case is it not a bit of a rip off to be selling people 4GB when they can just use barely over 3GB of it? Id rather have just taken the 3GB than pay fifty quid extra for almost a GB of RAM that I cant use. I could have got a better screen etc... for that :mad:.

    After I made the OP I found some info in a Microsoft KB article which pretty much said the same as you guys have all said, the 32bit vs 64bit issue etc...

    On that note, what is different about Vista Ultimate seeing as it's 64bit? Is it worth a look at?

    Head


  • #8
    Tom Dunne
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,212 ✭✭✭✭Tom Dunne


    Head wrote: »
    If thats the case is it not a bit of a rip off to be selling people 4GB when they can just use barely over 3GB of it?

    No, it's not a rip-off, it's a technical limitation.

    Besides, I recall reading something somewhere about the remaining memory not actually going to waste, it is actually used, I just can't remember for what.


  • #9
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,125 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    Head wrote: »
    If thats the case is it not a bit of a rip off to be selling people 4GB when they can just use barely over 3GB of it? Id rather have just taken the 3GB than pay fifty quid extra for almost a GB of RAM that I cant use. I could have got a better screen etc... for that :mad:.
    Actually if you had gotten 3GBs instead of 4GBs the ram would not be running in ddr mode (doubles the bandwidth available to the memory) and you would notice a performance drop.
    Head wrote: »
    After I made the OP I found some info in a Microsoft KB article which pretty much said the same as you guys have all said, the 32bit vs 64bit issue etc...

    On that note, what is different about Vista Ultimate seeing as it's 64bit? Is it worth a look at?

    Head
    For 64bit vista you will need 64bit drivers for all the hard ware. It also wouldn't be as stable as 32bit vista. Saying that a load of people on boards are running 64bit vista and they have had relatively few problems doing it. I'm sure they would be glad to help you if you encountered any problems with it.


  • #10
    extra-ordinary_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,998 ✭✭✭extra-ordinary_


    AlmightyCushion wrote: »
    Actually if you had gotten 3GBs instead of 4GBs the ram would not be running in ddr mode...

    I've 3GB in my laptop and BIOS reads it as 'Dual Channel'.


  • #11
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,729 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    then you have 2x 1.5gb sticks.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    extra-ordinary_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,998 ✭✭✭extra-ordinary_


    Yes...yes I do.


  • #13
    Star Lord
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,123 ✭✭✭✭Star Lord


    voodoo_child wrote: »
    The Dell also has a 'media direct' partition in addition to the recovery mentioned above. And another small partition, can't remember what it was for.

    Yeah, the Media Direct partition contains a cut down version of XP, which is used solely for home entertainment purposes.


  • #14
    Ronan H
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,058 ✭✭✭Ronan H


    A quick update, as suggested above, after installing SP1 the RAM now reads as 4GB... Nice!

    RAM Head


  • #15
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,729 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    AlmightyCushion wrote: »
    It's not a problem, it's an unavoidable limitation. 32-bit memory addressing only allows 4GBs for memory addressing. Some of this has to be used for the graphics card, pci bus etc so there is only around 3GBs or so left for the ram. A 64 bit operating system should have about 20 exabytes for memory addressing, which is quite a lot.

    Its marketing bastardry. Check this out: http://wdc.custhelp.com/cgi-bin/wdc.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=1481&p_created=1164135184&p_sid=WeDqZK*i&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfcm93X2NudD0xMTUyLDExNTImcF9wcm9kcz0mcF9jYXRzPSZwX3B2PSZwX2N2PSZwX3NlYXJjaF90eXBlPWFuc3dlcnMuc2VhcmNoX2ZubCZwX3BhZ2U9MQ**&p_li=&p_topview=1


    They know full well that 1gb != 1000MB.

    edit: snap you were talking about the RAM thing. nevermind...


  • #16
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,125 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    Head wrote: »
    A quick update, as suggested above, after installing SP1 the RAM now reads as 4GB... Nice!

    RAM Head
    It will show 4GBs ram but it still can't use all of it.


  • #17
    Ronan H
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,058 ✭✭✭Ronan H


    AlmightyCushion wrote: »
    It will show 4GBs ram but it still can't use all of it.


    Hey Cushion get that sharp pin away from my bubble :p.

    Yes I know that it can't use all of the RAM, but it says 4GB and I'm hoping that after a few months has passed I will conveniently forget that fact that it can't use all of it...

    3 Second Memory Head


Advertisement