would like to access 3.5 gb memory

Topic

New Reply

Hello,

I have a old Acer 3515 laptop which I modified to use a T7500 duo-core CPU and upgraded this laptop to 2 gb and XP Pro SP2. I would like to try and did try

3X to increase the memory to 4 GB, even placed a line in the boot.ini /PAE to recognize 3.5GB or more but it didn’t work. Crucial stated that this

motherboard only works with 2 GB.I am doing conversions of video files from one format to WMV or AVI and it can take 2-3 hrs to convert a video file, so I

usually do it when I am sleeping. Is there any way to get this mb to recoignize more memory ?

I also am running Windows 7 on a separate drive-64 bit and was wondering if this motherboard would recognize 4 gb and if so, I would install Windows 7 and

use it. I heard that the disc of Windows has the 32 bit as well as the 64 bit version on the disc.

Reply | Quote

Replies

As a rule, I would listen to what Crucial say, and take it as read that the MB can only handle 2Gb. This will be a limitation placed on the system by it’s BIOS. In a way I am also rather surprised that the system manages to use the dual core – I am interested to know if both cores are being seen in the Performance Tab in Task Manager?

As you have alluded to in your message, a 32 bit OS can only address a maximum of 3.5Gb of memory, but even upgrading to a 64 bit OS wont do you any good in this instance – you will still be hemmed in by that BIOS limitation. However, I have heard some people getting around the norms of what can and cannot be done, and someone might have a tweak or a mod out there that just might work for you. I wouldn’t hold your breath though.

I would also approach ACER see what they say, and also look on the support sites etc, for the latest BIOS.

Still, where theres a will, there’s a way. I wish you well on this.

Reply | Quote

As a rule, I would listen to what Crucial say, and take it as read that the MB can only handle 2Gb. This will be a limitation placed on the system by it’s BIOS. In a way I am also rather surprised that the system manages to use the dual core – I am interested to know if both cores are being seen in the Performance Tab in Task Manager?

As you have alluded to in your message, a 32 bit OS can only address a maximum of 3.5Gb of memory, but even upgrading to a 64 bit OS wont do you any good in this instance – you will still be hemmed in by that BIOS limitation. However, I have heard some people getting around the norms of what can and cannot be done, and someone might have a tweak or a mod out there that just might work for you. I wouldn’t hold your breath though.

I would also approach ACER see what they say, and also look on the support sites etc, for the latest BIOS.

Still, where theres a will, there’s a way. I wish you well on this.

I would like to give you the results when I went to Windows task manager-Performance tab. I see two cores which I believe represwents a duo core cpu because I looked at my computer at work and the cpu isn’t a duo core it is a single core cpu. First thing I see is that the right core without doing anything with the exception of all of the icons are on the desktop and I am doing nothing, the right core is more active than the left core. The cpu usage has two bars and they are equal in height going up and down from 1% – 27% rising and falling like a yo-yo. The PF usage is 455mb – 458mb. I am going to list all the information I wrote down for my office computer and the laptop that has a duo core.

[log extract moved for thread readability to ]

Now that my computer is on for 40 minutes, I see that the sine waves of activity of cpu are almost equal. I don’t know what this all means but maybe it means something if you can interpolate the above info.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Thanks.

Ambertape

Reply | Quote

Seeing two CPUs in performance manager may be dual cores, but it could also be hyperthreading.

Reply | Quote

The only way to get a mobo to recognize more memory as far as I know is if the hardware supports it and a BIOS update addressing the RAM capacity is available.

From experience though, I’m 90% sure more RAM wouldn’t help your conversion speeds unless you also have something else running that takes up an inordinate amount of memory at the same time, say a virtual OS with a gig or more assigned to it for instance. If not, there is more than enough time and space for data blocks to exchange with the hard drive and be ready in 2 gigs of RAM before the processor (most likely the bottleneck) can ever possibly get that much media data converted, and that would be especially true on an older laptop since even if the processor could keep up, then you’d probably take a hit in bus speed transfers or somewhere else which would become the next limiting factor to utilizing more RAM. If the hard drive I/O was really slow that might also be a problem but again it would be a hard drive I/O problem, not a problem with RAM.

As proof, I have several systems duo and quad with 3 and 4 gigs of RAM and they never get above about 1.6 gigs of RAM utilization during conversions unless I’m doing other stuff at the same time, then I’ve seen it as high as 2.3. In other words, in every case I’ve seen, RAM is never fully utilized yet the processor is buried. So logically its almost always the processor that is the limiting factor, and again from experience I know that what it takes my X2-6000 about 2 hours to do will only take about 1:15 (changed from 40 minutes–its about 40% faster, not aproximately 65-70% faster in my case) minutes on my Q6600, same amount of RAM on both, and the i7 processors put the quad cores to shame from what I read.

Windows 7 does come with both 32 and 64-bit versions on seperate DVDs. There’s a chance that might actually slow conversions down just a bit because its been my experience that there is more processor management by newer OSs so even if you go into the processes and set the conversion program to real-time and full affinity, Vista and Windows 7 systems, especially on Intel systems, limit processor allocation more than XP does. That’s better for multi-tasking of course since there is more overhead for other tasks but if you’re not using the system for anything else its kind of frustrating not beind able to make the processors go 100% just on the conversion.

Reply | Quote

This might be an answer

http://www.maxi-pedia.com/3GB+switch+Windows+boot.ini+3+GB

Read carefully before implementing it. It helped me run Photoshop better.

Reply | Quote

Hello there. I have been doing some reading on this stuff. I fell upon this information from Mark Russinovich, the co creater of Sysinternals. Here is the hyperlink http://blogs.technet.com/markrussinovich/archive/2008/07/21/3092070.aspx. He talks about the limitations of different operating systems and why in some case the available physical ram is not used up in some cases. I suggest you review before taking some costly actions.

Good luck

Patrick

Reply | Quote

Patrick,

The hyperlink doesn’t work. Got eror 404. Perhaps I should accept the info from Crucial that this particular motherboard doesn’t accept more than 2 GB’s and look for ways to speed up Windows XP SP2 that I am running. So I am open to suggestions on how to get my laptop running faster. I have two virus programs, Microsoft Essentials and AVG Anti-Virus 9.0 and do defrag twice a month and run ccleaner also twice a month.

I am open to suggestions and thank all for their inputs.

Ambertape

Reply | Quote

For starters, run only one AV program. Running two will invariably cause some conflicts. I personally run Security Essentials. You can check your startup load to see if there are some items that don’t need to start everytime Windows starts.

Always create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates; you may need to start over!

We all have our own reasons for doing the things that we do with our systems; we don't need anyone's approval, and we don't all have to do the same things.

We were all once "Average Users".

Computer Specs

Reply | Quote