If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
"David Maynard" wrote in message ... It can't because a remap would place it outside of 4 gig and it can only address 4 gig. Yes, I know it can't. But a better designed board could. That's the point. Manufacturers like Asus and MSI are now doing this with AMD boards in the same price range. Tim |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;888855
"David Maynard" wrote in message ... Tim Anderson wrote: "David Maynard" wrote in message ... Tim Anderson wrote: "David Maynard" wrote in message ... It is not advertised as "more than 4 gig". It is advertised as 4 gig; but in fact only offers 3 usable GB. And it *does* have 4 Gig addressing capability. I think I have a good understanding of this issue now. There is an inherent problem with this top 1GB of address space. It is possible for boards to overcome it by remapping. This board doesn't though. Personally, I think it should; It can't because a remap would place it outside of 4 gig and it can only address 4 gig. Remember, we're talking *physical* address space and to physically remap memory above 4 gig the board would need at least one more address line, which would mean it could address 8 gig. But it isn't an 8 gig motherboard. (I'm not sure what's actually 'missing' on the board because the chipset specs suggest the chipset itself could address 8 gig but 'something' is apparently missing. The point being adding that 'feature' may not be as trivial as it seems.) and I think Intel should make the problem clearer; I agree with that. The only explanations I can think of off the top of my head are 1. they didn't really expect folks putting 4 gig in it would be all that common and/or 2. their primary market is system builders/manufacturers who are expected to read the detailed documentation. but it's no big deal. I raised it here because I wanted to understand it better. When you get to the technical documentation (http://www.intel.com/design/motherbd/bl/index.htm) EM64T 'support' becomes more obvious, but then a system builder should also read all of it. It either supports it or it doesn't, That depends on what "it" is. If "it" is being able to run an EM64T processor in 64 bit mode then the board supports "it." If "it" is having an address space larger than 4 gig then the board does not support "it." Now, the second 'it', being what? a terabyte?, is not going to be 'fully' implemented no matter what so you *know* there has to be a limit *somewhere* with *any* board which 'supports' EM64T. It happens to be 4 gig on this one. no matter what the marketers say or don't say. Seems to me you might want to consider this example a warning that you need to pay more attention to what they say I'd have thought a design engineer would understand that :-) A design engineer understands what he's told to design and, when designing a motherboard in the 2003-2004 time period, putting in 'support' for things that don't yet exist isn't necessarily a part of it. And if the spec says "design a P4 motherboard with 4 gig address space" then that's what he'll design, if he's smart. And, btw, I'm not being frivolous about that. One of the biggest problems design engineers have is folks coming in after it's all said and done complaining "how come you didn't include X?" Because it WASn't IN the SPEC! The second biggest problem is the poor engineer who thought he'd be clever and include some neat things having to explain why he's wasting resources on something that WASn't IN the SPEC. And I tell ya, it's usually a heck of a lot easier to answer number 1 than it is to explain number 2. Tim |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
"Phil Weldon" wrote in message
ink.net... http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;888855 Not relevant here Phil, this is not an OS issue (and I'm using 64-bit OS in any case). Tim |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Phil Weldon wrote:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;888855 I made the same mistake the first time around but he's using XP/64 and 64 bit Linux. And, according to his description, the motherboard BIOS post screen reports the after mentioned 'missing' memory is "consumed by system" long before the matter of which OS later boots enters into the equation. "David Maynard" wrote in message ... Tim Anderson wrote: "David Maynard" wrote in message ... Tim Anderson wrote: "David Maynard" wrote in message ... It is not advertised as "more than 4 gig". It is advertised as 4 gig; but in fact only offers 3 usable GB. And it *does* have 4 Gig addressing capability. I think I have a good understanding of this issue now. There is an inherent problem with this top 1GB of address space. It is possible for boards to overcome it by remapping. This board doesn't though. Personally, I think it should; It can't because a remap would place it outside of 4 gig and it can only address 4 gig. Remember, we're talking *physical* address space and to physically remap memory above 4 gig the board would need at least one more address line, which would mean it could address 8 gig. But it isn't an 8 gig motherboard. (I'm not sure what's actually 'missing' on the board because the chipset specs suggest the chipset itself could address 8 gig but 'something' is apparently missing. The point being adding that 'feature' may not be as trivial as it seems.) and I think Intel should make the problem clearer; I agree with that. The only explanations I can think of off the top of my head are 1. they didn't really expect folks putting 4 gig in it would be all that common and/or 2. their primary market is system builders/manufacturers who are expected to read the detailed documentation. but it's no big deal. I raised it here because I wanted to understand it better. When you get to the technical documentation (http://www.intel.com/design/motherbd/bl/index.htm) EM64T 'support' becomes more obvious, but then a system builder should also read all of it. It either supports it or it doesn't, That depends on what "it" is. If "it" is being able to run an EM64T processor in 64 bit mode then the board supports "it." If "it" is having an address space larger than 4 gig then the board does not support "it." Now, the second 'it', being what? a terabyte?, is not going to be 'fully' implemented no matter what so you *know* there has to be a limit *somewhere* with *any* board which 'supports' EM64T. It happens to be 4 gig on this one. no matter what the marketers say or don't say. Seems to me you might want to consider this example a warning that you need to pay more attention to what they say I'd have thought a design engineer would understand that :-) A design engineer understands what he's told to design and, when designing a motherboard in the 2003-2004 time period, putting in 'support' for things that don't yet exist isn't necessarily a part of it. And if the spec says "design a P4 motherboard with 4 gig address space" then that's what he'll design, if he's smart. And, btw, I'm not being frivolous about that. One of the biggest problems design engineers have is folks coming in after it's all said and done complaining "how come you didn't include X?" Because it WASn't IN the SPEC! The second biggest problem is the poor engineer who thought he'd be clever and include some neat things having to explain why he's wasting resources on something that WASn't IN the SPEC. And I tell ya, it's usually a heck of a lot easier to answer number 1 than it is to explain number 2. Tim |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
I was more interested in th 'some chipsets' phrase. The rest I don't
understand at all. "David Maynard" wrote in message ... Phil Weldon wrote: http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;888855 I made the same mistake the first time around but he's using XP/64 and 64 bit Linux. And, according to his description, the motherboard BIOS post screen reports the after mentioned 'missing' memory is "consumed by system" long before the matter of which OS later boots enters into the equation. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Phil Weldon, , the narrow-minded, windward haddock,
and flax dresser, retched: I was more interested in th 'some chipsets' phrase. The rest I don't understand at all. Some \Some\ (s[u^]m), a. [OE. som, sum, AS. sum; akin to OS., OFries., & OHG. sum, OD. som, D. sommig, Icel. sumr, Dan. somme (pl.), Sw. somlige (pl.), Goth. sums, and E. same. [root]191. See Same, a., and cf. -some.] 1. Consisting of a greater or less portion or sum; composed of a quantity or number which is not stated; -- used to express an indefinite quantity or number; as, some wine; some water; some persons. Used also pronominally; as, I have some. chip set A collection of integrated circuits that are designed to be used together for some specific purpose. E.g. control circuitry in an IBM PC. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Phil Weldon wrote:
I was more interested in th 'some chipsets' phrase. I'm not sure what they mean either unless it has to do with chipsets that *do* remap himem so PAE would work, vs those that just tell you how much you've lost to the system. The rest I don't understand at all. You don't understand the PAE part? "David Maynard" wrote in message ... Phil Weldon wrote: http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;888855 I made the same mistake the first time around but he's using XP/64 and 64 bit Linux. And, according to his description, the motherboard BIOS post screen reports the after mentioned 'missing' memory is "consumed by system" long before the matter of which OS later boots enters into the equation. |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Haven't bothered to, as 4 GBytes is far in my future.
"David Maynard" wrote in message ... Phil Weldon wrote: I was more interested in th 'some chipsets' phrase. I'm not sure what they mean either unless it has to do with chipsets that *do* remap himem so PAE would work, vs those that just tell you how much you've lost to the system. The rest I don't understand at all. You don't understand the PAE part? |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Phil Weldon wrote:
Haven't bothered to, as 4 GBytes is far in my future. Yeah. 4 gig is a 'future' thing for me too. But when you get to the 4 gig stage go 64 bit and what PAE is won't matter anyway, "David Maynard" wrote in message ... Phil Weldon wrote: I was more interested in th 'some chipsets' phrase. I'm not sure what they mean either unless it has to do with chipsets that *do* remap himem so PAE would work, vs those that just tell you how much you've lost to the system. The rest I don't understand at all. You don't understand the PAE part? |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 18 May 2005 11:07:04 -0500, David Maynard
wrote: Haven't bothered to, as 4 GBytes is far in my future. Judging from the pace at which Windows bloats, it may be sooner than you think. Yeah. 4 gig is a 'future' thing for me too. But when you get to the 4 gig stage go 64 bit and what PAE is won't matter anyway, 4 GB of RAM is obscene. I can remember when a 20 MB HD was considered large. I suppose you could set up 3 GB RAM disk. I bet that sucker would scream. -- Million Mom March For Gun Confiscation http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/mmm.html A liberal is a person who is so open minded that their brains have fallen out. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
overcoming the 300 gigabyte limit | || | Homebuilt PC's | 2 | February 2nd 05 03:30 AM |
Controller that allows drives over 137gb limit?? | John Barrington | General | 4 | June 22nd 04 11:10 AM |
Somewhat off-topic...Customizing the TIF limit for Internet Explorer | MovieFan3093 | Dell Computers | 2 | October 23rd 03 03:22 AM |
Temporary Internet Files limit | HistoryFan | Dell Computers | 3 | October 16th 03 03:32 PM |
Limit to processor speed? | ZITBoy | General | 33 | September 17th 03 12:46 AM |