Notebook Makers Moving to 4 GB Memory As Standard 567
akintayo writes "Digitimes reports that first-tier notebook manufacturers are increasing the standard installed memory from the current 1 GB to 4GB. They claim the move is an attempt to shore up the costs of DRAM chips, which are currently depressed because of a glut in market. The glut is supposedly due to increased manufacturing capacity and the slow adoption of Microsoft's Vista operating system. The proposed move is especially interesting, given that 32-bit Vista and XP cannot access 4 GB of memory. They have a practical 3.1 — 3.3 GB limit. With Vista SP1 it seems that Microsoft has decided to fix the problem by reporting the installed memory rather than the available memory."
I think they should report it as 640k (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice "fix" though, then people can keep adding memory and think it helps
Re:That's great (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope, that isn't played out.
At all.
And of course... [wired.com]:
"Meanwhile, I keep bumping into that silly quotation attributed to me that says 640K of memory is enough. There's never a citation; the quotation just floats like a rumor, repeated again and again."
Silly quotations do have a way of floating like rumors.
Well, the truth starts here.
He never said it.
Fix the problem by misleading the customer? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh just jump to 64bit already MS (Score:5, Insightful)
How can windows suck so much... (Score:3, Insightful)
Solaris Way Back in the 90's with Solaris 7 I think... Had 64 bit support with perfect 32 bit
support of backwards compatability.
OS X goes a step further one OS Package and support for PowerPC, 32 Bit and 64 Bit and Intel 32 Bit
and 64 Bit. And appliactions seem to work for all of theme for the most parts (with the ovious
exceptions of apps that require the advanced features of the newer Chips.
Reporting that you have 4 Gigs installed is not a real feature it just makes it easier for the
hardware companies to scam people saying here buy this with 4 Gigs of Ram and the OS says there is 4
GIgss of Ram while it only supports 3. I would be Pissed If I knew I couldn't access all my RAM.
Say I had VMWare on my Laptop and I allocated a VM with 2 Gigs and an other with 1.5 Gig and ran both
figuring that I had 4 Gigs of Ram available. I would be annoyed that I couldn't run both of my VMs
and Not knowing seeing that it supports 4 gigs of RAM I would want to know who is taking up 512 Megs
of Active Ram. I could blame Windows for being more of a memory hog. I could blame VMWare for sucking
up all the extra memory to run. But the fault is the Hardware Manufacutre put more ram then the
PC with the preinstalled Software can handle to make a few bucks and Microsoft just plays in their
hand making everything look hunky dory.
If it says you have 4 Gigs install It should also say there are 3.3 Gigs that can be access
to fix the problem by reporting... (Score:3, Insightful)
I wouldn't have expected any other `solution' from MS
Video ram? (Score:2, Insightful)
Is it really due to "glut in market" ? (Score:5, Insightful)
So the OEMs are forced to add another fancy selling point, like upgrading the specs once again, in order to keep making the big bucks. They don't give a damn if it brings any added value to the product or if it even functions properly. What matters is some fancy little side remark on the laptop's brochure that makes their fancy little product be picked by the vast hordes of consuming sheep. Who cares if it makes sense or if it's even usable. What's important is that them flock falls for that "OMG! IT'S N+1!!!" and promptly spend their cash, specially for the "it's bigger than my neighbour's" bragging rights.
This sort of thing isn't exactly new. In fact, it's the repeat of another similar marketing push, which was the "32-to-64bit" campaign. The fancy stickers advertising the new and improved 64bit 'puters for the "OMG IT'S TWICE THE BITS!!" effect were all over the place, which earned quite a few hardware sales. Yet, the fact is that the brand new 64-bit 'puter could only run on the 32-bit legacy mode, as they were shipped with a 32-bit operating system and the OEMs shipped hardware without ever thinking on releasing 64-bit drivers or even releasing the hardware specs.
So those OEMs will, once again, sell hardware that will not be usable by the user, at least as advertised. It doesn't matter to them. The only thing that matters is the sales revenue, specially in this day and age where we are starting to see sub-300 euro hardware. And screw the consumer.
Oh, I dunno. (Score:3, Insightful)
After all the auto-updating software for their printer, mouse, keyboard, webcam, etc.; all the spyware, adware, trojans; and all the extra applications like AIM, anti-virus, anti-malware, non-driver device software (syncing, calling home, etc.), and media software playing music in the background, I can see joe 6-pack user making use of more than 2 gigs if he actually wants to do something with his computer.
Re:Whose standard? (Score:3, Insightful)
As the article says, 4 GB is the maximum that Vista supports. Calling that the sweet spot is like saying that it needs more memory than it supports.
Re:That's great (Score:5, Insightful)
How about I stick to what I have now so I don't have to buy an overpriced desktop, and then if Apple decide that I'm allowed to run OS X on something they didn't build, I might consider booting it.
Unlikely, though.
Re:Oh just jump to 64bit already MS (Score:3, Insightful)
If you really developed a 8388608-bit processor you could technically address 524TB of RAM. At that stage I don't think 1 meg pointers are as much of an issue as you're pretending they are.
Re:That's great (Score:2, Insightful)
Moore's law in action? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fix the problem by misleading the customer? (Score:2, Insightful)
Linux kernel 2.6.23 to have stable userspace driver API. [wordpress.com]
Re:How can windows suck so much... (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Everything you just described for having 32 bit executables and libraries co-existing on a 64 bit OS has existed from day 1 for 64 bit versions of Windows. read the wiki page [wikipedia.org]
2. 32 bit drivers DO NOT WORK on 64 bit operating systems.. be they Linux, Windows, Slowaris, Mac OS X, or Irix for that matter. You are letting your anti-MS bias cloud your judgment in not realizing that there are fundamental differences between a 32 bit OS and a 64 bit one. It's not all a big conspiracy led by Bill Gates to screw you over, it's a technical fact of life. Don't believe me? Try to use 32 bit Nvidia drivers on your 64 bit Linux box (if you even have one).
3. Heck I got some PowerPC 32bit driver to run my 64Bit Intel Mac. Bullshit absent you running your "driver" in a PPC emulator or something like that. I want device names, binary blob names, versions, and a fucking video of that working. This line shows you are nothing more than a troll.
Re:Reminds me of a new Linux joke (Score:4, Insightful)
None. Linux lightbulbs last forever. They don't need to be changed.
Re:That's great (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you ever actually used a computer?
Joe Sixpack benefits from a computer that runs faster, swaps less, and has a shorter boot time. In fact, I'd wager that he gets more benefit from memory than the typical
Re:Is it really due to "glut in market" ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, every now and then, PC makers push the limits to set new standards. For example, TFT panels used to come in 14" and 15" flavors, but nowadays it's kind of difficult to get a screen that small. And it's not like they decided to make more money by setting 17", 19" and 20" standards, because they didn't. The demand for larger panels was there and as technology advanced and more consumers got into flat screens, prices also went down. By today's standards, you can get a 20" screen for what, 250 bucks? A few years ago, getting 15" for 250 bucks was a dream.
Re:That's great (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That's great (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That's great (Score:3, Insightful)
While I am sure there are many good reasons for you to stick with what you have, as long as Apple continues to make billions doing things their way, complaints that they haven't committed suicide trying to win customers who don't want to buy their hardware seem sort of pointless.
Re:That's great (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Reminds me of a new Linux joke (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? Linux works flawlessly in all my light sockets. I guess the system whereby engineers ask for specs from the people who want to sell them light sockets gets the job done.
-FL
Re:inflating prices (Score:2, Insightful)
First, if they are doing that, they are benefiting the DRAM manufacturers, so they must have an agreement with them. I am not sure this would be legal.
Second, a single notebook manufacturer would hardly have the market power to increase DRAM prices. Such a move would have to be coordinated among several manufacturers, and I doubt very much that would be legal.
Re:Article doesn't say what summary says (Score:3, Insightful)
It looks more like these manufacturers are taking advantage of the low prices to boost the perceived value of their systems, and also offset some of the slowness associated with vista.
Re:That's great (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What kind of idiot are you? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That's great (Score:4, Insightful)
Since the processor at the time only could access 1MB, 640K of the 1MB was enough for DOS and the 8088. Now, when the 80286 arrived, things changed. The 286 had a 16MB limit, but DOS was still acting like it was a 8088 (some part for compatibility, some for poor design switching between real/protected modes).
Re:That's great (Score:4, Insightful)
When Vista isn't an acceptable option, you don't own a Mac, and you've got a gig of ram sitting there unused, that's a pretty powerful pressure to use another operating system.
Re:That's great (Score:3, Insightful)
Is there really all that much of a premium for Apple hardware these days?
I don't own a Mac, but I was in the computer store yesterday where they had Mac laptops and desktops along with lots of other brands, and least the Mac laptops were cheaper than other "top" brands with the same processor/speed/memory (they all seem to have a Core 2 Duo at 2 GHz or so, and 1GB of RAM).
The same is true of ipods -- they often seem to be cheaper than their competition (and the competition is almost always palpably more flimsy and tacky).