Yeah, so I went to watch episode 5 of The IT Crowd with my wife when the computer froze. Had to turn it off and back on again as it wasn't responding to anything. When it started back up, a lady's voice started telling me "System Failed CPU Test".
I have *no* idea what would cause this problem. I opened up the system and re-seated the RAM, the CPU and heatsink, the video card, and disconnected a couple of power plugs to make sure the power supply wasn't being overburdened. Nothing changed.
This sucks. It was our main computer. Good thing we have a couple more, but crappy that it gave out. I think I'm gonna bite the bullet and buy a couple of matching computers to replace it and this other old, old one. I'm sure the hard drive's still fine, so I might just get an external drive case so we can get our pictures and movies and songs and all that off.
Grr! First the car dies, then the Suburban needs a whole bunch of work, now I'm looking at replacing my computers.
I feel your pain. My old computer is currently having some serious problems, all sorts of pci errors >:E its still useable, but I have to keep resetting the NIC, or rebooting. I Think its causing HD issues too, I keep hearing loud clicks from one of them, the "drive is dying" type of clicks, but only one at a time like the read arms are slamming against the sides...
Would you buy this? Why should I not buy this?
http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon=&langid=EN&sku_id=BDL10002503&catid=
Intel Core 2 Quad Processor Q6600
500GB 7200RPM SATA drive
21.6" Samsung widescreen 5ms LCD monitor
3GB DDR2 RAM
Dual Layer DVD burner
GeForce 8600GT video card
Windows Vista Home Premium (yuck!)
It's $999 for the package. So $1048.95 after tax. I wonder if I can talk them down if I buy two?
Ever used an eMachine before? You know the possessed computers at ISC Group?
Well Acer is about 2 steps above it, if you're lucky. Great deal, but Acer (anyone else feel that chill up their spine?).
Quote from: Thorin on January 29, 2008, 10:41:03 PM
Grr! First the car dies, then the Suburban needs a whole bunch of work, now I'm looking at replacing my computers.
"
The stuff you own, ends up owning you" ;)
Given the specs that is a respectable package really.. I jumped on the Dell site to check out the current offers and the key winning factors for the Acer are the monitor, HD and Video card.
I haven't played the build it your self game yet, I might just do that though...
Truely Thorin, I don't know how much of a computer hardware guy you are; never really sat down and talked computer junk with you; but your best bet when it comes to computers is what ever works with your wallet. Computers really aren't all that different inside anymore; most work with none-proprietary parts, and will take the same. Only the cheapness of the parts used is really the difference. And if your wallet says cheap, then go cheap.
But really, minus the OS and Monitor, you can build this system with well known parts for almost the same price (example is from Memory Express). As Lazy said, although I did it with the same video card, I would say the Monitor/OS is the deal on that machine, but then again, I got you one more GB of RAM with this one, and I know these parts are top quality. Inside that Acer box... who knows.
But as I said before, your wallet.
Antec New Solution Series NSK6580 Super Mid Tower w/ EarthWatts 430W Power Supply $104.95
eVGA nForce 610i / e-Geforce 7050 w/ DDR2, 7.1 Audio, Gigabit Lan, PCI-E x16 $54.95
Kingston ValueRAM 2GB PC2-5300 DDR2 SDRAM $59.95
Kingston ValueRAM 1GB PC2-5300 DDR2 SDRAM $24.95
Intel Core?2 Quad Processor Q6600 2.4GHz w/ 2x4MB Cache $279.95
Western Digital 500GB Caviar SE16 7200rpm SATA II w/ 16MB Cache $99.90
eVGA e-GeForce 8500 GT 512MB PCI-E w/ DVI, HDTV-Out $79.95
Samsung SH-S203B 20X SpeedPlus? DVD-Writer, SATA, Black $29.95
Samsung SyncMaster 2220WM 22in Widescreen LCD w/ DVI, 5ms, Speakers, Black $254.95
$989.50
My build includes a comparable monitor, yet is still missing some out of the box stuff like keyboard mouse etc that I am sure is in the acer build. Also my build does not really improve on anything and takes advantage of 3 mail in rebaits.. Lots of hassle.
As for 3GB vs 4GB you can't utilize more than 3GB without installing a 64Bit OS. Xp 32bit will just waste the extra 1 GB.
I have learned a few things, don't cheap out on the motherboard. $50 motherboard? CHEAP. I wouldn't spend less than $80, and likely more than $100. Cheap motherboards fail quickly. At least they do for me.
Quote from: Lazybones on January 30, 2008, 12:10:01 AM
As for 3GB vs 4GB you can't utilize more than 3GB without installing a 64Bit OS. Xp 32bit will just waste the extra 1 GB.
Not true my friend, not true. 32bit limit is 4GB not 3GB.
As for my build, was a fast one. Lazy's is probably better, except the 8500 vs 8600 is a bit of a change. I'd also spend the difference for the HD and Burner that I posted as they are better parts - WDs are on sale because of a known flaw with those revisions of HDs, and the Samsung DVD writers have a small issue with lead in burns that the LGs don't.
Don't know anyone with that Mobo, so can't tell you if it is tested and true. The one I posted is the cheapest one I've ever worked with and/or bought in this gen of mobos, so I know it works. I would actually spend more than the one I posted for a mobo as Tom said. Out of everything, don't ever cheap out on your mobo as it can burn you the most.
I'm gonna part out my old machine to Thorin I think...
Quote from: Darren Dirt on January 29, 2008, 11:28:04 PM
Quote from: Thorin on January 29, 2008, 10:41:03 PM
Grr! First the car dies, then the Suburban needs a whole bunch of work, now I'm looking at replacing my computers.
"The stuff you own, ends up owning you" ;)
Yeah, a man who owns nothing is truly free. And in this weather, they're also @%&#ed because they don't have anywhere warm to live, nor any way of getting around the city.
Quote from: Darren Dirt on January 29, 2008, 11:28:04 PM
Quote from: Thorin on January 29, 2008, 10:41:03 PM
Grr! First the car dies, then the Suburban needs a whole bunch of work, now I'm looking at replacing my computers.
"The stuff you own, ends up owning you" ;)
No, I still own my stuff, I crushed the last revolution by executing my VCR (after all it killed the Radio Star).
Thanks for the suggestions. As far as the build-it-yourself path, I don't keep up on every motherboard release and review to see which is best so it's hard to know what parts to pick. Also, both your builds are missing an OS. Throw in the OS and the builds are already more expensive.
Really, I need to think about how I want my home network set up and what the machines will be used for. If I'm looking at email, surfing, picture storing (and some editing), downloading, movie storing, and some flash-based games, then I doubt a quad-core processor is even necessary.
Quote from: Thorin on January 30, 2008, 10:30:34 AM
Thanks for the suggestions. As far as the build-it-yourself path, I don't keep up on every motherboard release and review to see which is best so it's hard to know what parts to pick. Also, both your builds are missing an OS. Throw in the OS and the builds are already more expensive.
OS is taken care of. If you are replacing computers, and not keeping the old ones around, you have 2 OSs already.
Quote from: Thorin on January 30, 2008, 10:30:34 AM
Really, I need to think about how I want my home network set up and what the machines will be used for. If I'm looking at email, surfing, picture storing (and some editing), downloading, movie storing, and some flash-based games, then I doubt a quad-core processor is even necessary.
Your right. Our quotes were in response to your Futureshop post, to try and help you decide if it was a good deal. It was a late post by myself last night, and I meant to post this morning to ask you your needs (just got busy at work). Never buy a computer based on a deal if it doesn't fit your needs. There is much that can be changed for a computer build to better suit different requirements. So whether Mr A. has what you need, or you are still looking, first you need to narrow down what you need/want then ask for advice on what to get.
Can you tell I do this for a living with non-gamer clients as well as gamers/enthusiasts.
Quote from: Melbosa on January 30, 2008, 08:34:23 AM
Quote from: Lazybones on January 30, 2008, 12:10:01 AM
As for 3GB vs 4GB you can't utilize more than 3GB without installing a 64Bit OS. Xp 32bit will just waste the extra 1 GB.
Not true my friend, not true. 32bit limit is 4GB not 3GB.
Just to be overly picky, There is quite a bit of truth to what Lazy said, a 32bit machine can only address a total of 4GB of address space, inclusing mapped in memory from places like PCI, AGP and PCI-E cards. So any memory on cards will eat up memory in that 4GB address space, hiding some normally useable system ram. then you have an even tricker problem, The kernel needs a spearate protected address space from each app, so most times the best you get is a 1GB/3GB split, so in actuality, apps are limited to 3GB max, including mapped mem like GFX memory, and so is the kernel. And with 4GB of physical ram, a large portion of the kernel's physical ram will be used for a large set of page tables, to access all that ram, further reducing useable kernel memory space.
/end semi ot explanation
I love starting these discussions. I was aware of that Tom, but wanted to see how far you guys really wanted to go on the conversation. Exactly why I posted such a small rebuttle.
Difference also goes to OS, and how they handle memory addressing. XP is somewhere between 3-3.5GB, but no one really can narrow down the hard line there. Vista is closer to 4GB, given the parameters you explained, and the fact that Vista considers the video ram on a Video card to be part of addressible ram, and can combine them for that 4GB limit.
In theory though 32bit is upper limit 4GB.
But whether there is 3GB or 4GB the adapter cards memory, and kernel will still eat up a portion or hide a portion for itself. At the cost level, I don't think the extra $40-$60 is that big a deal to augment even less than half of that 1GB (above 3GB) really being used by the system.
Benefits of this:
* As the achitecture gets better (hardware and software), the usuable 4GB memory becomes more available.
* With 4 sticks, you have a better redundancy should one die that does not hinder your system as much.
* Just sounds kewler - LOL.
Take my machine at home. 2x1GB HD 2900 in crossfire. 4GB of RAM. XP OS. Really I can only address 3.5GB to apps, windows, etc if I'm lucky, but I have pushed 3.2GB of used system RAM outside my HD 2900s. So for the cost and the redundancy, I paid the extra.
But for Thorin, not sure he would need to go 4GB. Again based on his needs or wants, everything is subjective until he narrows those down.
Quote from: Melbosa on January 30, 2008, 11:30:07 AM
* As the achitecture gets better (hardware and software), the usuable 4GB memory becomes more available.
Mostly software. IA based chips have been able to address more than 4GB for ages. Up to 64GB infact. Some versions of the NT kernel can actually use that feature, but have disabled it in XP (and vista I hear) giving the old "compatibility" excuse. Heck they broke most drivers in Vista, they may as well have fully enabled PAE, and then they could have gloated about having great default ram support. The funny thing is PAE needs to be enabled just to turn on that special execute page bit in the page tables, so even XP turns it on for some processors, it just ignores the larger capabilities of the much larger PAE tables. Fun times.
Quote from: Melbosa on January 30, 2008, 11:30:07 AM
In theory though 32bit is upper limit 4GB.
But it
isn't for Windows XP.
LOL nice pic out of all I posted. Hehe, you just repeated what I said in my post.
Quote from: Melbosa on January 30, 2008, 08:34:23 AM
Quote from: Lazybones on January 30, 2008, 12:10:01 AM
As for 3GB vs 4GB you can't utilize more than 3GB without installing a 64Bit OS. Xp 32bit will just waste the extra 1 GB.
Not true my friend, not true. 32bit limit is 4GB not 3GB.
All right, it can't use it out of the box, by default XP will only allocate 3.x GB to application OS use and the remaining .X GB will be wasted on kernel /driver space. You can get around this in XP SP2 by using a flag in your boot INI of /3GB or /PAE (same goes for server 2003 which we do this on). However how well these options work on desktop systems is really questionable. I still stand by the statement that anything over 3GB on a desktop 32bit system is a waste.
As for my build, just like Melbosa it was just a test to see if you where getting a deal. I sacrificed quality parts for price in an attempt to meet or beat the future shop price. Since there was NO benefit to any of the hardware I selected for the same price we can determin that that the FS system is well priced.
Quote from: Lazybones on January 30, 2008, 12:47:16 PM
Since there was NO benefit to any of the hardware I selected for the same price we can determin that that the FS system is well priced.
Or priced with Cheaper built stuff to get a higher system specs. eMachines were terrible for that. Caution I say.
Quote from: Melbosa on January 30, 2008, 11:55:36 AM
LOL nice pic out of all I posted. Hehe, you just repeated what I said in my post.
Well then why did you say:
QuoteNot true my friend, not true. 32bit limit is 4GB not 3GB.
When the context of Lazy's statement was clearly XP 32 bit edition.
QuoteAs for 3GB vs 4GB you can't utilize more than 3GB without installing a 64Bit OS. Xp 32bit will just waste the extra 1 GB.
As a friend I have to say that it is ok to admit you were wrong or that you didn't see that part. You won't lose face with us.
Quote from: Melbosa on January 30, 2008, 01:30:04 PM
Quote from: Lazybones on January 30, 2008, 12:47:16 PM
Since there was NO benefit to any of the hardware I selected for the same price we can determin that that the FS system is well priced.
Or priced with Cheaper built stuff to get a higher system specs. eMachines were terrible for that. Caution I say.
Well, reputation aside, the thing you get with a package that you don't get with building your own is a support contract. Dell or HP or any number of vendors will gladly support your hardware if you are willing to pay a bit more. For someone like Thorin who may not want to self-diagnose problems or determine hardware compatibility issues going through a vendor that offers support will save him time.
Heck, we have one guy over here who bought a MemEx "package" computer with support and he's had 0 problems with it. For him that's way more valuable than saving a few hundred bucks.
MemEx does offer nice support on either prebuild bundles or your own system build. I've had a couple client's custom built systems into them, and as long as you pay the $40 for them to put it together, they are more than happy to give you that warranty same as a Vendor.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on January 30, 2008, 01:59:47 PM
Quote from: Melbosa on January 30, 2008, 11:55:36 AM
LOL nice pic out of all I posted. Hehe, you just repeated what I said in my post.
Well then why did you say:
QuoteNot true my friend, not true. 32bit limit is 4GB not 3GB.
When the context of Lazy's statement was clearly XP 32 bit edition.
QuoteAs for 3GB vs 4GB you can't utilize more than 3GB without installing a 64Bit OS. Xp 32bit will just waste the extra 1 GB.
As a friend I have to say that it is ok to admit you were wrong or that you didn't see that part. You won't lose face with us.
Cause as with my post I don't believe anything over 3GB is a waste. I see valid reasons for it. And I was rebutting the first part of Lazy's sentence with my own.
QuoteAs for 3GB vs 4GB you can't utilize more than 3GB without installing a 64Bit OS.
QuoteNot true my friend, not true. 32bit limit is 4GB not 3GB.
Matter of opinions at this point, and no worries. I'm not completely wrong, I don't believe, but nor do I agree with Lazy's assessment either. My opinion, and 32bit's limit is 4GB, whether (as has been described through this thread) it can be completely utilized by an OS or not.
Quote from: Lazybones on January 30, 2008, 12:47:16 PM
All right, it can't use it out of the box, by default XP will only allocate 3.x GB to application OS use and the remaining .X GB will be wasted on kernel /driver space.
Uhh...., I think wasted is the wrong word there. The kernel/drivers need RAM for your system to run, that RAM isn't wasted. The only way a single app will ever get the entire physical memory of a box is if its an old DOS protected-mode app, that doesn't change if you have 4GB of ram or 512MB.
As for the max mem on a 32-bit system, its 4GB. Simple math - 2^32 = 4 294 967 296. No - you can't map it all to a single application (in fact, its hard to get even 3GB for a single app without PAE or x64, and I won't go into those here), but that doesn't mean it isn't being used for something - quite potentially something important at the kernel layer that would be taking RAM from your app's regardless of how much you have total.
Quote from: Melbosa on January 30, 2008, 11:30:07 AM
Vista is closer to 4GB, given the parameters you explained, and the fact that Vista considers the video ram on a Video card to be part of addressible ram, and can combine them for that 4GB limit.
The fact that Vista includes all of video RAM in the 4GB address space that each app gets actually makes the problem WORSE on vista. For example, if you have say 2GB of video RAM (1GB cards SLI'd) and 32-bit vista, then the maximum RAM any application could possibly use is only 2GB (actually slightly less, there's other overheads eating address space too). It's actually quite common for Supreme Commander to crash on Vista-32 on systems with >=1GB video RAM due to running out of virtual address space - some other new memory-intensive games are starting to hit that problem too.
Quote from: Cova on January 30, 2008, 02:23:22 PM
Quote from: Melbosa on January 30, 2008, 11:30:07 AM
Vista is closer to 4GB, given the parameters you explained, and the fact that Vista considers the video ram on a Video card to be part of addressible ram, and can combine them for that 4GB limit.
The fact that Vista includes all of video RAM in the 4GB address space that each app gets actually makes the problem WORSE on vista. For example, if you have say 2GB of video RAM (1GB cards SLI'd) and 32-bit vista, then the maximum RAM any application could possibly use is only 2GB (actually slightly less, there's other overheads eating address space too). It's actually quite common for Supreme Commander to crash on Vista-32 on systems with >=1GB video RAM due to running out of virtual address space - some other new memory-intensive games are starting to hit that problem too.
That was what I was trying to say, sorry didn't come across that way.
Thank you for taking the time to compare the FS system to a custom-built, Lazy.
Quote from: Melbosa on January 30, 2008, 11:30:07 AM
In theory though 32bit is upper limit 4GB.
But whether there is 3GB or 4GB the adapter cards memory, and kernel will still eat up a portion or hide a portion for itself
Quote from: Melbosa on January 30, 2008, 11:30:07 AM
Take my machine at home. 2x1GB HD 2900 in crossfire. 4GB of RAM. XP OS. Really I can only address 3.5GB to apps, windows, etc if I'm lucky, but I have pushed 3.2GB of used system RAM outside my HD 2900s. So for the cost and the redundancy, I paid the extra.
So if XP can only address 4GB including the video card's RAM and the motherboard's RAM (and PCI devices and other devices on your system), and you have 2GB on your video cards and 4GB in your machine, doesn't that mean that your computer has 2GB of *completely* unaddressable and unusable RAM sitting in it?
Quote from: Cova on January 30, 2008, 02:23:22 PM
The fact that Vista includes all of video RAM in the 4GB address space that each app gets actually makes the problem WORSE on vista. For example, if you have say 2GB of video RAM (1GB cards SLI'd) and 32-bit vista, then the maximum RAM any application could possibly use is only 2GB (actually slightly less, there's other overheads eating address space too). It's actually quite common for Supreme Commander to crash on Vista-32 on systems with >=1GB video RAM due to running out of virtual address space - some other new memory-intensive games are starting to hit that problem too.
Neither Vista nor XP give "4GB [of] address space [to] each app". XP (if you're not using the 3GB or PAE switches) has 2GB of user-addressable address space that is
split between applications. It can split it 100% to one application and 0% to the rest, if it wants, which means an application *could* have exactly 2GB available. Theoretically. Real life tests show that scenario never happens. If there is more than 2GB of physical RAM, XP will use the overage for non-user-addressable requirements (such as loading system resources), but there will still only be 2GB user-addressable space available to any single application. However, because of the method of addressing (32-bit bus), the maximum amount of physical RAM that XP can use will be the lesser of your installed RAM or 4GB minus device addressing needs (Video RAM, PCI devices, etc). Vista was supposed to remove the hard limit of 2GB per application by putting all the addressable memory into the user-addressable space, but in so doing caused application code and video code to fight over shared resources.
In fact, here's a bit of a write-up about how Vista handles video memory
Quote from: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa663366.aspx
WDDM now allows for "virtualized" video memory. Virtualization abstracts video memory so that it is no longer necessary to think about creating a resource in either video or system memory. Just specify what the resource is going to be used for and the system will place the memory in the best place possible. Additionally, virtualization allows for the allocation of more memory than actually exists on the hardware. Memory is then paged into the correct hardware as needed.
The problem, of course, is that they didn't remember to make it automatically increase the amount of virtual memory space it was asking for. Now throw in the fact that WDDM stores a copy of all of the data in memory on the graphics card in the virtual memory space, and you can see that the virtual memory space for the application is being eaten up rapidly with high-RAM video cards. Vista does this for faster screen re-draws when an application has lost all of its graphical data, such as when alt+tabbing away and then back again.
Again, this just means that application code and video code now fights over a single pool of virtual memory space. Now if only they had made the pools bigger than 2GB by default... If I've read correctly, there's a way to set the limit for virtual memory address space per application in Vista, but I don't know where exactly.
All I know is I'd rather run XP because problems like this either don't exist or have been fixed. I'm sure two or three years from now Vista will have tweaks in it that make sure the virtual memory space grows organically as needed.
OK here are the MS links to these issues were it is spelled out
Without the /3GB flag windows applications are limited to 2GB of RAM no matter how much you have installed, the /3GB flag opens up an extra 1GB to applications for at total of 3 GB, IF they where COMPILED to look for it.
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx
That remaining 1GB not included for apps can only be used for a limited number of things by the system running in kernel mode. Part of this space will be used up to track the extra application memory made available.
http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778.aspx
If for some reason you need to run a MASSIVE amount of system process the kernel memory space does make a difference, however this limit is normaly only seen in large systems such as terminal server deployments
http://www.msterminalservices.org/articles/Windows-Terminal-Services-64-Bit-Environment-Part1.html
Quote from: Thorin on January 30, 2008, 02:58:10 PM
Neither Vista nor XP give "4GB [of] address space [to] each app".
The very first sentence of the first link Lazybones posted above...
QuoteOperating systems based on Microsoft Windows NT technologies have always provided applications with a flat 32-bit virtual address space that describes 4 gigabytes (GB) of virtual memory.
Once again..., 32-bit system = 32-bit pointers. 32-bit pointer can point at 2^32 or 4 294 967 296 bytes of RAM, which everyone just rounds to 4GB. Big difference between address space and RAM though - you can (and almost always do) have a lot more address space than RAM - and those addresses can point at things other than RAM (eg. under Vista the video-cards onboard RAM is mapped into that address space). Virtually every OS that supports virtual memory (eg. everything newer than DOS pretty much) works this way. And if you program in good old C you can make a void-pointer point at any address you want and read that memory (you can write to it too - but that'll prolly result in bad things) - you might end up reading system RAM, video RAM, or something else, depending on how your address space is mapped.
Quote from: Thorin on January 30, 2008, 02:58:10 PM
Thank you for taking the time to compare the FS system to a custom-built, Lazy.
Awe not even an honorable mention for my quicky :D... yeah Lazy's was closer to price with components than mine. Mine was more the system specs, but with decent parts.
Quote from: Thorin on January 30, 2008, 02:58:10 PM
Quote from: Melbosa on January 30, 2008, 11:30:07 AM
In theory though 32bit is upper limit 4GB.
But whether there is 3GB or 4GB the adapter cards memory, and kernel will still eat up a portion or hide a portion for itself
Quote from: Melbosa on January 30, 2008, 11:30:07 AM
Take my machine at home. 2x1GB HD 2900 in crossfire. 4GB of RAM. XP OS. Really I can only address 3.5GB to apps, windows, etc if I'm lucky, but I have pushed 3.2GB of used system RAM outside my HD 2900s. So for the cost and the redundancy, I paid the extra.
So if XP can only address 4GB including the video card's RAM and the motherboard's RAM (and PCI devices and other devices on your system), and you have 2GB on your video cards and 4GB in your machine, doesn't that mean that your computer has 2GB of *completely* unaddressable and unusable RAM sitting in it?
Doesn't quite work that way under XP or Vista. Cova explains this pretty well in his posts; and the different between XP and Vista is how it treats Video RAM on a video card. This also doesn't mean that the Windows Executive can't utilize the space for its own tasks, and not having to impede the application ram should it require it... very interesting stuff.
Quote from: Melbosa on January 30, 2008, 04:02:36 PM
So what you guys are saying is that no one application can utilize a total of more than 2GB or 3GB (with the porper switch).
With the added note that even with the 3GB switch an application needs to be COMPILED to see more than 2GB.
Quote from: Melbosa on January 30, 2008, 04:02:36 PM
But last time I checked you can run more than one application at a time on Windows... so by that means, you could still utilize 4GB of RAM, no? This is how I understood it.
No matter how many applications you run, the sum of your applications could only use 3GB MAX. The other 1GB will be reserved for kernel memory use only, and the kernel is unlikely to use more than half of that 1GB, unless you are spawning hundreds of processes such as when you are running a terminal server and have hundreds of desktops and applications active at once.
64Bit applications running under 64bit windows get past these limitations.
LOL you caught my post before I removed it. I got confused with the difference between virtual and physical. My bad. Hence why I removed it. I am sorry.
I still think it is valuable to have that 1GB for Windows Executive and 3GB of physical mapped to the virtual application pool, versus only 3GB with 2GB mapped? No?
I have cleared up some of my mis-understandings of the whole, but I still remain that 32bit Windows is still better off with 4GB than 3GB of RAM in the system.
And here's an interesting article discussing Supreme Commander crashing when it hits the 2GB barrier (also sums up the different terms - virtual memory, virtual address space, physical memory, etc):
http://www.anandtech.com/gadgets/showdoc.aspx?i=3034
With a follow-up article:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3044
that has an excellent comment:
Quote
Quote
You can paper over this by adding a few more gigs of ram
Actually, the whole point is that adding more RAM doesn't help. Due to the nature of 32-bit OS's, virtual memory is capped to 4GB and most OS's limit it to 2GB for user applications. This limit doesn't change whether you have 256MB of physical memory or 4GB.
Now are XP and Vista smart enough to use 4GB of physical RAM to store various virtual address spaces for various applications, or are they not able to properly fill and access the full 4GB of physical RAM (regardless of whether the virtual address space for each application is 2GB or 3GB)?
Quote from: Thorin on January 30, 2008, 04:22:12 PM
Now are XP and Vista smart enough to use 4GB of physical RAM to store various virtual address spaces for various applications, or are they not able to properly fill and access the full 4GB of physical RAM (regardless of whether the virtual address space for each application is 2GB or 3GB)?
On a system with 4GB of physical RAM, and not using the /3GB boot switch, there will be 2GB of physical RAM that is kept reserved for the kernel (if using /3GB, only 1GB is reserved for kernel). On a desktop machine / gaming box, that is way more than enough, and a significant part of it is likely not able to be used. I really don't know if the kernel can use its extra reserved memory as part of the filesystem cache - if it can it's not a complete waste as it'll reduce the IO load on your disks, though it probably could be used better elsewhere.
But on a server box its actually quite easy to run into problems with the kernel running out of reserved memory area. Especially when using the /3GB switch. Exchange 2000/2003 is actually REALLY bad for causing the kernel to use up its reserved space, which is why for 2007 they only support production on 64-bit OSs.
And I really don't know if Vista improved much on making use of un-used but reserved kernel memory. It's gotten worse in so many ways that I wouldn't consider running it anyways, and could care less if it did manage to make better use of a couple hundred MB of RAM.
Quote from: Cova on January 30, 2008, 03:54:05 PM
Quote from: Thorin on January 30, 2008, 02:58:10 PM
Neither Vista nor XP give "4GB [of] address space [to] each app".
The very first sentence of the first link Lazybones posted above...
Yes, I missed a word in that sentence to spell out
unconditionally what I meant. That word is "accessible". As Lazy's link points out, the application is given 4GB of virtual memory, but 2GB of that virtual memory are not accessible by the application as they're reserved for "Windows executive software". Which, really, means the application can only
use 2GB.
Quote from: Cova on January 30, 2008, 04:40:52 PM
Quote from: Thorin on January 30, 2008, 04:22:12 PM
Now are XP and Vista smart enough to use 4GB of physical RAM to store various virtual address spaces for various applications, or are they not able to properly fill and access the full 4GB of physical RAM (regardless of whether the virtual address space for each application is 2GB or 3GB)?
On a system with 4GB of physical RAM, and not using the /3GB boot switch, there will be 2GB of physical RAM that is kept reserved for the kernel (if using /3GB, only 1GB is reserved for kernel)
As Lazy's link points out, each application is given 4GB of
virtual memory (aka virtual address space). There is not 2GB of physical RAM reserved for the application, nor for the kernel. I'm being semantic here because we're blending together virtual address space and physical address space. They are *not* the same and in fact only relate to each other through a complex virtual address-to-physical address mapping system, where the physical addresses can be either RAM or HDD locations (and in fact, the HDD locations are virtual addresses again, mapped through the HDD controller software).
Quote from: Thorin on January 30, 2008, 05:10:55 PM
Quote from: Cova on January 30, 2008, 03:54:05 PM
Quote from: Thorin on January 30, 2008, 02:58:10 PM
Neither Vista nor XP give "4GB [of] address space [to] each app".
The very first sentence of the first link Lazybones posted above...
Yes, I missed a word in that sentence to spell out unconditionally what I meant. That word is "accessible". As Lazy's link points out, the application is given 4GB of virtual memory, but 2GB of that virtual memory are not accessible by the application as they're reserved for "Windows executive software". Which, really, means the application can only use 2GB.
No... The application is given 4GB of virtual address space (not virtual memory) - up to 2GB of that address space may point at physical RAM - the rest will point at either virtual RAM (eg. pagefile) or other application-addressable memory area's (eg. video RAM). None of an applications 4GB of address-space is reserved for the kernel - 2GB of the physical address space is. Which once again brings us back to the fact that a single application can only get 2GB max physical memory (3GB with /3gb switch if app was compiled for it), I think pretty much everyone agree's with that point.
Quote from: Thorin on January 30, 2008, 05:10:55 PM
Quote from: Cova on January 30, 2008, 04:40:52 PM
Quote from: Thorin on January 30, 2008, 04:22:12 PM
Now are XP and Vista smart enough to use 4GB of physical RAM to store various virtual address spaces for various applications, or are they not able to properly fill and access the full 4GB of physical RAM (regardless of whether the virtual address space for each application is 2GB or 3GB)?
On a system with 4GB of physical RAM, and not using the /3GB boot switch, there will be 2GB of physical RAM that is kept reserved for the kernel (if using /3GB, only 1GB is reserved for kernel)
As Lazy's link points out, each application is given 4GB of virtual memory (aka virtual address space). There is not 2GB of physical RAM reserved for the application, nor for the kernel. I'm being semantic here because we're blending together virtual address space and physical address space. They are *not* the same and in fact only relate to each other through a complex virtual address-to-physical address mapping system, where the physical addresses can be either RAM or HDD locations (and in fact, the HDD locations are virtual addresses again, mapped through the HDD controller software).
I'm very well aware of how page tables work - coincidentally I've been reading up on them recently while researching hardware-accelerated nested page-tables for virtualization software. And if you read the quote you were replying to a little more carefully, you'll notice I began it with "On a system with 4GB of physical RAM" - I'm reasonably sure that on such a system 2GB of physical RAM really is reserved for the kernel, mostly because 2GB of the physical address space is reserved, and with a full 4GB of RAM the physical address space and physical RAM should be identical.
Quote from: Thorin on January 29, 2008, 11:13:26 PM
Would you buy this? Why should I not buy this?
http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon=&langid=EN&sku_id=BDL10002503&catid=
Thank you to those who responded to this question.
Melbosa, you indicated that I shouldn't buy it because the parts may be (or probably are) cheaper than what you'd normally buy and how the same specs could be had with better (more expensive) parts.
Lazy, you indicated that the price appears to be good when comparing against a build-your-own system
Darren, that quote about stuff owning you? To me that came across as a kick-him-when-he's-down comment. I doubt you meant it that way, but I feel the need to explain to you why I replied rather aggressively.
And then the thread went off-topic in a giant let-me-prove-my-intellectual-superiority cockfight that did absolutely @%&#ing *nothing* to improve the quality, usefulness, or joviality of this thread. Of course, none of us including myself got it totally right. So instead of nitpicking the nitpicked nitpicking, I've started a new thread regarding Windows memory management (http://forums.righteouswrath.com/index.php/topic,6086.0.html).
Let's leave *this* thread to discussing possible alternatives to the Futureshop quad-core Acer computer package linked in the third post.
All I have to say is cheap is bad. You will be sorry, unless you only intend to spend a few minutes a day on the machine, and only keep it for a year. I've learned this by trial and error. Mostly error. Cheap hardware, even if made by reputable OEM/ODMs, is going to be bad.
"ODM"? Original Design Manufacturer, as opposed to Orange Democratic Movement? Sorry, haven't seen that term before.
As far as cheap being bad, I assume you're implying that cheap price = cheap parts used, and that you're implying the inverse, expensive price = expensive parts used. I would like to point out that there are plenty of manufacturers out there that use cheap parts but charge expensive prices based on their reputation (SONY YOU BARSTARD!!) and manufacturers that use expensive parts but charge cheap prices to win market share (GM used to sell Toyota Corollas rebadged as Chevrolet Prizms for less than the Corollas cost).
Thus, the question becomes whether there are cheap parts in this computer, or whether Futureshop is trying to maintain market share in a highly-competitive market.
Also, I'd like to point out that the computer that failed is one with enthusiast-decided hand-picked researched parts, while my package deal Dell from eight years ago is letting me type out this message.
Quote from: Thorin on January 31, 2008, 02:07:44 AM
"ODM"? Original Design Manufacturer, as opposed to Orange Democratic Movement? Sorry, haven't seen that term before.
Yeah, these days lots of hardware is made/designed by one ODM, and OEMs and retail fronts just rebrand the ODM hardware.
Quote from: Thorin on January 31, 2008, 02:07:44 AM
As far as cheap being bad, I assume you're implying that cheap price = cheap parts used, and that you're implying the inverse, expensive price = expensive parts used. I would like to point out that there are plenty of manufacturers out there that use cheap parts but charge expensive prices based on their reputation (SONY YOU BARSTARD!!) and manufacturers that use expensive parts but charge cheap prices to win market share (GM used to sell Toyota Corollas rebadged as Chevrolet Prizms for less than the Corollas cost).
You are right, while cheap == bad, expensive does not necessarily guarantee quality. You have to be carefull, but _usually_ if you spend an extra couple hundred dollars on PC hardware, specifically on the PSU and Motherboard, theres a very good chance that you'll end out on top.
Quote from: Thorin on January 31, 2008, 02:07:44 AM
Thus, the question becomes whether there are cheap parts in this computer, or whether Futureshop is trying to maintain market share in a highly-competitive market.
Cheap + BigBox store == bad. Unless it purely just a big sale, which I doubt. I don't even like the mid range stuff at Futureshop. It ends up being the same stuff places like Memory express sells as low end hardware.
Quote from: Thorin on January 31, 2008, 02:07:44 AM
Also, I'd like to point out that the computer that failed is one with enthusiast-decided hand-picked researched parts, while my package deal Dell from eight years ago is letting me type out this message.
It all depends on useage, and if one of them happened to get those bad caps that hit the entire consumer electronics market several years ago. Of course there are other parameters (did the maker skimp a couple cents on capacitors or other part?)
Glad to see someone decided to break this RAM topic off. Was going to do so when I got into work this am, but you beat me too it (damn traffic).
Quote from: ThorinMelbosa, you indicated that I shouldn't buy it because the parts may be (or probably are) cheaper than what you'd normally buy and how the same specs could be had with better (more expensive) parts.
Well, I also stated that I had experience with Acer products, and that based on those experiences I didn't feel Acer was much better than an eMachine.
Quote from: Thorin on January 31, 2008, 02:07:44 AM
As far as cheap being bad, I assume you're implying that cheap price = cheap parts used, and that you're implying the inverse, expensive price = expensive parts used. I would like to point out that there are plenty of manufacturers out there that use cheap parts but charge expensive prices based on their reputation (SONY YOU BARSTARD!!) and manufacturers that use expensive parts but charge cheap prices to win market share (GM used to sell Toyota Corollas rebadged as Chevrolet Prizms for less than the Corollas cost).
Thus, the question becomes whether there are cheap parts in this computer, or whether Futureshop is trying to maintain market share in a highly-competitive market.
So based on those experiences, and the comparison to parts I know and trust, I assumed the Acer machine must have some sub par equipment (cheaper) inside. Either that or they are clearing bulk stock. I tried to find out what parts were in the machine, but neither your link, nor a google search for Acer AM5620-E5301A returned anything really helpful. nVidia 8600GT is stated, but that is a given that it is nVidia - is it on board? If not who makes it (eVGA, BFI, etc)? What RAM is in the machine (Aper, Kingston, Cruicial)? HD Manufaturer? You get my point.
Quote from: Thorin on January 31, 2008, 02:07:44 AM
Also, I'd like to point out that the computer that failed is one with enthusiast-decided hand-picked researched parts, while my package deal Dell from eight years ago is letting me type out this message.
This is very subjective. How many times did you bang, move or accidently kick either computer? Spillage? Environmental variables (which is closer to a heat vent)? Technology differences (8 year old computer was not as tempermental towards heat changes - hell you could run a P1 machine without a heat sync for what seems like a year compared to CPUs from 2-3 years ago, and that is just one example of technology differences)? Manufacturering differences (as Tom pointed out)? So yeah, nice to compare, but not very fair IMO.
Options?
To me there is only two options most of the time, build it my self or get a Dell.
Quoteenthusiast-decided hand-picked researched parts
What was the enthusiasts goal when building the system? I have built many systems, both for my self and for clients. Sometimes the goal was speed sometimes it was price and sometimes it was just getting all the right features and leaving room for growth. The most risk comes when the goal is speed as it normally brings new untested parts into the system.
My current system has been running hardware fault free (after the initial build, had some DOA parts) for close two years, and in that time I have changed the HD, RAM, CPU and Video card with faster components as they became affordable.
I pretty much agree with Lazy, spend the required time to research components and build yourself, or go get a decently spec-ed Dell.
So looked somemore to find this computer... man is futureshop's specs listing as vague as is their product description: http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?sku_id=0665000FS10097964&catid=10607&logon=&langid=EN# (http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?sku_id=0665000FS10097964&catid=10607&logon=&langid=EN#). Not a single manufacturer listed on the components, save the Monitor. Nor can I find what Acer model this is, other than it is an Aspire line, which I found out from the blow up picture (AM5620-E5301A looks like an Acer model number, but can't find it on their site).
Which means it must be one of these 4 if it is a new system: http://www.acer.ca/public/page3.do?sp=page3&inu23.current=476&dau7.oid=476&UserCtxParam=0&GroupCtxParam=0&dctx1=27&CountryISOCtxParam=CA&LanguageISOCtxParam=en&ctx3=-1&ctx4=Canada&crc=1434118929 (http://www.acer.ca/public/page3.do?sp=page3&inu23.current=476&dau7.oid=476&UserCtxParam=0&GroupCtxParam=0&dctx1=27&CountryISOCtxParam=CA&LanguageISOCtxParam=en&ctx3=-1&ctx4=Canada&crc=1434118929). This is the closest one I can find to the model (based on the model numbers being similar): http://www.acer.ca/public/page4.do?link=oln56.redirect&dau22.oid=35201&UserCtxParam=0&GroupCtxParam=0&dctx1=27&CountryISOCtxParam=CA&LanguageISOCtxParam=en&ctx3=-1&ctx4=Canada&crc=3296561745 (http://www.acer.ca/public/page4.do?link=oln56.redirect&dau22.oid=35201&UserCtxParam=0&GroupCtxParam=0&dctx1=27&CountryISOCtxParam=CA&LanguageISOCtxParam=en&ctx3=-1&ctx4=Canada&crc=3296561745) but the video card is wrong, and it still doesn't say what manufacturers are of the components (Acer doesn't make HDs, and I think they may still be in the RAM market, but not 100% sure anymore).
So on a hunch I checked http://www.acer.com (http://www.acer.com). I originally tried this site instead of the .ca, but got a 403.9 Access Forbidden page. Works now, and think I found the system: http://global.acer.com/products/desktop/asm5620.htm (http://global.acer.com/products/desktop/asm5620.htm) - although I am guessing based on that part # on FS's site. But when I try to get the computer specs from acer.com, it doesn't work: http://www.acer.com/APP/AKC/INTERNET/AACPubli.nsf/HeadingPagesDisplay/Products?OpenDocument&ML1& (http://www.acer.com/APP/AKC/INTERNET/AACPubli.nsf/HeadingPagesDisplay/Products?OpenDocument&ML1&) - get a 403 page not found error.
Let me just say that Acer's pages are some of the hardest to navigate I've ever found! Pop-ups galor from links... who does that anymore?
Sorry I couldn't find more on it.
Thanks for looking, though.
Futureshop, Best Buy, Visions The Brick, they're all notorious for taking a manufacturer's model number and adding to it or changing it slightly. This is so that you can't do a price-comparison against the same model at a competitor's store - they simply claim it's a different model number so it's not the same. I learned this way back when I bought my stereo (from The Brick), and it was reinforced when I bought my big-screen (from Futureshop). Both times I asked them to price-match and they pointed out the model number was different. Of course, they still price-matched because otherwise they would have lost a thousand-dollar-plus sale...
Anyway, Acer's base stats for this machine can be found here:
http://www.acer.ca/public/page3.do?sp=page3&inu23.current=476&dau7.oid=476&UserCtxParam=0&GroupCtxParam=0&dctx1=27&CountryISOCtxParam=CA&LanguageISOCtxParam=en&ctx3=-1&ctx4=Canada&crc=1434118929
Doesn't list the hard drive or video card or RAM, which is what you're after to check, right?
I am now looking at Dells, although I'm also wondering how the hell I'm going to pay for this :(
I wonder if the shrinking of Dell support centers (http://forums.righteouswrath.com/index.php/topic,6088.msg38809.html#msg38809) in Canada will have any effect on the support I might get if I purchase a Dell?
Quote from: Thorin on January 31, 2008, 03:23:06 PM
I wonder if the shrinking of Dell support centers (http://forums.righteouswrath.com/index.php/topic,6088.msg38809.html#msg38809) in Canada will have any effect on the support I might get if I purchase a Dell?
Regular support would probably have put you on to a Texan or Indian support rep.
Quote from: Mr. Analog on January 30, 2008, 10:10:46 AM
I'm gonna part out my old machine to Thorin I think...
Any chance I can pick up these parts this weekend and try 'em out in my machine? You mentioned that it's sorta loud but I want to see what it's like in this here big case. If it's quiet like the other machine was (which was not *really* quiet but at least muffled) I think you'll have a deal. Also, I'll be able to get at my financials on the hard drive (I don't think this ol' Dell can't properly access a 200GB drive, so I can't just hook it up <sigh>).
Quote from: Thorin on February 01, 2008, 01:47:00 AM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on January 30, 2008, 10:10:46 AM
I'm gonna part out my old machine to Thorin I think...
Any chance I can pick up these parts this weekend and try 'em out in my machine? You mentioned that it's sorta loud but I want to see what it's like in this here big case. If it's quiet like the other machine was (which was not *really* quiet but at least muffled) I think you'll have a deal. Also, I'll be able to get at my financials on the hard drive (I don't think this ol' Dell can't properly access a 200GB drive, so I can't just hook it up <sigh>).
I'm a tad busy this weekend, how about Monday?
I went out and bought a USB drive enclosure so that I could hook up the hard drive from the dead machine to a living machine, and now I can access my financials. Yay!
I've decided to bite the bullet and buy two new computers, although not necessarily ones to brag about.
I definitely wanted to stick to WinXP after reading the various reviews where they actually record RAM usage and such - if I'm buying a lower-end machine, I don't want to bog it down with more OS work than needed.
So here's what I'm buying:
Dell Inspiron 530
Intel Core 2 Duo E6550 processor (4MB L2 cache, 2.33GHz, 1,333MHz FSB)
- I was considering the E2180 (1MB L2, 2.00GHz, 800MHz FSB), but the E6550 was only $90 more so it made sense
2GB DDR2 667MHz RAM
- More than enough for XP Home and my purposes
250GB SATA drive
On-board Intel GMA 3100 video
- If we start playing games that really need graphical power, I can always buy a video card and pop it in
On-board audio
On-board LAN
19" Widescreen Flat Panel
Windows XP Home
- I was considering XP Pro, but after going over this list of differences (http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_home_pro.asp) several times, I realized I don't use any of what Pro has to offer
Sundry items (keyboard and mouse free, speakers for $10, and removed the modem to save $10)
Base price was $599, upgrading to the E6550 drove that up to $689, and buying speakers but removing the modem left it at $689. After GST and Environment Disposal Fee, the total is $746.55 for one. I'm buying two, so there goes $1,493.10. If Dell's website ever starts working again <sigh> "Down for maintenance"
I tried to build an equal system at Memory Express, but the closest I could get had a 160GB SATA drive and the cheapest motherboard I could find, and it still came out to $1,662.09 for two computers after GST and "ADS" for the monitors. That's $168.99 more than the Dell systems, and the Dell systems will probably be quieter.
This will be a huge step up for my family - I have an AMD XP 3000+, 1GB RAM, 200GB HDD, 128MB ATI Radeon 9800 sitting here dead, and a Pentium 4 1.3GHz, 384MB RAM, 40GB HDD, 64MB ATI Radeon 7500 that I'm using as the main computer these days. Once I've set up the new Dells, I'll be passing my trusty old P4 1.3GHz to my mother, who is using a Pentium II 350MHz, 320MB RAM, 20GB HDD, 32MB nVidia... Yes, she's running WinXP on it! Not very quickly, though, and with a 15" screen.
Anyway, just wanted to say thanks for all the advice that was given.
They're ordered! Yay!
Gratz and hopefully they work out for you!
Yay, good for you man.
LOL, I guess you won't need those parts anymore haha
Quote from: Mr. Analog on February 04, 2008, 08:54:30 AM
LOL, I guess you won't need those parts anymore haha
My server is having issues ;) I can't afford to pay for misc parts this month, but I wouldn't mind playing with them next month ;) (already spent 120$ on a new psu, and $40 for a new mini-pci nic for my laptop)
Quote from: Tom on February 04, 2008, 09:16:08 AM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on February 04, 2008, 08:54:30 AM
LOL, I guess you won't need those parts anymore haha
My server is having issues ;) I can't afford to pay for misc parts this month, but I wouldn't mind playing with them next month ;) (already spent 120$ on a new psu, and $40 for a new mini-pci nic for my laptop)
Well, I wasn't giving them away. Even if I was they may be spoken for already... sorry :-/
Quote from: Mr. Analog on February 04, 2008, 12:43:25 PM
Quote from: Tom on February 04, 2008, 09:16:08 AM
Quote from: Mr. Analog on February 04, 2008, 08:54:30 AM
LOL, I guess you won't need those parts anymore haha
My server is having issues ;) I can't afford to pay for misc parts this month, but I wouldn't mind playing with them next month ;) (already spent 120$ on a new psu, and $40 for a new mini-pci nic for my laptop)
Well, I wasn't giving them away. Even if I was they may be spoken for already... sorry :-/
I know :P Thats why I said I couldn't take them now, but would take them later :P (since I can't pay for parts now :P)
For no apparent reason I decided to click the More Stats link and was surprised to find this thread in the top 10 topics by views, which then led me to read through it.
I can't believe I bought those computers over four years ago, and they're still going strong. Changes I've had to make to them:
- bigger hard drive in one to store more data
- new power supply in the one I put the bigger hard drive in
- bought fanless video cards to offload Farmville processing from CPU so CPU fan wouldn't come on
They've definitely worked well for my family. In fact, they're _still_ working well for my family.
Yikes!
Quote from: Thorin on January 29, 2008, 10:41:03 PM
Yeah, so I went to watch episode 5 of The IT Crowd with my wife when the computer froze.
Yeah, 2008 is like 4 years ago, but somehow the contents of the OP make it seem like more recent ... hard to believe IT Crowd has been around that long!
I was introduced to IT Crowd three jobs ago! It's my new measure of time. Or to put it another way, that was in the pre-teens-in-Thorin's-house era.