Advice computer of more ram

[agibsonsw]

Hello.

I've just installed more RAM (8GB) on my Compaq CQ57 laptop but the Computer's properties still indicate the previous 4GB limit.

When I did this before on another laptop it was recognised straight-away. Is there some setting I need to change for it to recognise the new hardware?

Thanks, Andy.

[John Gray]

Are you sure the laptop supports more than 4 GB? I can't find the laptop on crucial.com from the information you have given, so cannot see what they think the maximum is...

[viking33]

Running Windows 7?

[John Gray]

If he'd been running Windows 7 32-bit Andy would probably only be seeing 3-3½ GB, so I was assuming he has Windows 7 64-bit...!

[agibsonsw]

Are you sure the laptop supports more than 4 GB? I can't find the laptop on crucial.com from the information you have given, so cannot see what they think the maximum is...

That's worrying.. but I bought the memory from Crucial . Re-tracing my steps I recall that I had to select Compaq, then Presario CQ57.

It's fine now thank you; one of the modules wasn't quite in - you know how you're "not quite certain, but reluctant to push.." !! I removed it (rather than pushing) and it slotted in on a second attempt, phew..

I doubt that I'll see any difference between 4 and 8GB, but for £40 it's worth maxing-out.

BTW Windows 7 is considerably faster to startup that Vista (esp. after all my tweaks), but in general use I don't find it significantly faster than Vista?! I was even reading that in some respects Vista can perform better (with graphics) than W7. But the startup is impressive

[agibsonsw]

If he'd been running Windows 7 32-bit Andy would probably only be seeing 3-3½ GB, so I was assuming he has Windows 7 64-bit...!

Yes, Windows 7 64-Bit. I think it quoted 3.6 (or a bit more, can't recall) as usable - it now says 7.6 GB: why would that be? Andy.

[agibsonsw]

I re-ran my Performance Index thing and the Memory (RAM), Operations per second, has dropped from 5.4 to 5.3. Is this an odd result??

[John Gray]

...one of the modules wasn't quite in - you know how you're "not quite certain, but reluctant to push.."

Hence the saying, "too posh to push"...!

7.5 GB would not be uncommon. Here's a Q&A post.

[agibsonsw]

Thank you John.

I won't be concerned about this as I'm not anticipating much performance improvement beyond that of 4GB. I'm assuming I might only notice a difference if I were running several v.large/memory intensive applications at the same time(?).

The Experience Index drop seems a bit odd? But I figure that this index is somewhat artificial anyway.

Andy.

[ChrisGreaves]

one of the modules wasn't quite in

So Campbell's Law wins again, eh?

"Eighty-three percent of the time, it's the cable"

[HansV]

A drop from 5.4 to 5.3 is hardly significant.
On the one hand, it's quite possible that having to manage 8 GB instead of 4 GB has a slightly higher overhead. But on the other hand, if you're running many memory-hungry programs simultaneously (SQL Server comes to mind), with 8 GB you probably won't need to swap memory to disk where it might be necessary with 4 GB, and that makes a huge difference in performance.

[ChrisGreaves]

... having to manage 8 GB instead of 4 GB has a slightly higher overhead.

(sigh!) I never thought I'd live to see the day where having too much RAM was a problem ...

If I've done my sums right this Wikepedia article suggests that in the late 60s, Andy's 8GB of memory, say 64Gb, would have started off costing him $64,000,000,000 (1960s dollars, natch!), dropping to around $640,000,000 by the end of the sixties.

I'm guessing the DEC board as 8-bit bytes, so in 1980 terms, Andy's 8GB of memory would have set him back only $250,000,000, and to sweeten the pot those would be 1980s dollars.

I'm not factoring in improvements of speed here, but it seems to me that if either Andy or Hans complains about performance reduction, they should be strapped to a punched card and have the chads punched out of them.

I can't find a reliable figure for speed-of-assembly, but assuming that the Swedish seamstresses used a jig of some sort (or some other suitable folk-dance) and could thread 1,000 bits per minute, it would take a single seamstress 64,000,000 minutes to get the job done, or 1,066,667 hours. At 7 hours/day and 200 working days per year, Andy would be looking at waiting about 762 years for his 8GB of RAM (OK, OK, I know he only bought an additional 4GB ...).

Instead he probably just hopped in his car and drove to the nearest office supply store; probably wasn't gone long enough to warrant a coffee at the drive-through.

Spoiled brat!

(signed) "grumpy old-timer" of Toronto.

[HansV]

I'm not complaining at all, I'm only trying to explain why doubling RAM from 4 GB to 8 GB could mean a slight drop in the Windows Performance Index. I also tried to explain why having 8 GB is still beneficial...

[agibsonsw]

It's all relative .

8GB RAM, Dual Core, 500-gig hard drive all sounds fantastic and, yes, I'm very pleased with my purchase(s). But when one comes across older (Windows XP, Office 2003, even Vista..) computers running faster (apart from startup) it puts things in perspective.

But if I get several things running at the same time then I believe I can notice improved stability. (Wonder if it's possible to physically remove the sound card )

BTW I've now got a spare 4GB memory module. If someone wants to know it's specs I can check these and drop it in the post (via a PM).

Andy.

BBTW I dimly recall that the first (personal) processors reserved system memory @ 16Kb? Or was it 8Kb? Yeah, 8Kb ROM seems to ring a bell..?

[agibsonsw]

I'm not complaining at all, I'm only trying to explain why doubling RAM from 4 GB to 8 GB could mean a slight drop in the Windows Performance Index. I also tried to explain why having 8 GB is still beneficial...

Noticed a considerable improvement when opening Visual Studio 2010 Professional - great! Just a shame I can't afford to keep this beyond the trial period but the Express version is great anyway.

My Web IDE's (Aptana, JetBrains) still take an age. I use SQL Server and Management Studio as well, but probably not often enough to notice any difference.

Presumably copying large files should/may be faster..

Cheers, Andy.

[ChrisGreaves]

I'm not complaining at all.

I know, I know, Hans, in fact it was the realization that we had got to this stage, as you expressed it, that rocked me!
I suppose it is the equivalent of reaching the stage of having a vehicle that could take me half-way around the world in less time than it takes me to walk across the street!