|
I got that, but sometimes I tend to be get extra defensive. 
All the best,
Dan
|
|
|
|
|
Despite what other people have said, Dell isn't any better. I've had problems with every business laptop I've had from Dell, and I've had 4 different models. Thankfully, it wasn't MY money spent on them.
Hell, in one Dell laptop I had to replace the keyboard 3 times (about 5 months apart for each), for the same problem. The same block of keys on each stopped working.
|
|
|
|
|
In my experience, Dells Latitude series is working well, and the support really works, but you'll pay for it.
While their cheapo models sucks Elephant balls, and their support is on that level too.
On the other hand, my limited experience of HP is similar. It's the support level that makes the difference.
Also, always check the "keep the harddrive" option. Otherwise, if the harddrive crashes, they will keep it and replace it with a clean drive. And one thing I've learnt is that even people that claim that they take backups, don't.
|
|
|
|
|
hi, my notebook Toshiba Satellite L635 i5 Windows 7 64bit with 6GB RAM shows like this..
6.00 GB RAM (5.87 GB useable)
My friend said that Windows 7 64bit can read up to 8GB RAM..
is this normal?
thanks before..
|
|
|
|
|
It's normal, some of the RAM is used for BIOS functions.
On some computers the graphic card does not have its own RAM, then the 'useable' number would be even lower.
|
|
|
|
|
Absolutely normal... and Win7 64bit can support quite a bit of RAM depending on the version. See here.[^] Usually the big limiter nowadays is how much the motherboard can support (the home versions are artificially limited, once again, thanks M$).
|
|
|
|
|
Albert Holguin wrote: (the home versions are artificially limited, once again, thanks M$).
One can choose between Linux, cheap Windows, or Windows - and you get what you pay for
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know if I agree... some of the most stable code exists in free linux distributions. I wouldn't say that Microsoft servers are better than Linux ones... as a matter of fact, look at the numbers, I'm sure there's a lot more servers running Linux than there is servers running MS Server.
|
|
|
|
|
Albert Holguin wrote: as a matter of fact, look at the numbers, I'm sure there's a lot more servers running Linux than there is servers running MS Server.
Aw, I deserved that one - and I'll also stop arguing right away, before we accidentally create an entire offtopic religious thread 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good idea. After all, everyone knows you have to get past the pearly Gates to enter Heaven. But no one knows what's in the EULA, or what happens if you don't pay your Millennial License Renewal Fee.
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
wow thankyou very much guys, i saw Home Premium 64 bit max memory 16GB, so it means that if i use 16GB RAM, which one will my system show?
-> Installed Memory (RAM) : 16 GB (5.87 GB useable)
or
-> Installed Memory (RAM) : 16 GB (15.87 GB useable)
|
|
|
|
|
vkstarry wrote: -> Installed Memory (RAM) : 16 GB (15.87 GB useable)
This will be the closer one... although there's some degree of uncertainty as to the actual number since whatever allocated the memory in the first place may be allocating based on some algorithm (let's say a percentage of the total physical memory, or maybe a percentage up to a certain amount, or whatever).
Although remember what I said about the motherboard usually being the limiter nowadays, before you run out and get more RAM, make sure your motherboard will support it.
|
|
|
|
|
Im not an expert on it but as i have read and as i have experienced from other of my friends also.Yes! its normal.Maybe you have to visit this site here for more information about your question to be satisfied:
<a href="http://www.techyv.com/article/ram-random-access-memory-%E2%80%93-brief-overview">http://www.techyv.com/article/ram-random-access-memory-%E2%80%93-brief-overview</a>[<a href="http://www.techyv.com/article/ram-random-access-memory-%E2%80%93-brief-overview" target="_blank" title="New Window">^</a>]
|
|
|
|
|
I am playing with a networking setup on a Windows XP computer. It is setup like this:
1. The computer has an Ethernet NIC (PCI) with RJ45 (100Mbps) port.
2. The computer also has a USB modem from VirginMobile plugged in to get access through the 3G network to the Internet. (This part works fine.)
3. From Control Panel | Network Connections, I use the properties of the connection for the VirginMobile to set it to "Allow other network users to connect through this computer's Internet connection." The Home networking connection is set to the Ethernet NIC. (This is done from the "Advanced" tab.)
4. I connected the Ethernet NIC to a Wifi router's WAN port using an Ethernet cable. The Wifi router had been setup to work properly.
5. I fired up an Android tablet to connect to the hotspot offered by the Wifi router. The connection was nice and strong.
After all these, I expect to be able to get access to the web from the Android tablet. It did not work. To try to find what the problem was, I connected a laptop computer to the Wifi router using a physical connection (Ethernet cable). The computer also connected to the router with no problem. DHCP worked fine and it obtained the IP addresses. But Internet is not available. Somehow the above shared network did not work.
On the XP computer, the command ipconfig/all showed correctly assigned IP addresses (I believe.)
By the way, a different setup worked briefly, but quit working after a few days. The setting is like this: On the XP machine another PCI card (Wireless G) was installed. This card was setup to be in "AP" mode, and again the VirginMobile USB modem connection was set to be sharing Internet connection. The Android tablet could connect to the AP and then go to the Internet. However, after a few days, the tablet could not connect to the AP any more. It got stuck at the point saying "Obtaining IP addresses..."
What was wrong with my setups? Anybody had done similar things?
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, your setup is a bit of a cluster f***... I'm having a hard time understanding where this is breaking down since you have so many steps. To try to break down where you don't have internet access, try a few things:
0. Check to make sure you have an IP address.
1. Make sure your gateway is configured properly (will depend on your configuration).
2. Make sure you have name-resolution.
Usually you can use ipconfig/ping/tracert to figure out where your connection breaks down. If you don't have name resolution, you may have to explicitly state who your name server is.
|
|
|
|
|
From your Android > disconnect and reconnect it to the hotspot.
This is quite the cluster whooey...
So you can access the internet from everything but the tablet? Go into device manager and make sure the Wireless NIC properties are not set to power off. Set it to CAM if possible, which is constant awake mode.
Check the power settings in control panel as well, as some power plans will kill power.
Have you tried restarting everything? Another thing to try is IPCONFIG /RELEASE & IPCONFIG /RENEW on your XP machine to renew it's IP address.
Something worth reading, albeit it's invincible!
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like you are running two DHCP servers on the same segment.
When you switched on ICS on the XP machine, you effectively created a DHCP server.
The WiFi hotspot probably has its own DHCP server. The Android  tablet is trying to get an IP address. It gets it from the WiFi router.
For it to work with the ICS it has to get an IP from the ICS DHCP server, not the WiFi hotspot, otherwise the traffic from the tablet will never reach the ICS NAT gateway (different IP class and subnets).
Lots of options to get it working but simplest would probably be to "steal" an IP from the ICS server and set the tablet to use a static IP set to the stolen one and having a default gateway of the ICS server (XP box). The DNS would also have to be set to the ICS server.
|
|
|
|
|
During system startup, you can make the case that the speed-limiting factor is the read speed of the boot drive.
However, what do you think is the main bottleneck when you're using the machine?
Choices could include:
The memory
The drive that contains the swap file
The boot drive
The data drive
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
[trying to reply to a rather volatile question]
Now that would depend very much on what you are doing with your system, don't you think?
if you're browsing the web, what is your internet connection?
if you're building software, where is your source code (network drive? source control system?)
etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Now that would depend very much on what you are doing with your system, don't you think?
For example – I develop using ancient VC 6.0 and have 1.5GB of memory. If I put my code on USB drive it visibly slows down compilation time ( 5 MB "big" application) in comparison when the code is on the internal IDE.
But the VC never uses more than 300 MB during compilation.
When I had a dual core CPU the compilation time was about the same on faster CPU. VC 6.0 did not care about dual CPU!
As Lut said - it depends.
Using bigger hammer does not necessary speed things up when you are building a bird house.
Vaclav
|
|
|
|
|
Vaclav_Sal wrote: Using bigger hammer does not necessary speed things up when you are building a bird house.
I'll have to remember that one!
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
I just got a bigger bird... 
|
|
|
|
|
Aside from the boot phase, when the boot drive dominates, all of the other factors predominate. For a small application, the data drive will be most important; for a large one, the interaction between the memory and the swap file drive will determine performance. If the application is data-intensive, the data drive will also play an important role. Given the information provided, the only answer that comes to mind is, "it depends..."
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
If my motherboard supports SATA 3 GB's, and I set up a pair of drives in a RAID 0 (striping) configuration, does that make the effective data transfer speed faster than SATA 3GB, or is it always limited to 3GB's?
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
