Dell Inspiron 1545

Is it possible to change Video Shared memory in BIOS on this model? I checked all options and I'm afraid that it's not impossible but maybe you know something about that.

On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 10:06:11 PM UTC-6, tomo...@gmail.com wrote:
> Is it possible to change Video Shared memory in BIOS on this model? I checked all options and I'm afraid that it's not impossible but maybe you know something about that.

I can only add that I just went from 2Gb to 4Gb and W7 64-bit and it was a great improvement to my 1545. This is my daughter's old college notebook that I got back after buying her an i3 Inspiron.
I bought 4Gb DDR2 on CL ($20) which was from a deceased HP dv4-1225dx.

Bob_Villa wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 10:06:11 PM UTC-6, tomo...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Is it possible to change Video Shared memory in BIOS on this model? I checked all options and I'm afraid that it's not impossible but maybe you know somethin
>
> I can only add that I just went from 2Gb to 4Gb and W7 64-bit and it was a great improvement to my 1545. This is my daughter's old college notebook that I got
> I bought 4Gb DDR2 on CL ($20) which was from a deceased HP dv4-1225dx.

Comment on 64-bit; in my case, with heavy use of an application heavy in pointers,,
64-bit doubles the storage required for pointers, which means that the application
takes twice the RAM memory under a 64 bit system than a 32 bit system.

So it's self-defeating to go to 64 bit unless you quadruple the memory, in a
pointer-heavy application.
--


On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

On Monday, March 4, 2013 7:31:47 AM UTC-6, Ron Hardin wrote:
> Bob_Villa wrote:

> > I can only add that I just went from 2Gb to 4Gb and W7 64-bit and it was a great improvement to my 1545. This is my daughter's old college notebook that I got
>
> > I bought 4Gb DDR2 on CL ($20) which was from a deceased HP dv4-1225dx.
>
>
>
> Comment on 64-bit; in my case, with heavy use of an application heavy in pointers,,
>
> 64-bit doubles the storage required for pointers, which means that the application
>
> takes twice the RAM memory under a 64 bit system than a 32 bit system.
>
>
>
> So it's self-defeating to go to 64 bit unless you quadruple the memory, in a
>
> pointer-heavy application.
>
> --
>
>
>
>
>
> On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

Thanks for raining on my parade, Ron! The chip-set AFAIK is maxed at 4Gb.

On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 08:31:47 -0500, Ron Hardin
<> wrote:

>Bob_Villa wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 10:06:11 PM UTC-6, tomo...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > Is it possible to change Video Shared memory in BIOS on this model? I checked all options and I'm afraid that it's not impossible but maybe you know somethin
>>
>> I can only add that I just went from 2Gb to 4Gb and W7 64-bit and it was a great improvement to my 1545. This is my daughter's old college notebook that I got
>> I bought 4Gb DDR2 on CL ($20) which was from a deceased HP dv4-1225dx.
>
>Comment on 64-bit; in my case, with heavy use of an application heavy in pointers,,
>64-bit doubles the storage required for pointers, which means that the application
>takes twice the RAM memory under a 64 bit system than a 32 bit system.
>
>So it's self-defeating to go to 64 bit unless you quadruple the memory, in a
>pointer-heavy application.


I'm not a programmer but reading MS site about pointers doesn't say
anything about this. What type programming are you trying to run
under x64 that needs so much more ram than 32 bit ?

I've had no problem running programs with my 4gb ram in win 7 x64
including engineering software.

RnR wrote:
>
> On Mon, 04 Mar 2013 08:31:47 -0500, Ron Hardin
> <> wrote:
>
> >Bob_Villa wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wednesday, January 30, 2013 10:06:11 PM UTC-6, tomo...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > Is it possible to change Video Shared memory in BIOS on this model? I checked all options and I'm afraid that it's not impossible but maybe you know
somet
> >>
> >> I can only add that I just went from 2Gb to 4Gb and W7 64-bit and it was a great improvement to my 1545. This is my daughter's old college notebook that I g
> >> I bought 4Gb DDR2 on CL ($20) which was from a deceased HP dv4-1225dx.
> >
> >Comment on 64-bit; in my case, with heavy use of an application heavy in pointers,,
> >64-bit doubles the storage required for pointers, which means that the application
> >takes twice the RAM memory under a 64 bit system than a 32 bit system.
> >
> >So it's self-defeating to go to 64 bit unless you quadruple the memory, in a
> >pointer-heavy application.
>
> I'm not a programmer but reading MS site about pointers doesn't say
> anything about this. What type programming are you trying to run
> under x64 that needs so much more ram than 32 bit ?
>
> I've had no problem running programs with my 4gb ram in win 7 x64
> including engineering software.

To address more than 4gb you need pointers longer than 32 bits, 32 bits
being able to address 2^32 bytes or 4294967296 (=4.2gb). So the pointers
are going to double in length to 64 bits.

If the application is expecting to use that memory, and its storage is made
up mostly of pointers (usually pointers to other pointers), then it's in
effect lost half the new storage just to stay even.

Most apps are probably not mostly pointers, but a few pointers to objects
other than pointers.

My understanding is that conventionally integers are kept the same length
and pointers double, though that will depend on the compiler.

My particular app would need both integers and pointers to double, so I
don't know if it would even compile as a 64 bit app.
--


On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 6:16:48 AM UTC-6, Ron Hardin wrote:

> > >> I can only add that I just went from 2Gb to 4Gb and W7 64-bit and it was a great improvement to my 1545. This is my daughter's old college notebook that I got back...
>

>
> > >
>
> > >Comment on 64-bit; in my case, with heavy use of an application heavy in pointers,,
>
> > >64-bit doubles the storage required for pointers, which means that the application
>
> > >takes twice the RAM memory under a 64 bit system than a 32 bit system.
>
> > >
>
> > >So it's self-defeating to go to 64 bit unless you quadruple the memory, in a
>
> > >pointer-heavy application.
>
> >
>


I found this on Pointers: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/cclass/int/sx7.html
I don't know where you come-up with "4 times" the memory needed...it appears arbitrary.
Someone did say to have at least 4Gb of ram if you're running 64-bit or you will be thrashing the HD.
Ref> http://blog.tune-up.com/windows-insi...e-performance/

Bob_Villa wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 6:16:48 AM UTC-6, Ron Hardin wrote:
>
> > > >> I can only add that I just went from 2Gb to 4Gb and W7 64-bit and it was a great improvement to my 1545. This is my daughter's old college notebook that
> >
>
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >Comment on 64-bit; in my case, with heavy use of an application heavy in pointers,,
> >
> > > >64-bit doubles the storage required for pointers, which means that the application
> >
> > > >takes twice the RAM memory under a 64 bit system than a 32 bit system.
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > >So it's self-defeating to go to 64 bit unless you quadruple the memory, in a
> >
> > > >pointer-heavy application.
> >
> > >
> >
>
> I found this on Pointers: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/cclass/int/sx7.html
> I don't know where you come-up with "4 times" the memory needed...it appears arbitrary.
> Someone did say to have at least 4Gb of ram if you're running 64-bit or you will be thrashing the HD.
> Ref> http://blog.tune-up.com/windows-insi...e-performance/

You need double the memory to stay even.

If you want to double your effective working space by going to 64 bit, you need 4 times the
memory, twice for the doubled pointer size and twice for doubling the number of
pointer-containing objects.

You'd be heavy on pointers if the objects you work with mostly refer to other objects of the
same type, so most of the space they take up scales with the pointer size.

Video processing won't be pointer-heavy, as most of the space is taken by bytes of video
data, and bytes stay the same size.
--


On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.

On Wed, 06 Mar 2013 06:49:35 -0500, Ron Hardin
<> wrote:

>Bob_Villa wrote:
>>
>> On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 6:16:48 AM UTC-6, Ron Hardin wrote:
>>
>> > > >> I can only add that I just went from 2Gb to 4Gb and W7 64-bit and it was a great improvement to my 1545. This is my daughter's old college notebook that
>> >
>>
>> >
>> > > >
>> >
>> > > >Comment on 64-bit; in my case, with heavy use of an application heavy in pointers,,
>> >
>> > > >64-bit doubles the storage required for pointers, which means that the application
>> >
>> > > >takes twice the RAM memory under a 64 bit system than a 32 bit system.
>> >
>> > > >
>> >
>> > > >So it's self-defeating to go to 64 bit unless you quadruple the memory, in a
>> >
>> > > >pointer-heavy application.
>> >
>> > >
>> >
>>
>> I found this on Pointers: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/cclass/int/sx7.html
>> I don't know where you come-up with "4 times" the memory needed...it appears arbitrary.
>> Someone did say to have at least 4Gb of ram if you're running 64-bit or you will be thrashing the HD.
>> Ref> http://blog.tune-up.com/windows-insi...e-performance/
>
>You need double the memory to stay even.
>
>If you want to double your effective working space by going to 64 bit, you need 4 times the
>memory, twice for the doubled pointer size and twice for doubling the number of
>pointer-containing objects.
>
>You'd be heavy on pointers if the objects you work with mostly refer to other objects of the
>same type, so most of the space they take up scales with the pointer size.
>
>Video processing won't be pointer-heavy, as most of the space is taken by bytes of video
>data, and bytes stay the same size.


What is the benefit of pointers? Is there a workaround? In other
words, can you program to get the same end result without using
pointers?

I ask because 64bit was supposed to be better than 32bit and just a
couple years ago, it was the going thing to get 4gb ram in new laptops
running 64bit operating systems.

RnR wrote:
> What is the benefit of pointers? Is there a workaround? In other
> words, can you program to get the same end result without using
> pointers?
>
> I ask because 64bit was supposed to be better than 32bit and just a
> couple years ago, it was the going thing to get 4gb ram in new laptops
> running 64bit operating systems.

Pointers are variables that contain addresses. You can get around them by declaring
memory to be one big array and using integers as subscripts, but the problem
is not solved. If you have more than 4gb that you want to address, it takes
more than 32 bits in the pointer or in the integer subscript, just because you
need the pointer or integer to take on at least as many values as you have
real addresses, and it takes more than 32 bits to have enough values.

The most efficient way is pointers but lots of languages don't have them.
Those will have to use 64 bit integers instead of 64 bit pointers.

I don't see the point of a 64 bit O/S with 4gb of memory since 32 bits can
address that much. If you want to go more than 4gb you need a 64 bit O/S.

That's the cutover that I was talking about not working as neatly as you might
hope, depending on what your applications that you run are.

Worst case you'd need 64 bit/8gb of memory to get back to where you were with
32 bit/4gb.

Not worst case it might do pretty well. It all depends on what apps you run.

(Also cache hits will be less local, which will slow it down potentially.)
--


On the internet, nobody knows you're a jerk.