How much memory can a Dimension 8400 have

I have gone to the Dell site and looked up the maximum amount of memory
that can be inserted in a Dimension 8400, Dell says 2GB max, but I have
seen sites that sell memory ( corsair ) that state a Dimension 8400 can
have as much as 4GB. Does anyone know what the correct amount is?
Regards
ricardo

From what I can see, Dell says 4GB Max....

http://www1.us.dell.com/content/prod...pecstab#tabtop

--
Regards,
Hank Arnold

"ricardo" <> wrote in message
news:gLjHe.511$...
>I have gone to the Dell site and looked up the maximum amount of memory
>that can be inserted in a Dimension 8400, Dell says 2GB max, but I have
>seen sites that sell memory ( corsair ) that state a Dimension 8400 can
>have as much as 4GB. Does anyone know what the correct amount is?
> Regards
> ricardo

Hank Arnold wrote:
> From what I can see, Dell says 4GB Max....
>
> http://www1.us.dell.com/content/prod...pecstab#tabtop
>
Thanks for the link. Greatly appreciated.

On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 16:59:26 +1000, in alt.sys.pc-clone.dell, ricardo
<> wrote:

>I have gone to the Dell site and looked up the maximum amount of memory
>that can be inserted in a Dimension 8400, Dell says 2GB max, but I have
>seen sites that sell memory ( corsair ) that state a Dimension 8400 can
>have as much as 4GB. Does anyone know what the correct amount is?

Even if you put 4GB of memory in the computer, Windows won't see all of it:
some of the memory over 2GB won't be accessible unless you're using a 64-bit
operating system.

(I think I remember one document mentioning that Windows would only be able
to use around 3GB if 4GB was installed, but I won't swear to it.)

The problem is that I/O devices are mapped into the same address space as
main memory, so the addresses used by your video board, sound card, etc.
will block access to the corresponding memory addresses.


I don't have specific links, but you should be able to find this information
in either Microsoft's Knowledge Base or Dell's Knowledge Base (on their web
sites). This is also mentioned in the Owner's manual that came with my XPS
Gen 5.

--
Nick <private.php?do=newpm&u=>

.... And it was written in fiery pixels: FREE UNLIMITED ACCESS FOR ALL!!

"Nick" <> wrote in message
news...
>
> Even if you put 4GB of memory in the computer, Windows won't see all of
> it:
> some of the memory over 2GB won't be accessible unless you're using a
> 64-bit
> operating system.

Actually, its above the 3GB range, and only happens if you have 4GB
installed in the box. if you put 3.5GB in there, you would see it all.

> (I think I remember one document mentioning that Windows would only be
> able
> to use around 3GB if 4GB was installed, but I won't swear to it.)
>
> The problem is that I/O devices are mapped into the same address space as
> main memory, so the addresses used by your video board, sound card, etc.
> will block access to the corresponding memory addresses.

you should see between 3.4 and 3.8 GB depending on how much the system takes
for its own resource allocation. I have seen this vary by system,
manufacturer, chipset installed, etc.

A 32bit OS (2KPro, XP Pro) cant really make that much use of 4GB anyway.
There is no way to tune it properly, as only server OS's allow for that.
Basically, windows gives 2GB of mappable memory to itself, and then maps up
to 2GB for each application that is running. Server OS's allow you to tune
the memory usage so that windows will only take 1 GB, leaving 3 (phyisical)
available for applications.

>
>
> I don't have specific links, but you should be able to find this
> information
> in either Microsoft's Knowledge Base or Dell's Knowledge Base (on their
> web
> sites). This is also mentioned in the Owner's manual that came with my
> XPS
> Gen 5.
>
> --
> Nick <private.php?do=newpm&u=>
>
> ... And it was written in fiery pixels: FREE UNLIMITED ACCESS FOR ALL!!

On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 08:08:14 -0500, in alt.sys.pc-clone.dell, "NuTCrAcKeR"
<> wrote:

>A 32bit OS (2KPro, XP Pro) cant really make that much use of 4GB anyway.
>There is no way to tune it properly, as only server OS's allow for that.
>Basically, windows gives 2GB of mappable memory to itself, and then maps up
>to 2GB for each application that is running. Server OS's allow you to tune
>the memory usage so that windows will only take 1 GB, leaving 3 (phyisical)
>available for applications.

Thanks for providing a more complete and accurate answer than mine.

I was wondering about going to 4GB for my XPS 5, but after seeing that some
of it wouldn't be accessible and Windows wouldn't make effective use of a
lot of it, I decided it wouldn't be worth the money (for me, at least).

I didn't keep good track of all the details once I made up my mind, since I
don't plan on buying another computer for a few years (and by then I'll have
to investigate a whole new set of details...).

--
Nick <private.php?do=newpm&u=>

"Nick" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 08:08:14 -0500, in alt.sys.pc-clone.dell, "NuTCrAcKeR"
> <> wrote:
>
>>A 32bit OS (2KPro, XP Pro) cant really make that much use of 4GB anyway.
>>There is no way to tune it properly, as only server OS's allow for that.
>>Basically, windows gives 2GB of mappable memory to itself, and then maps
>>up
>>to 2GB for each application that is running. Server OS's allow you to tune
>>the memory usage so that windows will only take 1 GB, leaving 3
>>(phyisical)
>>available for applications.
>
> Thanks for providing a more complete and accurate answer than mine.
>
> I was wondering about going to 4GB for my XPS 5, but after seeing that
> some
> of it wouldn't be accessible and Windows wouldn't make effective use of a
> lot of it, I decided it wouldn't be worth the money (for me, at least).
>
> I didn't keep good track of all the details once I made up my mind, since
> I
> don't plan on buying another computer for a few years (and by then I'll
> have
> to investigate a whole new set of details...).
>
> --
> Nick <private.php?do=newpm&u=>


And this is all helpful information. As an aside, I have to wonder how many
people actually have need of more than 1gb of RAM anyway. I feel sure that
there are some engineering types out there who may need it, but even the
most avid gamers I know are using 1gb with the most demanding games and
doing fine with that.

?

Stew

"S.Lewis" <> wrote in message
news:EGwHe.1172$...
> And this is all helpful information. As an aside, I have to wonder how
> many people actually have need of more than 1gb of RAM anyway. I feel
> sure that there are some engineering types out there who may need it, but
> even the most avid gamers I know are using 1gb with the most demanding
> games and doing fine with that.
>
> ?
>
> Stew
>
>

I'd like 2GB, but my 4550 will only go to 1GB. I do considerable work with
digital photography, and since my camera is 12 megapixels, the images are
very, very large.

Tom

"Tom Scales" <> wrote in message
news:3OwHe.46386$ ...
>
> "S.Lewis" <> wrote in message
> news:EGwHe.1172$...
>> And this is all helpful information. As an aside, I have to wonder how
>> many people actually have need of more than 1gb of RAM anyway. I feel
>> sure that there are some engineering types out there who may need it, but
>> even the most avid gamers I know are using 1gb with the most demanding
>> games and doing fine with that.
>>
>> ?
>>
>> Stew
>>
>>
>
> I'd like 2GB, but my 4550 will only go to 1GB. I do considerable work
> with digital photography, and since my camera is 12 megapixels, the images
> are very, very large.
>
> Tom
>


Tom,

You understand that that camera spec. is completely insane, right? :-) What
are you doing? Panoramas of the Grand Canyon on the wall of your garage?

heh heh


Stew

On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 16:43:22 -0500, in alt.sys.pc-clone.dell, "S.Lewis"
<> wrote:

>And this is all helpful information. As an aside, I have to wonder how many
>people actually have need of more than 1gb of RAM anyway. I feel sure that
>there are some engineering types out there who may need it, but even the
>most avid gamers I know are using 1gb with the most demanding games and
>doing fine with that.

Main reason I posted was that nobody else had mentioned the limited
usefulness of adding memory beyond 2GB. Figured the original poster should
at least have some sort of heads up on that.

As far as the benefit of the memory:

First, it may not make a major difference for most people today, but memory
demands go up steadily. 256MB of memory was considered a large amount not
too many years ago, but now it's not that great.

Second, I may not need 2GB of memory and a dual-core CPU all the time. But
when I do make use of the extra capacity, it makes a world of difference.

On my old faithful Dim 8100, if I had a demanding, CPU-intensive task
running in the background, it would bog the computer down and really have a
big impact on my ability to do anything else at the same time.

With my XPS 5, 2GB of RAM, and 3.2GHz dual-core, I can run intense tasks in
the background and still get pretty much normal response from whatever else
I'm using at the same time.

During one of the recent dual-core vs. single-core threads here, as an
experiment I decided to run two CPU-intensive applications at once.
According to task manager I was using roughly 90% or more of the CPU for
those two applications. Yet I barely noticed it while browsing the web,
reading and posting in newsgroups and web forums, and doing other odds and
ends. If I'd tried that on my single-core Dim 8100, I would have been
screaming in frustration at all the slow downs and lagginess.

I don't put that kind of a load on the CPU on a regular basis, but it's nice
to know I can keep using the computer even when it's doing some very heavy
duty work of its own in the background.

--
Nick <private.php?do=newpm&u=>

"There is no one true way." M.L.