4 GB Ram? - Ubuntu

This is a discussion on 4 GB Ram? - Ubuntu ; Stephan Rose writes: > On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:07:19 +0200, Hadron wrote: > >> "Dirk T. Verbeek" writes: >> >>> Hadron schreef: >>>> "Dirk T. Verbeek" writes: >>>> >>>>> Hadron schreef: >>>>> >>>>>> I'd say it was fairly obvious ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 27 of 27

Thread: 4 GB Ram?

  1. Re: 4 GB Ram?

    Stephan Rose writes:

    > On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:07:19 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >
    >> "Dirk T. Verbeek" writes:
    >>
    >>> Hadron schreef:
    >>>> "Dirk T. Verbeek" writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> Hadron schreef:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> I'd say it was fairly obvious to anyone that AMD64 is a misnomer
    >>>>>> regardless of history. I have seen this issue arise many, many
    >>>>>> times. People are not making up the fact that they are confused.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Few, if any people know or care why its called AMD64.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>> I see we don't agree.
    >>>>
    >>>> So you think it is "obvious" that AMD64 is for the Intel chips too?
    >>>> Really? I certainly didn't when I went hunting for a 64 bit Debian to
    >>>> install.
    >>>>
    >>>> The issue comes up on a regular basis, so clearly people DO have
    >>>> issues. It's legacy now and possibly a name change is not for the
    >>>> best. But it certainly wouldn't hurt to mirror it to a more generic or
    >>>> Intel specific name to avoid these confusions.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> Now we agree.
    >>> I've been around computers for many years and followed the development
    >>> of processors, hence I do not find the present naming convention
    >>> confusing at all.
    >>>
    >>> But I do agree it could be more transparent for a new generation when
    >>> the name makes it clear this 'AMD' or 'i' refers *only* to the
    >>> instruction set, not the hardware manufacturer.
    >>>
    >>> At least the download pages should all have a clearer statement to this
    >>> effect.

    >>
    >> Then we totally agree. AMD64 is not clear for someone who is NOT
    >> familiar with the development of the instruction sets. e.g 99.99% of
    >> people who are looking for a distro.

    >
    > Which also happened to include me. I might write software for these
    > things but I surely don't worry about who names what how or why. There
    > used to be a time when I kept up with all of that but these days, I'm
    > just simply too busy to worry about it.
    >
    > I looked today and the Ubuntu download page actually does list Intel and
    > AMD for 64-bit and is clear about that. But since I have fully switched
    > to Gutsy, I didn't bother going there and went straight to the Gutsy
    > download page where it isn't described as clearly.
    >
    > That said, the Gutsy 64-bit Live CD actually runs fine on my system but
    > I'll probably wait until Gutsy goes live to install it. I'm going to do a
    > clean reinstall at that point in time anyway so there's little point for
    > me to reinstall now and then again in 2-3 weeks.


    What about flash and skype? Any joy? I couldnt bring myself to go
    through these hoops for Debian and ended up going back to the standard
    32 bit 686 install -

    http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/re....html#s-chroot

    I'm much happier with the 32 bit version I must say - everything is more
    stable and IMO, just as fast with the added benefit of everything really
    just working.
    --
    Perro que no anda no encuentra hueso.
    -- Refrán español.

  2. Re: 4 GB Ram?

    On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 14:54:08 +0200, Hadron wrote:


    > So you think it is "obvious" that AMD64 is for the Intel chips too?
    > Really? I certainly didn't when I went hunting for a 64 bit Debian to
    > install.
    >
    > The issue comes up on a regular basis, so clearly people DO have
    > issues. It's legacy now and possibly a name change is not for the
    > best. But it certainly wouldn't hurt to mirror it to a more generic or
    > Intel specific name to avoid these confusions.
    >
    >


    When I first bought an amd chip, I being a newb, thought that it would not
    work with i386. A little reading cleared that up. Should the i386 name
    be more generic or amd specific to avoid this confusion?

    stonerfish

  3. Re: 4 GB Ram?

    jellybean stonerfish writes:

    > On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 14:54:08 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >
    >
    >> So you think it is "obvious" that AMD64 is for the Intel chips too?
    >> Really? I certainly didn't when I went hunting for a 64 bit Debian to
    >> install.
    >>
    >> The issue comes up on a regular basis, so clearly people DO have
    >> issues. It's legacy now and possibly a name change is not for the
    >> best. But it certainly wouldn't hurt to mirror it to a more generic or
    >> Intel specific name to avoid these confusions.
    >>
    >>

    >
    > When I first bought an amd chip, I being a newb, thought that it would not
    > work with i386. A little reading cleared that up. Should the i386 name
    > be more generic or amd specific to avoid this confusion?
    >
    > stonerfish


    I don't know. I just know that the name confuses many people. And to
    deny it is simply, well, stupid.

    --
    Sa*ram o tio Sá e as oito Marias.
    -- pal*ndromo

  4. Re: 4 GB Ram?

    On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:49:47 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > Stephan Rose writes:
    >
    >> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 16:07:19 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Dirk T. Verbeek" writes:
    >>>
    >>>> Hadron schreef:
    >>>>> "Dirk T. Verbeek" writes:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Hadron schreef:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I'd say it was fairly obvious to anyone that AMD64 is a misnomer
    >>>>>>> regardless of history. I have seen this issue arise many, many
    >>>>>>> times. People are not making up the fact that they are confused.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Few, if any people know or care why its called AMD64.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>> I see we don't agree.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> So you think it is "obvious" that AMD64 is for the Intel chips too?
    >>>>> Really? I certainly didn't when I went hunting for a 64 bit Debian
    >>>>> to install.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The issue comes up on a regular basis, so clearly people DO have
    >>>>> issues. It's legacy now and possibly a name change is not for the
    >>>>> best. But it certainly wouldn't hurt to mirror it to a more generic
    >>>>> or Intel specific name to avoid these confusions.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>> Now we agree.
    >>>> I've been around computers for many years and followed the
    >>>> development of processors, hence I do not find the present naming
    >>>> convention confusing at all.
    >>>>
    >>>> But I do agree it could be more transparent for a new generation when
    >>>> the name makes it clear this 'AMD' or 'i' refers *only* to the
    >>>> instruction set, not the hardware manufacturer.
    >>>>
    >>>> At least the download pages should all have a clearer statement to
    >>>> this effect.
    >>>
    >>> Then we totally agree. AMD64 is not clear for someone who is NOT
    >>> familiar with the development of the instruction sets. e.g 99.99% of
    >>> people who are looking for a distro.

    >>
    >> Which also happened to include me. I might write software for these
    >> things but I surely don't worry about who names what how or why. There
    >> used to be a time when I kept up with all of that but these days, I'm
    >> just simply too busy to worry about it.
    >>
    >> I looked today and the Ubuntu download page actually does list Intel
    >> and AMD for 64-bit and is clear about that. But since I have fully
    >> switched to Gutsy, I didn't bother going there and went straight to the
    >> Gutsy download page where it isn't described as clearly.
    >>
    >> That said, the Gutsy 64-bit Live CD actually runs fine on my system but
    >> I'll probably wait until Gutsy goes live to install it. I'm going to do
    >> a clean reinstall at that point in time anyway so there's little point
    >> for me to reinstall now and then again in 2-3 weeks.

    >
    > What about flash and skype? Any joy? I couldnt bring myself to go
    > through these hoops for Debian and ended up going back to the standard
    > 32 bit 686 install -


    I haven't had a chance to try that from the LiveCD. Firefox came up with
    the dialog to offer to install Flash or Gnash but I didn't get past that.
    Firefox froze up at that point in time. I figure it to be just a Gutsy
    beta issue so I'll try it again after the release.

    >
    > http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/re....html#s-chroot
    >
    > I'm much happier with the 32 bit version I must say - everything is more
    > stable and IMO, just as fast with the added benefit of everything really
    > just working.


    Normally I say the same thing too but I'm beginning to find myself in the
    boat that I actually am having a need for 4 gigs of ram or more. That's
    pretty much my only reason why I am bothering to look at the 64-bit stuff.

    Running a guest OS in a VM such as Windows with only 2 gigs of RAM in the
    machine gets a little tight. And while the VM's still don't meet all my
    needs, having Windows in a virtual machine can at least eliminate a few
    other things I need to boot into windows for such as my C#/.Net related
    projects that I still need to maintain. Can't run them with Mono as they
    are also dependent on some Windows-only COM libraries.

    With 4 gigs of RAM, I can give each OS around 2 gigs of RAM and be doing
    much much better. Plus it'll make using the VM's for my 3D applications
    all the more feasible if/when they finally have 3D Acceleration support.

    --
    Stephan
    2003 Yamaha R6

    君のこと思い出す日なんてないのは
    君のこと忘れたときがないから

  5. Re: 4 GB Ram?

    De Kameel wrote:
    > Stephan Rose wrote:
    >
    >> Now my motherboard is an Asus P5WDG2 Professional that supports up to
    >> 8 Gigs of RAM with a Core 2 Duo E6600 CPU.

    >
    > And that's the CPU you actually have in your motherboard, or ... ?
    > Because if you use a Core (not a Core 2) CPU, your CPU is 32bit and
    > you're out of luck.
    >
    >> The only thing is, Ubuntu only sees 3 gigs. Now I realize the upper
    >> part of addressable memory can be taken up by PCI devices and my video
    >> card is quite hungry in that regard. However, I was wondering if there
    >> is a way to get Ubuntu to see all 4 gigs. I checked the bios and all 4
    >> gigs are available there.

    >
    > Use "dmesg | head -40" to see the kernel boot messages about your RAM.
    > You will probably see something like halfway the page:
    >
    > [ 0.000000] BIOS-e820: 0000000100000000 - 0000000120000000 (usable)
    > [ 0.000000] Warning only 4GB will be used.
    > [ 0.000000] Use a PAE enabled kernel.
    > [ 0.000000] 3200MB HIGHMEM available.
    >
    > With a 32bit system, you can't use the memory memory that's mapped to
    > 0x100000000 upwards. Well, unless you use a PAE enabled kernel, but I've
    > heard PAE is a dog.
    >
    > So the solution is to use a 64bit system: 64bit CPU (Core 2), 64bit
    > chipset, and a 64bit Linux. But ... looking at what you posted on
    > 9/16/2007 on 64bit OSes, I wonder if you want a 64bit OS ...
    >
    >> I played with the thought of installing the 64-bit version but quickly
    >> discovered that the 64-bit download is for AMD only so that does me
    >> little good with an Intel CPU. It just states to use the x86 Image
    >> instead which is the one I am using.

    >
    > No, the so called AMD64 version works on Intel Core 2 CPUs too.
    > So I wonder what the exact message was. If it was "Your CPU does not
    > support long mode. Use a 32bit distribution." right after the Ubuntu
    > splash screen, your hardware isn't 64bit, you can't run the 64bit OS and
    > you can't enjoy the full 4GB.
    >
    > de Kameel
    >

    The PAE kernel works fine in 32bit Fedora

  6. Re: 4 GB Ram?

    Hadron schreef:
    > jellybean stonerfish writes:
    >
    >> On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 14:54:08 +0200, Hadron wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> So you think it is "obvious" that AMD64 is for the Intel chips too?
    >>> Really? I certainly didn't when I went hunting for a 64 bit Debian to
    >>> install.
    >>>
    >>> The issue comes up on a regular basis, so clearly people DO have
    >>> issues. It's legacy now and possibly a name change is not for the
    >>> best. But it certainly wouldn't hurt to mirror it to a more generic or
    >>> Intel specific name to avoid these confusions.
    >>>
    >>>

    >> When I first bought an amd chip, I being a newb, thought that it would not
    >> work with i386. A little reading cleared that up. Should the i386 name
    >> be more generic or amd specific to avoid this confusion?
    >>
    >> stonerfish

    >
    > I don't know. I just know that the name confuses many people. And to
    > deny it is simply, well, stupid.
    >

    The publishers of various download sites should/could indeed do a better
    job instructing the unwashed masses.

  7. Re: 4 GB Ram?

    On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 04:23:27 -0500, Stephan Rose wrote:

    > On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 00:50:54 -0500, Joe wrote:
    >
    >> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 18:32:43 -0500, Stephan Rose wrote:
    >>
    >>> I just got my additional 2 gig memory in the mail today and of course
    >>> promptly installed it. I was wanting more memory to more easily
    >>> support a virtual machine for windows as I still have some Windows
    >>> software projects I need to maintain. This will keep me from actually
    >>> having to boot into windows to do so. =)
    >>>
    >>> Now my motherboard is an Asus P5WDG2 Professional that supports up to
    >>> 8 Gigs of RAM with a Core 2 Duo E6600 CPU.
    >>>
    >>> The only thing is, Ubuntu only sees 3 gigs. Now I realize the upper
    >>> part of addressable memory can be taken up by PCI devices and my video
    >>> card is quite hungry in that regard. However, I was wondering if there
    >>> is a way to get Ubuntu to see all 4 gigs. I checked the bios and all 4
    >>> gigs are available there.

    >>
    >> You need the 64 Bit Kernel to address 4GB of RAM.
    >>
    >>
    >>> I played with the thought of installing the 64-bit version but quickly
    >>> discovered that the 64-bit download is for AMD only so that does me
    >>> little good with an Intel CPU. It just states to use the x86 Image
    >>> instead which is the one I am using.

    >>
    >> Untrue. AMD64 is the correct kernel for your CPU.

    >
    > Then I think they should change the text a little bit on the download
    > page because it's a little misleading (in my opinion) for non-AMD users.
    > =)


    While I agree with you, the naming convention does make sense once you
    know the background.

    I'd prefer it to at least be notated better on the download page,
    though...

    >
    >
    >>
    >>> But since this motherboard supports 8 Gig with an Intel CPU, there's
    >>> got to be a way to actually do this somehow. Anyone know something I
    >>> don't? =)

    >>
    >> Use a 64 Bit OS. 32 Bit OS' do not address 4GB of RAM.

    >
    > Well there is the ability to use Paging on a 32-bit OS to address more
    > than 4 GB of ram, not 100% sure though if my motherboard supports it.
    > The manual doesn't mention one way or another.


    You can re-compile the kernel to make it work, but it will be slow as
    hell. Not worth it, IMO.



    --
    Joe - Registered Linux User #449481
    joe at hits - buffalo dot com
    "Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
    time..." - Danny, American History X

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2