Laptops with Big RAM? 172
Fubari wonders: "Anybody know when laptops over 4gb might be coming out? Some of the dev-tools I want to run are just obscene RAM-pigs. On the desktop I'm using now (Win2003), it sucks up 1.6gb just to boot. By the time I log in and start doing work, it is stretching 2Gb. Move that to Vista, add a VM-Ware session or two, and I'm worried I'll be pushing 4Gb. I'm torn between buying a 4Bb-max laptop now, or some mini-desktop
that can fit in a set of luggage wheels. A friend of mine suggested something like this, but my first choice would be something designed to be portable. Any suggestions?"
Easy Answer: May (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why not get one (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why not get one (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why not get one (Score:4, Funny)
Must. Resist. Obvious. Joke.
SB
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, well sometimes the moderators need the reminder... just ensuring
SB
Harder than you think (Score:5, Interesting)
2GB SODIMMs are built - I've worked on some creative designs that stacked DRAM components to achieve the necessary density, but the modules aren't suited for laptops because they're too thick and a notebook can't provide the necessary cooling.
It seems to me that you're a year or two ahead of technology, I'm afraid.
-h-
Re:Harder than you think (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There's never been anything wrong with replying to your own posting when you have something new to add, unless of course you use a sock puppet [wikipedia.org] to do it.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Disclaimer: This comment is meant to be funny (Score:3, Funny)
(This comment is not meant to inspire hatred of anything. It is meant to make people laugh.)
(Normally, I wouldn't have to explain that... but this is Slashdot!)
Thinkpad (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Thinkpad (Score:4, Informative)
<quote>
Description of Windows XP Professional x64 Edition
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is a near feature-complete version of Windows XP Professional that runs on x64 processors. Windows XP Professional x64 Edition supports 128 GB of RAM and 16 terabytes of virtual memory address space, as compared to 4 GB of both physical RAM and virtual memory address space for 32-bit Windows XP Professional.
Windows XP Professional x64 Edition runs 32-bit applications in the Windows on Windows 64 (WOW64) subsystem providing compatibility with the more than 10,000 existing 32-bit Windows applications while enabling new 64-bit applications.
</quote>
<Url:http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/using/64b
<url:http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/ove
Posted from a XPx64-Windows (Score:3, Insightful)
Please explain again the usefulness of Win XP 64 (Score:2)
but- xp64 is a subset of server 2003...
so OP is right sorta,
t60p (Score:2, Redundant)
No you can't. (Score:2)
Maybe a (nearly) identical with (possibly) lower quality Lenovo T60P, but not an IBM T60P.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
i used a 760cd years ago, upgraded to another system, passed it on to a co-worker, and when it had any issues, we contacted ibm one day, received a shipping box the next day, shipped it out the following day, and would get it returned within a couple of days. i was impressed with the build quality and service. but that was then...
i'll cite you my own experience regarding lower quality... actually it should be lower quality control.
last month i had a cl
RAM cost is probably limiting Factor (Score:2)
More than 4 GB?!?! (Score:4, Funny)
4 GB should be enough for everyone.
Re: (Score:2)
I know why this got modded funny (Billy G mockery), but really, we should consider it insightful rather than funny.
Yes, for servers, you (sometimes!) have a reason to run with huge amounts of RAM. For a desktop machine, even a high-end developer's machine, if you need that much memory, you need better tools. No "but the project requires it" allowed. If the requirements demand more than 4GB on a laptop, you have a problem long before reaching the "physical availabil
Have you considered... (Score:4, Interesting)
32 bit windows can't have even 4GB RAM (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck even getting the people that sell them to talk to you about these expensive beasts - they must live off closed military contracts or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows seems to have a problem with the ram hole though, because this machine I'm using now has 4GB of ram, with PAE enabled, and windows can still only access 3.25GB (roughly). Memtest32 (32-bit linux-based ram test) successfully accessed the rest of the ram by
Re: (Score:2)
There are quite a few prerequisites if you want 32-bit Windows to address more than 2GB of RAM. Windows can perform paging for applications that use the respective API. Remember the good 'ol days of 16-bit memory segments? It's kind of like that. Some apps, like SQL server, sort-of support large memory, by paging large chunks of it around virtual memory space. It's not efficient at all and it's not as use
16GB Dual-Proc SPARC (Score:5, Interesting)
FEATURES AND ADVANTAGES:
* Powerful Performance and Processing:
o Dual CPU 1.2GHz UltraSPARC-IIIi, 1 MB level 2 Cache with 1GB-8GB memory per CPU (Up to 16GB total)
o Solaris 9 Operating Environment
o Full-length PCI slot supporting Windows co-processor, network adaptors, high end graphics and many other options
* State of the Art Mobility:
o Mobile server consolidation - the 22 lbs Bullfrog Dual Processor replaces a typical 450 lbs server box (with power backup modules) with no loss in performance or connectivity
o Permits a "work from anywhere" environment
o Consolidation of Solaris and Windows onto one box
* Redundancy:
o Dual Disk Drives with capacity of up to 200GB (100GB + 100 GB)
o Built in UPS
o Dual Processors
* Efficiency:
o Total costs reduced by as much as 50% over equivalent conventional server system
o Total weight savings of as much as 90%
* Reduced Complexity when deployed with Comet 12/15 Thin Clients:
o Wireless Solutions are simple to deploy
o Reduced System Admin overheads
o Manage services not desktops
o Reduce desktop productivity licensing by a factor of 10
* Accessories & Upgrades: A wide range of accessories that enhance Tadpole Bullfrog usability
Re:16GB Dual-Proc SPARC (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
But anyway, I don't know of any Windows notebook that can do 4GB. Most of the notebooks I've seen that can accommodate 4GB don't have PAE support so that it can actually use 4GB, they often only leave a little over 3GB that the system can use.
Maybe I'd suggest lugging extra notebooks instead, rather than running oodles of VMware sessions on one, split them down a bit.
Re:16GB Dual-Proc SPARC (Score:5, Funny)
It's all about bandwidth (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well... (Score:3, Interesting)
Heavier and larger than a laptop, but capable of carrying around a tower's computational power...not very convienient, I know, but still...it is an option...
Stop Suggesting alternate Platforms, OSes, Tools (Score:4, Insightful)
Obligatory car analogy (Score:2, Insightful)
slashdot crowd: Have you considered taking the plane?
you: Stop suggesting alternate forms of transportation, some of us are afraid to fly.
Re:Stop Suggesting alternate Platforms, OSes, Tool (Score:3, Funny)
/me salutes
Re: (Score:2)
Quick fix or "Overkill" (Score:2)
Based on that alone, the best fix is to find out what occupies that 1.6GB, as that amount of memory would pin similar desktops that use three times the "recommended" memory amount. Otherwise, I might as well use an "Overkill" tag.
Okay... If necessary, you could use virtual memory for your
Re: (Score:2)
Today's advice is brought to you by the words "swap" and "thrash"...
VNC? Remote Desktop? (Score:2, Informative)
Use the laptop for light file editting and whatnot, then upload the files to your remote BBB for compilation and testing.
I used to do this at a former job when telecommuting. It was a lot easier when I could simply access "my desktop" exactly as it was as if I were sitting in the office. Well, OK, I only had
Re: (Score:2)
Simply do VNC over an SSH tunnel. I seriously doubt that you have to worry about port 22 being blocked, and all of your packets will be encrypted.
and yes, you can do this in windows with putty (windows ssh package) and vncviewer.exe.
Look here for a step by step how do to this [gossamer-threads.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Here is the correct link for the step by step [nodivisions.com]
4Gb may be enough for you (Score:2)
Similar Issue (Score:2)
My laptop is mainly for surfing the internet, using regular MS Office apps and programming in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know that.. its just a bit surprising that it costs more than 5x more....
What is the real question (Score:3, Informative)
But the real question is, What is it that you need a +4GB laptop for? Sometimes, (many times perhaps) we have a problem that we get an idea how to solve that may or may not be the most effective way to do it. We then go and as questions about how to accomplish individual steps in our not particularly effective method.
But depending on the problem, it is sometimes better to ask about the actual problem. Someone is bound to have solved it or something similar or have an insight that would make many of our steps (hopefully the hardest ones) unnecessary.
Save money with the notebook (Score:2)
Terminals began when early microcomputers sucked and were just mere toys. They are used for situations like what you described. Maybe you can also install vnc on the other compute
Re: (Score:2)
If only Windows 2003 Server came with some sort of terminal server software, like a VNC for Windows or something. Then he could run a termserver client on his laptop and connect to a monster desktop / server tower in the same room via wireless, and remote control the big beefy box over his wifi network.
They should invent something like that.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely you jest, good sir!
Re: (Score:2)
Someone should invent something like that. A way that the OP could use his laptop to remotely control the desktop of a really powerful (ie, SMP box with more than 4G of memory) Windows machine over the network, perhaps over the airwaves using an as of yet uninvented 'magic' signal propagation in perhaps the 2.4GHz range of the electromagnetic light waves spectrum.
That would be an excellent solution, if only it was real, av
Re: (Score:2)
1.6GB on 2003 server? Something is screwy... (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you should figure out what's wrong with your machine that requires 1.6 GB of RAM just to idle.
Re: (Score:2)
Try removing all the RAM in your server until you only have, say 576 (512+64) left. If you are really only using 600M, then it should run just great...right? You users won't even notice. You may even get promoted for saving money on RAM!
SQL server alone defaults to 'use all available ram' so it will eat up whatever you have as soon as anyone starts using the datbase(s)....
JON
on 2nd thought, maybe that is the guys problem, to OP: if you have SQL ser
Re: (Score:2)
Well.... (Score:2, Insightful)
You don't mention what tools you are using but:
- There's probably a lot of file caching going on so that doesn't matter as it will discard unused cache to fulfill your memory allocation requests as you run (low overhead).
- If you're running SQLServer, for example, by default it grabs a huge chunk of memory for caching. You can control how much it uses for this (set the max
Man, you're just like sheep (Score:2, Funny)
My gosh. (Score:2)
Whatever.
I'd suggest you take a Laptop, put 2 gig in it, install one of those new nifty 2.5" Samsung SSDs and crank up virtual memory. Being the performance hog it is allready and considering that these SSDs have an access time of 60ns you'll hardly notice any difference to RAM I presume. And you'll have a bizarely fast boot-up. Allthough Windows will eat most of that away.
That specific problem aside
Technical Consultants too (Score:3, Interesting)
I could easily run W2K3 server, SQL 2005 and host at least two VM sessions. One of these VM sessions would be a W2K3 server, with the other an XP client.
Since many of my clients tend to be places that are fairly paranoid I cant always access my lab remotely or hook up to their network. In essence I need a "lab in a box".
Re: (Score:2)
Laptop Idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Try a flash drive (Score:2)
Look into other portable form factors. (Score:2)
If you're stuck on the traditional battery-powered laptop form factor, Dell [dell.com] even offers a 4GB-capable machine, though like all 32-bit machines, it sets aside some of that for device address space [interact-sw.co.uk], leaving you with about 3GB [markharrison.co.uk]
What are you running?! (Score:2)
I've got Opera (with about 30 windows open), Xfire, Gaim, and several Poker clients all loaded right now, on a 1GB system, and I've got 600MB free out of 1024MB.
I can also load 3ds and photoshop, and still not be significantly over a gig unless i load some huge projects in them.
Disk? (Score:2)
You should see if there's any other way to get your job done with better tools, that aren't such RAM hogs. The fact that notebooks with 4GBs is hard to find is a good indication that nobody else has such a problem, and there's probably a better alternative.
But, if those
I have one. (Score:2)
I'm typing this post on a Dell D820 with SuSE 10.2 and 4GB of RAM [roboguys.com].
As for more than 4GB, I'd just build a portable desktop. Even with this laptops 4GB of RAM, it can only release just over 3GB due to PCI needs, etc. You might just be better off running a persistent desktop [redhat.com] on a server and VNCing/RDPing to it.
Re:Dell? (Score:4, Insightful)
Byte bits (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Its completely plausable he's got Win 2k3 installed, depending on what he's developing.
Well it does say Win 2K3 but I have to wonder what the hell he's doing that's taking up that much memory after booting. We have a web server running Windows 2003 Standard which hosts just under 100 corporate sites that get on average hundreds of thousands of unique visitors per day and it's presently using 534MB of RAM (yes, I just checked) running now for a few weeks hosting some non-trivial .NET sites. So I have *no* idea why his desktop would use up 1.6 GB by default. The only thing that comes to min
Re:Dell? (Score:4, Funny)
Wow. Apparently 640K is enough for everybody.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, he can't see how much RAM he's using at the login-prompt anyway, can he? =)
He might be getting his numbers from some source that doesn't subtract the system cache, though.
It's not uncommon for people to rant about how much RAM they're using when 70% of it are just cache that are still available for applications.
Re:strange requirements (Score:4, Funny)
I guess those would be Biggabits.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's a safe bet that a developer looking for a laptop with more than four gigs of RAM would find more efficient tools if that were an option. But vim/gcc? Anyone doing stuff complex enough to need that much RAM would be lost if he had to do everything with just vim and gcc, unless he's some sort of savant.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the fact is, he's not "doing stuff complex enough to need that much RAM." He's just using tools written badly enough to need that much RAM.
Re: (Score:2)
Some people really do work with large datasets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Find new dev tools. (Score:4, Interesting)
But, he's said he's running specific development tools. It's not like he can suddenly change them en masse. He may have no choice but to run Vista, which by all accounts wants memory like you wouldn't believe.
He's also making the valid observation that he can forsee one or more virtual machines being hosted on this machine (I have a whole separate machine to host virtual PCs). Virtual machines are a huge help in development since you can wipe them out and start from scratch without any down time. it's a realistic thing to plan for. They're great for sandboxes and doing all sorts of testing.
The reality of it is, the tools he is running are probably something he can't escape -- those are the tools, and you can't replace Visual Studio with vim and gcc easily, as much as people like to think. Sometimes, you're stuck using those tools you're given, because that's what your company is going to use no matter what you like.
Well, with the overheads of Vista, I can see it becoming such that a laptop can't possibly be used as a development machine. I know within my company, when I used to say I want 2GB or so on a machine, they would look at me like "who could possibly need that much RAM?"; now, it's commonplace. The reality is, 1GB of RAM on my development machine (older, needs an upgrade desperately) is a joke (cause using 1GB of RAM on a Windows machine means you're using >= 1GB of swap space).
Don't get me wrong, I'm a huge fan of vi (been using it for about 20 years), and I have good memories of using gcc back in the day -- but, I just never understand why the advice on Slashdot is to always migrate to tools which aren't applicable for the person at hand. If you write Windows software, you're probably using some big software to do it in.
Unfortunately, laptops have always trailed behind desktops in terms of how big you can make them. But, if you need the big-honking machine, and also need a laptop, you could be SOL.
Granted, I come from an era where having 8GB of ram on any machine (let alone one with a single user) would be absurd (unimagible in fact) -- but, it's awfully tough to develop enterprise software on mickey mouse machines. I bet there's quite a few people who could benefit from a laptop with > 4GB. I do agree with you that this is partly the fault of the OS for becoming so damned bloated. I just don't think it will help this particular gentleman's problem.
Cheers
Re: (Score:2)
You must be referring to the article which said "4 gigs is the sweet spot", which is frankly BS. By all accounts, Vista is faster than XP, and we know it's needed for 64-bit, unless you want to try XP 64-bit, or move away from Windows.
Fair enough. Then again, how many VMs do you need runni
Re: (Score:2)
Not specifically really. I know 1GB is way too small for me, and I've seen some of our older dev machines trying to run Vista, and, to be honest, we have a lot of complaints about speed. (Yes, it's probably true there are optimizations we've not applied.)
What are you doing with them is my short answer. Imagine trying to simulate a multi-server
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps he is debugging the dev tools using the dev tools.
Re: (Score:2)
Flash not fast enough (Score:2)
I was thinking the same thing, but according to Crucial the very fastest flash you can buy does 25MB/s, which isn't going to be faster than a SATAII/NCQ drive in a good laptop, unles
just because you can? (Score:2)
double the bandwidth?
4 2gb raid 0 flash keys?
with a tetrahub?
Re: (Score:2)
Erm ... "when it wears out" is exactly the point where Windows will crash most horribly. Windows doesn't expect swap partitons to wear out.
Don't do that, it's a recipe for problems. (Score:2)
Flash memory isn't RAM. It's EEPROM, with a high but limited number of write cycles (10^5 to 10^7, usually) per sector. If you use this for an application that is pretty much defined by lots and lots of write operations - i.e. as a swap partition - you've come up with a recipe for trouble. Especially since you cannot expect "cheap" flash media to perform any kind of wear levelling.
Vista can make use of Flash media in another way - by using them to s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)