My problem is .... (How can I request that Dell upgrade to Vista-64?)

Pages: 1

Index »
Community »
Tech »
My problem is .... (How can I request that Dell upgrade to Vista-64?)

2008-05-04 09:58:20

Parnit: Member; +5|6918

Although this wont effect me for atleast for a month. Next year would be first year of uni which i would need a laptop for and here is my proposed specs for this laptop it is the dell xps 1530
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo Processor T9300 (2.5GHz/800Mhz FSB, 6MB Cache
Genuine Windows Vista™ Ultimate Edition
Tuxedo Black
Full Hi Definition, glossy widescreen 15.4 inch LCD(1920x1200) & 2MP Camera
4GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz (2 Dimms)
Speed: 250GB 7200rpm SATA Hard Drive Free Fall Sensor
256MB NVIDIA® GeForce™ 8600M GT
8X CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) with double-layer DVD+R write capability
Intel Next-Gen Wireless-N Mini-card
85 WHr 9-cell Lithium Ion Primary Battery
all of this comes to about $2008.00 canadian which i dont think is to bad. The problem is the vista ultimate, I have heard does not support the full 4gb of ram because im guessing dell likes to give the 32 bit edition now im wondering is there anyway to request to dell i want the 64 bit edition cause i dont see an option and i would like to make full use of my 4 gigs of ram or if there is another way to upgeade the 32 bit to a 64 bit online without paying extra. TY FOR ANY HELP HIGHLY APPRECIATED!

2008-05-04 10:11:21

killer21: Because f*ck you that's why.; +400|6862|Reisterstown, MD

Do you need Vista Ultimate? I mean, could you settle for Vista Premium?

Last edited by killer21 (2008-05-04 10:11:34)

2008-05-04 10:24:08

SpIk3y: Minister of Silly Walks; +67|6410|New Jersey

Why would Dell assemble a computer with 4GB of RAM if not all 4GB would be recognized? That would be idiotic.

But I guess you're right... you can't put it past them. I would just call/email them and ensure that you are getting the 64-bit version. If they say it only comes with the 32-bit version, pick a different laptop (or you could try to bitch them out).

2008-05-04 11:06:55

Freezer7Pro: I don't come here a lot anymore.; +1,447|6468|Winland

Isn't 1920x1200 a tiny bit overkill for a 15.4"? 1680x1050 is what I'd take, everything's gonna be rediculously small.

The idea of any hi-fi system is to reproduce the source material as faithfully as possible, and to deliberately add distortion to everything you hear (due to amplifier deficiencies) because it sounds 'nice' is simply not high fidelity. If that is what you want to hear then there is no problem with that, but by adding so much additional material (by way of harmonics and intermodulation) you have a tailored sound system, not a hi-fi. - Rod Elliot, ESP

2008-05-04 12:32:41

Parnit: Member; +5|6918

ty for the response ill probably bitch at them lol

2008-05-04 19:17:37

Dauntless: Admin; +2,249|7013|London

Freezer7Pro wrote:
Isn't 1920x1200 a tiny bit overkill for a 15.4"? 1680x1050 is what I'd take, everything's gonna be rediculously small.

Yeah, I'd say even 1680x1050 was too much, I use that and I have a 20" widescreen.

https://img146.imageshack.us/img146/3797/sizesry4.png

2008-05-04 23:40:01

DUnlimited: got any popo lolo intersting?; +1,160|6734|cuntshitlake

Dauntless wrote:
Freezer7Pro wrote:
Isn't 1920x1200 a tiny bit overkill for a 15.4"? 1680x1050 is what I'd take, everything's gonna be rediculously small.
Yeah, I'd say even 1680x1050 was too much, I use that and I have a 20" widescreen.

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/3797/sizesry4.png

My 17" monitor does not approve of 1280x1024. It's a fail resolution anyways, like wtf, 5:4? Even worse than 4:3. Wonder why they didn't put 1280x960 in there aside.

main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg

2008-05-04 23:46:52

Scorpion0x17: can detect anyone's visible post count...; +691|7037|Cambridge (UK)

OH FOR FUCKS SAKE!

One more post about how "32bit doesn't support 4GB of ram" and I swear I'm gonna go buy a small cache of ICBMs...

I will say this one last time - 32bit DOES and allways has supported upto, and including, a full 4GB of physical RAM.

2008-05-05 05:25:12

jamiet757: Member; +138|6893

Scorpion0x17 wrote:
OH FOR FUCKS SAKE!

One more post about how "32bit doesn't support 4GB of ram" and I swear I'm gonna go buy a small cache of ICBMs...

I will say this one last time - 32bit DOES and allways has supported upto, and including, a full 4GB of physical RAM.

It supports it but it does not fully use it.

I have 4 gb and 32-bit Vista Ultimate, after SP1 it reports 4.00GB, but it is not using all of it. Only about 3.20GB of it.

So you are wrong. I can show proof if you need it, or you can just wiki 32-bit and understand for yourself why 32-bit cannot utilize 4GB of RAM.

Last edited by jamiet757 (2008-05-05 05:27:10)

2008-05-05 05:36:00

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6852|SE London

Scorpion0x17 wrote:
OH FOR FUCKS SAKE!

One more post about how "32bit doesn't support 4GB of ram" and I swear I'm gonna go buy a small cache of ICBMs...

I will say this one last time - 32bit DOES and allways has supported upto, and including, a full 4GB of physical RAM.

Can't logically address it all as memory though....

As you well know.

2008-05-05 09:30:14

DUnlimited: got any popo lolo intersting?; +1,160|6734|cuntshitlake

Bertster7 wrote:
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
OH FOR FUCKS SAKE!

One more post about how "32bit doesn't support 4GB of ram" and I swear I'm gonna go buy a small cache of ICBMs...

I will say this one last time - 32bit DOES and allways has supported upto, and including, a full 4GB of physical RAM.
Can't logically address it all as memory though....

As you well know.

Which brings us to the point that posting that was pointless. It's all the same to the end user, most people really don't care whether you talk about not supporting or not addressing. The fact is that you cannot make use of 4GB of RAM on 32-bit OS.

main battle tank karthus medikopter 117 megamegapowershot gg

2008-05-05 12:01:53

Scorpion0x17: can detect anyone's visible post count...; +691|7037|Cambridge (UK)

DeathUnlimited wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
OH FOR FUCKS SAKE!

One more post about how "32bit doesn't support 4GB of ram" and I swear I'm gonna go buy a small cache of ICBMs...

I will say this one last time - 32bit DOES and allways has supported upto, and including, a full 4GB of physical RAM.
Can't logically address it all as memory though....

As you well know.
Which brings us to the point that posting that was pointless. It's all the same to the end user, most people really don't care whether you talk about not supporting or not addressing. The fact is that you cannot make use of 4GB of RAM on 32-bit OS.

The point is that the only way to get more than 3GB, on most motherboards, is to install 4x1GB sticks. Yes, a chunk of the last 1GB stick will be unavailable to windows, because of BIOS IO mappings, but having 4GB of physical RAM installed will work, and windows will utilize as much as the BIOS will allow it to.

So, in short, having 4GB of physical RAM installed is not pointless - it's the only way to get >3GB - it's just that Windows will never address some of it.

2008-05-05 20:02:39

jamiet757: Member; +138|6893

Scorpion0x17 wrote:
DeathUnlimited wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:

Can't logically address it all as memory though....

As you well know.
Which brings us to the point that posting that was pointless. It's all the same to the end user, most people really don't care whether you talk about not supporting or not addressing. The fact is that you cannot make use of 4GB of RAM on 32-bit OS.
The point is that the only way to get more than 3GB, on most motherboards, is to install 4x1GB sticks. Yes, a chunk of the last 1GB stick will be unavailable to windows, because of BIOS IO mappings, but having 4GB of physical RAM installed will work, and windows will utilize as much as the BIOS will allow it to.

So, in short, having 4GB of physical RAM installed is not pointless - it's the only way to get >3GB - it's just that Windows will never address some of it.

Correct.

2008-05-06 07:04:27

Scorpion0x17: can detect anyone's visible post count...; +691|7037|Cambridge (UK)

jamiet757 wrote:
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
DeathUnlimited wrote:

Which brings us to the point that posting that was pointless. It's all the same to the end user, most people really don't care whether you talk about not supporting or not addressing. The fact is that you cannot make use of 4GB of RAM on 32-bit OS.
The point is that the only way to get more than 3GB, on most motherboards, is to install 4x1GB sticks. Yes, a chunk of the last 1GB stick will be unavailable to windows, because of BIOS IO mappings, but having 4GB of physical RAM installed will work, and windows will utilize as much as the BIOS will allow it to.

So, in short, having 4GB of physical RAM installed is not pointless - it's the only way to get >3GB - it's just that Windows will never address some of it.
Correct.

I know.

2008-05-06 10:44:53

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6852|SE London

Scorpion0x17 wrote:
So, in short, having 4GB of physical RAM installed is not pointless - it's the only way to get >3GB - it's just that Windows will never address some of it.

3 1GB sticks and a 512MB stick.....

2008-05-06 14:34:25

Scorpion0x17: can detect anyone's visible post count...; +691|7037|Cambridge (UK)

Bertster7 wrote:
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
So, in short, having 4GB of physical RAM installed is not pointless - it's the only way to get >3GB - it's just that Windows will never address some of it.
3 1GB sticks and a 512MB stick.....

Lets look at the full quote, shall we?

Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The point is that the only way to get more than 3GB, on most motherboards, is to install 4x1GB sticks. Yes, a chunk of the last 1GB stick will be unavailable to windows, because of BIOS IO mappings, but having 4GB of physical RAM installed will work, and windows will utilize as much as the BIOS will allow it to.

So, in short, having 4GB of physical RAM installed is not pointless - it's the only way to get >3GB - it's just that Windows will never address some of it.

Highlighting added for the terminally stupid.

2008-05-07 01:46:59

Bertster7: Confused Pothead; +1,101|6852|SE London

Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
So, in short, having 4GB of physical RAM installed is not pointless - it's the only way to get >3GB - it's just that Windows will never address some of it.
3 1GB sticks and a 512MB stick.....
Lets look at the full quote, shall we?

Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The point is that the only way to get more than 3GB, on most motherboards, is to install 4x1GB sticks. Yes, a chunk of the last 1GB stick will be unavailable to windows, because of BIOS IO mappings, but having 4GB of physical RAM installed will work, and windows will utilize as much as the BIOS will allow it to.

So, in short, having 4GB of physical RAM installed is not pointless - it's the only way to get >3GB - it's just that Windows will never address some of it.
Highlighting added for the terminally stupid.

What? 3 1GB sticks and 1 512MB stick still fits in 4 slots.....

I don't get your point.

2008-05-07 01:54:52

GC_PaNzerFIN: Work and study @ Technical Uni; +528|6685|Finland

HAHA yeah you can get 3.5GB but it is not very smart tbh... Identical sticks ftw.

3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8

2008-05-07 17:51:14

Scorpion0x17: can detect anyone's visible post count...; +691|7037|Cambridge (UK)

Bertster7 wrote:
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Bertster7 wrote:

3 1GB sticks and a 512MB stick.....
Lets look at the full quote, shall we?

Scorpion0x17 wrote:
The point is that the only way to get more than 3GB, on most motherboards, is to install 4x1GB sticks. Yes, a chunk of the last 1GB stick will be unavailable to windows, because of BIOS IO mappings, but having 4GB of physical RAM installed will work, and windows will utilize as much as the BIOS will allow it to.

So, in short, having 4GB of physical RAM installed is not pointless - it's the only way to get >3GB - it's just that Windows will never address some of it.
Highlighting added for the terminally stupid.
What? 3 1GB sticks and 1 512MB stick still fits in 4 slots.....

I don't get your point.

Good luck getting that to work on many motherboards.

2008-05-07 18:27:25

The#1Spot: Member; +105|6811|byah

DeathUnlimited wrote:
Dauntless wrote:
Freezer7Pro wrote:
Isn't 1920x1200 a tiny bit overkill for a 15.4"? 1680x1050 is what I'd take, everything's gonna be rediculously small.
Yeah, I'd say even 1680x1050 was too much, I use that and I have a 20" widescreen.

http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/3797/sizesry4.png
My 17" monitor does not approve of 1280x1024. It's a fail resolution anyways, like wtf, 5:4? Even worse than 4:3. Wonder why they didn't put 1280x960 in there aside.

explain how 1280x1024 is a fail resolution

2008-05-07 18:36:35

Scorpion0x17: can detect anyone's visible post count...; +691|7037|Cambridge (UK)

How did this thread get so off-topic???

OP: if you do end up with 32bit Vista, go here, select you language, country, enter your 32bit product key and other info, they'll snail-mail you a 64bit DVD and away you go.

Pretty sure this applies to OEM as well as Retail (but I could be wrong).

Last edited by Scorpion0x17 (2008-05-07 18:37:23)

Pages: 1

Index »
Community »
Tech »
My problem is .... (How can I request that Dell upgrade to Vista-64?)

Board footer

Jump to

BF2S Forums My problem is .... (How can I request that Dell upgrade to Vista-64?)

Freezer7Pro wrote:

Dauntless wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

DeathUnlimited wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

DeathUnlimited wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

jamiet757 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

DeathUnlimited wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Scorpion0x17 wrote:

DeathUnlimited wrote:

Dauntless wrote:

Freezer7Pro wrote:

Board footer