Do laptops with 8gb of RAM exist?
Jun 24, 2008 | 9:57 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: between DCA and BWI
Programs: SPG Gold, Hyatt Plat, UA Premier, Hilton Gold
Posts: 3,652
Do laptops with 8gb of RAM exist?
Do any of the major manufacturers make laptops with over 4 gb of RAM? Preferably ones which are still laptops, not 12 pound monstrosities .
Looks like the new Dell Latitude E series will have more RAM, but it doesn't look like there is a definite release date for it
Looks like the new Dell Latitude E series will have more RAM, but it doesn't look like there is a definite release date for it
Jun 24, 2008 | 10:55 am
#2
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Exclusively OMNI/PR, for Reasons
Posts: 4,186
My understanding is that newer Core 2 Duo laptops with the Santa Rosa chipset can support more than 4GB of RAM; the problem is currently the availability of SODIMMS larger the 2GB.
If you intend to run Windows, it will need to be a 64bit version to take advantage of more than 3.25GB of memory. And the 64bit version of Vista is a mess from what I hear.
If you intend to run Windows, it will need to be a 64bit version to take advantage of more than 3.25GB of memory. And the 64bit version of Vista is a mess from what I hear.
Jun 24, 2008 | 11:08 am
#3
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: between DCA and BWI
Programs: SPG Gold, Hyatt Plat, UA Premier, Hilton Gold
Posts: 3,652
Yeah, I was thinking of using the 64-bit version of Vista. I guess 64-bit XP would be a better option then.
My understanding is that newer Core 2 Duo laptops with the Santa Rosa chipset can support more than 4GB of RAM; the problem is currently the availability of SODIMMS larger the 2GB.
If you intend to run Windows, it will need to be a 64bit version to take advantage of more than 3.25GB of memory. And the 64bit version of Vista is a mess from what I hear.
If you intend to run Windows, it will need to be a 64bit version to take advantage of more than 3.25GB of memory. And the 64bit version of Vista is a mess from what I hear.
Jun 24, 2008 | 11:15 am
#4
Join Date: Jan 2005
Programs: Dirt
Posts: 949
The part certainly exists. This is a single 4GB module, when installed in pairs, will give the system 8 GB. The cost is still too prohibitive for the mass market still. Right now the aftermarket is the only option for this upgrade.
Someone installed these modules in a T61p and wrote about it.
Someone installed these modules in a T61p and wrote about it.
Jun 24, 2008 | 12:33 pm
#5
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: The People's Republik of MSN
Programs: Hilton Diamond. Anti-Apostheid Platinum, PWP CentCom
Posts: 4,768
I ran Vista32 for a year on my desktop before I went to x64. It's no different in terms of stability for me.
Jun 24, 2008 | 1:54 pm
#6
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lower Merion Township, PA, (an inner-ring suburb to the Socialist Workers City/State of Philadelphia, PA)
Posts: 597
Related question came up recently. You can always put it as much memory as you want, but the laptop chipset and the OS variant must both support the 8Gb to utilize all of it. Adding memory to laptop.
Jun 24, 2008 | 2:17 pm
#7
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 38,543
Related question came up recently. You can always put it as much memory as you want, but the laptop chipset and the OS variant must both support the 8Gb to utilize all of it. Adding memory to laptop.
Jun 24, 2008 | 2:35 pm
#8
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Exclusively OMNI/PR, for Reasons
Posts: 4,186
Jun 24, 2008 | 2:44 pm
#9
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8830/4.2.2 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)
I'm going by what I've read over at the ThinkPad forums. One of the admins there had plenty to say about Vista64. It's about 3 posts down, and at least one other poster agreed with him
The guy's comments are not specific to x64, they are specific to Vista. Putting aside some of the vitriol in that post, there are problems with explorer and a few other things in Vista. Some hotfixes and SP1 supposedly addressed some of that, but it still isn't perfect by any sense.
So if you don't want to run Vista you can run XP x64 instead and you'll get access to all the RAM.
Vista x64 really isn't any worse than Vista x32. There will still be driver issues and similar issues to overcome, but otherwise Vista is just Vista, x86 or x64.
Originally Posted by PorkRind
So if you don't want to run Vista you can run XP x64 instead and you'll get access to all the RAM.
Vista x64 really isn't any worse than Vista x32. There will still be driver issues and similar issues to overcome, but otherwise Vista is just Vista, x86 or x64.
Jun 24, 2008 | 5:34 pm
#11
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Exclusively OMNI/PR, for Reasons
Posts: 4,186
Wirelessly posted (BlackBerry8830/4.2.2 Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 VendorID/105)
The guy's comments are not specific to x64, they are specific to Vista. Putting aside some of the vitriol in that post, there are problems with explorer and a few other things in Vista. Some hotfixes and SP1 supposedly addressed some of that, but it still isn't perfect by any sense.
So if you don't want to run Vista you can run XP x64 instead and you'll get access to all the RAM.
Vista x64 really isn't any worse than Vista x32. There will still be driver issues and similar issues to overcome, but otherwise Vista is just Vista, x86 or x64.
The guy's comments are not specific to x64, they are specific to Vista. Putting aside some of the vitriol in that post, there are problems with explorer and a few other things in Vista. Some hotfixes and SP1 supposedly addressed some of that, but it still isn't perfect by any sense.
So if you don't want to run Vista you can run XP x64 instead and you'll get access to all the RAM.
Vista x64 really isn't any worse than Vista x32. There will still be driver issues and similar issues to overcome, but otherwise Vista is just Vista, x86 or x64.
Jun 24, 2008 | 10:20 pm
#13
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Hoboken, NJ; Pembroke Pines, FL
Programs: CO Gold, SPG Gold
Posts: 2,940
I run XP, XP x64, and Vista x64. My wife runs XP and Vista.
I've noticed no difference between Vista and Vista x64, but XP x64 is definitely more troublesome than XP - though this has gotten better since the advent of Vista x64.
At any rate, I would not recommend XP x64.
Finally, for a notebook, I'd think carefully before installing a non-OEM OS on it. Make sure all drivers you'll need are available for the OS you select.
I've noticed no difference between Vista and Vista x64, but XP x64 is definitely more troublesome than XP - though this has gotten better since the advent of Vista x64.
At any rate, I would not recommend XP x64.
Finally, for a notebook, I'd think carefully before installing a non-OEM OS on it. Make sure all drivers you'll need are available for the OS you select.
Jun 25, 2008 | 2:54 pm
#15
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lower Merion Township, PA, (an inner-ring suburb to the Socialist Workers City/State of Philadelphia, PA)
Posts: 597
A workaround is to install VMWare, or VPC or VS, then install a server or 64 Bit OS on the virtual machine.
The original post said "ones which are still laptops...not 12 pound monstrosities . ". I would draw the line on laptops with mobile chipsets for this, as opposed to laptops with desktop chipsets.