Why can't I have more than 1 GB of Ram?

It's probably a chipset limitation.  I'm surprised you get Windows recognizing 1.5.

May be a slot limitation..the way the slots are wired up or a chipset limitation.
Checking motherboards in the future, it usually states what the maximum GB limit is... so u can be careful :)
You're lucky with the 1.5GB.  Maybe a BIOS update can extend it?  Only sony would know.

Jeff

I agree with leew that it is strange that you have a 1.5 gig limitation.  Lew could be correct on the nature of the limitation, too, but I see it as possible that the BIOS is what is the cause for this limitation.  There's a VERY slim chance that Sony or the motherboard manufacturer have an update for the BIOS which will get rid of the limitation.  I've never heard of it being done, but it is technically possible (assuming the BIOS is the cause of the limitation).  Beyond that, the only way to get rid of the limitation is to upgrade the motherboard.  Becuase of the nature of laptop designs, it is not likely the motherboard will be upgradeable.

Bottom line is your probably stuck with the limitation, and should be happy you can get 1.5 gigs to work.  

A note of caution, I would not flash (upgrade) the BIOS unless you find specific documentation which tells you it will get rid (or rather increase) your RAM limitation.  While rare, if something goes wrong while flashing your BIOS, your motherboard would need to be repaired or replaced.

Sony will not cooperate in any way, I have already tried. They recommended
I get a new computer -- a Sony one I'm sure.

Anyway, I wish I could get a definitive answer as to where the Max memory
limitation comes from on all motherboards in general. If it is a wiring or chipset
issue, then I surely can't upgrade. I just wish I knew for sure.

I'm happy just to get 1.5 MB running, and SiSoft Sandra says that it is 100%
addressable -- so that is good.

Still, I wish I could get a firm answer as to the source of this type of limitation.
If nobody else shows up with a complete answer soon, I will just split the points
between the two of you.

-- Scribble

The limitation is most likely engineered due to power limitations of laptops. Twelve watts of power for every 128MB of RAM is an average value, 96watts for 1GB...this is far more power consumption than the processor...and with no way to throttle power as with a cpu. You may be risking damage to the mainboard, power subsystem by using more memory than specification allows even though the 1.5 GB appears to function. Suggest that you follow spec and be happy with the 1GB limitation.
T

It is the chipset that the MB is based upon which limits both the RAM architecture, and the size, pairing, and dual/single channel.  The chipset also governs the minimum acceptable RAM speed that the rest of the board circuitry can run with.  That is for DESKTOPS !!!

For laptops, the situation changes dramatically.  Some laptop chipsets have much higher limits than you can physically buy or fit in the laptop.  It is more a function on laptops as to which modules you can buy to fit in the laptop, because of physical design limits.  Therefore some laptop BIOes actually limit how much RAM you can use (you can use higher, but it won't see it) beyond the chipset limitations.

1.0GB for a LT is typical.  If you can see 1.5 AND use it, you are doing well.

Generally these limitations are in the chipsets.  They are not in the CPU (I want to say "ever"), and also not normally in the BIOS (more possible than the CPU, but very rare).

Keep in mind, the fact that it doesn't work with THESE modules doesn't mean that it might not work with some other modules.  Going back a ways to the "BX" chipset, it would work with some 256 megabyte modules but not others.  This isn't "hit or miss", there is a specific reason in terms of the circuitry and it ends up depending, in many cases, on the internal organization of the modules and chips.  For example, you can make a 256 meg module from 8 chips of 32K each or 4 chips of 64K each, and to the chipset, that difference can be everything (make or break).

If you want to do a bit more research, find out what chipset is actually in your machine (you can probably get this information from device manager), then go to the web site for the chipset mfgr. (usually Intel, Via, ALi or SiS) and look up the specs on the chipset, which will tell you what the maximum supported memory is.  But even then, sometimes the limit is based on the highest capacity devices in existence at the time of the printing of the data sheet, and in some cases you can subsequently exceed those limits.  Sometimes.

By the way, you normally cannot upgrade the CPU of a laptop, you have to buy a new laptop in most cases (there are some exceptions).

[I see now that dlorenz already did what I was suggesting in terms of looking up the chipset data]

Huh?  How can someone credit me with being correct I and I don't get any points in a split or anything... I wish people would read the rules about grading questions...

Hey, sometimes there is just no correleation between what was written by whom and who got the points.  I've learned to just accept it.  It tends to cut both ways, over the long term.  If it makes you feel any better, I didn't get any either :-(

Hi guys,

The points were given before you fine folks jumped in -- probably just seconds prior to the moment Watzman posted his comment. dlorenz's comment pointed me to the Intel 830MP chipset, which after a little digging around I found to be what I was running. When I checked the specs on that chipset and saw that it supports max 1 GB then I had my answer as to "Why can't i have more than 1 GB of RAM."

dlorenz had answered my question exactly as I had requested. I didn't even refresh the page, I just gave him the points. True, the rest of you were correct, but dlorenz was correct FIRST. I wish that I could give you all 500 points -- and as a paying member I have plenty of points to pass around. But the fact is, once I had the info I needed, 100 people could have come to my aid -- but a patient only needs the first doctor that cures him.

As for why leew didn't get the points, I make it a matter of principle that I do not award points for answers that contain the word "probably" or any other qualifier. I am offering 500 points -- I want a definitive answer. If I want a guess, I can go talk to someone at Best Buy.

Don't go running off when you see my name on a question in the future. You will find that I am generous with the points and do my best to accept an answer as soon as I feel my question is answered. I will admit that perhaps I could have waited a little longer and spread the points around more evenly. But I'm not sure that would have been fair to dlorenz.

-- ScribbleMeat

While I'm not going to take issue with how you awarded the points, I'm going to take a huge issue with your policy that "I do not award points for answers that contain the word "probably" or any other qualifier"

In this forum, you are asking people to diagnose and fix problem on systems that they can't see, can't examine, and don't know the history of (not to even mention knowing nothing about the user).  In fact, your position is not only wrong (in my opionon), bit it's diametrically wrong:  Any post which states a solution WITHOUT a qualifier is wrong, because the answer is almost never "certain", and the guy who thinks that it is and doesn't qualify his answer simply lacks comprehension of all of the things that he could be missing, while it is the guy with years of experience who understands just how many possible causes can contribute to almost any set of symptoms, and how impossible it is, troubleshooting remotely on a system that you can't touch, see or examine, to be totally certain of what is going on.

I don't like any "absolute" rules, but anyone with depth of both knowledge and experience is much more likely to realize the limits of this type of a forum, and to give you a qualified answer.

I've been doing this for more than 10 years.  Anyone who uses WILL, DOES, IS, or other absolute words in describing the cause or solution to a problem is inexperienced and has as much chance of being wrong as they do of being right.  Next time, split the points, especially when someone credits someone else with the answer.

Gentlemen,

I apologize. In an effort to get something done with my day I truncated that paragraph concerning leew. What I was trying to say was that I do not usually award points for an opinion. Any opinion can have value, but the value comes from the opinion holder -- not the opinion itself. There is no intrinsic value to a twelve-word opinion from a stranger -- no matter how correct it is -- because there is no foundation for intellectual trust.

Grant it, if Stephen Spielberg gave me his twelve-word opinion on a question about film editing, I would likely award him the points. Why? Because, although he is a complete stranger to me, there is a clear foundation for intellectual trust. Mr. Spielberg would bring with his opinion the weight of his experience combined with his quite public successes. If, on the other hand, Mr. Spielberg offered a twelve-word opinion on this question then I would likely have waited for something a little more conclusive. In the end, Mr. Spielberg would have lost the points to dlorenz -- just like leew did.

When I said " I make it a matter of principle that I do not award points for answers that contain the word 'probably' or any other qualifier," I should have been more clear. And since everyone seems so interested by my opinion today, I will spell it out.  
A comment that includes the word "probably" or any other qualifier shows that the commenter is either a) showing wisdom by admitting that no person is right all the time;  b) covering a lack of knowledge; or c) the commenter assumes his opinion will have value without context. With nothing but the bare opinion displayed -- and without pretext -- it is impossible to ascertain whether the comment falls under a, b or c. In the case of leew's comment, I gleaned no new knowledge and was no closer to a solution -- despite the fact he was right.

Moreover, leew's opinion included the phrase " I'm surprised you get Windows recognizing 1.5 [GB]," though clearly I had. So, compounding the issue of not knowing the value of his short opinion, I had to take into account that fact he readily admitted that he had never seen a case like mine. His surprise could have come from years of experience; or his surprise could have come from a lack thereof. I had no context in which to place his being introduced to something new and unusual.

Despite the fact that the phrase "diametrically opposed" is a double negative, (meaning I would be "not wrong" -- see links below), I agree with Watzman on this: an opinion's value is diminished by the appearance of dogmatism.

At least that is what I think he was saying; I can't be sure; because he then turned around and said, "Any post which states a solution WITHOUT a qualifier is wrong;" a rather dogmatic statement for someone who also said: "the answer is almost never 'certain', and the guy who thinks [so] ... simply lacks comprehension of all of the things that he could be missing."

Perhaps an opinion that seems to take both sides of an issue and is so punctured by circular logic and qualifiers is ALSO just as valueless as one which is stated with the conviction of ignorance. A timid opinion simply doesn’t ring true. But I could be wrong (in my opinion), I think… maybe.

There is in all things one, single truth. What that truth might be is often a matter of debate, and great minds can differ on their perception of what that truth might be; but the truth never changes. Truth, by definition, is conformity to fact or actuality. The perception of reality is not reality itself, but rather a perspective. No person can realistically claim to know truth unequivocally. Conversely, no person can be of any benefit to those that seek truth if their perspective is either too rigid or too timid.

Dlorenz got the points not because his opinion was correct, but because he backed it up with documentation. As any good teacher will tell you, “show your work.”  More importantly, with his comment and documentation, I gained new knowledge and understanding and I felt my question was answered. If I would have had but one comment, and that single comment was the one leew left me, I fear I would not consider my question answered.  Dlorenz clearly made an effort– he obviously wasn’t just trolling for points.

I imagine there are those members who do troll for points; going from one question to the next; dropping short, hopefully-correct comments without any real effort to back up what they offer. I imagine those types of members hope to be included when the points are handed out. Those members who troll – or even appear to behave like a troller -- will likely not ever receive any points from me.

-- ScribbleMeat




Watzman, here’s some links on "diametrically opposed":
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery;jsessionid=5hokuueornqpv?method=4&dsid=501&dekey=diametrical&gwp=8&curtab=501_1&sbid=lc02b
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22diametrically+opposed%22+%22double+negative%22
http://www.globusz.com/ebooks/Speech/00000030.htm

First, let me take the time to THANK scribblemeat for taking the time to address this.  While I still believe a split would be in order I would like to clarify and comment on a few of his points:

1.  I completely agree with the remark using Steven Speilberg as an example.  The problem is, unlike many experts on this site, I DID take the time to fill out the profile.  I could start every "first comment" to a question with "I have 10 + years experience and this is what I think...", but in many ways this seems arrogant and otherwise usually uncalled for.  A simple check of my profile would have revealed the extensive background and areas of expertise on this site.

2.  While there was (to me) no clear implication of me "trolling for points" I would like to make this statement:
Experts-Exchange IS a points based Question and Answer community.  If I didn't care about points, indeed I think if most people who participate here truly didn't care about points, they would be answering questions elsewhere.  There is more volume on Newsgroups and there are plenty of other web sites out there for asking questions.  I do have certain "guidelines" I try to follow in this "caring about points";
  a) I won't request a grade be overturned unless it's blatent ignoring of my comments
  b) I do expect people who select answers to explain why they selected it unless it's the only answer selected or I'm the only poster.  I believe in this site as a resource and not just a Q&A place, when someone selects an answer, people should explain why that answer worked for them.  I have asked a number of questions and while I can forget now and then, I always try to explain why I selected one answer over another and/or gave a grade lower than an A.  When others don't have the same respect for the system (or forget that one time and I notice), I tend to inquire about details.
  c) I generally do not avoid answering questions just because they are low point values.

3.  EE rules and guidelines state:
If a comment posted by an Expert has answered your question, then you should select the Expert's comment as the answer to your question. In case of duplicate or similar comments, you should select the first comment posted.
Given the selected answer provided evidence beyond my say so, I completely agree to a points-split and was not asking or intending to suggest the answer be changed exclusively to me.

Once again, I very much appreciate the fact that ScribbleMeat has taken the time to expand on his reasoning and practices.  While I disagree with things in this case, I appreciate the maturity and what I consider mutual respect shown.  I will not be blacklisting him (I don't black list many, indeed there's only one person I blacklisted so far for recent childlike behaviour).

leew,

After reading your last comment, I sincerely wish I could give you 500 points just for being a good guy. You should know that I never considered you to be arrogant and my last comment was intended not to defend myself, but rather to clarify my reasoning. Believe me when I say that much more thought and effort went into explaining my actions than ever went into the actions themselves.

I agree with you wholeheartedly on every point you made. And next time you comment on a question of mine, you will most certainly carry a sincere context of intellectual trust with your opinion. Nothing thrills me more than to be disagreed with intelligently. Perhaps if the world we live in were not so virtual, we could even be friends.

- ScribbleMeat