SOLVED!!: "Branded" Win-7, RAM and 32-bit vs 64-bit OS

[BonzaiDuck]

OK. I was going to post a thread like this earlier per a different computer I was troubleshooting. (it turned out to be RAM, but there was a time I wasn't so sure.)

I'm trying to stay away from Branded OEM OS installation discs, which can nevertheless be had from online software-surplus resellers who are selling them legitimately. Here's the background on my issue.

I friend recently sold me a Gateway E-475M laptop from a bunch he had purchased through EBay or similar related reseller. I consider it worth the money I paid to him for the unit, because he thoroughly tested it (or so he thought), and he's "good with hardware" and HW troubleshooting. And -- he sent me the receipt from the purveyor of the surplus/refurbished laptop.

The laptop came with 2GB of SO-DIMM RAM, which was the standard configuration for its day. But the specs for all submodels of the E-475 are clear: you can upgrade the RAM to 2x2GB or 4GB -- which I did, carefully choosing Crucial's offering for this particular laptop model. [Not particularly relevant, but I also upgraded the wireless NIC to "N" with the unit specified for this system, and I upgraded the HDD to an SSD -- all quite successful results.]

Let me explain the matter of the OS installed on the laptop. My friend who purchased these units prefers 32-bit OS versions. Before the units in his order shipped, I conferred with him saying that I preferred 64-bit Windows 7. He contacted the seller, who ostensibly complied with the request.

The reseller had configured a "branded" Dell Windows 7 installation to the unit. Ordinarily, these had "worked" for me in the past, but for the chump-change difference between branded and white-box OEM, I heeded speculations in forums and abjure ordering anything but white-box OEM OS install discs.

Even so -- something I had not noticed with my previous "branded" experiences -- the Dell logo appears on the Control-Panel/"System" dialog window. It shows that this is a Windows 7, SP-1 -- 64-bit operating system.

The 4GB RAM upgrade tested perfect under 4 passes (400%) with HCI Memtest-64 loaded with the bootable CD, after reporting a total 4,096 MB (4GB) of RAM installed. So far . . . . so good.

But Windows "Resource Monitor" reports only 3.318 GB total RAM available. Let me explain the laptop's onboard graphics before returning to this fact.

The GM965 chipset for this laptop deploys the Intel X3100 accelerated graphics, which is supposed to grab about 128MB of system RAM. BIOS reports only 8MB of video RAM for this card, in addition to the 4GB of system RAM. System Information reports the Intel graphics is using 384 MB of system RAM.

Resource Monitor shows 778MB of RAM is "hardware reserved." There is no BIOS setting or anything else which addresses this problem. And the amount of RAM available seems coincident with what one would expect with a 32-bit OS.

Another Dell Win-7 64-bit installation I'd made to a desktop system with 8GB of RAM had no trouble recognizing and making available the full 8GB. [I later replaced this branded OS license with another, before I realized that I had one (of two) faulty 2x2GB RAM kit which was causing the issues I had with that desktop.]

I had read somewhere that you "couldn't upgrade a 32-bit OS" with a 64-bit version, or that it required a complete reinstall of the 64-bit OS.

And I'm wondering if this 3.3GB RAM limitation is a result of how the reseller may have chosen to correct the 32-bit installation he'd made to the 64-bit preference I'd expressed before he shipped the item to my friend.

Any ideas? I could always test the system by pulling my SSD, putting the HDD back in, and installing a good Win-7 64-bit white-box license I have yet to use for anything.

I'm just trying to puzzle this out: to determine how the laptop OS and RAM recognition "got this way," how it might be corrected -- whether the symptoms point toward an uninformed "reconfiguration" of a previously 32-bit Win 7 version, etc. etc. etc.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

SOLVED.

Initially I'd had the problem with the 4,096MB of RAM installed where it only showed 2GB free, available, cached and used.

MSCONFIG has a "Boot" tab. The Boot screen offers a checkbox labeled "Maximum Memory," together with a textbox entry for "Amount of RAM available." You can choose either "0" for the latter or any number up to 4,096.

But if you select 4,096, the same dialog windows after reboot shows "0" in the text box.

The secret here -- which is counterintuitive -- you must UNCHECK the "maximum Memory" check-box to get the full complement of RAM above 3.3GB.

 

[Matt1970]

That is sorta a known issue. I have seen it myself as well as read of others that have selected 4GB or whatever only to check it months later and it shows 3GB.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

That is sorta a known issue. I have seen it myself as well as read of others that have selected 4GB or whatever only to check it months later and it shows 3GB.

That's what I found with some web-searches. I'd already become familiar (but apparently not enough) with the Boot tab of MSCONFIG, and it was quite a revelation to me when I found someone offering advice to some forum poster with the same problem -- suggesting that "maximum Memory" should be unchecked.

Nobody has criticized me to any degree for buying a refurb laptop with seven-year-old technology. I keep looking at the Frye's and Egg ads for the new stuff, and I can see I have just barely exceeded what I would pay for some of those units. My processor -- C2D Centrino -- is slower with older instruction-set and features; the memory controller is on the mobo; I'm limited to 4GB total RAM by the GM965 chipset.

But it was an educational experience, and the laptop's usage won't likely exceed its capability. The SSD and extra RAM make it pretty snappy for that usage. Battery charge-life exceeds some of these new models, even though the unit weighs in at 8+lbs and some folks I know were eyeballing units that weigh just over 3 lbs.

I'm trying to go mobile without breaking the bank. This is my first laptop, my first serious attempt to use or boost wireless speed. I can put off other decisions for a while with this.

I just never thought I'd encounter a problem I'd never seen on my DIY desktop builds -- with an OS "setting" as opposed to a hardware or OS "limitation."

 

[DrGreen2007]

removing the 'branding' is easy, Ive done it a bunch of times, think the reg key is in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\OOBE

 

[Towermax]

I'm limited to 4GB total RAM by the GM965 chipset.

Actually, you may not be limited to 4GB, depending on whether or not Dell upgraded the BIOS on that particular system. I have two Dell Latitudes (D630, and D830) with the GM965 chipset, and both can handle 8GB of RAM. I currently have 6GB in the D830, and just got another 4Gb SO-DIMM that I'll probably put in the D630.

I once had 8GB in the D830 and it passed 24 hrs of Memtest 86+, as well as the several hour-long Dell memory tests. Windows 7 sees and uses all of it, and CPU-Z and other tools also see it.

Yes, theoretically the chipset is limited to 4GB, but many of us are running 6-8GB on GM965 chipsets. If you Google "8 GB Latitude D830", you'll find several articles/posts on the subject.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

removing the 'branding' is easy, Ive done it a bunch of times, think the reg key is in HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\OOBE

There are all sorts of positions, arguments and opinions about this. Some folks promote an "ethics" perspective. But we all buy OEM OS install-discs and accept the fact that the difference between OEM and retail is (a) the binding of the installation to a hardware hash-code, and (b) the level of tech support from M$. The "ethics" issue arises when folks use "telephone activation" with an excuse that they had to replace a motherboard or some similar equivocation.

On the DELL forums, they promulgate the myth that the branded OS install discs are somehow bound to Dell hardware as a proprietary limitation. It is more likely not the case, and it is more likely that the product activation key for any given branded disc is not exclusive to that disc.

I still prefer "white-box" OEM versions over branded. The branded discs may cost $20 less -- or a margin bigger than that.

Actually, you may not be limited to 4GB, depending on whether or not Dell upgraded the BIOS on that particular system. I have two Dell Latitudes (D630, and D830) with the GM965 chipset, and both can handle 8GB of RAM. I currently have 6GB in the D830, and just got another 4Gb SO-DIMM that I'll probably put in the D630.

I once had 8GB in the D830 and it passed 24 hrs of Memtest 86+, as well as the several hour-long Dell memory tests. Windows 7 sees and uses all of it, and CPU-Z and other tools also see it.

Yes, theoretically the chipset is limited to 4GB, but many of us are running 6-8GB on GM965 chipsets. If you Google "8 GB Latitude D830", you'll find several articles/posts on the subject.

Actually, maybe you missed a detail or I wasn't explicit -- or I misunderstand you: My system is a Gateway E-475M. But, as you insinuate, I've become aware that Dell and Gateway made similar laptops based on the same chipset.

So this offers up intriguing possibilities, with a little risk-taking involved -- depending on how I might acquire the SO-DIMM(s) to test the proposition.

It's especially interesting because the Intel specs on both GM- and PM- 965 chipsets state "4GB."

If I could actually double the RAM from what is now an unrestricted 4GB availability to the OS and programs, it would probably make this system a bit faster. It would especially open up a better chance of improving boot-system disk performance with a program like Romex Primo-Cache -- deployed for the Crucial MX100 in the system. It is true that the SATA-III SSD is much faster -- probably by 3x -- than the 2.5" HDD it replaced, but the laptop GM965 motherboard is only "SATA_II" compliant. But with at least 2GB of free RAM allocated to the caching leaving 6GB for the OS and programs, I'd likely see benchmarks for the SSD exceeding what one would expect from an SATA-II or even -III controller.

I would never have thought before that purchasing a refurb of 7-year-old dual-core technology was such a good idea. But I'm really happy with the upgrades I've made so far, even if the expense for adding the Crucial SSD seems a bit excessive, given the mobo SATA controller limitations.

 

[Towermax]

I should have been more clear--the point is that the GM965 chipset is not necessarily limited to 4GB, despite Intel's statement. My experience has only been with the Dells I mentioned, so I can't say that more than 4GB is possible with other brands. Even with the Dell Latitudes, it was only possible after the last couple of BIOS updates.

Here's an interesting thread from the Notebook Review forum that discusses the changes that occurred with the new BIOS and the new ability to run 8GB.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/dell-latitude-vostro-precision/267038-8gb-dell-latitude-d830.html

It also notes: "So Dell is now advertising the M6300 with 8gb capability (2 x 4gb DIMMS). As far as I understand, the M6300 uses the Intel PM965 chipset, the D830 uses the Intel GM965. According to Intel, they both 'only' support 4gb."

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I should have been more clear--the point is that the GM965 chipset is not necessarily limited to 4GB, despite Intel's statement. My experience has only been with the Dells I mentioned, so I can't say that more than 4GB is possible with other brands. Even with the Dell Latitudes, it was only possible after the last couple of BIOS updates.

Here's an interesting thread from the Notebook Review forum that discusses the changes that occurred with the new BIOS and the new ability to run 8GB.

http://forum.notebookreview.com/dell-latitude-vostro-precision/267038-8gb-dell-latitude-d830.html

It also notes: "So Dell is now advertising the M6300 with 8gb capability (2 x 4gb DIMMS). As far as I understand, the M6300 uses the Intel PM965 chipset, the D830 uses the Intel GM965. According to Intel, they both 'only' support 4gb."

We-ull, Sah!! The plot certainly thickens! There are three web-pages for comments on that link, and so far I've only read through the first one.

Here's where I'm hopeful, but still a bit puzzled.

My E-475M laptop has BIOS revision 86.05 installed. When I look at the Gateway website, the only "revision" they offer is 86.02.

The "date" that shows in the 86.05 BIOS shows late 2007. The release-date on the Gateway 86.02 shows "2010." Ya see my quandary with this?!

The colleague who sold me the surplus laptop noted that the reseller buys the cast-offs from corporate entities, and he surmises that Gateway (and possibly other OEMs) made "extra" or "special" production-runs for large, corporate contract-purchases. This may have meant that there were "special" BIOS revisions.

And from the indications on the first page of comments in that notebook-review thread, I'm probably safer to buy only a single 4GB SO-DIMM to find out. Better than that, I should find a used one somewhere. I'm just not entirely sure what to do. I even submitted a letter to Maximum PC Mag to see if they could puzzle it out. I don't even care if they publish it -- I just want to avoid shelling out (at least) $100 to find out firsthand! :hmm:

 

[Towermax]

We-ull, Sah!! The plot certainly thickens! There are three web-pages for comments on that link, and so far I've only read through the first one.

Here's where I'm hopeful, but still a bit puzzled.

My E-475M laptop has BIOS revision 86.05 installed. When I look at the Gateway website, the only "revision" they offer is 86.02.

The "date" that shows in the 86.05 BIOS shows late 2007. The release-date on the Gateway 86.02 shows "2010." Ya see my quandary with this?!

The colleague who sold me the surplus laptop noted that the reseller buys the cast-offs from corporate entities, and he surmises that Gateway (and possibly other OEMs) made "extra" or "special" production-runs for large, corporate contract-purchases. This may have meant that there were "special" BIOS revisions.

And from the indications on the first page of comments in that notebook-review thread, I'm probably safer to buy only a single 4GB SO-DIMM to find out. Better than that, I should find a used one somewhere. I'm just not entirely sure what to do. I even submitted a letter to Maximum PC Mag to see if they could puzzle it out. I don't even care if they publish it -- I just want to avoid shelling out (at least) $100 to find out firsthand! :hmm:

The remaining two pages of that thread show that people had success with 6-8GB of RAM. (On the Dell Latitudes, when you add one or two 4GB SODIMMS, the initial bootup seems to take forever. Thereafter, though, they boot normally.)

Yeah, I see the issue with the BIOS in your laptop. Who knows what's there? I think the only thing you can do is test it with a 4GB SODIMM.

A used 4GB SODIMM can be had for $40-$50 if you are patient. I got a used one (Kingston) here a year ago for $40 and a new one (Crucial) recently on eBay for $36. Of course, in your case, the best option would be to see if you can borrow one from a friend.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

The remaining two pages of that thread show that people had success with 6-8GB of RAM. (On the Dell Latitudes, when you add one or two 4GB SODIMMS, the initial bootup seems to take forever. Thereafter, though, they boot normally.)

Yeah, I see the issue with the BIOS in your laptop. Who knows what's there? I think the only thing you can do is test it with a 4GB SODIMM.

A used 4GB SODIMM can be had for $40-$50 if you are patient. I got a used one (Kingston) here a year ago for $40 and a new one (Crucial) recently on eBay for $36. Of course, in your case, the best option would be to see if you can borrow one from a friend.

Thanks for the "intel" and summary. I think I need to start shopping, and do what you suggest.

 

[Raduque]

I still can't get past a guy who still wants to use x86 and not x64 systems in 2014.

 

[Doomer]

I know an old woman who will swear that Win 98se was the best OS Microsoft ever produced and she's been pissed ever since she was forced to give it up. Like Will Rodgers said - "There ain't no accountin' for taste".

 

[Towermax]

Thanks for the "intel" and summary. I think I need to start shopping, and do what you suggest.

Well, I just tested a 4GB SODIMM in my wife's HP DV2500. It's a GM965 with theoretically a 4GB RAM limit. And theoretically it is. In reality, it saw and used all 6 GB--showed up in BIOS, in Memtest86, and in Task Manager. As a test, I loaded the system with dozens of programs and 55 Firefox tabs, and Task Manager reported that over 5.5GB was being used.

And I found a discussion about Thinkpad T61 units, also with the GM965 chipset, using 6-8GB. So it looks like a lot of laptops with this chipset can handle more than 4GB.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Well, I just tested a 4GB SODIMM in my wife's HP DV2500. It's a GM965 with theoretically a 4GB RAM limit. And theoretically it is. In reality, it saw and used all 6 GB--showed up in BIOS, in Memtest86, and in Task Manager. As a test, I loaded the system with dozens of programs and 55 Firefox tabs, and Task Manager reported that over 5.5GB was being used.

And I found a discussion about Thinkpad T61 units, also with the GM965 chipset, using 6-8GB. So it looks like a lot of laptops with this chipset can handle more than 4GB.

I can only guess that the "spec" was defined before RAM-makers started producing 4GB SODIMMs.

Even before finding your response here, I began to incline myself toward the 'gamble' of picking up a 4GB Crucial module, but it's difficult to find these much below $100. I should check our "buy and sell" forum here.

I'll reallocate my August-September budget numbers and grab one. Somewhere . . . Maybe I should consult with my friend who found this Gateway unit for me. He's got several of these distributed among his family -- all with 2GB kits. If the experiment works, I could sell him the relatively-new 2x2GB kit at a firesale price . . . everybody makes out in the shake. . .

 

[Towermax]

I can only guess that the "spec" was defined before RAM-makers started producing 4GB SODIMMs.

Sounds likely. Also, Intel did "refresh" the chipset at least once.

Even before finding your response here, I began to incline myself toward the 'gamble' of picking up a 4GB Crucial module, but it's difficult to find these much below $100. I should check our "buy and sell" forum here.

There's quite a few different brands on eBay for $70 or so, but $40.00 ones turn up every now and then. I just missed an eBay listing with 8 new Samsung 4GB for $40 each last week.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Sounds likely. Also, Intel did "refresh" the chipset at least once.



There's quite a few different brands on eBay for $70 or so, but $40.00 ones turn up every now and then. I just missed an eBay listing with 8 new Samsung 4GB for $40 each last week.

I'm going to take my time and keep looking.

I had what PC Mag or PC World called "Battery isn't charging when it's supposed to . . . " or something like that. One of those mags had a troubleshooting guide, which in turn suggested nothing worse than a stuck bit-setting that occurred due to the way the user tries to manage the cabling and AC/DC power-pack. I think it is best to hibernate or shutdown the system before uncabling the power adapter.

It only requires disassembly of the power cabling, test that system boots after battery removal from wall-power, unhinge the cabling again, replace the battery . . and voila. . . .

The things one might know for being a laptop aficionado for a decade or more!

Anyway, I need to think about some expected longevity for this old unit. Everything is essentially perfect, as I can see it. For $25, I can upgrade to an 11.1V 9- or 12-cell battery and come near doubling the charge life.

Probably --- by next month -- I'll make the purchase. One module or a 2x kit, I can't say.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

I still can't get past a guy who still wants to use x86 and not x64 systems in 2014.

This laptop is a "Centrino-Duo" C2D, and I'm running Win 7 -64-bit. Maybe you're referring to the friend who sold it to me: He's still using XP and VISTA-32. Point is, you can't use more than 3.3 GB of RAM with the 32-bit OS.

What we're discussin' here is some limitation of a chipset (GM965) that may -- or may not be "real." the links posted thus far seems to indicate that between 6GB and 8GB of 2x4GB or 2GB+4GB will work on these "old" laptops.

I notice that some of the SODIMMs mentioned in the links were priced above $400 when the forum posts of those links were made. "Was that a single module or a 2x kit?" Price has declined by at least half.

It gets down to the simple dilemma: It's an old mobile C2D with an outdated FSB and speed. So one has to ask if ~$200 for a memory upgrade is worth it, or whether it results in only partial success (6GB) or the dual-channel enchilada -- 8GB.