IBook Registers wrong RAM size

Hello,
I have a weird issue with my iBook - I have the biult in 256mb ram and I installed a Crucial 1 gig stick in the other slot. It worked like a charm for a long time but recently I decided to run system profiles and it is showing that I have
"Memory: 768 MB"
What could be causing this?

Steven, I have not run the hardware test as I don't have a CD handy. I see there is memtest and techtool lite so I'll these.
Crucial will swap my memory free of charge so I'll do that first. It'll leave me with 256RAM for a little while which will be painful

Similar Messages

Wrong RAM Size Detected with KT4 Ultra

I am using 2 Crucial PC2100 256 MB DDR Modules. Neither they nor the motherboard ever overclocked. Even I used them under auto settings. They were working fine as 512 MB after I first installed my system but I noticed today that the board detects installed memory as 384 MB instead of 512 MB. My LCD monitor can not display the full boot screen and I could only see the least significant 3 digits of memory. So I didn't notice when this problem occurred.
I wonder whether this is a known or reported issue.
Also, I read the posts about Crucial DDR RAMs and Radeon 9700 Pro and became desperate about my lovely MSI motherboard. When I had installed this board (it is my first MSI motherboard) I was very satisfied. Will my satisfaction continue?
Thanks for any help or comments.
Mustafa

Yes, you're wright.
One of the modules seams to have (a) problem(s) since it is recognized as 128 MB in both of the first two DDR slots.
I will order new memory modules to night.
Thank you very much.

I want SGA size=4GB when RAM size=8GB.

Hello,
If i am not wrong, oracle takes the 40% of RAM size by default for SGA. At one of my clients site server, they have 8 GB RAM , now i wanted to a lot them at least 3GB to 4GB RAM for SGA. As i tried to do so , it was not taking more than 2GB ...
Why oracle does not take SGA size more than 2GB ? how can this be increased ? can someone please put some light on this point.
ORACLE 10G R2
Windows Server 2005
Thanks and Regards,

Hello,
In Windows *32 bit* you are limited to *2GB* per process (whatever the process). So the Process oracle.exe
cannot overcome this limit except if you use the */3GB* parameter.
So if you want to have a larger SGA you should think to migrate to a *64 Bit* OS. But keep in mind that having
large SGA is not the only way of tuning a database.
Please find enclosed a link about this topic:
http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/f?p=100:11:0::::P11_QUESTION_ID:707585800346136316
Hope this help.
Best regards,
Jean-Valentin
Edited by: Lubiez Jean-Valentin on Mar 26, 2010 10:04 PM

Mixing ram SIZES in Late 2013 i7 27" iMac

Just assume all ram sticks are the same specs.......
Can I mix ram SIZES in Late 2013 i7 27" iMac? I.E. : two - 4 GB and two - 8 GB?

You should try to balance RAM out as equally as possible between available slots.
For example, 2 4 4 4, 2 2 4 4, 2 2 2 4, but not 2,4,8,0. And where you only have two slots, 2 2, 2 4, 4 4, and so on.

Wrong fileset size information on Oracle9i Database HP-UX Download?

Could it be, that there are wrong fileset size information at the HP-UX download page for Oracle 9i??
I found the information:
server_9201_hpunix64_disk1.cpio.gz (566,419,019 bytes)
server_9201_hpunix64_disk2.cpio.gz (648,282,885 bytes)
server_9201_hpunix64_disk3.cpio.gz (538,652,554 bytes)
server_9201_hpunix64_disk4.cpio.gz (37,595,939 bytes)
and my archives open but have different sizes.
regards,
Hans-Georg

HI
Yuo need ALL DISK to install
I installed this version and i didn't problems
good lock
mario

Import FLV-- get wrong movie size

Importing an FLV file from Media Encoder into Dreamweaver CS4 page. Always get the wrong media size unless I'm using FLV-- same as source in Media Encoder. The results are very low in quality with that option. Otherwise I get a black letter-box image with black bands above and below the move.
I've done this 3-4 times with other movies on the same equipment and it always worked before. What am I doing wrong?
Thanks

To upgrade or not??? that's a choice only you can make.
Final video file size is perhaps not as important as choosing the correct display dimensions and video bitrate for you target audiance and THEIR Internet download speeds.
As for "quality" as it relates to bitrate.... for your review:
Video bit rate
Video bitrate is the minimum amount of data that must continually flow into the video player in order for the player to display that particular video uninterrupted. If that supply of data is not high enough, the video player will stop…. Wait for more data to download, then resume. The video bitrate is set as a parameter when the video is encoded.
One of the principle of goal setting is to "Begin with the end in mind". In this case it'll be very hard to give good recommendations because the end is not defined. So I'll just make a few assumptions and you can correct me as needed.
First, I'll assume that since you are converting to Flash, you want to deliver this video over the Internet. If that's true, then we'll have to make some assumptions on the Internet connection download speeds of your potential viewers. Let's just say that most have at least a 1.5Mb connection or faster.
OK, that would mean that a video bitrate of half that should usually provide a video download that is not interupped by buffering (most of the time anyway). So assuming a video bitrate of 750kbps, what would the optimum display dimensions be?
Before we decide, here's a little info about bitrate. For highest quality playback, the video bitrate is tied directly to the display dimensions. That is, the larger the display, the more incoming data is required to properly display the video. Think of bitrate in terms of a can of paint. If you have 1 quart of paint, you might be able to do a very nice job on a 32 X 24 foot area. But if you try to stretch that same amount of paint out over a 64 X 48 foot area, the coverage will not be nearly as good and you get poor results.
In the same way, a video displayed at 640 X 480 pixels will require 4 times the bitrate as a video displayed at 320 X 240 pixels to produce the same quality. So for example a video with a bitrate of 100kbps, displayed at 160 X 120 will produce the same quality results as a video with a bitrate of 1600kbps if displayed at 640 X 480.
So to boil it all down, video bitrates of 750kbps, even up to 1000kbps can usually get delivered of the Internet on most high speed connections. Higher bit rates may work for really fast connections but will cause problems for viewers with slower connections. Video display size has a direct bearing on the final quality. In the 750 to 1000kbps range, display size should be kept around 450 or 500 width max (and whatever height the aspect ratio calls for). Yes it can be displayed larger, but the quality will suffer.
Sound like your audio settings are fine, especially for Internet delivery.
As for framerate, maintain the original raw video framerate for best results. So if the video was shot at 24fps, leave it.
As for video converters, do you have the Flash 8 Video Converter? It works just fine for video to be delivered over the Internet. Remember, you are taking a Cadillac version of video (h.264 HD) and stuffing it into a Chevy body to get it to work over the Internet.
Best wishes,
Adninjastrator

Increased RAM size

Hi all,
i have increased RAM size to 32 GB in our production server. currently we have 40 GB of SWAP. now i want know how to distribute the RAM size to database , SAP and operating system. please let me know the parameters for increase.
Operating system : SuSE 10 SP2
Database : oracle 10.2.0.2
SAP : SAP ECC 6.0 SR2 (ABAP stack only)
ztta/roll_area        6500000
ztta/roll_first       1
ztta/short_area       4000000
rdisp/ROLL_SHM        32768
rdisp/PG_SHM          32768
rdisp/PG_LOCAL        150
em/initial_size_MB    5120
em/blocksize_KB       4096
em/address_space_MB   4096
ztta/roll_extension   2000000000
abap/heap_area_dia    2000000000
abap/heap_area_nondia 2000000000
abap/heap_area_total 2000000000
abap/heaplimit        40000000
abap/use_paging       0
please give you valuable suggestions and whether it is required to increase the swap size
regards
Ramesh
Edited by: Ramesh Sammiti on Oct 26, 2009 10:54 AM

As this is production system, you better go with SAP's recommendations.
You do Zero memory (Default memory parameters) open an OSS message and probably
you can do quick sizer modeling also.
service.sap.com/quicksizer
All the best,
Nagaraju

Air 15 known issues - wrong screen size and dpi

Will the next update of Air 15 solve the issues below..
the dpi problem with iPhone 6 plus is a show stopper, i cant get away with delivering a reduced dpi
... under pressure to update 20+ applications ...
Known Issues AIR 15.0.0.183
[ iPhone 6 Plus] [Launch image] A blank screen observed in apps when Default-568h@2x is packaged.
[ iPhone 6 Plus] Wrong screen size and dpi is returned through the runtime APIs .
[ iPad 3 and later] iPhone Launch image(Default@2x. png ) appears on iPad if iPhone launch images are packaged along with iPad launch images
Well done to the Air team for the good work done so far, not easy keeping up with Apple on IOS8 at the moment...

I am having simliar issue where I can get the iphone 6 launch image to work but not the iphone 6+ when using [email protected], 2208x1242. Also the stage.fullScreenWidth/Height give 1472x828, which is 2/3 the expected dimensions or 736x414 at scale factor 2, not 3. I hope adobe fixes this soon or we won't be able to launch new games with Apple as it is a requirement to have your apps Iphone 6/6+ optimized. If this isn't fixed soon were pretty much forced to abandon adobe and move onto another software solution that will allow us to build for Apple.

LR 5 - Image Sizing Dimensions - wrong image size

Hi,
Image Sizing Dimensions produces wrong image sizes upon export for certain images.
Example, I have export set up for iPad resolution, 2048x1536px at 264ppi. If I now export an 3264x4928px image it should be resized to 1356x2048px. What I get is 1356x2047 instead, one pixel too short on the long side. This doesn't happen for all images source resolutions and ratios though. I haven't figured out the pattern yet.
Here a link to an image which exports at wrong size (export dimension set to 2048x1536px).
http://www.bobtronic.com/files/IMG_0289.JPG
I would appreciate a speedy fix for this problem. Thanks
cheers,
Matthias

The image has a resolution of 3264x4928. Exporting using Dimension resizing of 2048x1536 results in an 2047x1536 image.
The scaling factor 4928 down to 2048, is 0.4155844155844156...
Assuming that LR is working to only 3 decimal places here, which indications discussed in another thread would suggest, then there are several ways to achieve that:
truncate down to 0.415 by discarding the subsequent digits
"quick-rounding" of the third digit by inspecting the fourth-place digit only, and incrementing the third-place digit when the fourth-place digit is larger than 5, which it is not in this case, resulting in 0.415
"math-rounding" by inspecting all of the following digit pairs in turn, until you reach a pair that is lower than 50, and then working back again to simplify. This procedure rounds 0.41558 up to 0.4156, then after doing that, rounds 0,4156 up to 0.416
Speculation: the difference between 0.415 and 0.416, is the difference between a result with 2047, and one with 2048, when executed.
Most of the time the "quick-round" procedure will work out fine, also truncating will usually be good enough, assuming the above has anything to do with the reality (which it may not). Just occasionally, though, there'll be an error in the final digit, compared with what the theoretically accurate procedure would have given. So if I am right this is not strictly speaking a bug (something failing to execute as it has been designed to do), but the result of a software design choice. "Works as designed", iow .
It seems that LR, perhaps differently between versions, is working this through by simple calculation (from the front-end), without comparing the back-end outcome against what you have requested. How much this (intermittent) issue actually matters, is a question of judgement, and of particular requirement.
[ alternative method: I find the Print module, outputting to JPG, is completely reliable when it comes to making a standardised JPG as to the dimensions, as well as offering some different technical and design options, than what you get with Export. For one thing, you get the option of on-the-fly cropping to shape, which you can then adjust interactively where (as here) the image is a different aspect than the Retina display. So if you want it, you can fill the screen instead of getting letterbox, all without having altered your main (Develop) crop for that image. Alternatively, if you don't want the Zoom to Fill option (e.g. with landscape images to be shown in portrait orientation as part of a sequence) you can still make all your images to the same dimension, but controlling the appearance of the borders that are left (which become part of the image) ]
RP
ps: AFAICT one would expect simple truncation to produce the appropriate answer half of the time; one would expect simple rounding to just one further digit, to be wrong half of the times when the following digit happened to be 5 - or to put in another way, to be right in 95% of cases; and proper rounding, examinng as many places as it takes, to be right 100% (within precision limits).

Tecera A4 Wrong Image Size for Bios update....

using the site tools to id the machine to bios...it led me to a file named...sm45v20.exe, which i downloaded & attempted to update the bios...via floppy / usb drive method.
Done this with other machines (not this one) hundreds of times before...(fix a lot of friends machines...as this is). in the readme, it states this bios is for this string of machines...
Tecra A4
Tecra A4-S111TD
Tecra A4-S211
Tecra A4-S216
Tecra A4-S231
Tecra A4-S236
Satellite M40-S417TD
Satellite M45-S165
Satellite M45-S1651
Satellite M45-S265
Satellite M45-S2651
Satellite M45-S2652
Satellite M45-S2653
Satellite M45-S331
Satellite M45-S3311
Satellite M45-S351
Satellite M45-S3511
Satellite M45-S355
Satellite M45-S3551
where the tecera a4 is model I'm working on.
However, when booting into the update, it goes through the startup....reads the existing rom image...then attempts to look at the disk version...and gives the wrong image size message. Usually, this means ether you've got the wrong bios image (hmmm...toshiba led me to it...so maybe it's wrong...but readme says it's ok) OR the download was corrupt. Re-Downed the entire set up file again (file name as mentioned above) and tried again. All disk work on my master workstation which is almost always correct. (except when it's not?)
Any ideas? What the heck is the A4 anyway? Seems like a very rare model....
<edit>...the ENTIRE model number as shown on the bottom label is: PTA40U-1D701F </edit>
Message Edited by SetiRich on 04-16-2009 05:53 PM

This is a maybe...
Does the A4 in question have Intel video or ATI or nVidia?
Looks like there are different BIOS files depending on the video chipset.

After upgrade of hard drives in RAID, XSAN Admin sees wrong lun sizes?

So I purchased new 750GB drives for our XS RAIDS and I upgraded firmware to 1.5.1 C on RAIDS, but XSAN Admin sees wrong lun sizes. I have tried running XSAN 1.4.2 and even uninstalled on MDC and reinstalled back to 1.4.1 still no luck. Weird thing is that when I uninstall XSAN and then reinstall XSAN the lun names are still there in XSAN Admin, it is like they are stored in a file that does not get uninstalled when I uninstall XSAN.
I even upgraded the Firmware on the RAIDS again after the install of the new drives, the only drives that did not get upgraded were the 2 x 250GB set for Metadata Info on the first Raid Controller. I am running this on XSERVE non intel with OS X Server 10.4.11. I did not uninstall XSAN off any of the clients only the backup MDC.
I hope this info helps cause I could really use some tips from all you masters.
Thanks in advance
Jesse

Ok so I am a dumb *. All I had to do to fix my issue was delete the actual names of the Luns in XSAN Admin and hit enter and it updated the Lun sizes. Thanks everyone.

To check RAM size via java program

Hi,
Please let me know how to find the RAM size of a machine using java program.
Thanks & Regards,
Nasrin.N

Hi,
I've done that for disk space with JNative, take a look at http://sourceforge.net/project/screenshots.php?group_id=156421
I think it's easy to implement it for RAM.
--Marc (http://jnative.sf.net)

There is a UNIX line command for Core audio RAM size addressing?

Hi all
There is a Terminal line command that allow me to addressing more ram size in the Logic AUDIO preferences?
I greatly appreciate your help
Thanks in Advance!
G

fermusic wrote:
please stay focused to that picture
I don't look for magician..
I know that there is terminal command for change setting about song backup count...
since Logic 8 the Project Backup has been fixed to 10...
I mentioned defaults in my first post. 'defaults' is the command line utility to set the maximum number of backups, and the key/value is clearly visible in the file, where I see no clearly identified key for the preference setting you seek.
so you can type 'man defaults' into terminal to read the manual for defaults.
Also in Logic 6 32bit application... and in Logic 7.2.3 (32bit application)
there is a setting that allow me to addressing 384Mb to the system core audio... and it is not a 64 bit apps.
Memory addressing != Memory allocating
I'm looking for a Terminal command that can rewrite Logic preferences files... in the same way as made for change the Song Backups number...
Please stay focused I don't need theoretical explaination..
I'm a Musician... I'm not a Developer...
BUT I Know.. for sure...I can adress 384Mb for core audio...
I need to bypass the automatic ram adressing only and strictly focused to achieve 384MB just for CORE AUDIO!!!
Right right right. I addressed that by typing:
you'd have insider info to use that utility for the intentions that you have in mind
If that preference exists, it is not public knowledge (to my knowledge). You would need to know a few things about the preference key/value to set or remove it.
So, yeah - my original post covered it all, to the best of my knowledge.
J

Problems with Saved Watermarks - Wrong Font Size

Hi,
I am having problems with "Saved" Watermarks, as when I selected them they have the wrong font size.
I created a Watermark (Draft) to be placed on the lower right
corner of a PDF, using font Arial-10. This watermark has been save using the "Save Settings..." in Watermarks.
When I add this this "saved" watermark to a new PDF, the font size is wrong
(much much bigger), even though the Add Watermark windows reports Arial-10. Only by a selecting a different font size and changing it back to the saved font size (10) I get the correct Font Size in the PDF.
I had a similar problem with the placement, but managed to solve that by setting the Preference>User&Guide to the used Unit (Page&Ruler = centimeters). But for the font size I can't find anything in the preference.
Any Help or Suggestions ?

Hi,
Sorry forgot to add, I am using
Acrobat Professional 8.1.2 on Windows XP Prof.
Cheers
Johannes

How the Performance data depends on Number of CPU/ RAM size/ Hard Disk size

Hi,
I have started Performance testing (web test and Load tests) using VSTS 2012. I was analysing the VSTS results summary page.
I could not find a way by which we can find a co-relation between the Performance Result data Impacted by Server's Configuration such as
1- # of CPUs /Cores
2- RAM size
3- Hard Disk capacity
Could you help me out if we can reach to a point, through which we can say that, For eg - the Server Performance can be improved if we increase any of the dependent hardware configuration and Also, How the Hardware configuration impacts the Performance.
Thanks.
Thanks, Anoop Singh

The results show the performance with the hardware and software configuration
when the test is run. The results may show that some parts of the configuration are lightly loaded (and hence have plenty of spare capacity) whereas other parts are heavily loaded (and hence may be limiting the system performance).
To see the effect of changing the hardware or software configuration would need running exactly the same test with that changed configuration. Then the results of the two (or more) different runs can be compared. Microsoft has some details on how
to compare load test results. See
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd728091(v=vs.120).aspx
Regards
Adrian

IBook Registers wrong RAM size

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for