I have this tiny notebook running Windows 7 "Starter". It has a 256GB spinning
disk (7200rpm) and just 2GB of memory. The Crucial scanner reports that the
max memory is 2GB, though I've found other machines which could use more than
their supposed limit. I'd like to give it to someone, but I'm reluctant to
hand over a machine running something that's full of security holes, so I'd
like to upgrade it to W10, which still seems to work free.

Why would a machine have a limit of 2GB - what are my chances of getting a 4GB
stick to work (under the limitations of a 32-bit machine, of course)? Which
would be the better investment: a 4GB memory card or an SSD (similar sort of
price!). Opinions greatly valued - it seems a shame to scrap it.

--

Phil, London

On 21/04/2021 12:24, Philip Herlihy wrote:
> I have this tiny notebook running Windows 7 "Starter". It has a 256GB spinning
> disk (7200rpm) and just 2GB of memory. The Crucial scanner reports that the
> max memory is 2GB, though I've found other machines which could use more than
> their supposed limit. I'd like to give it to someone, but I'm reluctant to
> hand over a machine running something that's full of security holes, so I'd
> like to upgrade it to W10, which still seems to work free.
>
> Why would a machine have a limit of 2GB - what are my chances of getting a 4GB
> stick to work (under the limitations of a 32-bit machine, of course)? Which
> would be the better investment: a 4GB memory card or an SSD (similar sort of
> price!). Opinions greatly valued - it seems a shame to scrap it.
>
>

2GB is enough to get some work done on 32 bit W10. The stated minimum to
run that OS is 1GB.

On a 4GB machine the maximum that 32 bit W10 can see is only about 3.2GB.

Then, there's the graphics. Does the notebook have shared RAM for the
graphics?

My old Dell C2D machine has shared graphics and 4GB of RAM. All W10 can
see is 2.7GB of the RAM. It actually ran pretty well, although the i7
machine (with 24GB of RAM) I use now is noticeably better.

An SSD revitalised the old Dell.

In article <s5p3n9$ma5$1@dont-email.me>, NOTsomeone@microsoft.com says...
>
> On 21/04/2021 12:24, Philip Herlihy wrote:
> > I have this tiny notebook running Windows 7 "Starter". It has a 256GB spinning
> > disk (7200rpm) and just 2GB of memory. The Crucial scanner reports that the
> > max memory is 2GB, though I've found other machines which could use more than
> > their supposed limit. I'd like to give it to someone, but I'm reluctant to
> > hand over a machine running something that's full of security holes, so I'd
> > like to upgrade it to W10, which still seems to work free.
> >
> > Why would a machine have a limit of 2GB - what are my chances of getting a 4GB
> > stick to work (under the limitations of a 32-bit machine, of course)? Which
> > would be the better investment: a 4GB memory card or an SSD (similar sort of
> > price!). Opinions greatly valued - it seems a shame to scrap it.
> >
> >
>
>
> 2GB is enough to get some work done on 32 bit W10. The stated minimum to
> run that OS is 1GB.
>
> On a 4GB machine the maximum that 32 bit W10 can see is only about 3.2GB.
>
> Then, there's the graphics. Does the notebook have shared RAM for the
> graphics?
>
> My old Dell C2D machine has shared graphics and 4GB of RAM. All W10 can
> see is 2.7GB of the RAM. It actually ran pretty well, although the i7
> machine (with 24GB of RAM) I use now is noticeably better.
>
> An SSD revitalised the old Dell.

Thanks for this. Process Explorer reports 2.3 MB (sic) GPU Dedicated Memory,
and 2.7 MB GPU Shared Memory. System Information reports 2GB Installed
Physical Memory and 1.99GB "available".

It's surprisingly useable - now that it's finished looking for, downloading and
installing updates! (Atom processor.)

I guess what I'd still like to know is whether a manufacturer's stated "Limit"
is a real limit, or whether it's just a lack of foresight at the time of what
people might try to do with the machine? I don't want to find myself
discarding a 4GB card which I couldn't send back (having installed it to try
it) and which wouldn't be useful elsewhere.

My own guess is that the SSD would make more difference than an extra 1.5
(useable) GB of memory on this tiny machine, so thanks for that account.

--

Phil, London

On 21/04/2021 17:04, Philip Herlihy wrote:
> In article <s5p3n9$ma5$1@dont-email.me>, NOTsomeone@microsoft.com says...
>> On 21/04/2021 12:24, Philip Herlihy wrote:
>>> I have this tiny notebook running Windows 7 "Starter". It has a 256GB spinning
>>> disk (7200rpm) and just 2GB of memory. The Crucial scanner reports that the
>>> max memory is 2GB, though I've found other machines which could use more than
>>> their supposed limit. I'd like to give it to someone, but I'm reluctant to
>>> hand over a machine running something that's full of security holes, so I'd
>>> like to upgrade it to W10, which still seems to work free.
>>>
>>> Why would a machine have a limit of 2GB - what are my chances of getting a 4GB
>>> stick to work (under the limitations of a 32-bit machine, of course)? Which
>>> would be the better investment: a 4GB memory card or an SSD (similar sort of
>>> price!). Opinions greatly valued - it seems a shame to scrap it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> 2GB is enough to get some work done on 32 bit W10. The stated minimum to
>> run that OS is 1GB.
>>
>> On a 4GB machine the maximum that 32 bit W10 can see is only about 3.2GB.
>>
>> Then, there's the graphics. Does the notebook have shared RAM for the
>> graphics?
>>
>> My old Dell C2D machine has shared graphics and 4GB of RAM. All W10 can
>> see is 2.7GB of the RAM. It actually ran pretty well, although the i7
>> machine (with 24GB of RAM) I use now is noticeably better.
>>
>> An SSD revitalised the old Dell.
> Thanks for this. Process Explorer reports 2.3 MB (sic) GPU Dedicated Memory,
> and 2.7 MB GPU Shared Memory. System Information reports 2GB Installed
> Physical Memory and 1.99GB "available".
>
> It's surprisingly useable - now that it's finished looking for, downloading and
> installing updates! (Atom processor.)
>
> I guess what I'd still like to know is whether a manufacturer's stated "Limit"
> is a real limit, or whether it's just a lack of foresight at the time of what
> people might try to do with the machine? I don't want to find myself
> discarding a 4GB card which I couldn't send back (having installed it to try
> it) and which wouldn't be useful elsewhere.
>
> My own guess is that the SSD would make more difference than an extra 1.5
> (useable) GB of memory on this tiny machine, so thanks for that account.
>
It is not limit, but the year it was released in 2008 4GB ram modules
will be too expansive or rare, so Mfr went with 2GB and no one likes to
admit that it will run 4GB and loose business.

Take the bottom covers off to see which ram is fitted, my guess PC2-5300
ish.

I can always lend you to try one :-))

On 21/04/2021 17:04, Philip Herlihy wrote:
> In article <s5p3n9$ma5$1@dont-email.me>, NOTsomeone@microsoft.com says...
>>
>> On 21/04/2021 12:24, Philip Herlihy wrote:
>>> I have this tiny notebook running Windows 7 "Starter". It has a 256GB spinning
>>> disk (7200rpm) and just 2GB of memory. The Crucial scanner reports that the
>>> max memory is 2GB, though I've found other machines which could use more than
>>> their supposed limit. I'd like to give it to someone, but I'm reluctant to
>>> hand over a machine running something that's full of security holes, so I'd
>>> like to upgrade it to W10, which still seems to work free.
>>>
>>> Why would a machine have a limit of 2GB - what are my chances of getting a 4GB
>>> stick to work (under the limitations of a 32-bit machine, of course)? Which
>>> would be the better investment: a 4GB memory card or an SSD (similar sort of
>>> price!). Opinions greatly valued - it seems a shame to scrap it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> 2GB is enough to get some work done on 32 bit W10. The stated minimum to
>> run that OS is 1GB.
>>
>> On a 4GB machine the maximum that 32 bit W10 can see is only about 3.2GB.
>>
>> Then, there's the graphics. Does the notebook have shared RAM for the
>> graphics?
>>
>> My old Dell C2D machine has shared graphics and 4GB of RAM. All W10 can
>> see is 2.7GB of the RAM. It actually ran pretty well, although the i7
>> machine (with 24GB of RAM) I use now is noticeably better.
>>
>> An SSD revitalised the old Dell.
>
> Thanks for this. Process Explorer reports 2.3 MB (sic) GPU Dedicated Memory,
> and 2.7 MB GPU Shared Memory. System Information reports 2GB Installed
> Physical Memory and 1.99GB "available".
>
> It's surprisingly useable - now that it's finished looking for, downloading and
> installing updates! (Atom processor.)
>
> I guess what I'd still like to know is whether a manufacturer's stated "Limit"
> is a real limit, or whether it's just a lack of foresight at the time of what
> people might try to do with the machine? I don't want to find myself
> discarding a 4GB card which I couldn't send back (having installed it to try
> it) and which wouldn't be useful elsewhere.
>
> My own guess is that the SSD would make more difference than an extra 1.5
> (useable) GB of memory on this tiny machine, so thanks for that account.
>

The obvious thing to do is install W10, and see what it's like. If
Crucial say the RAM is not upgradeable, the chances are very high that
it isn't.

Philip Herlihy <thiswillbounceback@you.com> wrote:
> I guess what I'd still like to know is whether a manufacturer's stated
> "Limit" is a real limit, or whether it's just a lack of foresight at the
> time of what people might try to do with the machine? I don't want to
> find myself discarding a 4GB card which I couldn't send back (having
> installed it to try it) and which wouldn't be useful elsewhere.

It's an Atom, which Intel and Microsoft hobbled:

https://support.hp.com/ie-en/product/hp-mini-210-2100-pc-series/4346353/document/c02680446
Microprocessor 1.66GHz Intel Atom Processor N455

https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/49491/intel-atom-processor-n455-512k-cache-1-66-ghz.html
Max Memory Size (dependent on memory type) 2 GB
(although I'm surprised it has 64-bit support)

> My own guess is that the SSD would make more difference than an extra 1.5
> (useable) GB of memory on this tiny machine, so thanks for that account.

SSD would be your only real option.

Theo

On 21/04/2021 12:24, Philip Herlihy wrote:
> I have this tiny notebook running Windows 7 "Starter". It has a 256GB spinning
> disk (7200rpm) and just 2GB of memory. The Crucial scanner reports that the
> max memory is 2GB, though I've found other machines which could use more than
> their supposed limit. I'd like to give it to someone, but I'm reluctant to
> hand over a machine running something that's full of security holes, so I'd
> like to upgrade it to W10, which still seems to work free.
>
> Why would a machine have a limit of 2GB - what are my chances of getting a 4GB
> stick to work (under the limitations of a 32-bit machine, of course)? Which
> would be the better investment: a 4GB memory card or an SSD (similar sort of
> price!). Opinions greatly valued - it seems a shame to scrap it.

Ok, here's a mad idea. Keep the laptop as it is.

Get a small micro Windows Pro 10 PC, the minimalist kind of sub £100
thing that connects to a TV set and wireless. eBay/Amazon is littered
with them. Lose it in the back of a TV, or what not.

On the laptop, install a minimal OS (or keep the current Win7) that can
run a terminal services client, and connect to the above via wireless.
Performance may be decent - I do pretty good video on my
Linux/Remina/Core2Duo setup from a Win10 desktop.

Or you could lose the micro PC entirely with some cloud or self hosting...

What was that dream years ago with thin clients?

--
Adrian C

On 21/04/2021 18:41, Adrian Caspersz wrote:
> On 21/04/2021 12:24, Philip Herlihy wrote:
>> I have this tiny notebook running Windows 7 "Starter".  It has a
>> 256GB spinning
>> disk (7200rpm) and just 2GB of memory.  The Crucial scanner reports
>> that the
>> max memory is 2GB, though I've found other machines which could use
>> more than
>> their supposed limit.  I'd like to give it to someone, but I'm
>> reluctant to
>> hand over a machine running something that's full of security holes,
>> so I'd
>> like to upgrade it to W10, which still seems to work free.
>>
>> Why would a machine have a limit of 2GB - what are my chances of
>> getting a 4GB
>> stick to work (under the limitations of a 32-bit machine, of
>> course)?  Which
>> would be the better investment: a 4GB memory card or an SSD (similar
>> sort of
>> price!).  Opinions greatly valued - it seems a shame to scrap it.
>
> Ok, here's a mad idea. Keep the laptop as it is.
>
> Get a small micro Windows Pro 10 PC, the minimalist kind of sub £100
> thing that connects to a TV set and wireless. eBay/Amazon is littered
> with them. Lose it in the back of a TV, or what not.
>
> On the laptop, install a minimal OS (or keep the current Win7) that
> can run a terminal services client, and connect to the above via
> wireless. Performance may be decent - I do pretty good video on my
> Linux/Remina/Core2Duo setup from a Win10 desktop.
>
>
> Or you could lose the micro PC entirely with some cloud or self
> hosting...
>
> What was that dream years ago with thin clients?
>
Nothing like a simple idea!!!

In article <s5pks8$pm7$1@dont-email.me>, raj@kundracomputers.co.uk says...
>
> On 21/04/2021 17:04, Philip Herlihy wrote:
> > In article <s5p3n9$ma5$1@dont-email.me>, NOTsomeone@microsoft.com says...
> >> On 21/04/2021 12:24, Philip Herlihy wrote:
> >>> I have this tiny notebook running Windows 7 "Starter". It has a 256GB spinning
> >>> disk (7200rpm) and just 2GB of memory. The Crucial scanner reports that the
> >>> max memory is 2GB, though I've found other machines which could use more than
> >>> their supposed limit. I'd like to give it to someone, but I'm reluctant to
> >>> hand over a machine running something that's full of security holes, so I'd
> >>> like to upgrade it to W10, which still seems to work free.
> >>>
> >>> Why would a machine have a limit of 2GB - what are my chances of getting a 4GB
> >>> stick to work (under the limitations of a 32-bit machine, of course)? Which
> >>> would be the better investment: a 4GB memory card or an SSD (similar sort of
> >>> price!). Opinions greatly valued - it seems a shame to scrap it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> 2GB is enough to get some work done on 32 bit W10. The stated minimum to
> >> run that OS is 1GB.
> >>
> >> On a 4GB machine the maximum that 32 bit W10 can see is only about 3.2GB.
> >>
> >> Then, there's the graphics. Does the notebook have shared RAM for the
> >> graphics?
> >>
> >> My old Dell C2D machine has shared graphics and 4GB of RAM. All W10 can
> >> see is 2.7GB of the RAM. It actually ran pretty well, although the i7
> >> machine (with 24GB of RAM) I use now is noticeably better.
> >>
> >> An SSD revitalised the old Dell.
> > Thanks for this. Process Explorer reports 2.3 MB (sic) GPU Dedicated Memory,
> > and 2.7 MB GPU Shared Memory. System Information reports 2GB Installed
> > Physical Memory and 1.99GB "available".
> >
> > It's surprisingly useable - now that it's finished looking for, downloading and
> > installing updates! (Atom processor.)
> >
> > I guess what I'd still like to know is whether a manufacturer's stated "Limit"
> > is a real limit, or whether it's just a lack of foresight at the time of what
> > people might try to do with the machine? I don't want to find myself
> > discarding a 4GB card which I couldn't send back (having installed it to try
> > it) and which wouldn't be useful elsewhere.
> >
> > My own guess is that the SSD would make more difference than an extra 1.5
> > (useable) GB of memory on this tiny machine, so thanks for that account.
> >
> It is not limit, but the year it was released in 2008 4GB ram modules
> will be too expansive or rare, so Mfr went with 2GB and no one likes to
> admit that it will run 4GB and loose business.
>
> Take the bottom covers off to see which ram is fitted, my guess PC2-5300
> ish.
>
> I can always lend you to try one :-))

Thank you, Raj - that's most generous. However, Theo (see below) has tracked
down that there is a 2GB limitation in what the processor can address. I can't
imagine what would be the thinking behind that - most likely some "market
segmentation" dodge, I'd think. So that limit is indeed a hard one.

Much appreciated, nevertheless.

--

Phil, London

In article <ieb6dkF96neU1@mid.individual.net>, email@here.invalid says...
>
> On 21/04/2021 12:24, Philip Herlihy wrote:
> > I have this tiny notebook running Windows 7 "Starter". It has a 256GB spinning
> > disk (7200rpm) and just 2GB of memory. The Crucial scanner reports that the
> > max memory is 2GB, though I've found other machines which could use more than
> > their supposed limit. I'd like to give it to someone, but I'm reluctant to
> > hand over a machine running something that's full of security holes, so I'd
> > like to upgrade it to W10, which still seems to work free.
> >
> > Why would a machine have a limit of 2GB - what are my chances of getting a 4GB
> > stick to work (under the limitations of a 32-bit machine, of course)? Which
> > would be the better investment: a 4GB memory card or an SSD (similar sort of
> > price!). Opinions greatly valued - it seems a shame to scrap it.
>
> Ok, here's a mad idea. Keep the laptop as it is.
>
> Get a small micro Windows Pro 10 PC, the minimalist kind of sub £100
> thing that connects to a TV set and wireless. eBay/Amazon is littered
> with them. Lose it in the back of a TV, or what not.
>
> On the laptop, install a minimal OS (or keep the current Win7) that can
> run a terminal services client, and connect to the above via wireless.
> Performance may be decent - I do pretty good video on my
> Linux/Remina/Core2Duo setup from a Win10 desktop.
>
>
> Or you could lose the micro PC entirely with some cloud or self hosting...
>
> What was that dream years ago with thin clients?

Thanks for this. Ideally I'd give this machine to someone with simple needs and
who is technically naive, so that idea, interesting as it is, isn't one that
quite fits what I'm hoping for.

--

Phil, London

In article <S5y*1xbiy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk says...
>
> Philip Herlihy <thiswillbounceback@you.com> wrote:
> > I guess what I'd still like to know is whether a manufacturer's stated
> > "Limit" is a real limit, or whether it's just a lack of foresight at the
> > time of what people might try to do with the machine? I don't want to
> > find myself discarding a 4GB card which I couldn't send back (having
> > installed it to try it) and which wouldn't be useful elsewhere.
>
> It's an Atom, which Intel and Microsoft hobbled:
>
> https://support.hp.com/ie-en/product/hp-mini-210-2100-pc-series/4346353/document/c02680446
> Microprocessor 1.66GHz Intel Atom Processor N455
>
> https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/49491/intel-atom-processor-n455-512k-cache-1-66-ghz.html
> Max Memory Size (dependent on memory type) 2 GB
> (although I'm surprised it has 64-bit support)
>
> > My own guess is that the SSD would make more difference than an extra 1.5
> > (useable) GB of memory on this tiny machine, so thanks for that account.
>
> SSD would be your only real option.
>
> Theo

Aha - that's the key issue then. It is indeed an N455 processor (System
Information) so there is truly a 'hard' limit of 2GB. I can only guess things
looked very different back then. According to "System Requirements" Windows 7
has a minimum RAM of 1GB, and Windows 10 2GB. As it is, running W7 it runs
surprisingly well (to run at all with 2GB is surprising to me these days). If
W7 was still supported I'd certainly leave it as it is, but I couldn't hand
over a machine to someone with W7 now.

At the moment the W10 installer is stuck (?) at the screen "Making sure you're
ready to install - This may take a few minutes: please wait" and has been for
about 15 hours. It took overnight to apply a whole bunch of updates that were
still available, so I'll leave it overnight again before giving up.

It'll just seem such a shame to scrap this little jewel of a machine - bright
blue case!

Once again, thank you, Theo, for getting to the heart of a problem again - much
appreciated.

--

Phil, London

Philip Herlihy <thiswillbounceback@you.com> wrote:
> Thanks for this. Ideally I'd give this machine to someone with simple needs and
> who is technically naive, so that idea, interesting as it is, isn't one that
> quite fits what I'm hoping for.

Have you thought about installing ChromeOS?
https://www.neverware.com/freedownload#intro-text

It says:

Processor and Graphics: Components made prior to 2007 will likely result in
a poor experience. Additionally, the following graphics hardware does not
meet performance standards on CloudReady: Intel GMA 500, 600, 3600, 3650

Yours has a GMA3150. I think that should be OK - it's an Intel-designed
GPU, not a PowerVR one they bought in from Imagination, which have
troublesome drivers. Graphics performance might not be the best, though.

Worth a try?

Theo

On 22/04/2021 11:49, Philip Herlihy wrote:
> In article <S5y*1xbiy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
> theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk says...
>>
>> Philip Herlihy <thiswillbounceback@you.com> wrote:
>>> I guess what I'd still like to know is whether a manufacturer's stated
>>> "Limit" is a real limit, or whether it's just a lack of foresight at the
>>> time of what people might try to do with the machine? I don't want to
>>> find myself discarding a 4GB card which I couldn't send back (having
>>> installed it to try it) and which wouldn't be useful elsewhere.
>>
>> It's an Atom, which Intel and Microsoft hobbled:
>>
>> https://support.hp.com/ie-en/product/hp-mini-210-2100-pc-series/4346353/document/c02680446
>> Microprocessor 1.66GHz Intel Atom Processor N455
>>
>> https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/49491/intel-atom-processor-n455-512k-cache-1-66-ghz.html
>> Max Memory Size (dependent on memory type) 2 GB
>> (although I'm surprised it has 64-bit support)
>>
>>> My own guess is that the SSD would make more difference than an extra 1.5
>>> (useable) GB of memory on this tiny machine, so thanks for that account.
>>
>> SSD would be your only real option.
>>
>> Theo
>
> Aha - that's the key issue then. It is indeed an N455 processor (System
> Information) so there is truly a 'hard' limit of 2GB. I can only guess things
> looked very different back then. According to "System Requirements" Windows 7
> has a minimum RAM of 1GB, and Windows 10 2GB. As it is, running W7 it runs
> surprisingly well (to run at all with 2GB is surprising to me these days). If
> W7 was still supported I'd certainly leave it as it is, but I couldn't hand
> over a machine to someone with W7 now.
>
> At the moment the W10 installer is stuck (?) at the screen "Making sure you're
> ready to install - This may take a few minutes: please wait" and has been for
> about 15 hours. It took overnight to apply a whole bunch of updates that were
> still available, so I'll leave it overnight again before giving up.

You are installing the 32 bit version of W10, I hope?

That is stated to run in 1 GB, and in my experience it certainly does
run in 2GB.

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-10-system-requirements-6d4e9a79-66bf-7950-467c-795cf0386715

>
> It'll just seem such a shame to scrap this little jewel of a machine - bright
> blue case!
>
> Once again, thank you, Theo, for getting to the heart of a problem again - much
> appreciated.
>

On 22/04/2021 12:27, Theo wrote:
> Philip Herlihy <thiswillbounceback@you.com> wrote:
>> Thanks for this. Ideally I'd give this machine to someone with simple needs and
>> who is technically naive, so that idea, interesting as it is, isn't one that
>> quite fits what I'm hoping for.
>
> Have you thought about installing ChromeOS?
> https://www.neverware.com/freedownload#intro-text
>
> It says:
>
> Processor and Graphics: Components made prior to 2007 will likely result in
> a poor experience. Additionally, the following graphics hardware does not
> meet performance standards on CloudReady: Intel GMA 500, 600, 3600, 3650
>
>
> Yours has a GMA3150. I think that should be OK - it's an Intel-designed
> GPU, not a PowerVR one they bought in from Imagination, which have
> troublesome drivers. Graphics performance might not be the best, though.
>
> Worth a try?
>
> Theo
>

There are lightweight versions of linux that will probably be okay.

Can I ask whether the user would actually notice the difference between
windows and linux?

https://itsfoss.com/lightweight-linux-beginners/

On 22/04/2021 13:26, GB wrote:
>
> There are lightweight versions of linux that will probably be okay.
>
> Can I ask whether the user would actually notice the difference between
> windows and linux?
>
> https://itsfoss.com/lightweight-linux-beginners/

The non-technical user probably wouldn't but the technical person remote
supporting any issues would, Windows being somewhat more familiar to most.

--
Adrian C

In article <s5rnrd$ii4$1@dont-email.me>, NOTsomeone@microsoft.com says...
>
> On 22/04/2021 11:49, Philip Herlihy wrote:
> > In article <S5y*1xbiy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
> > theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk says...
> >>
> >> Philip Herlihy <thiswillbounceback@you.com> wrote:
> >>> I guess what I'd still like to know is whether a manufacturer's stated
> >>> "Limit" is a real limit, or whether it's just a lack of foresight at the
> >>> time of what people might try to do with the machine? I don't want to
> >>> find myself discarding a 4GB card which I couldn't send back (having
> >>> installed it to try it) and which wouldn't be useful elsewhere.
> >>
> >> It's an Atom, which Intel and Microsoft hobbled:
> >>
> >> https://support.hp.com/ie-en/product/hp-mini-210-2100-pc-series/4346353/document/c02680446
> >> Microprocessor 1.66GHz Intel Atom Processor N455
> >>
> >> https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/49491/intel-atom-processor-n455-512k-cache-1-66-ghz.html
> >> Max Memory Size (dependent on memory type) 2 GB
> >> (although I'm surprised it has 64-bit support)
> >>
> >>> My own guess is that the SSD would make more difference than an extra 1.5
> >>> (useable) GB of memory on this tiny machine, so thanks for that account.
> >>
> >> SSD would be your only real option.
> >>
> >> Theo
> >
> > Aha - that's the key issue then. It is indeed an N455 processor (System
> > Information) so there is truly a 'hard' limit of 2GB. I can only guess things
> > looked very different back then. According to "System Requirements" Windows 7
> > has a minimum RAM of 1GB, and Windows 10 2GB. As it is, running W7 it runs
> > surprisingly well (to run at all with 2GB is surprising to me these days). If
> > W7 was still supported I'd certainly leave it as it is, but I couldn't hand
> > over a machine to someone with W7 now.
> >
> > At the moment the W10 installer is stuck (?) at the screen "Making sure you're
> > ready to install - This may take a few minutes: please wait" and has been for
> > about 15 hours. It took overnight to apply a whole bunch of updates that were
> > still available, so I'll leave it overnight again before giving up.
>
> You are installing the 32 bit version of W10, I hope?
>
> That is stated to run in 1 GB, and in my experience it certainly does
> run in 2GB.
>
> https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/windows-10-system-requirements-6d4e9a79-66bf-7950-467c-795cf0386715
>
>

I hope so too! I just ran the "media creation tool". Which is still running
....

Good to hear W10 works with 2GB - thanks!

--

Phil, London

In article <T5y*IDfiy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk says...
>
> Philip Herlihy <thiswillbounceback@you.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for this. Ideally I'd give this machine to someone with simple needs and
> > who is technically naive, so that idea, interesting as it is, isn't one that
> > quite fits what I'm hoping for.
>
> Have you thought about installing ChromeOS?
> https://www.neverware.com/freedownload#intro-text
>
> It says:
>
> Processor and Graphics: Components made prior to 2007 will likely result in
> a poor experience. Additionally, the following graphics hardware does not
> meet performance standards on CloudReady: Intel GMA 500, 600, 3600, 3650
>
>
> Yours has a GMA3150. I think that should be OK - it's an Intel-designed
> GPU, not a PowerVR one they bought in from Imagination, which have
> troublesome drivers. Graphics performance might not be the best, though.
>
> Worth a try?
>
> Theo

Certainly something I'd like to try at some point - I'm cluttered up with
several old machines I can't bring myself to scrap, including one old desktop
now runningh W10 (last time I powered it up!) which gives enough time to cook
breakfast after pressing the power button before it's ready to log on. Once
it's up, though, it's surprisingly useable.

This particular notebook would suit a friend who wants to tinker with Windows -
if I can get it running acceptably.

--

Phil, London

In article <s5rq1k$2hg$1@dont-email.me>, NOTsomeone@microsoft.com says...
>
> On 22/04/2021 12:27, Theo wrote:
> > Philip Herlihy <thiswillbounceback@you.com> wrote:
> >> Thanks for this. Ideally I'd give this machine to someone with simple needs and
> >> who is technically naive, so that idea, interesting as it is, isn't one that
> >> quite fits what I'm hoping for.
> >
> > Have you thought about installing ChromeOS?
> > https://www.neverware.com/freedownload#intro-text
> >
> > It says:
> >
> > Processor and Graphics: Components made prior to 2007 will likely result in
> > a poor experience. Additionally, the following graphics hardware does not
> > meet performance standards on CloudReady: Intel GMA 500, 600, 3600, 3650
> >
> >
> > Yours has a GMA3150. I think that should be OK - it's an Intel-designed
> > GPU, not a PowerVR one they bought in from Imagination, which have
> > troublesome drivers. Graphics performance might not be the best, though.
> >
> > Worth a try?
> >
> > Theo
> >
>
>
> There are lightweight versions of linux that will probably be okay.
>
> Can I ask whether the user would actually notice the difference between
> windows and linux?
>
> https://itsfoss.com/lightweight-linux-beginners/

Interesting article. The chap I have in mind for this notebook would want to
be using some version of Windows, though, as he's seeking to learn about it for
his CV.

--

Phil, London

In article <iedcssFm4n0U1@mid.individual.net>, email@here.invalid says...
>
> On 22/04/2021 13:26, GB wrote:
> >
> > There are lightweight versions of linux that will probably be okay.
> >
> > Can I ask whether the user would actually notice the difference between
> > windows and linux?
> >
> > https://itsfoss.com/lightweight-linux-beginners/
>
> The non-technical user probably wouldn't but the technical person remote
> supporting any issues would, Windows being somewhat more familiar to most.

Absolutely!

--

Phil, London

In article <MPG.3aeb615296636b55989919@news.eternal-september.org>,
Philip Herlihy wrote:
> ... there is a 2GB limitation in what the processor can address.
> I can't imagine what would be the thinking behind that - most
> likely some "market segmentation" dodge, I'd think.

Exactly so. Windows 7 Starter was brought out as a cheap Windows
version to support 'netbook' style machines with very low resource
limits so that these could be sold with Windows without pushing the
price up too much. There was a raft of cheap hardware with cobbled
specs that imposed these limits in order to qualify for a Win7 Starter
licence.

The requirement for low-resource hardware was to stop people buying
Starter and running it on machines that were actually useful.

This was shortly after the release of things like the Asus EEPC
machines that were released with Linux for not much more than the cost
of a Windows (XP Home, at the time) licence, and Microsoft were
wriggling to hold on to market share.

Unfortunately they were largely successful, and low-power laptop-style
machines running Linux virtually disappeared until they were reborn in
the form of Chromebooks.

--
Cheers,
Daniel.

On 22/04/2021 11:33, Philip Herlihy wrote:
> In article <s5pks8$pm7$1@dont-email.me>, raj@kundracomputers.co.uk says...
>> On 21/04/2021 17:04, Philip Herlihy wrote:
>>> In article <s5p3n9$ma5$1@dont-email.me>, NOTsomeone@microsoft.com says...
>>>> On 21/04/2021 12:24, Philip Herlihy wrote:
>>>>> I have this tiny notebook running Windows 7 "Starter". It has a 256GB spinning
>>>>> disk (7200rpm) and just 2GB of memory. The Crucial scanner reports that the
>>>>> max memory is 2GB, though I've found other machines which could use more than
>>>>> their supposed limit. I'd like to give it to someone, but I'm reluctant to
>>>>> hand over a machine running something that's full of security holes, so I'd
>>>>> like to upgrade it to W10, which still seems to work free.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why would a machine have a limit of 2GB - what are my chances of getting a 4GB
>>>>> stick to work (under the limitations of a 32-bit machine, of course)? Which
>>>>> would be the better investment: a 4GB memory card or an SSD (similar sort of
>>>>> price!). Opinions greatly valued - it seems a shame to scrap it.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> 2GB is enough to get some work done on 32 bit W10. The stated minimum to
>>>> run that OS is 1GB.
>>>>
>>>> On a 4GB machine the maximum that 32 bit W10 can see is only about 3.2GB.
>>>>
>>>> Then, there's the graphics. Does the notebook have shared RAM for the
>>>> graphics?
>>>>
>>>> My old Dell C2D machine has shared graphics and 4GB of RAM. All W10 can
>>>> see is 2.7GB of the RAM. It actually ran pretty well, although the i7
>>>> machine (with 24GB of RAM) I use now is noticeably better.
>>>>
>>>> An SSD revitalised the old Dell.
>>> Thanks for this. Process Explorer reports 2.3 MB (sic) GPU Dedicated Memory,
>>> and 2.7 MB GPU Shared Memory. System Information reports 2GB Installed
>>> Physical Memory and 1.99GB "available".
>>>
>>> It's surprisingly useable - now that it's finished looking for, downloading and
>>> installing updates! (Atom processor.)
>>>
>>> I guess what I'd still like to know is whether a manufacturer's stated "Limit"
>>> is a real limit, or whether it's just a lack of foresight at the time of what
>>> people might try to do with the machine? I don't want to find myself
>>> discarding a 4GB card which I couldn't send back (having installed it to try
>>> it) and which wouldn't be useful elsewhere.
>>>
>>> My own guess is that the SSD would make more difference than an extra 1.5
>>> (useable) GB of memory on this tiny machine, so thanks for that account.
>>>
>> It is not limit, but the year it was released in 2008 4GB ram modules
>> will be too expansive or rare, so Mfr went with 2GB and no one likes to
>> admit that it will run 4GB and loose business.
>>
>> Take the bottom covers off to see which ram is fitted, my guess PC2-5300
>> ish.
>>
>> I can always lend you to try one :-))
> Thank you, Raj - that's most generous. However, Theo (see below) has tracked
> down that there is a 2GB limitation in what the processor can address. I can't
> imagine what would be the thinking behind that - most likely some "market
> segmentation" dodge, I'd think. So that limit is indeed a hard one.
>
> Much appreciated, nevertheless.
>
I have been selling laptops since 2001, way before others knew that
LAPTOP is next big thing, I vaguely remember having these in stock,
adding 4GB modules and selling them at good profit. I am shipping memory
to you to try, so you got nothing to loose? All you have to do is take
bottom cover and see which ram is installed.

In article <VA.00000d9d.0019bea6@me.invalid>, daniel@me.invalid says...
>
> In article <MPG.3aeb615296636b55989919@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Philip Herlihy wrote:
> > ... there is a 2GB limitation in what the processor can address.
> > I can't imagine what would be the thinking behind that - most
> > likely some "market segmentation" dodge, I'd think.
>
> Exactly so. Windows 7 Starter was brought out as a cheap Windows
> version to support 'netbook' style machines with very low resource
> limits so that these could be sold with Windows without pushing the
> price up too much. There was a raft of cheap hardware with cobbled
> specs that imposed these limits in order to qualify for a Win7 Starter
> licence.
>
> The requirement for low-resource hardware was to stop people buying
> Starter and running it on machines that were actually useful.
>
> This was shortly after the release of things like the Asus EEPC
> machines that were released with Linux for not much more than the cost
> of a Windows (XP Home, at the time) licence, and Microsoft were
> wriggling to hold on to market share.
>
> Unfortunately they were largely successful, and low-power laptop-style
> machines running Linux virtually disappeared until they were reborn in
> the form of Chromebooks.

Thanks, Daniel - very interesting.

--

Phil, London

In article <s61hse$lh1$1@dont-email.me>, raj@kundracomputers.co.uk says...
>
> On 22/04/2021 11:33, Philip Herlihy wrote:
> > In article <s5pks8$pm7$1@dont-email.me>, raj@kundracomputers.co.uk says...
> >> On 21/04/2021 17:04, Philip Herlihy wrote:
> >>> In article <s5p3n9$ma5$1@dont-email.me>, NOTsomeone@microsoft.com says...
> >>>> On 21/04/2021 12:24, Philip Herlihy wrote:
> >>>>> I have this tiny notebook running Windows 7 "Starter". It has a 256GB spinning
> >>>>> disk (7200rpm) and just 2GB of memory. The Crucial scanner reports that the
> >>>>> max memory is 2GB, though I've found other machines which could use more than
> >>>>> their supposed limit. I'd like to give it to someone, but I'm reluctant to
> >>>>> hand over a machine running something that's full of security holes, so I'd
> >>>>> like to upgrade it to W10, which still seems to work free.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Why would a machine have a limit of 2GB - what are my chances of getting a 4GB
> >>>>> stick to work (under the limitations of a 32-bit machine, of course)? Which
> >>>>> would be the better investment: a 4GB memory card or an SSD (similar sort of
> >>>>> price!). Opinions greatly valued - it seems a shame to scrap it.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> 2GB is enough to get some work done on 32 bit W10. The stated minimum to
> >>>> run that OS is 1GB.
> >>>>
> >>>> On a 4GB machine the maximum that 32 bit W10 can see is only about 3.2GB.
> >>>>
> >>>> Then, there's the graphics. Does the notebook have shared RAM for the
> >>>> graphics?
> >>>>
> >>>> My old Dell C2D machine has shared graphics and 4GB of RAM. All W10 can
> >>>> see is 2.7GB of the RAM. It actually ran pretty well, although the i7
> >>>> machine (with 24GB of RAM) I use now is noticeably better.
> >>>>
> >>>> An SSD revitalised the old Dell.
> >>> Thanks for this. Process Explorer reports 2.3 MB (sic) GPU Dedicated Memory,
> >>> and 2.7 MB GPU Shared Memory. System Information reports 2GB Installed
> >>> Physical Memory and 1.99GB "available".
> >>>
> >>> It's surprisingly useable - now that it's finished looking for, downloading and
> >>> installing updates! (Atom processor.)
> >>>
> >>> I guess what I'd still like to know is whether a manufacturer's stated "Limit"
> >>> is a real limit, or whether it's just a lack of foresight at the time of what
> >>> people might try to do with the machine? I don't want to find myself
> >>> discarding a 4GB card which I couldn't send back (having installed it to try
> >>> it) and which wouldn't be useful elsewhere.
> >>>
> >>> My own guess is that the SSD would make more difference than an extra 1.5
> >>> (useable) GB of memory on this tiny machine, so thanks for that account.
> >>>
> >> It is not limit, but the year it was released in 2008 4GB ram modules
> >> will be too expansive or rare, so Mfr went with 2GB and no one likes to
> >> admit that it will run 4GB and loose business.
> >>
> >> Take the bottom covers off to see which ram is fitted, my guess PC2-5300
> >> ish.
> >>
> >> I can always lend you to try one :-))
> > Thank you, Raj - that's most generous. However, Theo (see below) has tracked
> > down that there is a 2GB limitation in what the processor can address. I can't
> > imagine what would be the thinking behind that - most likely some "market
> > segmentation" dodge, I'd think. So that limit is indeed a hard one.
> >
> > Much appreciated, nevertheless.
> >
> I have been selling laptops since 2001, way before others knew that
> LAPTOP is next big thing, I vaguely remember having these in stock,
> adding 4GB modules and selling them at good profit. I am shipping memory
> to you to try, so you got nothing to loose? All you have to do is take
> bottom cover and see which ram is installed.

Well that's an offer too generous to refuse. I'll open the thing up as soon as
I can get it to finish cleaning up after an abortive attempt to get it to
upgrade to W10 (I just this minute cancelled the "checking you are ready to
install" (or something similar) screen which had been stuck there for 3 days.
Now "Setup is cleaning up before it closes" - I hope I don't have another 3
days to wait.

It never occurred to me to check my now-elderly Dell Venue 8 tablet, which it
turns out has an Atom processor and 2GB of RAM. It's not quick, but it's quite
useable.

Once it's done, I'll message you my details. Thanks!

--

Phil, London

In article <MPG.3aee6145ab7b1019989921@news.eternal-september.org>,
thiswillbounceback@you.com says...
>
> In article <s61hse$lh1$1@dont-email.me>, raj@kundracomputers.co.uk says...
> >
> > On 22/04/2021 11:33, Philip Herlihy wrote:
> > > In article <s5pks8$pm7$1@dont-email.me>, raj@kundracomputers.co.uk says...
> > >> On 21/04/2021 17:04, Philip Herlihy wrote:
> > >>> In article <s5p3n9$ma5$1@dont-email.me>, NOTsomeone@microsoft.com says...
> > >>>> On 21/04/2021 12:24, Philip Herlihy wrote:
> > >>>>> I have this tiny notebook running Windows 7 "Starter". It has a 256GB spinning
> > >>>>> disk (7200rpm) and just 2GB of memory. The Crucial scanner reports that the
> > >>>>> max memory is 2GB, though I've found other machines which could use more than
> > >>>>> their supposed limit. I'd like to give it to someone, but I'm reluctant to
> > >>>>> hand over a machine running something that's full of security holes, so I'd
> > >>>>> like to upgrade it to W10, which still seems to work free.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Why would a machine have a limit of 2GB - what are my chances of getting a 4GB
> > >>>>> stick to work (under the limitations of a 32-bit machine, of course)? Which
> > >>>>> would be the better investment: a 4GB memory card or an SSD (similar sort of
> > >>>>> price!). Opinions greatly valued - it seems a shame to scrap it.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>> 2GB is enough to get some work done on 32 bit W10. The stated minimum to
> > >>>> run that OS is 1GB.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> On a 4GB machine the maximum that 32 bit W10 can see is only about 3.2GB.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Then, there's the graphics. Does the notebook have shared RAM for the
> > >>>> graphics?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> My old Dell C2D machine has shared graphics and 4GB of RAM. All W10 can
> > >>>> see is 2.7GB of the RAM. It actually ran pretty well, although the i7
> > >>>> machine (with 24GB of RAM) I use now is noticeably better.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> An SSD revitalised the old Dell.
> > >>> Thanks for this. Process Explorer reports 2.3 MB (sic) GPU Dedicated Memory,
> > >>> and 2.7 MB GPU Shared Memory. System Information reports 2GB Installed
> > >>> Physical Memory and 1.99GB "available".
> > >>>
> > >>> It's surprisingly useable - now that it's finished looking for, downloading and
> > >>> installing updates! (Atom processor.)
> > >>>
> > >>> I guess what I'd still like to know is whether a manufacturer's stated "Limit"
> > >>> is a real limit, or whether it's just a lack of foresight at the time of what
> > >>> people might try to do with the machine? I don't want to find myself
> > >>> discarding a 4GB card which I couldn't send back (having installed it to try
> > >>> it) and which wouldn't be useful elsewhere.
> > >>>
> > >>> My own guess is that the SSD would make more difference than an extra 1.5
> > >>> (useable) GB of memory on this tiny machine, so thanks for that account.
> > >>>
> > >> It is not limit, but the year it was released in 2008 4GB ram modules
> > >> will be too expansive or rare, so Mfr went with 2GB and no one likes to
> > >> admit that it will run 4GB and loose business.
> > >>
> > >> Take the bottom covers off to see which ram is fitted, my guess PC2-5300
> > >> ish.
> > >>
> > >> I can always lend you to try one :-))
> > > Thank you, Raj - that's most generous. However, Theo (see below) has tracked
> > > down that there is a 2GB limitation in what the processor can address. I can't
> > > imagine what would be the thinking behind that - most likely some "market
> > > segmentation" dodge, I'd think. So that limit is indeed a hard one.
> > >
> > > Much appreciated, nevertheless.
> > >
> > I have been selling laptops since 2001, way before others knew that
> > LAPTOP is next big thing, I vaguely remember having these in stock,
> > adding 4GB modules and selling them at good profit. I am shipping memory
> > to you to try, so you got nothing to loose? All you have to do is take
> > bottom cover and see which ram is installed.
>
> Well that's an offer too generous to refuse. I'll open the thing up as soon as
> I can get it to finish cleaning up after an abortive attempt to get it to
> upgrade to W10 (I just this minute cancelled the "checking you are ready to
> install" (or something similar) screen which had been stuck there for 3 days.
> Now "Setup is cleaning up before it closes" - I hope I don't have another 3
> days to wait.
>
> It never occurred to me to check my now-elderly Dell Venue 8 tablet, which it
> turns out has an Atom processor and 2GB of RAM. It's not quick, but it's quite
> useable.
>
> Once it's done, I'll message you my details. Thanks!

The post-cleanup after the aborted upgrade looked to be taking as long as the
upgrade-not, so I forced a shutdown, at which point the machine started
installing updates (again). That may have been the problem perhaps? I'll try
the whole thing again.

--

Phil, London

On 24/04/2021 18:05, Philip Herlihy wrote:
> In article <VA.00000d9d.0019bea6@me.invalid>, daniel@me.invalid says...
>>
>> In article <MPG.3aeb615296636b55989919@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> Philip Herlihy wrote:
>>> ... there is a 2GB limitation in what the processor can address.
>>> I can't imagine what would be the thinking behind that - most
>>> likely some "market segmentation" dodge, I'd think.
>>
>> Exactly so. Windows 7 Starter was brought out as a cheap Windows
>> version to support 'netbook' style machines with very low resource
>> limits so that these could be sold with Windows without pushing the
>> price up too much. There was a raft of cheap hardware with cobbled
>> specs that imposed these limits in order to qualify for a Win7 Starter
>> licence.
>>
>> The requirement for low-resource hardware was to stop people buying
>> Starter and running it on machines that were actually useful.
>>
>> This was shortly after the release of things like the Asus EEPC
>> machines that were released with Linux for not much more than the cost
>> of a Windows (XP Home, at the time) licence, and Microsoft were
>> wriggling to hold on to market share.
>>
>> Unfortunately they were largely successful, and low-power laptop-style
>> machines running Linux virtually disappeared until they were reborn in
>> the form of Chromebooks.
>
> Thanks, Daniel - very interesting.
>

Hmm. I am lookimg for an extra PC to supplement my desktop for
emergency use. Not sure if a cheap laptop, notebook or 'pad'
will suffice but I see that Currys still sell Win10S machines like
this one, which claims tohave 4GB, but they don't seem to bother
wth physical LAN ports any longer

https://www.currys.co.uk/gbuk/computing/laptops/laptops/hp-15s-eq1516sa-15-6-laptop-amd-ryzen-3-128-gb-ssd-silver-10207946-pdt.html