Axim Advance 128mb Upgrade - Page 3

JmE · 05-10-03, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cageyjames
Exactly, its like having to load your driver for the WiFi card after a Hard Reset. Your Axim will still work after a Hard Reset, it just won't see the extra RAM.

As far as I can tell from reading since haven't any hands on experience with this upgrade, the driver would be knocked out by a hard reset, but not the modification to the FlashROM image. The extra storage space would not be usable until the driver is loaded.

However, an OS update that flashed FlashROM should erase the modifications to the image in FlashROM, rendering the memory unusable until the modifications to the ROM image are made. This would require the modifications be restored in the FlashROM image. I think this is the utility of which they speak.

I guess we will all see in time. If I don't trade off the Axim I am using right now, I am seriously thinking about the modification.

-JmE-

05-10-03, 11:37 PM

haha!
Timdjohn you think the new 1gig sd will be around 100$?!

the card will probally be around the 220$ range i believe.

05-11-03, 08:45 PM

Can they do this to the ROM? PPC2k3 is coming out soon, and since I have the basic, I want to make sure I can upgrade.

jpnole · 05-11-03, 11:44 PM

Some of you are confused! 128 MB upgrade is for the RAM. CF & SD cards are like mini hard drives. Don't confuse them. Read on...

Basically this upgrade would be like adding 64MB RAM to and old crappy system with 64MB, giving you 128MB total... the result is a performance boost for just about any application present in the system. Adding a 1GB CF or SD card would be like adding more hard drive space to your system. It will not result in a performance boost to your Axim. The 128MB RAM upgrade will add performance though. Hell I don't even own one and I know this :)

JmE · 05-11-03, 11:55 PM

If I understand what I have read, the memory is not used like system RAM but rather as a storage disk. Therefore it would not be like adding another 64MB to a system and gaining in all application performance. It would be more like adding a 64MB RAM disk (which is what it is) that would be erased if you rebooted your computer (a hard reset in the case of the Axim).

Though I could be wrong as I have only been reading, not doing.

-JmE-

From the description in post #1 64MB is managed by memory manager and 64MB is a hi-speed internal storage card named T2T Disk.

lwesson · 05-12-03, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JmE
If I understand what I have read, the memory is not used like system RAM but rather as a storage disk. Therefore it would not be like adding another 64MB to a system and gaining in all application performance. It would be more like adding a 64MB RAM disk (which is what it is) that would be erased if you rebooted your computer (a hard reset in the case of the Axim).

Though I could be wrong as I have only been reading, not doing.

-JmE-

From the description in post #1 64MB is managed by memory manager and 64MB is a hi-speed internal storage card named T2T Disk.

Yes and no. It is storage only, but you can install your programs to it instead of main ram. By doing this, more memory is available for running programs.

You can do the same with CF or SD, but the access speed is much slower and you have to deal with coordinating programs with data.

lwesson · 05-12-03, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sarin_j
This is what I wanted to know. In one of the post, its said that the reason why an upgrade cant be done on 300 MHz version is because the OS image has been hardcoded for a maximum conventional memory of 32MB. So the 128MB upgrade would be seen as 32MB conventional and 96MB as T2T Disk. Now since this is because of the hardcoding done in the OS, is there any way of a patch being released that would fix this problem or is it gonna the same way forever ?

We would need access to the OS image before it is compiled to make this type of change. The memory manager limitation is embedded too far into the system to make a change with the OS already compiled.

So, Dell would be the only one able to make the change.

JmE · 05-12-03, 08:07 PM

Yes, I understood this, I was correcting information posted by jpnole which was pointing to the 64MB being part of main system RAM, which it is not.

What is being described is a RAM disk. Naturally if the program is not stored in main system RAM, there is more space for execution of code. The RAM disk is not coming from the original 64MB but from the added 64MB. This I understood quite well.

Thanks,
-JmE-

lwesson posted before I hit post. this post is in reply to the other lwesson post above.

rpokane · 05-13-03, 01:46 PM

This discussion reminds me of the good ol'd DOS days and all the tricks then to make use of precious and costly RAM :)

lwesson · 05-13-03, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rpokane
This discussion reminds me of the good ol'd DOS days and all the tricks then to make use of precious and costly RAM :)

Tis true, but you are dating yourself. :)

JmE · 05-13-03, 02:21 PM

Yep. We used RAM disks because there weren't any hard drives on the consumer market for our little 8 bit systems and the floppy drive was really slow! :D But tape was even slower... :crooked: Before we bought tape drives, we had to type every program in and leave the system running! :rolling:

Which reminds me.. lwesson, why the name T2T Disk? I seem to recall that name on our RAM disks with OS-9 Level I (not the Mac thing, a 6809 Unix type environment). I was wondering if that is a generic name associated with RAM disks from long ago or maybe just a coincidence? Like I said, just curiosity.

-JmE-

JmE · 05-13-03, 02:24 PM

BTW: We also used to piggy back chips to do RAM upgrades wherever possible because the higher density RAM chips were sooo much more expensive. I guess some things never change, eh? (Except, of course, we used to do the soldering ourselves.... the traces and legs on the chips were a lot bigger and more managable then).

Boy am I dating myself... this was before the big MS-DOS craze.

-JmE-

zpeedster_m · 05-13-03, 03:18 PM

Since memory prices are droppin the next line of Axims should have 128 mb min., so i'll just stick to my 2 1gig CF cards for now.........:p

lwesson · 05-13-03, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JmE
Which reminds me.. lwesson, why the name T2T Disk? I seem to recall that name on our RAM disks with OS-9 Level I (not the Mac thing, a 6809 Unix type environment). I was wondering if that is a generic name associated with RAM disks from long ago or maybe just a coincidence? Like I said, just curiosity.

-JmE-

Because my partner, Times 2 Tech, originally wrote the driver. Now that we've merged, it's not an issue, but changing the name now would cause more confusion.

lwesson · 05-13-03, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JmE
BTW: We also used to piggy back chips to do RAM upgrades wherever possible because the higher density RAM chips were sooo much more expensive. I guess some things never change, eh? (Except, of course, we used to do the soldering ourselves.... the traces and legs on the chips were a lot bigger and more managable then).

Boy am I dating myself... this was before the big MS-DOS craze.

-JmE-

We actually have a proprietary tool/press that reforms the leads on the SDRAM so that they meet perfectly when stacking.

The higher density chips are much more expensive, but the XScale can't use them anyway. 64MB per memory bank is the max.