On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 07:29:09PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Ken Moffat wrote: > >On Sat, Nov 08, 2014 at 03:39:23PM -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote: > >>Ken Moffat wrote: > >> > >>Yes, I tried memtest and it only recognized 3.1G. > >> > > > > In that case, it is not a kernel problem. I can remember some of > >my whatever-was-cheap hardware over the years : many motherboards > >were definitely not built in the expectation that people would fit > >all the memory which could in theory be used. > > > > I never touched Dell machines with the proverbial barge-pole, and > >certainly in _this_ country they were often not cheap, but I suspect > >somebody saved a cent by putting something in the address space > >because "nobody would really want to use 4GB of RAM with this on > >Windows XP" (the PDF at > >www.dell.com/support/home/us/en/19/product-support/product/precision-370/manuals > >specifically mentions XP). Yes, I know that XP supported up to 4GB. > >But the link at http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/25007815 > >suggests that not all XP systems managed to make 4GB usable. At > >least you are doing better than the 2.5GB at the bottom end of the > >range in that post. > > > > Perhaps something in > >http://en.community.dell.com/support-forums/desktop/f/3514/t/19449295 > >might either help, or console, you ? > > > > FWIW, motherboard manufacturers who talk about a Mobo "supporting" > >a certain amount of RAM usually mean "it boots with sticks of that > >nominal capacity and we do not know, or care, how much of the RAM you > >can actually use". No idea if Dell was like that for this product, > > Good points Ken. I've decided it is a HW issue and will let it go. My > biggest problem was the speed of SM and not that I cna build it with > optimization, that is handled. > > Speaking of SM, many pages give errors now for jpegs (but not all jpegs). I > did update to libjpeg-turbo-1.3.1, as a part of the upgrade, so I don't know > if that's it or not. I am rebuilding SM with internal jpeg to see if that > makes a difference. > > -- Bruce > Might be the jpeg symlinks!
With turbo, the libjpeg.so.7 or libjpeg.so.8 version is ostensibly older than what jpegsrc provided. When ldconfig runs, e.g. during the SM or firefox install, it will see that and remake the symlink to point to the jpegsrc version. My ff upgrade script now checks to see what version libjpeg.so is pointing to (8.0.2 on LFS-7.6), then checks what .so.7 or .so.8 pointed to [ on old systems with jpegsrcv7 I used to build turbo as if it was v7 when I upgraded to it ] and if necessary remakes the symlinks to point to the turbo version. I guess I might now have got rid of all my systems which originally used jpegsrc, but I'm not sure, so for the moment I keep my block of shell script which fixes that. That would also apply to any other library update on that system. ĸen -- Nanny Ogg usually went to bed early. After all, she was an old lady. Sometimes she went to bed as early as 6 a.m. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page Do not top post on this list. A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
