<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
On 06/30/2009 11:06 PM, Shannon McMackin wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:h2ejsa$9pc$1@ger.gmane.org" type="cite">On
06/30/2009 09:27 PM, Steven F. LeBrun wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">When I installed F11 on my Toshiba laptop, it
installed the PAE version
<br>
of the kernel. I am assuming that my laptop has a CPU with Physical
<br>
Address Extensions functionality and can therefore address up to 64GB
of
<br>
memory.
<br>
<br>
My laptop only has 3 GB installed. Can anyone explain the pro's and
<br>
con's of using the PAE version of Linux kernel instead of the non-PAE
<br>
version?
<br>
<br>
Would the PAE version of the 32-bit Linux Kernel see 4 GB of memory if
<br>
it was installed where Vista 32-bits only sees about 3GB? For that
<br>
matter would the non-PAE version see the full 4 GB?
<br>
<br>
--
<br>
Steven F. LeBrun
<br>
<br>
Quote: /"There are 10 types of people in this world, those that
<br>
understand binary and those who don't."/
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Some laptops can only physically use 3gb of RAM. In this case, the PAE
kernel would not be an advantage for you. If you install 4gb of RAM,
then you will need the PAE kernel to use all 4gb. Again, this depends
on the chipset. The core-duo can only use 3gb, but the core2-duo can
use 4gb.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
In my case, where my laptop only has 3GB of memory installed, is there
a disadvantage to using the PAE kernel instead of the non-PAE?<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<div> Steven F. LeBrun<br>
<p>
Quote: <em>"The objection to fairy stories is that they tell children
there are dragons. But children have always known there are dragons.
Fairy stories tell children that dragons can be killed."</em><br>
-- G.K. Chesterton</p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>