Bionic Puppy 8.0 (x32 + x64) Live CD on Asus X102BA

[3guesses]

Just a quick post to report that the Bionic Puppy 8.0 (x32 and x64) Live CD (on USB flash drive) boots successfully, and on preliminary investigation mostly works on an Asus X102BA netbook:

- The wifi card works using Barry's Simple Network Setup tool
- The built-in display works at 1366x768
- The VGA port works at 1440x900
- The HDMI port works at 4k resolution (3840 x 2160)
- The 3 temperature sensors work
- The AMD A4 1200 APU Processor (w/ 2 cores) is recognised
- 3.5GB memory is recognised (I thought the machine had 4GB?)
- The sound card works
- The SD card reader works

What doesn't seem to work:

- The wired ethernet adapter (not recognised by antiX 19 or Lubuntu 19 either)

There is also a thread from 2014 by Devil.Dog about a Puppy specifically written for a very similar model, the Asus X102B:
http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic. ... 15&t=95617

[bigpup]

3.5GB memory is recognised (I thought the machine had 4GB?)

That is normal to not get exactly 4GB reported.
It depends on what is being used for numbers to represent 1GB.
Bites or bytes.

Computer reports in bites.
Memory manufactures use bytes.

generally 1byte= 8bits 1KB=1024bytes 1MB=1024KB 1GB=1024MB
so coming to the point

1KB=1024*8 = 8192bites ( because when 1024 bytes multiplied by 8 Bits we get how many bites for 1KB)

1MB= 1024*8192= 8388608 (because when 1024 byts multiplied by 8192 bits we will get number of bites for 1MB)

1GB= 1024*8388608 =8589934592 (because logically when 1024 bytes multiplied by 8388608 bits then we will get number of bits for 1GB)

So 1GB contains 8589934592 bites

Also, the program displaying the memory amount, could be displaying actual memory available to use.
A small amount is used by the Linux kernel memory controller. That memory is not available for other uses.

[3guesses]

3.5GB memory is recognised (I thought the machine had 4GB?)

That is normal to not get exactly 4GB reported.
It depends on what is being used for numbers to represent 1GB.
Bites or bytes.

Computer reports in bites.
Memory manufactures use bytes.

generally 1byte= 8bits 1KB=1024bytes 1MB=1024KB 1GB=1024MB
so coming to the point

1KB=1024*8 = 8192bites ( because when 1024 bytes multiplied by 8 Bits we get how many bites for 1KB)

1MB= 1024*8192= 8388608 (because when 1024 byts multiplied by 8192 bits we will get number of bites for 1MB)

1GB= 1024*8388608 =8589934592 (because logically when 1024 bytes multiplied by 8388608 bits then we will get number of bits for 1GB)

So 1GB contains 8589934592 bites

Also, the program displaying the memory amount, could be displaying actual memory available to use.
A small amount is used by the Linux kernel memory controller. That memory is not available for other uses.

I think you are referring to the difference between GB and GiB/MB and MiB/etc, but you seem to have confused the two somewhat together with bits (1 byte = 2 nibbles = 8 bits/binary digits; 1 nibble = 4 bits = 1 hex digit*):

MiB (eg) uses base 2 (Note: 2^10 = 1024), ie 1 MiB = 1024 kiB = 1024 x 1024 bytes = 1,048,576 bytes = 2^20 bytes
Whereas MB uses base 10 (Note: 10^3 = 1000), ie 1 MB = 1000 kB = 1000 x 1000 bytes = 1,000,000 bytes = 10^6 bytes

Puppy 8.0 HardInfo reports total memory as "3,466,024 KiB" = 3,549,208,576 bytes

The X102BA BIOS reports total memory of 4096 MB = 4,096,000,000 bytes (although I think there is a good chance it should actually be reporting 4096 MiB = 4 GiB).

Somewhere something is getting things wrong. Note that 4GB = 3.72529 GiB (= 3,906,250 kiB) so Puppy does not seem to be reporting the actual total memory of the machine in either kB or kiB and I have no idea where it's getting its figure from ...

* A byte, or 8 bits (bit = binary digit), can have a value in the range 0 ... 255 (ie 0 ... 2^8-1). This range can be written in hex (=hexadecimal: base 16) using 2 hex digits as 00 ... FF, although more normally as 0x00 ... 0xFF or 00h ... FFh, with the "0x" prefix/"h" suffix used to remove any ambiguity by indicating that the number is in hex.

Addendum: In computing terms, it is usually only hard drive manufacturers that (correctly/accurately) quote in GB or TB units (rather than GiB or TiB units), ie they are reporting quantities measured in base 10 (not base 2), whereas most other quantities are measured in base 2 but reported using the base 10 units (ie they state MB, GB, etc when they should actually state MiB, GiB). In other words, a hard drive will be reported (correctly) as having a capacity of, say, 320 GB (ie 320 x 10^9 bytes), but a SODIMM (stick of memory) will be reported (incorrectly) as having a capacity of, say, 8 GB (ie 8 x 10^9 bytes) when in fact strictly speaking it should be reported as 8 GiB (ie 8 x 2^30 bytes) because that is its actual capacity. It's just one of those conventions of which you have to be aware, and I am just as guilty of such laziness/inaccuracy as anyone else...

And we really don't need to get onto the subject of kB vs KB or MB vs Mb, etc.

Anyway, I blame the hard drive manufacturers for exploiting this confusion to diddle us out of storage space

[bigpup]

Anyway, I blame the hard drive manufacturers for exploiting this confusion to diddle us out of storage space

No way the memory manufactures would do the same thing

Pup-Sysinfo is giving you the best information it is provided with.

Some memory is used by the memory stick controller.
Good manufactures add a little memory to the stick just for that. Others do not.

This computer I am on has 2GB RAM.
It reports as Total RAM: 1915 MB.
It is a cheap Chromebook.

Another computer with quality memory reports 8GB as 8196MB

Well, there is always the chance a section of memory has gone bad in that 4GB.

[williams2]

If you have an onboard video card it is probably using ram which is not available to the system.

My laptop is using 384 MB

Code: Select all

# glxinfo | grep MB
    Video memory: 384MB

which leaves me with 3.63 GB

Code: Select all

# cat /proc/meminfo 
MemTotal:        3631840 kB

[3guesses]

Anyway, I blame the hard drive manufacturers for exploiting this confusion to diddle us out of storage space

No way the memory manufactures would do the same thing

What I mean is that a 320 GB (ie 320 x 10^6 bytes) hard drive sounds bigger and better than a 298 GiB (ie 298 x 2^30 bytes) hard drive - which is what it is (the two amounts are exactly the same, just expressed differently). I don't think memory manufacturers have the luxury of designing their chips other than using a binary addressing system because of the architecture of CPUs/memory controllers, so they have to go with sizes such as 8 GiB rather than 8 GB. But all of this is way outside of my field of expertise.

Pup-Sysinfo is giving you the best information it is provided with.

Some memory is used by the memory stick controller.
Good manufactures add a little memory to the stick just for that. Others do not.

This computer I am on has 2GB RAM.
It reports as Total RAM: 1915 MB.
It is a cheap Chromebook.

Another computer with quality memory reports 8GB as 8196MB

Well, there is always the chance a section of memory has gone bad in that 4GB.

The most likely explanation is that the chromebook doesn't have a dedicated graphics card and has reserved a portion of system memory for use by the onboard graphics controller while the other computer does have a separate graphics card with dedicated memory for it so no system memory is used by the graphics subsystem. At the end of the day, I have no idea where 500+ MB of the system memory on my X102BA has disappeared to...

Also, I've never heard of memory being used by the "memory stick controller". You might be confusing standard RAM with ECC RAM where each byte of RAM has an extra parity bit to perform the error-checking (I think). Again, way outside my field of expertise!

[3guesses]

If you have an onboard video card it is probably using ram which is not available to the system.

My laptop is using 384 MB

Code: Select all

# glxinfo | grep MB
    Video memory: 384MB

which leaves me with 3.63 GB

Code: Select all

# cat /proc/meminfo 
MemTotal:        3631840 kB

Aha, yes - that seems to be the case for the X102BA:

Code: Select all

# glxinfo | grep MB
    Video memory: 512 MB
    Dedicated video memory: 512 MB
    Total available memory: 2555 MB

So previously I had posted the figure reported by HardInfo (3,466,024 KiB) after booting the Live CD. PupSysInfo reports (inter alia):

Code: Select all

Total RAM : 3384 MB   [should be MiB?]

Actual used RAM : 208 MB
Actual free RAM : 3176 MB

Memory Stats (/proc/meminfo)
  MemTotal: 3466024 KB   [note: 3466024 kiB = 3384.789 MiB]
  MemFree: 2509812 KB
  MemAvailable: 2524448 KB

PHYSICAL MEMORY

Installed Memory: 4 GB

Memory Module 1
  Size : 4096 MB

Video
  Video RAM : 512M total, 256M 8M prefetchable

(Now you can see how confusing it can get stating KB/MB units for figures when the figures are actually in kiB/MiB.)

So I guess it's that bottom line which is of interest:

o 512 MiB + 256 MiB + 8 MiB = 776 MiB
o 4096 MiB - 776 MiB = 3320 MiB
o 3,320 MiB = 3,399,680 kiB which I guess is pretty close to the 3,466,024 KiB/KB reported by both HardInfo and PupSysInfo respectively.

In fact, that figure is pretty much 4096 MiB - 712 MiB (= 3384 MiB), so I guess that extra 200 MiB (on top of the 512 MiB) is coming from the "Used RAM : 208 MB" figure. Basically, the memory reporting in HardInfo and PupSysInfo is less than clear...

Hardware is not my forte and I had no idea the X102BA had reserved so much system RAM for the onboard graphics card (512 MiB) - and I have absolutely no idea what the "256M 8M prefetchable" is. But I would say the moral of this story is that both HardInfo and PupSysInfo need revisiting to clarify exactly what each figure is that is being reported

[williams2]

You might be able to configure how much ram your onboard video card uses in the bios.

[Mike Walsh]

Mm. I was going to mention the same thing.

Older machines like my recently-deceased Compaq tower used 'reserved' RAM for the onboard graphics. Although with a lot of modern hardware the graphics chip has now moved onto the CPU die itself, the same principle still applies.

Yes, as williams2 says, you can 'adjust' this 'reserved' amount in the BIOS/UEFI/whatever.....but there's still a minimum amount below which the system will not permit you to go - otherwise no graphics.

Unless, of course, a dedicated graphics chip/card is detected.....in which case, I would imagine that reserved amount is then freed up for application use. Having never used a separate graphics card, I can't speak from experience.


Mike.

[bigpup]

There may be an option in the bios to control graphics RAM usage.
But keep in mind that RAM demand for graphics is constantly changing, based on what you are trying to display.
That 512MB is amount set aside for graphics. That is all that memory will be used for.
You change it to too low a number and it will affect graphics.

One desktop computer I have, has integrated graphics and a separate graphics card.
The graphics card provides graphics.
The integrated is not used. It is turned off.

Modern laptops use both, if they have them.
The integrated for normal graphics.
The card for heavy demand graphics.
Suppose to use less power to just run integrated graphics.

[3guesses]

You might be able to configure how much ram your onboard video card uses in the bios.

I didn't recall being able to adjust the video RAM in the BIOS so I just checked again - there doesn't seem to be any option to do so. 512MB seems quite a chunk for the system to allocate, especially seeing as the total memory is fixed (I think) at 4GB. Ho hum

Still, it would be helpful if HardInfo and PupSysInfo were a little clearer in exactly what each figure is that they report for the memory - as it stands, they are pretty irreconcilable and just leave the user guessing...

[Moose On The Loose]

Mm. I was going to mention the same thing.

Older machines like my recently-deceased Compaq tower used 'reserved' RAM for the onboard graphics. Although with a lot of modern hardware the graphics chip has now moved onto the CPU die itself, the same principle still applies.

On a lot of machines, there is also a chunk of memory you simply can't access. On these a 2GB memory shows up just a bit short of its full value. It has to do with the original memory map of the IBM PC having 640K of RAM and then all the video etc above that. When they made machines with bigger memory, they still had to make the 640K area. The easiest way to do that was to take one whole meg and only use part of it.

[bigpup]

512MB seems quite a chunk for the system to allocate

No, that is about the minimum to provide good overall graphics, with what people want to do with computers.
What the hardware now needs.
Higher resolutions.
More and better detail.
More color depth.
3D affects.
All the fancy eye candy that people seem to think they need in Windows 10.
Computers are not built for the low demands of Puppy Linux.

[3guesses]

512MB seems quite a chunk for the system to allocate

No, that is about the minimum to provide good overall graphics, with what people want to do with computers.
What the hardware now needs.
Higher resolutions.
More and better detail.
More color depth.
3D affects.
All the fancy eye candy that people seem to think they need in Windows 10.
Computers are not built for the low demands of Puppy Linux.

4k resolution is 3840x2160 pixels.
32-bit colour depth is 4 bytes/pixel.
So 4k@32-bit colour requires 33,004,800 bytes = ~31.5MiB RAM.
And 4k resolution is only available via HDMI - the built-in display is 1366x768.

So yes, I would say reserving 512MB of RAM for the video when only 32MB is required for the maximum resolution constitutes overkill.