TheNay Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 It would be impossible to patch XP 32-bit to allow that much RAM. 586488271[/snapback] Not true, Windows XP was patched to allow HDD's to use over 137GB ;) Anything is possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
username(); Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Not true, Windows XP was patched to allow HDD's to use over 137GB ;) Anything is possible 586488288[/snapback] Not the same thing, not even close. The only way you can get 32-bit software to use more then 4gb of ram is through some dirty hacks that must be done at the source level. They might have got Windows too see all that, but it won't use more then 4gb if its XP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ev0| Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 people need to go read through the thread before posting, you're all discussing stuff that was talked about and posted on during page 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zzachattack2 Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Not true, Windows XP was patched to allow HDD's to use over 137GB ;) Anything is possible 586488288[/snapback] The physical accessible memory limit in 32-bit windows xp is not a limitation of the os, rather a limitation of the processor itself. (64-bit windows xp does have a memory limit of 128GB, not the 18 billion terabytes the processor limits it to). The HDD problem was the lack of 48-bit addressing in the original windows xp, nothing that is limited by the actual hardware itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gone Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 I'd love to see windows XP handle this much memory!!! It wouldn't know what to leak :laugh: :laugh: And if its real, OMG!!! :blink: :blink: :blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NienorGT Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 (edited) Fake... Seriously this laptop is an EliteGroup (ECS) Notebook G220. And thoses pics can be modded even without the help of Photoshop or any picture manupulation program... Just to mod the file itself (here I modded the sysdm.cpl file in reshack) Look at me! I got that laptop and i'm using Windows Vista Premium Edition!!!! I PWN J00!!! Nah serious... this is simply fake... If they can do a Quantum CPU with two standard DVD/CD lens and put this in a ECS cheapos notebook and REALLY run it without ANY problems at 6.80GHz I SWEAR that I will find a way to run DooM3 on my 486 DX/2 66MHz and a 256KB VGA Adapter ok? Edit: PS: I have added the II after Quantum since they had forget it (POWNED IN THIER OWN FAKE) also I had put what the name of the RAM is becuse I find it funny :D Edit two: Do you think that An Intel i855 Chipset can support 6.80GHz of data :whistle: Also it's me or the captions buttons don't look normal? :wacko: Check out the 'X' ... Edited September 7, 2005 by nienor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roomiestdruid Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 I have to say, every time I see the Quantum logo on that stuff, it makes me think of old Quantum hard drive logos, before Quantum got absorbed into Maxtor. Dont think its the same font face, but hey, I could be wrong. I havent seen a Quantum brand drive since the days when 2 gig hard drives were hot stuff :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NienorGT Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 I have to say, every time I see the Quantum logo on that stuff, it makes me think of old Quantum hard drive logos, before Quantum got absorbed into Maxtor. Dont think its the same font face, but hey, I could be wrong. I havent seen a Quantum brand drive since the days when 2 gig hard drives were hot stuff :p 586488409[/snapback] No... http://www.9thtee.com/images/driveinf.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clide Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Yeah, just because it's easy to fake then it absolutely must be a fake :rolleyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeydoo Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 (edited) I got bored at page 5. Couldn't be more fake. That uncovered lens thing is an optical drive laser thingy. And if all those individual technologies exist, they are the size of a large-ish lab. If the "atom chip" in its little bay wasn't a compact flash card/reader with a new sticker on it, then the bus bandwidth between it (actually all the components) would have to be biblical. They didn't even bother to put a 64bit version of vista on it. I suppose to do one of these things well you have to have a certain level of "knowledge" and "creativity" sadly if you have those you can't be bothered, because it?s stupid. They didn't know to turn the fricking indexing service off. On the other hand such a system is the only one that could run it with out a performance hit. edit: This page is pretty funny for those that still believe. They had a bit of rumage through maplins bargin bins bins.http://atomchip.com/_wsn/page3.html The "transceiver" Edited September 7, 2005 by joeydoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
viciv Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 how much will it cost? lol :shifty: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JiveMasterT Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 now what leads me to believe this is a fake is a number of things... 1. the fact that it has 2TB of non-volatile memory for storing the programs, but it also has 1TB of RAM... why would you need 1TB of ram if you have 2TB of what is also basically ram? Also, why would you mount it using IDE and not SATA like all new technology is using? It doesn't add up to me. 2. the pic at: http://atomchip.com/db4/00366/atomchip.com...es/RAMComp2.jpg is defiantely fake. The bracket you see there is for ram, yes. but the chips they have there aren't touching the slot that the ram goes into. so, what, are they optical to? i dont think so. i took a picture of my bracket that hold the ram but my digi cam's drivers keep messing up my machine so i gotta find another way to show it to you guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itsnotabigtruck Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 I got bored at page 5. Couldn't be more fake. That uncovered lens thing is an optical drive laser thingy. And if all those individual technologies exist, they are the size of a large-ish lab. If the "atom chip" in its little bay wasn't a compact flash card/reader with a new sticker on it, then the bus bandwidth between it (actually all the components) would have to be biblical. They didn't even bother to put a 64bit version of vista on it. I suppose to do one of these things well you have to have a certain level of "knowledge" and "creativity" sadly if you have those you can't be bothered, because it?s stupid. They didn't know to turn the fricking indexing service off. On the other hand such a system is the only one that could run it with out a performance hit.edit: [snipped] 586488521[/snapback] The don't index attribute is different from whether Indexing Service is enabled or not. XP ships by default with Indexing Service disabled but the don't index attribute not set on the drive. The NVIOPRAM is just a pair of gold-plated 1/4"-->1/8" audio connector adapters.:laugh:h: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daviesbad04 Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 That is only true for windows XP 32bit (which only support a total of 4 GB of RAM). With windows XP 64 bit, the memory limit is much higher (about 18 TB I supposed). 586486744[/snapback] Not only is that OS not x64 edition, but im guessing thats not a 64 bit CPU. I think its fake.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daviesbad04 Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 now what leads me to believe this is a fake is a number of things...1. the fact that it has 2TB of non-volatile memory for storing the programs, but it also has 1TB of RAM... why would you need 1TB of ram if you have 2TB of what is also basically ram? Also, why would you mount it using IDE and not SATA like all new technology is using? It doesn't add up to me. 2. the pic at: http://atomchip.com/db4/00366/atomchip.com...es/RAMComp2.jpg is defiantely fake. The bracket you see there is for ram, yes. but the chips they have there aren't touching the slot that the ram goes into. so, what, are they optical to? i dont think so. i took a picture of my bracket that hold the ram but my digi cam's drivers keep messing up my machine so i gotta find another way to show it to you guys. 586488943[/snapback] Not to mention that board looks mighty dirty and old :blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NienorGT Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 I think its fake.... 586488995[/snapback] You only think? :rofl: For the new readers... IT'S ABSOLUTLY FAKE! Not to mention that board looks mighty dirty and old :blink: 586488999[/snapback] LOL An AMI BIOS 686 from 1999 will support a computer system of 2020! Weee! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malik05 Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 0o0o dear, i wet my pants :cry: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien Venom Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 This picture is totally fake. Look at how the number is offset from the rest of the text: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IceBrewedBeer Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 (edited) I don't know if anyone noticed but the clock speed on the image posted above proves it's a fake. It reads 6,80ghz. Last time I checked, in windows it would go something like "2.2ghz." I rest my case. They used a comma instead of a period. Also, in the harddrive info screenshot, it's missing tons of commas. =/ I know, i'm the greatest. :cool: Edited September 7, 2005 by Ice Brewed Beer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ltworf Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 I don't know if anyone noticed but the clock speed on the image posted above proves it's a fake. It reads 6,80ghz. Last time I check in windows it would go something like "2.2ghz." I rest my case. They used a comma instead of a period. Also, in the harddrive info screenshot, it's missing tons of commas. =/I know, i'm the greatest. :cool: 586489066[/snapback] Hey the greatest.. perhaps you need to do a little more research. In a good part of the world, they swap the use of the . and the , In Europe they would type 1.000 instead of 1,000 like we do here in the states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chavo Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Just a few comments kiddies. #1. This may or may not be fake. What most of you are missing is the fact that none of this is standard hard drive or memory technology. It is their own invention, therefore all of your rules about hardware are thrown out the window. #2. There is no limit to how much memory Windows can address. The only limit is the hardware. 32 bit memory controller can access 4G. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waurbind Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 as far as im concerned this is a pile of ****, i don't care of he has patents for other stuff, i jsut cant see this being possible, the website is crap, there are many suspicious things about the images and the feasability of such a project AND one of the stickers says Quantum tm on it, "Quantum" is already owned by a hard drive company Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tomwarren Veteran Posted September 7, 2005 Veteran Share Posted September 7, 2005 The fact XP Pro doesn't even support this amount of RAM and can't address it correctly would surely suggest this is fake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samoa Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Fake, Fake, Fake...alllllllllllll fake. :yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleck79 Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 ROFL, it says it uses : Memory: 1TB Quantum-Optical non-volatile RAM (NvIOpSRAM-SODIMM 200-pin) umm...rofl, key word in there is non-volatile, there is no way in hell you can have a any atoms (as quantum refers) maintain their exact charges without some sort of device keeping them how they are. By the way people, the only way researchers have been able to keep an atom stable enough so that it could be manipulated it is to keep it at an ungodly cold temperature. There is just no way in hell that this is possible! It would be nice if it was, but its not. Also, why would you put that in a laptop and not a desktop computer? Thats just retarded, its like Intel saying they had developed the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition for use in laptops AND NOT desktops. lol and could you imagine the FCC statment on it "The device complies with part 15 of the FCC rules as well as part 73b of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Operation is subject to the following three conditions: (1) This device may not cause harmful interference. (2) This device must accept and interference recieved, including interference that may cause undesired operation. and (3) This device must not emit more than 0.1 rem (1mSv) per year not to exceed 0.002 rem (0.02 mSv) in one hour of radioactive particles." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts