what laptops are able to have more than 2GB of ram?

So Far: Precision M90 and M65, Latitude D820 and D620, XPS M1710.

No word for or against the E1705 and E1505 being 4GB capable.

Not sure about the Bios, but Dell has not said a definate yes or no on the inspirons

also the xps 1710 can have 4 gb of ram

Note the last mentioned system on the first line

Already said it bub.

And storino, E1505 most likely doesn't and the E1705 most likely doesnt, but there is a discussion somewhere about the E1705's 4GB capabilities

For what in gods name would you need more than 2GB?

REALLY REALLY big photoshop images.

Even if you had a Laptop that supported 4GB....currently NOBODY I could find online sells 2GB SO-DIMMs for Laptops (all I found were 2x1GB kits). Not only that unless you're REALLY doing some high end graphic or 3D work, 2GB is enough. And even then only if you play BF2 on your Laptop.

I have no doubt that with a BIOS revision that both the E1505 and the E1705 will support 4gb. Not that any of us really need that much unless you're doing some serious editing, but it should be possible once 2gb DIMMS are out. It's the chipset that dictates the amount a computer can handle(and what is actually available, hence the $2500 price tag for the 4gb upgrade on the M90) and the BIOS that controls whether or not it's recognized. So, we know that the current chipset(can't remember the name of it) can handle 4gb so it seems that all is needed to support it on the E1705/1505 is a BIOS revision.

That's my take on it anyway. I think even if Dell says it won't support 4gb it probably would if you stuck 2 2gb sticks in there with the latest BIOS installed.

I was under the impression that 32 bit windows xp can only use 2GB total...

I just checked; merely upgrading from 2GB to 4GB on the Latitude D820 is almost $2500!

So if you're considering going with 4GB in order to "future proof" it, it would certainly be cheaper to just go with 2 GB now (or hell, 1GB), and buy a whole new damn laptop 2-3 years down the road, with a better (64 bit) processor, bigger HDD, better graphics, 4GB of RAM and who knows what other new features for a grand total of less than $2000!

I am not mean (please because I'm laughing not being cruel) but if you crawl out from under the rock, you'll hear the name Vista. THAT is what the 4gb is for. Under operation Vista takes 800 mb of core memory, vs 200mb of XP. So users are doing some extrapolation. If say BF2 which likes 2gb now (meaning 1.8gb taking away system) runs on Vista then it will want 2.6gb. Since you can only have 2 or 4, 4 is going to get more useful for some games. Further extrapolation of 1 year out in gaming and we are likely to see more games that will use 2gb/4gb if given the chance. So the expectation is that under Vista you will both be able to use and have a "need" (gamers define "need" a bit differently right?) for 4gb of memory.

4gb actually generates quite a bit of heat (lots!). So part of the issue is probably the bios and part is going to be how well each machine handles the heat coming from the memory. The XPS and others are probably made ready to handle it. For the 1705 they are probably waiting to see how it goes in testing, OR if better memory chips come that generate less heat. So there is more to it.

Now you know why you need it and possibly what issues are at stake in why it's not possible in some machines.

Having looked at the service manuals of both and opening an E1705 I am here to tell you that it dissipates heat equally to an M90 or M1710 because it uses the exact same motherboard and chassis with the docking station connector and LED points soldered. So it is VERY, VERY likely that:

1. The E1705 will be able to use the 7900 GTX OR even a Quadro 250M with a 9 cell battery and a 130 watt power brick.
2. 4 GB of RAM is not only possible but PROBABLE.
Having been through the last THREE generations( I have had an Inspiron 9100 with the MR9800 card, the Inspiron 9200, 9300, and now the E1705, along with an XPS2/M170) I know whereof I speak.

4 GB will be in the E1705. I guarantee it...

There you go!

There is a huge difference between what your motherboard will support, and what your operating system will support. THe "weakest" link in that chain is what your max "configuration" will support.

Your motherboard may support 250 zillion GB of ram, but if 32bit win xp can only see/use 2GB, than you are only going to be able to use 2GB. With system overhead, any single program will see a max of less than 2GB.

Win 64 bit/Vista is supposed to have native suppport for > 2GB. At work, we run ultra high end CAD apps and 2GB isnt enough for our desired visualization needs. We are moving towards win 64bit, which should enable us to use 3GB per Catia session. We are currently on solaris 64bit, which catia only lets us use 2GB per catia session (Catia limit, not solaris).