Think again. I just recently upgraded from 1GB to 2GB of RAM. Tonight, I flew the PMDG 737 out of KEWR, with ASv6, RC4, Aeorsoft Manhattan, Megascenery NY, and Shez's KLGA all enabled, and all sliders full right. Prior to the RAM upgrade, if I attempted the same flight, it would be choppy with stutters, and the hard drive light would have been constantly flashing. Tonight it was smooth as silk. FPS was only 9 to 15, but it was relatively constant with virtually no stutters. When I looked at the RAM usage, FS9 was using about 950MB all by itself. That confirms to me that more than a gig is useful and will smooth out and improve your experience. See the attached.

Couldn't agree more, those that come around the forums screaming two gigs of ram is a waste must still be flying default aircraft in default scenery. Otherwise 2 gigs makes a big difference...-PaulLiquid CooledAMD 4000 San Diego2 Gigs Kingston Corsair XMS CL2Dual 7800 GTX 24 inch widescreen dual 19 inch LCDRaid-0

And 4GB makes even more difference. :)

...those that come around the forums screaming two gigs of ram is a waste must still be flying default aircraft in default scenery.And those that come around the forums claiming that two gigs of RAM isn't a waste haven't done all their homework.I don't fly default aircraft and I have alot of add-on scenery (I also use AS, but not TrackIR nor RC), yet my system does not come close to using the 1GB of RAM I have. Why is that?Let's look at the OP's jpg of his abbreviated Task Manager. He has 28 processes running, more than any gamer should have. Some of the processes we can see are simply wasting resources:He has not one but two instances of ATI Hotkey Poller (ati2evxx.exe) running. Does he even use the ATI Hotkey Poller (I know of few folks who do)? If not why are they even running? He also uses ATI's Catalyst Control Center, a real resource hog. In his jpg we can see the required two instances of the CLI.exe running. And CCC (by virtue of the fact that it requires at least one install of the .NET Framwork--some versions of CCC require v. 1.1 and 2.0) will also mean additional resources being used by one or more instance of SVCHOST.EXE. A video card tweaker like ATI Tray Tools can do far more than CCC and requires zero resources when we are simming.Info about the WMIPRVSE.exe can be found . In most cases this service can be set to "Manual" in XP's Services.SERVICES.EXE is not on my system, but may be something Intel based systems require. It could also be a [link:www.liutilities.com/products/wintaskspro/processlibrary/services/]Trojan].WINLOGON.EXE may also be required by the OP's system if he uses multiple logons. If he doesn't then this service can be set to "Manual".ALG.EXE (Application Layer Gateway) is required if the computer is part of a network. If it isn't this service can be set to "Manual" or even "Disabled".IAANOTIF.EXE is part of the Intel Application Accelerator. But it may be nothing more than an AutoUpdater, and should be checked to see if it can be run in "Manual" mode in Services.wdfmgr.exe is part of Windows Media Player. Was the OP listening to music or watching a video while flying? Or was this service left in "Automatic". If it was then it too can be set to "Manual".The final 5 of 28 processes we can't see in the jpg.The point in all this is to insure that folks don't read threads like this and simply assume they should dish out more money for additional RAM for FS9. While it's clear that more RAM is never a bad thing, some might assume that buying more RAM will solve any problems they are having. In the case of the OP the additional RAM clearly does help (by virtue of the fact that his install of FS9 uses almost 1Gb of RAM by itself), so he made a good and sound purchase. But that will not always be the case for everybody[/i, and adding RAM cannot be seen as a universal solution.Each of our systems is different, and each should be assessed based upon such factors as hardware, type of simming we prefer, add-ons, etc. To make a blanket statement that we should all be using more than 1GB of RAM with FS9 is misleading at best and simply wrong at worst.Cheers,GregEdited because I hit the "Post" button before I should have. :-)

Yep. :-)

However, does the number of unnecessary running processes affect the ram usage of FS9.EXE itself? If not, even if FS9.EXE is the only thing that's running, when it uses 910 MB of ram it's calling for more than 1GB installed.The only two arguements I can make here is 1. He might (might but not likely) have a memory leak. 2. The senario discribed is extremely intensive with all the addons, I for one don't put my sim in such intensity hence may never see FS9.EXE using over 700MB of ram.Jason

SoarPics, my intent wasn't to get into a debate with you on what services to disable and what to keep running. It was to relate my experience which is valid. You want to save the $180 and stick with 1GB, more power to you, but please don't confuse people with false logic. You assumed a lot, including the level of knowledge and understanding that others have, and jumping to conclusions can cause misunderstanding. First, The fact that the high water mark of RAM usage for FS9 was 950MB isn't imapacted one bit by other things open at the time. Second, I know all about what to turn off and what to leave running. I used the Omega drivers for years, and never used the CCC, until I bought an X1900XTX which is not supported by ATI tray tools. CCC is never usually loaded when I am using FS9. In this case I was checking some settings and snapped the screen. Intel Accelerator is loaded to support a RAID0 array and is not an autoupdater. To boot, it's using a whole whopping 1.8 MB. While I agree that winlogon could be set to manual, how do you know that it's not? Anyway, the total RAM used by all of the offending services or TSRs barely adds up to 50MB, so you're point is really weak.FS9 is going to use the amount of memory it needs during use, regardless of what else is loaded. If it can't get pages in physical RAM, then it will page to disk. If it needs 950MB and there is only 850MB of physical RAM available, then it will page the remaining 100MB to disk. The few MB used by a couple of services aren't going to make the difference. You might make a valid case that they could eat some CPU cycles and might affect FPS, but not total RAM usage of FS9. RAM is faster than disk and that is the crux of the experience. Now tell me I'm wrong....

However, does the number of unnecessary running processes affect the ram usage of FS9.EXE itself?Depends upon the service/process. The goal is to minimize the number of services/processes running in the first place. The fewer that are running the less chances they will impact the sim, as well as any other app each of us chooses to run while not simming.If not, even if FS9.EXE is the only thing that's running, when it uses 910 MB of ram it's calling for more than 1GB installed.Indeed, the OP's install of FS9 is using alot of memory (and as you say he may be dealing with a memory leak... that's another thing simmers should investigate before buying more RAM).Bottom line is this: Before anyone jumps on the "buy more RAM for FS9" bandwagon they should research their system, tune it to perform best with the hardware they have, and then if that doesn't yield the results they are seeking go ahead and buy more RAM.Throwing more hardware at a system config problem rarely yields positive results. First and foremost the gamer should make certain their hardware and software are giving the best they can give. Otherwise, hardware upgrades are often a waste of money.Greg

If there was a memory leak, you would not see the current amount of RAM used being less than the peak. Normally, a memory leak is an ever increasing use of memory that is not released and is not returned by garbage collection.

Now tell me I'm wrong....Nope, you're right. 2GB of RAM will make all our FS9 installs run better. And your processes/services are configured perfectly.And with that I'm done.GregP.S. The version of ATI Tray Tools included with Omega's latest drivers will support your new video card.

And I'm sure you've checked that with FileMon and ProcessMon.Greg

>Now tell me I'm wrong....>>Nope, you're right. 2GB of RAM will make all our FS9 installs>run better. And your processes/services are configured>perfectly.>>And with that I'm done.>>Greg>>P.S. The version of ATI Tray Tools included with Omega's>latest drivers will support your new video card.I never made that claim, and unlike you I don't presume and assume. BTW, I tried the latest Omegas (6.03) and the version of ATT that was installed would not support the X1900XTX at more than 500MHz, and it was a requirement to disable overclocking. Ray Adams has posted about that issue. Check it out.Why do some people get offended if their opinions aren't universally heralded as the gospel??

Why do some people get offended if their opinions aren't universally heralded as the gospel??You tell us. You seem to be the one being defensive about your system config. I merely pointed out that going to 2GB of RAM may not be a solution for everyone. Sorry if I offended you.Greg

>Why do some people get offended if their opinions aren't>universally heralded as the gospel??>>You tell us. You seem to be the one being defensive about>your system config. I merely pointed out that going to 2GB of>RAM may not be a solution for everyone. Sorry if I offended>you.>>GregNo offense taken. I was merely posting my findings, on my system, with all its flaws and improperly tweaked services, and with the configuration of add ons that I described. I never made the statement that everyone would automatically benefit from 2GB, or that everyone should run out and spend the rent money on memory. It appears to be your agenda to refute any suggestion that more than a GB might be helpful in FS9, and I merely pointed out that you decided to pick apart my system, but with many incorrect assumptions. Had I known that someone would make an issue out of what I was running on my system at the moment I took the screenshot, instead of the operative point which was how much RAM was used by FS9.exe, I wouldn't have posted it, or I would have cleaned up CCC and some other things that I was using first. Just for completeness, WMI is a dependency for the Windows firewall.BTW, as for looking for the memory leak with filemon or processmon, the answer is no, but I never claimed that no leak existed, only that usually when one does occur, it's a progressive one and memory that is taken is not usually returned. I wasn't trying to submit a masters thesis or win a Nobel prize. It's only a hobby. It should be fun. I was only sharing one experience that I had to whoever cared. I guess I'll refrain next time unless I have someone from MIT to assist me with the post.

>>And 4GB makes even more difference.<< Hi Sergey, your line sparked my curiousity and FYI, I have a FlyTendo with 2GB RAM. Would you mind being a bit more specific why/how 4GB would make even more of a difference? For me, 2GB was an - almost mathematical - decision being closer to 1GB than 512MB on RAM consumption. Right now, I couldn't imagine how to get my FlyTendo anywhere near 2GB which would warrant an upgrade to 4GB (based upon my simplistic mathematics). :-) Thanks for taking your time. Kind regards Jaap