Guys,I am going to jump in and defend Neil here.First off, there ARE a lot of people in these forums who jump in whenever two gigs is brought up screaming about what a waste it is. That can not be denied. Secondly, Neil was stating that in certain situations, those people are wrong and not to dismiss 2 gigs as a blanket statement.Third, Neil is right 100%Fourth, Why would anyone assume that a perfectly running computer and sim has a memory leak just because FS9 is showing 900 megs memory usage? Do people even understand what a memory leak is? Fifth, Why would a seperately running application inflate the memory usage of FS? I would love for someone to explain to me how an application (other than a virus or a trojan) running OUTSIDE of FS can inflate FS9's memory usage? ASV for example uses up ~ 40-50 megs of memory when running and active. FS is not affected in terms of memory consumption whether ASV is running or not, each application allocates their own memory and pull their own amount from Physical Available Bytes.Sixth, times are changing. Neil was just stating that if you are going to be runnning some of these advanced add-ons in conjunction with each other you can definitely benefit from a second gig of Ram, again he is right.Seventh, I challenge anyone with one gig of Ram to add a second and tell me that there texture load times are not DRASTICALLY reduced. Hmm, where do I want my texture files being called from my hard drive or my memory???Eighth Load up the PMDG 744, UTUSA with LandClass and water enhancements Imaginesim KEWR, Aerosoft NYC, 50% traffic, ASV6 and FSPassengers and tell me that a second gig doesn't benefit you when your initial memory usage for FS alone is 1.15 gigs... Finally, there was no reason for anyone to jump all over Neil and his system, nor his comments, they were 100% accurate and how many processes he has running is his concern. He has every right to get defensive when he comes in makes an accurate statement and people turn around and say it is his sytem... I gave up on shutting down processes long ago. When you run a Liquid Cooled AMD 4000 @ 2700 with two gigs of Low latency PC 3500 Dual 7800 GTX both Overclocked with Raid-0 Hard-drives and can get 110 FPS out of your system but lock your FPS to 24, why would you need to bother? It is more of a hassle to turn back on SpoolSVC to print a doc than to just leave it running.Times are changing guys, when XP was designed it was intended for 512-1 gig of RAM. Two gigs was an afterthought and when MS started to realize that 4 gigs was even becoming more common they had to come out with XP-64. Why do you think XP 64 is free? Mostly because it fixes the memory limitations of a 32 bit OS. This is the same thing as telling people they should set there swap file to 1.5x/3x Those days are long gone. Take for example someone with two gigs of memory, now someone comes along and tells them to set there page file to 1.5/3. XP will accept that max value of 6000 as 3x 2 gigs but guess what, it has a virtual memory limitation of just over 4 billion bytes. So IF and that is a big IF the situation is right and the O/S goes to use more than that 4 billion bytes and grows virtual bytes into say 4.5 gigs, you can actually generate an Out of Memory error from the XP O/S itself. A 32 bit version of XP will not recognize 4 gigs of memory as 4 gigs, it will tell you that you have something between 2.75 and 3.25 of physical memory installed because of these very limitations. We can go on for days about XP memory limitations but the point is times are changing... It is time to start thinking differently.-My .02, go ahead and flame away...-PaulLiquid CooledAMD 4000 San Diego2 Gigs Kingston Corsair XMS CL2Dual 7800 GTX 24 inch widescreen dual 19 inch LCDRaid-0

For anyone interested, here's the link to a recent post by Ray Adams on ATI Tray Tools and support (or lack thereof) for ATI X1800/1900 cards. http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=175979

First off, there ARE a lot of people in these forums who jump in whenever two gigs is brought up screaming about what a waste it is. That can not be denied.Well, I've not witnessed alot of people doing such a thing, but if you have then so be it. Do of search of my posts and you'll see that I've never made such a statement (more clarification for you on this at the end of this post).Secondly, Neil was stating that in certain situations, those people are wrong and not to dismiss 2 gigs as a blanket statement.Here you are wrong. What Neil stated in his original post was, "That confirms to me that more than a gig is useful and will smooth out and improve your experience." This statement is definitive. He clearly stated that a second gig will enhance FS9. While I'm sure that it did in his case (on his system and with the OS/FS9 configured as he has them), he went a bit too far in concluding that adding a second gig would benefit all FS9 configurations. It is the above quoted statement that prompted me to post in this thread in the first place.Third, Neil is right 100%This is your opinion, and you're entitled to it.Fourth, Why would anyone assume that a perfectly running computer and sim has a memory leak just because FS9 is showing 900 megs memory usage? Do people even understand what a memory leak is?Why would anyone who has not personally analyzed a system themselves assume that it is a "perfectly running computer". I don't know why his system is showing more than 900 megs of memory usage... that is for him to analyze (it is, afterall, his system). If he does so, hopefully he'll share his findings here.Fifth, Why would a seperately running application inflate the memory usage of FS?Dunno? Did someone here make such a claim?Sixth, times are changing. Neil was just stating that if you are going to be runnning some of these advanced add-ons in conjunction with each other you can definitely benefit from a second gig of Ram, again he is right.This point seems a bit rhetorical. See my reply to your point #2 above.Seventh, I challenge anyone with one gig of Ram to add a second and tell me that there texture load times are not DRASTICALLY reduced.A second gig of RAM didn't do anything for my system when I tried it 5 months ago. The system was a 4000 San Diego/A8N-SLI and the memory kit was an OCZ5002048ELGE-K. The sim ran silky smooth with my G.Skill and it ran precisely the same with the OCZ. I saw no difference in performance with the larger kit. And that's precisely my reason for posting in this thread in the first place. You (and Neil) have made such "blanket" claims that FS9 will benefit from a second gig of RAM, when in fact seeing any real performance gains by adding that second gig is completely system/FS9 configuration dependent.Eighth Load up the PMDG 744, UTUSA with LandClass and water enhancements Imaginesim KEWR, Aerosoft NYC, 50% traffic, ASV6 and FSPassengers and tell me that a second gig doesn't benefit you when your initial memory usage for FS alone is 1.15 gigs...Well, I don't use all of those add-ons, so I'll take your word that a second gig of RAM would be helpful in such a scenario. Tell us how many simmers use precisely the same add-ons, and have the sim/OS and their hardware configured precisely the same. If you can present enough data from a large enough number of precisely configured sim/OS/hardware combos then maybe we all can start utilizing baseline facts about how 2 Gb of RAM will benefit us.Finally, there was no reason for anyone to jump all over Neil and his system, nor his comments, they were 100% accurate and how many processes he has running is his concern. He has every right to get defensive when he comes in makes an accurate statement and people turn around and say it is his sytem...It wasn't my intention to "jump" all over Neil and his system. And I've already apologized to him if he felt that way. My intention for using the jpg of his Task Manager was to remind folks that there are few definitives in this sim. Each of our systems is different, and each may or may not benefit from a specific hardware upgrade. At the very least each of us should make sure the sim/OS is running clean and well before throwing hardware at a problem.In my first post I stated: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.'Nuff said.Greg

>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.>>'Nuff said.>>GregThen why not just leave it at that? You even stated, and I quote, "And with that I'm done.". If you were done, why did you keep coming back to the post?

Then why not just leave it at that?Never ceases to amaze me the number of people who can't understand the simple written word. I was trying to be certain that some of the posters here understand what I wrote in my original post... that I advocate a thorough system diagnostic before spending more money on hardware. Or suggesting that a fix for one system will be a fix for all.Do you have anything meaningful to contribute?Greg

>Then why not just leave it at that?>>Never ceases to amaze me the number of people who can't>understand the simple written word. I was trying to be>certain that some of the posters here understand what I wrote>in my original post... that I advocate a thorough system>diagnostic before spending more money on hardware. Or>suggesting that a fix for one system will be a fix for all.>>Do you have anything meaningful to contribute?>>GregWho said 2GB was a fix for all? It sure wasn't me. I don't see in this thread anyone saying that. All I see is you on a crusade to prove how much you know and how much the rest of us don't. Why is it so hard to admit the obvious without predjudice? Here are some written words that I hope make my meaning clear:FOR SOME PEOPLE, ON SOME SYSTEMS, WITH SOME COMBINATIONS OF ADD ONS, 2GB WILL ABSOLUTELY, UNDENIABELY, WITHOUT CONTEST PROVIDE A SMOOTHER FS9 EXPERIENCE. NOT EVERYONE WILL BENEFIT, NOT ALL THE TIME, AND PLEASE DON'T SPEND YOUR KID'S COLLEGE FUND ON THE RAM STICKS. THE ORIGINAL POST WAS ONLY MY POOR, HUMBLE, AND POORLY TWEAKED EXPERIENCE. YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY. VOID WHERE PROHIBITED.

Hi gentsIMHO, all of you are making valid points and RAM seems a pretty complicated matter. As far as I would dare to judge, facts which would be valid for one and all are probably hard - if not impossible? - to establish. Nevertheless, here's my take: - AIM in my question to Sergey, my RAM consumption was much closer to 1GB than 512MB, so in went a 2nd GB. Despite not being able to trespass 930MB, even with 2GB. I know, very unacademic..! :-) - FS9 was designed to run with modest amounts of RAM. This will certainly change with future FS incarnations. And I'ld yet like to see somebody well beyond 1GB. Btw, Paul, 1.15GB doesn't qualify as 'well beyond!' :-) - If somebody buys a new, powerful system today, why try to save money and 'only' get 1GB? 2GB seems to be an adequate amount for new systems, specially when wanting to render them a bit future-proof. Whatever that might be in terms of computers (plus the enthusiasts who use them)!? :-) - On top of the a.m. thoughts, we're facing all kinds of limitations and pitfalls. For example chipsets and CPUs not liking certain modules or configs (i.e. 2x1GB vs 4x512MB). Our ability (or not) to activate 1T commands with AMD64 CPUs. The crippling effect of single-rank modules on modern chipsets (i.e. w/ 2x256MB-PC3200). Our systems producing a lot of page hits or page misses... Etc, etc, you name it. Finally and on a personal note, it would be great if polemics were left out and we could get back to our regular, healthy and constructive discussions. All of you are intelligent, knowledgeable, nice and civilized people. For me, the statements were differentiated enough to understand the points being made. Moreover, I can't even identify any fundamental differences in the individual points of view. But this might be me and due to my 'poor' understanding of the English language..? :-) Besides, couldn't everybody's mentions and intentions be qualified as noble? I mean, Greg to question whether an investment really is worthwhile and Paul's indication that 2GB can be helpful. If asked, I think it is (noble) and thank you for taking your time. Best to you, kind regards Jaap

Hi Jaap,As you and I have discussed privately, more RAM can never be too much. What concerned me about the OP is this, "That confirms to me that more than a gig is useful and will smooth out and improve your experience."Seems like for every post here where someone claims a miraculous enhancement in FS9 performance there are others who claim they saw no such advantage after adding RAM. The bottom line is that folks should diagnose any problems they're having (the OP admits he did none) before throwing more money at hardware in the hopes of fixing things.I do not appreciate the way some people in this thread assumed that I do not believe adding more RAM won't be beneficial. These same folks decry assumptions, yet they assume certain things about my perspective. I did not in this thread, nor in any other thread previously, state that more RAM is not a good thing. I simply wish that folks would be sure to check their system config before throwing more money at a problem. If more money is warranted (whether it be more RAM, stronger video card, faster CPU... whatever) then pull the trigger and make the purchase. But only after one is certain that expenditure will help.Regards,Greg

FOR SOME PEOPLE, ON SOME SYSTEMS, WITH SOME COMBINATIONS OF ADD ONS, 2GB WILL ABSOLUTELY, UNDENIABELY, WITHOUT CONTEST PROVIDE A SMOOTHER FS9 EXPERIENCE. NOT EVERYONE WILL BENEFIT, NOT ALL THE TIME, AND PLEASE DON'T SPEND YOUR KID'S COLLEGE FUND ON THE RAM STICKS. THE ORIGINAL POST WAS ONLY MY POOR, HUMBLE, AND POORLY TWEAKED EXPERIENCE. YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY. VOID WHERE PROHIBITED.Nicely said, though the shouting really wasn't needed.Greg

Jeeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzzzz........Will you ever be done? There's one word for your presense in this thread, Greg, and that is ANNOYING. Neil's post is probably good advice for the typical user and your motivation from the start, as Neil stated, seemed to be a crusade to prove how much you know and how much the rest don't.Enough already.

>FOR SOME PEOPLE, ON SOME SYSTEMS, WITH SOME COMBINATIONS>OF ADD ONS, 2GB WILL ABSOLUTELY, UNDENIABELY, WITHOUT CONTEST>PROVIDE A SMOOTHER FS9 EXPERIENCE. NOT EVERYONE WILL BENEFIT,>NOT ALL THE TIME, AND PLEASE DON'T SPEND YOUR KID'S COLLEGE>FUND ON THE RAM STICKS. THE ORIGINAL POST WAS ONLY MY POOR,>HUMBLE, AND POORLY TWEAKED EXPERIENCE. YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY.>VOID WHERE PROHIBITED.>>Nicely said, though the shouting really wasn't needed.>>GregYeah Greg, it was, because you apparently couldn't get the message from the other times I posted that I never, ever mentioned that adding RAM would be a cure all for every simmer. You kept stating that I made that claim, and it was never, ever the case. If you're going to make an argument, at least know what it is your arguing against. You chose to make "you're wrong that 2GB will fix everything for everyone" your mantra as you ranted on and on, so I felt that maybe if I virtually shouted at you, I might get your virtual attention.THUMP...thump.... (sound of my virtual head hitting a virtual wall)

$180 for 2GB of ram? Man, you must not have a Frys Electronics near you. I think I paid $89 dollars for my PC3200 2GB modules after a rebate. I think the argument shouldn't be whether you need it these days. I think it should be that, with RAM as cheap as it is anymore, why wouldn't everyone have multiple GBs of RAM. Art

>$180 for 2GB of ram? Man, you must not have a Frys>Electronics near you. I think I paid $89 dollars for my>PC3200 2GB modules after a rebate. I think the argument>shouldn't be whether you need it these days. I think it>should be that, with RAM as cheap as it is anymore, why>wouldn't everyone have multiple GBs of RAM. >>ArtActually, it was only $160 for (2) 512MB PC4200 (DDR2 533) from Dell for an XPS3, which surprisingly was about the same as Kingston and less then local stores. :-)

Wow Greg, you are still going huh? Man, I guess Neil put it right when he politcally correctly shouted his statement out of frustration. The problem IMHO is that people do not know how to communicate (in general) but even more so in the forums. It is almost like rather than looking within a post for how to agree with people and support them, some people wait for the posts where they can disagree. You know what Greg, you have your opinion but if you disagreed with Neil, rather than just trying to discredit him, (and if you believe two gigs is really beneficial in certain circumstances despite claiming that you saw absolutely no difference which is a bit of a contradictory statement as far as I am concerned) why not say Hey Neil I totally agree that in certain circumstances 2 gigs can be a big benefit but for the average user it probably isn't going to help them out much. I bet Neil would have agreed and the thread would have been over.Instead it turned into attack his system and how many services he has running and talk BS about memory leaks which of course leads him to defend himself.The funniest part of this whole thing is like someone else said, we all basically agree on this. In certain situations, more RAM andmore importantly FASTER RAM can help some people out. Especially those who bought FS Out of the Box, don't know much about computers and are running add-ons like the PMDG 744 with Add-on scenery and can't figure out why there textures take forever to load.Like I said, we all basically agree, it is just argument for arguments sake. What a shame this could not have just been a thread that might have actually helped someone in one or two posts rather than three pages of senseless ranting...My .02, feel free to flame...Oh and PS, if FS alone is using over 1.1 gigs, ASV is using 50 megs, FDC another 30 and your O/S is using 150-200 megs alone, then yes you are up to almost 1.5 times your physical installed memory in terms of memory consumption and the extra gig is certainly going to help. Like you said, even if you are at 930 megs total memory usage, you are right at the limit, why ever be there if you don't have to?again, just my .02 but I basically agree with what was said, just not how...-Paul Liquid CooledAMD 4000 San Diego2 Gigs Kingston Corsair XMS CL2Dual 7800 GTX 24 inch widescreen dual 19 inch LCDRaid-0

I don't know that quality RAM is necessarily that cheap, but it certainly shouldn't a limiting factor.I guess a question is -- what's better, more value RAM or less hi-performance RAM?scott s..