I just came back from XP pages,and M.S. resource pages.Here is the skinny,This feature...to let XP use ALL available (repeat..all available PHYSICAL RAM) that is NOT being used in a running PROCESS (program) for input/output CPU tasks, GPU tasks, etc......is AVAILABLE within your easy-to-get at System Settings. If it were NOT supposed to be used, then it would NOT be, let me repeat that, NOT be available to the general user of Windows XP.It is USED for when your system has ample RAM (you have upgraded to at least 3 to a full system 4 of PHYSICAL RAM. This is the SINGLE one (not even a 'tweak' control that lets XP USE, I repeat, USE all your system RAM to where it finds a 'best use', and NOT predominately for running PROGRAMS and APP's and to have reserve RAM to have it 'available' for those programs to run.The bottom line is...for systems with MINIMUM RAM resources, leave this XP feature to off, BUT...if you have upgraded, like I have, then you would be MAXIMISING XP's performance by telling it (allowing it) to control ALL of your Physical RAM, and use it to BEST PERFORMACE ADVANTAGE.If this BUILT-IN feature of XP (most don't even know about it) was a possible factor in a system malfunctioning, it would NOT have been made available. For those that have invested in maximising their system RAM, it is there as a feature waiting to be enabled.Care to disagree? Contact Microsoft, the creators of that XP feature. It's there for the power system.Here is how to use the XP feature:http://www.tweakxp.com/article36993.aspxWhew...a a lot of typing, lolMitch R.

I was wondering what that switch did! Thx for the info.Unfortunately, I only have 1 Gig.System Specs:P4 3.0SB LiveATI Radeon X800 GTO (256)1 Gig DDR RAM

From my usage so far, I'd say do not use it unless you have 3 or 4 GB's of physical RAM.I think persons that were using that performance switch had minimal and/or basic RAM resources and the O.S. choked trying to apply it.Just my educated guess by just spending the last hour GOOGLING everything I could find.If this was the Death Star, of XP, would M.S. INCLUDE the feature for easy access? C'mon now... ;)It's there for the up grader power system specs.How many friends do you know that have 3 or 4 GB's of RAM, installed in the past four years, or even right now for that matter?Right.......They (M.S.) would have left themselves to MAJOR lawsuits if offering a built-in feature that contributed/aided to the destruction of the user's system. Someone said about Snake Oil? I would wish that those that said this destruction is well-documented, to PLEASE put me to the pages and/or resources that document this destruction and or ATI/SOUNDCARD fatality. It would certainly be something that I would want to check out!Mitch R.

Yes Mitch, I care to disagree:There are DOCUMENTED crashes and system instability due to various system drivers when this setting is used especially with ATI AND Nvidia cards. Microsoft does not post 3rd party driver crashes on their website due to system settings that people have no business touching.This is not a system resource issue, this is a driver incompatibility issues and THAT is what's trashing people's computers who have used this tweak.The jury is still out in regard to whether the blame is on Microsoft or the hardware mfgs driver settings for its inability to utilize this setting properly. This switch was NEVER intended to be used on a everyday use PC and is a left over switch from the NT Server kernel on which XP is built.Either way, XP is not made to run in this mode unless you are using a FILE server. Even some dedicated server software such as SQL turn this switch back off due to data corruption prior to writing to disk EVEN if you have it on upon installation. This is because any disk intensive application can fail during the longer disk writes causing data corruption and eventual failure of the app. Application servers should never have this switch on. Your PC is made for applications...If your PC happens to be in a state in which it should have written a setting to disk during the extended cache fill window and your system halts in that state, you will need to go into Safe Mode to switch it off again to boot up your PC. There are also documented cases of XP reinstalls since safe mode is not even accessible.This is all throughly documented on Technet and MSDN. Of course, its your PC and your call.

>If this was the Death Star, of XP, would M.S. INCLUDE the feature >for easy access? C'mon now... Mitch, not to sound like a smart@$$ but if that's your rationale then:Start > Run > Regedit.exe > HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE > SOFTWARE > DELETE"...would M.S. INCLUDE the feature for easy access? C'mon now..."Goto My Computer > Windows > Win.exe > DELETE"...would M.S. INCLUDE the feature for easy access? C'mon now..."Goto My Computer > C: > boot.ini, type DELETE"...would M.S. INCLUDE the feature for easy access? C'mon now... "What I am trying to convey here is that you can trash your computer in three mouse clicks. MS made EVERYTHING accessible, it doesn't mean that because it is there, it is meant to be used.

Ok Mike, thank you for your post. I will check this out further.The performance I have seen is breathtaking. It totally redefines my system and FSX in use. It makes FSX EXACTLY what everybody wishes it would perform as...by merely adding a 1 with ample RAM.Perhaps FS9 as well.I'm sure that everybody caring to read the discussion will take their own paths based ON this dialog.I respect your views and input as I have anybody else's.I will attempt to find the documentation you reference.Thanks,Mitch R.

:)First off, you are NOT being any form of a smart A**. You are voicing your opinion, valid as any!I do humbly reply that your example is sort of on the fringe, in that it is not a one-click 'feature' that is available to the user.In your example, the user has to call up sub-pages, and then PLACE his/her sampling/typing and/or cause in-place deletions (pro-active activity).My example is that this is under a performance banner and is one click away with the user being given a clear and explained choice.Cheers!Mitch'er

Mike, I just thought of something as I'm sitting here sippin' on some good coffee.......I have for YEARS placed my personal system as a (for NETWORK USE)SERVER, on Windows 95, on Windows 98...and come to think of it have never had a melt-down.I bet you that many others reading this also clicked that feature as they heard it gave better W98 performance!I think in Windows 98 you could have it as 'their masks' HOME or NETWORK (server) usage. Do you remember this, or anybody else? That was one of the first real tweaks I did with '95 and '98. I never knew it maximised RAM allocation. I just knew that it gave me faster page builds and performance.I see this in XP as the same, they carried on a good thang...lolMitch R.

MitchI've got 4GB RAM...I checked out the advanced tab and program was already checked...so do I check system cache now to get the full RAM benefit? If so, I tried that and got no measureable fps improvement.Am I missing a step?ThanksRakeAMD FX-60Nvidia 7950 GX2 (1GB) video4GB ultra low RAMRaptor 150GB (10000rpm) HDDell 24" (running FSX 1920x1200 and 32 bit)Average 35-40fps...20-25fps at large airports/big cities

Yes, you check the 'other' box, and then you have to reboot.Don't look for necessarily FPS increase. Taxi out...check out the world, take a flight, and bank and watch the textures crisp and clear and feel the solid animation. Textures clear to the horizon!!!!All this on my ATI X800XT.That is what you will find. Everything will run like a clock and seemingly independent of any one FPS reading over another. Cheers!Mitch R.

Hi Mitch,This may sound rediculous, but can this change cause irreperable damage. I do have 4gb of ram and would like to try it.Thanks a lot,

Mitch,What quantitative performance difference does it make in FSX on your system by changing this setting?Ron

I've been wondering the same thing. Mike T is saying that many people who've tried this previously say it causes driver conflicts and destroys their PC. If it is indeed a driver conflict, wouldn't it just require a reboot in safe mode and reverse the change? I'm still on the fence about trying this out yet.ThanksJim

Hi Howard, I have been running my computer all day in FILE performance mode. NOTHING has changed, no artifacts, no snafus's no CTD. Nothing, just like when I ran the previous two O.S.'s as a NETWORK based computer.I can only suggest that you try FSX after you changed the box, reboot, and fly.You c'mon back y'hear? Tell me what difference your sim experience was. Good or bad, I'll listen. :)Take care, and seriously, I think you will be thrilled. As a suggestion, read my last post on the subject for a sim'ming and file performance suggestion. If there is a 'risk'...for what I get from FSX now...I'll underwrite that risk. If I have to reinstall XP...so what? I have never had to with the other O. S.'s...in NETWORK mode. If you still feel insecure, you could go right back to PROGRAM mode.I hope this helps,Mitch R.

I'm no PC expert, but I have read of some people who have experienced some massive issues with this change. The machine, if affected, will not boot, and as I recall it called for a re-install of XP. It used to be limited to people with ATI cards ( and I'm going back to when XP was first released, so you can figure what type of cards were the best then- most likely all have been retired now), but I'm not sure if this is no longer an issue or not, or even if nVidia may be affected.Like all system tweaks, do so with the knowledge that a risk is involved. My take is it depends on just how important in your overall life getting good frame rates in FSX is, and therefore if the risk is worth taking. If you want something bad enough then maybe it is.Bruce.