Will there be a difference in performence between these system

[Guest D17S]

Word Not Allowed, That's not the OOM message. Sounds like a swap file problem (maybe?). Make sure you have the swap file set to System Manage. Now Vmemory. This Vmemory thing is Not the swap file or physical ram. The program and the op system are constantly chatting. The op system keeps a tally sheet of what it THinKs it will need (in the future). It also adds in the projected Video memory. This is the VS number in Process Explorer. It is a "tally sheet" number, OnLy. It is some soft of internal function in which the op system engages. Consider this function with a 64bit system running a 64bit program. This function will still occur, but the limit will be 8 terabites. We're not worried, right? 8 trillion bites ought to do it. In 1965, they weren't worried either cuz they thought 4 billion bites ought to do it. WroNg.The system will continue to run fine because No Physical limits are being exceeded. However when the system's VS number is exceeded, the program will simply shut down. It was supposed to be more of an engineering function. We were NeveR meant to encounter this function, but here we are.>> As I understand it FSX is not going to funcyion correctly if I try to run it under Win XP with 2Mb or with Vista without 4Mb RAM because of OOM crashes , correct. nO. That's noT correct. OOMs have nothing to do with physical anything.If you are considering a strong system, don't even think about a 32bit op system. I can ramp over 3Gs of VS at will. This will OMM Any 32 bit op system. Again, this can happen at AnY physical ram load. It has Nothing to do with Physical ram. (I just hit 3.6Gs (VS) inbound to EGLL with 2.7Gs physical ram load). Q6600@3.6/4GRam/8800GT. I can run any default airplane over Seattle (2K' @ 180kst) in FSX with with 100% AG/Spec effects, full scenery sliders except 2-Low water, ~ 15% AI . . . locked at 20FPS with adequate fluidity. Those settings are on the ragged edge. Even a knat's whisker above that starts inducing Bad stutters.PMDG is the final frontier for FSX, and it's ThE killer. Any PMDG flight needs AG/SE and AI Totally off. Even then, the plane lacks 'feel.' I'm back to FS9 for any serious flights with that one.

[Kosta 122]

Sam, this IS FS9. I never said that I am running FSX. I can't hit the numbers you are counting with FSX...What is it, if not OOM? What is an OOM then?Swap is set to system managed, it creates 2GB file, and for that I made it a 3GB separate parition where swap file is sitting.I will create another swap file on C, which has more space, maybe that will give it more workout space.The fact is, it always crashes at the same moment. And only after a long flight.I bought today another 2GB'o'RAM, so installing Vista64 is an option. And probably a good one. Just one driver I am missing, so waiting for it...

[jfri 42]

>>> As I understand it FSX is not going to funcyion correctly>if I try to run it under Win XP with 2Mb or with Vista without>4Mb RAM because of OOM crashes , correct. >>nO. That's noT correct. OOMs have nothing to do with physical>anything.>>If you are considering a strong system, don't even think about>a 32bit op system. I can ramp over 3Gs of VS at will. This>will OMM Any 32 bit op system. Again, this can happen at AnY>physical ram load. It has Nothing to do with Physical ram. (I>just hit 3.6Gs (VS) inbound to EGLL with 2.7Gs physical ram>load). >So these OOM crashes is to be expected if I use a 32 bit OS but not in a 64bit OS regardless of there is 2 Gb or 4 Gb RAM installed? BTW is VS=Virtual Space?I'm considering a functional system that is highest priority. Next comes good performence but I have to take the cost into account

[Guest D17S]

Word Not Allowed. Good idea. There's no need for the swap file on another partition. Just let it build where ever Mr. Default wants. With 4Gs on-board now, you shouldn't need it (for FS). I tried the OOM experiment on a 32bit op system and it OOM'd precisely on schedule as VS ticked from 1.9 . . to 2.0. But there's still plenty 'bout 'puters I have still never seen (like pretty much, most!)>>So these OOM crashes is to be expected if I use a 32 bit OS but not in a 64bit OS regardless of there is 2 Gb or 4 Gb RAM installed? BTW is VS=Virtual Space?Precisely, X2. VS is Virtual Size. The computer world has a real bad tendency to call everything Virtual. If they don't know what else to call it, it's Virtual Stuff. For instance Windows likes to call the Page File "Virtual Memory." This stuff we are looking at is called Virtual Size by Process Explorer. I've called it Virtual Memory (Vm) and everybody else (I expect) has called it about everything else. It's a wild world out there. The trick is to know what it is, then look past the name. The system's hardware is not the issue. It's about the op system's VS limit and the resources the program needs.The ops system delegates ("tally sheets") more Vm (VS) as a game (program) load increases. If a light system forces you to use low FSX sliders, not much Vm will be tally'd. The 2 Gs of VS a 32bit op system provides will be plenty. Look at Word Not Allowed's FS9 shot. Even at high sliders, FS9 just doesn't use the resources FSX does. A strong system will let the user run FSX sliders high. Lots of resources will be required and Vm will ramp. Try setting max FSX sliders and just let a flight hop along at 2FPS (Amazon mission is good, Lots of trees). Watch VS in Process Explorer. The Vm requirement would be the same for a 'sliders high' Amazon mission running at 50FPS on a strong system or staggering along at 2 on a lighter one. The hardware would not change anything . . . . That said, we might find that VS also looks at the Vcard's physical ram. A 512 card will (might) add more Vm than a 256 card to this VS tally sheet number. The new 1G'd GTX280s might just obsolete 32 bit op systems - Entirely - at very high loads. We'll see.

[Kosta 122]

>Word Not Allowed. Good idea. There's no need for the swap file on>another partition. Just let it build where ever Mr. Default>wants. With 4Gs on-board now, you shouldn't need it (for FS).>I tried the OOM experiment on a 32bit op system and it OOM'd>precisely on schedule as VS ticked from 1.9 . . to 2.0. But>there's still plenty 'bout 'puters I have still never seen>(like pretty much, most!)Umm, bit contradictory your statement: should I now disable the swap or just let managed onto C? And of course, while running XP32, I see only 2.98 without any /3GB switches, which I can't use, as I said before.

[Guest D17S]

Then select to run the swap file using the default settings. The default settings will be to use your boot drive (partition) as the swap file's location and Let Windows manage the swap file's size. Then, delete your current swap file partition completely. It's wasted space.Your sig describes that you have 2Gs of physical ram onboard, but you are seeing 2.98Gs? What are you looking at? The 3G switch will not allow one to "see" anything. That is, other than a completed flight if Vm stays below 3G on this windows "tally sheet" thing Process Explorer is tracking as VS.Be careful not to confuse this Vm/VS operating system function with physical ram. They provide entirely different operating system functions.

[Kosta 122]

Sam, I already understood VS and physical. No, I now have 4GBs. Bought it yesterday, just sig not changed.I didn't activate any /3gb switch, since as I said, BAV ACARS won't start if I use the /3gb switch. Application crashes.Therefore now testing without the switch, and see what happens....So, it crashed. But now very close to 2gb, it was just 1910 and was showing also 1980 before landing.You know what else is very interesting, it exits with "Your computer has run out of available memory", and my sim starts with VS of around 800...then very quickly it builds up up to 1100, and after that, on the flight from Atlanta to London Gatwick, it grows up to 1900.What's up with that growing of usage? Is that normal?

[Guest D17S]

2.9Gs could be right. A 32 bit op system also has a characteristic that it only will use ~3Gs of physical memory. This is not a hard limit like the VS 2G or (switched) 3G "tally sheet" limit. It varies by system. Some 32bit installs can use up to ~ 3.5. Why? Wish I knew.Now that you have the tools, you can watch what's going on. On my 64 bit install, VS was staying .5 to 1G - Above - my physical ram load for FS(X). With the default 2G of Vm available with an unswitched 32 bit system, I doubt FS(any) will be able to take advantage of anything above (say) 1.5Gs of physical ram. However the extra (recognized) physical ram will still be available to other processes (programs).As you saw, FSX proved it was willing to use ~ 2.7Gs of physical ram. I expect a 64bit op system running a 32bit program will Still OOM at 4Gs/VS. My test flight's real purpose was to bust that 4G/VS barrier and see if I could Force an OOM with a 64bit op system running a 32 bit program at 4Gs/VS. I hit 3.7G/VS at a 2.7G/physical ram load . . . but I just couldn't take it over the top. I was all over that dumb EGLL airport in fog, pouring rain, twilight, dawn, bloom, traffic, shadows . . the works. It just wouldn't go any higher. Any ideas on how to load the game any more? One of the guys has a GTX280 with 1G of Vcard ram. I'll bet that would have taken it over the top. We'll see. Ed: I see that growing thing too with the VS number. On the way into EGLL I lapped London proper a couple of times to load it up. I wanted the airport's VS load to build on an already high VS number. It's interesting to see how close we've been running to these OOM's with a fully modded out FS9. If the 64bit op system/32 bit program combo really will OOM at 4Gs, we're just that close again. I hit 3.7G/VS YesterDay. The real solution will be 64bit programs. Then OOMs will occur at 8 terabytes. That ought to do it.If FS11 is going to increase the load like FS9 > FSX, a FS11 program running as a 32bit application will be a train wreck just waiting to happen. It's TiMe for 64 bit applications.

[Kosta 122]

Now for the prize-question:With 2.98 recognized, do I have to use /3GB switch to take the FS9 over the 2GB limit? Or is the modding of fs9.exe (cff explorer blah blah...) enough to let it go over the 2GB top?

[Guest D17S]

I can only describe the VS 'tally-sheet' / Physical Ram relationship I've seen so far. I have never seen physical loads that were greater than the VS tally. However, I have a 4x4 system (4VS /4 Physical).For instance, I only had 2.7Gs of physical ram loaded when VS tally was at 3.7G. This VS was only .3Gs away from where I suspect this 64 bit x 32 bit combo would have OOM'd. In your case, I expect VS will also lead the system's physical ram load (for that particular program). Because of this, I expect that the system will experience a VS based OOM event before the physical ram load (for that particular program) gets anywhere near 2Gs.Remember too, there is No limit for physical ram usage. The 3G switch does not address any physical ram "limit" (directly). However it Will influence the amount of physical ram available to individual programs, indirectly.So: The 3G switch is needed - Only - to allow VS to run up to a higher VS crash (OOM) limit. Therefore: If the VS limit is raised, the program will be able to continue to run and and increase its physical ram usage - at will - until the VS / OOM crash. How much additional physical ram might this allow to be loaded? That's hard to tell, but my guess is it might be 1:1. Sounds like a fun experiment. Setup a test flight and see what it does.

[Kosta 122]

OK, meaning, under WinXP:- without /3GB switch, only up to 2GB of VS can be used- with /3GB up to 3GB of VS can be used- application has to be set to use more than 2GB by that switch in CFF ExplorerUnder Vista64:- /3GB switch is not needed- there is basically no limit what an application can use (what was that, 8TB or something?) :)- application has to be set to use more than 2GB by that switch in CFF ExplorerI think I am fubared, I will have to run Vista64. :(Why sad face: reinstall everything, configure, blah blah blah...

[Guest D17S]

You are exactly correct and your details are also Very close: With a 64bit op system, only a 64bit program can fully utilize this new 64 bit op system's 16 terabit VS limit. When a 64 bit op system sees a 64 bit program it will act "64 bit normal" and split its 16 terabit Total VS 50/50. 8 terabits will be available to the program and 8 to the operating system. It's the same strategy as a 32bit system, just MoRe space.-- However -- , when a 64bit op system sees a 32 bit program, it will Only allow that program 4Gs of VS. I'm not sure where that other 15.996 terabits are allocated (are these numbers just unbelievable or what?!). Activist that I am, I've called for a 64bit system "15T switch." That would let a 32 bit program have 15 terabits and leave the op system with 1 terabit. This is exactly what happened with the 32 bit system. Back then, they were just as stunned with 4Gs as we now are with 16T. They thought programs would NeVer get NeaR that 2G limit. . . but here we are. That OOM message is an engineering note. It was never envisioned that we would EvEr see it (That's why it's so "user unfriendly.") Once we get this 64bit parade fully on the street, this new 8x8 VS will seem endless . . . but our (then adult) kids will hit it again. We'll have stories to tell, but they won't believe it. Make copies of these posts and seal em in acrylic. It's you only defense against the inevitable retort, "Ahh, right Grandpa. Have another cookie."

[jfri 42]

Just one final question come to my mind. From the point of only FS9 is there any advantage with Win XP over Vista 64? One thing makes me consider the possibility that Win XP could give better performence than Vista 64. That is in Vista all datastreams are crypted. To handle this hw resources is needed for that in Vista but not in XP.I ask this since I already have a Win XP license and I might consider having both Vista and XP on a new system and use XP for FS9.

[Guest D17S]

Intel decided Not to "up grade" to XP. Not because XP was better, faster or more stable, but because there was No difference between XP and Vista. Why spend a gazillion bucks on nothing? However in our FS case, it's the 64 bit system-ness that Will make a difference. The additional benefit is No dual-boot nonsense. That's just another layer of useless complication.