With 8GB DDR II RAM and Vista 64 bit OS what would be the best way to manage the memory.... I know that FS9 /FSX will not use most of the RAM but any suggestions as to how to manage the memory for best overall performance would be appreciated....Thanks,JayDub

Let Vista manage it. Its memory management is preferable to fiddling with settings that have little to no value.Regards,Jim Karn

At least for the next week or so, that should be enough memory :)Yes, let Vista manage the memory - it knows a whole lot better than XP ever did, just as XP knows a lot more than Windows 2000...Especially with the 64 bit version, memory management should be much less of an issue.If you are looking for performance improvements, I would look at not running unnecessary services or processes loaded a boot time. Regards,Etienne

Thanks Guys,I will keep my hands off and let Vista 64 mangage the memory.... JayDub

Remember too, that a 32bit program running on a 64bit op system will never be able to use more than 4Gs. It'll take multiple programs running simultaneously to use more than 4Gs.

>Remember too, that a 32bit program running on a 64bit op>system will never be able to use more than 4Gs.Actually, with DirectX 9, 32-bit apps will never be able to use morethan 4 GBy *minus* the amount of video memory on your video card!(And minus the operating system's footprint inside the 32-bit app.)Cheers,- jahman

The Vcard memory allocation within this VS (virtual space) is not clear. However the operating system does NoT operate within this 4Gs of VS.I ran a PMDG/Aerosoft flight to 4Gs of VS. It OOM'd right on schedule at 4G+ . . however it was running normally at 3.99G. I don't think any op system can run in 100K, anymore anyway! The operating system does not run within a program's allocation of VS. Additionally, Each and Every process/program will have its very own, -Entire- 2, 3 or 4G playground to play, *sans Vmemory?*

>The Vcard memory allocation within this VS (virtual space) is>not clear. However the operating system does NoT operate>within this 4Gs of VS.>>I ran a PMDG/Aerosoft flight to 4Gs of VS. It OOM'd right on>schedule at 4G+ . . however it was running normally at 3.99G.>I don't think any op system can run in 100K, anymore anyway! With Vista 64, I suppose?So this then confirms Vista 64 allows FSX to use 4 GBy?(Less the video ram in DX 9). Quite an argument in favour ofVista 64!Are you running DX 9 or DX 10?>The operating system does not run within a program's>allocation of VS.The fact that you were able to push FSX to 3.99 Gby wouldprove this.> Additionally, Each and Every process/program>will have its very own, -Entire- 2, 3 or 4G playground to>play, *sans Vmemory?*Yes, indeed.Cheers,-jahman.

Vista 64, yes. DX9.And FSX will Never be able to use the full 4Gs of physical ram. Remember, VS runs ahead of physical. I only got to ~ 3.5Gs of physical ram before it OOM'd (at 4G+ of VS).We can see why 8Gs won't help FS(X). The most physical ram Any 32 bit program will Ever be able to use is 4G/VS - X ( ~ .5G) = Physical ram max. Also consider that with only 4Gs of physical ram installed, at some point the op system will start throttling that physical ram. It was still running, but at (only) 500K of physical ram left, the poor ops system must have been feeling the squeeze. Maybe that's where additional ram might help. Under some circumstances, it might let the op system run on into the 4G+ of physical ram . . . but the program would still OOM as that program's physical ram usage drove that program's personal VS stash beyond 4Gs. This is sooo dumb, we Need 64 bit PROGRAMS. This is one "messy transition" (Anand).Oh please, someone hear our cry!

>We Need 64 bit PROGRAMS. This is one "messy>transition" (Anand).>>Oh please, someone hear our cry!Yessss!Can