Each tab in Chrome runs in it's own process, 20 tabs loaded = 20 chrome processes. FS9 only needs the LAA (Large Address Aware) mod if you have over 3GB memory. Win7 64 does not require, nor should it have the /3 GB switch. Roman

Why did we want to edit fs9.exe and remove the 2Gb limit for applications, imposed by WinXP? Because of the /3Gb switch brought in by SP2.I understand neither WinXP-64 nor Win7-64 have such (<2Gb)limit on applications. But fs9.exe does not know this, hense the header edit might be still needed? Otherwise the >2Gb header is only a sign for the OS on how to treat the exe file? What if the header tells the OS, among others, that it can handle only a certain amount of VAS? But 64-bit OS may ignore these (older) signs all together (who knows), then it becomes just superfluous? Confused by myself, lol.Please comment.Thanks,Dirk.

Ok, guys, to my initial question the clear answer is: use the unmodified fs9.exe ver 9.01. Now the process exits as it should and no more other anomalies. Of course there's no neeed for header edits of fs9.exe on a 64-bit OS.Image of cd4 to save the disk can be helpful I guess, but I didn't try it.Thanks,Dirk.

Of course there's no neeed for header edits of fs9.exe on a 64-bit OS.

:( You can run an "unmarked fs9.exe" in a 64-bit OS, but it will still only be allocated 2GB of Virtual Address Space in which to run.If you mark fs9.exe's header to be Large Address Aware, then it will be allocated up to 4GB of Virtual Address Space, depending on how much physical RAM is installed.I honestly don't know why so many folks want to make this complicated... :(

Ok, guys, to my initial question the clear answer is: use the unmodified fs9.exe ver 9.01. Now the process exits as it should and no more other anomalies. Of course there's no neeed for header edits of fs9.exe on a 64-bit OS.Image of cd4 to save the disk can be helpful I guess, but I didn't try it.Thanks,Dirk.

If you DON'T make the FS9.exe large address aware you are negating any benefit to moving to a x64 system (assuming you have more than 2GB of RAM). I have FS9.1, patched to be large address aware on Win7 x64, and it closes when I exit FS9. As n4gix opined, this is really not a difficult thing to understand. Even if you don't understand it, just use the explorer program (can't remember the name of it off the top of my head and I'm not home ATM; do a search here in this forum and you'll find it) to make the FS9.exe Large Address Aware. That's all you have to do on a 64-bit OS. Really! If the process doesn't close after shutting down FS9 you have another problem unrelated to FS9 being made Large Address Aware.Cheers, SLuggy

There has been a patch program floating around for some time called "4MB Patch". Does this program do what you are calling for?

BillW, you'll need this handy little program: CFF ExplorerInstall, back up fs9.exe, then open fs9.exe with CFF Explorer, select File Header, Click Here in the right pane. Then tick "App can handle >2gb address space". Click Ok, Save and Exit.Thanks,Dirk.

Thanks, Dirk.

I surprised myself. I had already done this. I remembered doing it when I was using Vista. It really is a good little program for getting under the hood.

From a post by DAL488 :'Now to modify to the fs9.exe (thanks to Markus and Stu):Try this only if you have at least 2 GByte of RAM and at your own risk.First download the explorer from http://www.ntcore.com/exsuite.phpNext make a copy from fs9.exe. Than start "CFF Explorer" and open the original fs9.exe file.Now go to NT Header/File Header and click File Header. There you find a button labeled "click here". Click it. And select the mark at "App can handle> 2gb adress source "Save the modified EXE, overwrite the orginal one (You have your copy saved?).' This is all you have to do to get FS9 to work happily on a x64 system, be it XP, Vista or Win7. Honestly! :( With FS9 maxed out, RC4, ASE, REX textures, Ultimate Terrain and flying a PMDG MD-11 between addon airports with 100% traffic, I do not get any OOMs with Win7 x64 after patching the FS9.1 exe. Usage with the above combo can bring FS9's memory usage to close to 4GB which will have a x32 OS giving up.Please, just try the above and let me know if you have any further problems.Cheers, SLuggyedit - doh, Dirk98 beat me to it!

Remember, the problem is that in the past programmers writing 32 bit programs on 32 bit windows could rely on the OS only allocating 2Gb to the app, so for every address location the MSB was a "don't care". Hence programmers could be "tricky" and use that MSB as a way to communicate. Not sure I would call this the best programming style (how would you like to have to maintain code written this way?). The OS (32 bit or 64 bit) has no way of knowing if the app programmer has done this, hence the need to set a flag in the app header that the OS can read to determine if it is safe to rely on full 32 bit addresses instead of 31 bit.scott s..

Remember, the problem is that in the past programmers writing 32 bit programs on 32 bit windows could rely on the OS only allocating 2Gb to the app, so for every address location the MSB was a "don't care". Hence programmers could be "tricky" and use that MSB as a way to communicate. Not sure I would call this the best programming style (how would you like to have to maintain code written this way?). The OS (32 bit or 64 bit) has no way of knowing if the app programmer has done this, hence the need to set a flag in the app header that the OS can read to determine if it is safe to rely on full 32 bit addresses instead of 31 bit.scott s..

Here's the answser to my confusion.Thanks, Scott!Cheers,Dirk.