Some time ago there were several posts where the use of extra memory was discussed. Now I have doubled my memory from 512MB to 1GB. I have tried to increase the size of the graphichs aperture from 128MB to 256MB but I did not get any improvement (my graphics board is a Ti 4800 SE, with 128MB). As a fellow simmer explained in this forum, no improvement would be expectable for graphics boards with 128MB memory.I had read sometime ago that the swap file could be eliminated, reducing the disk accesses and resulting in an improvement in performance. Does this work? How can it be done?I hope someone will be able to explain how I can really get an improvement from my extra memory. If no improvement can be achieved I think I will simply remove it from the computer...Best Regards,

With 1GIG of Ram you could just remove the swap file altogether. Leave the APG to 128 or smaller... [h4]Best Wishes,Randy J. Smithhttp://www.precisionmanuals.com/images/forum/betaimg.jpgAMD 64 3200+|ASUS KV8 DELUXE|GFORCE 5700 ULTRA|WD SATA 80 GIG|512 DDR 400|

This is a subject for the relevant forum, but DO NOT remove the page file altogether, as advised. Windows XP requires a page file. Instead, read this:http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htmAs the AGP Aperture setting has nothing to do with system RAM, only video card RAM, you should leave that alone, too. Extensive testing has shown that 64 or 128 is best, depending on machine. Less or more Aperture does not gain anything at all. And the principle of increasing the size of the aperture with the addition of more system RAM is wrong. Allcott

>I hope someone will be able to explain how I can really get an>improvement from my extra memory. If no improvement can be>achieved I think I will simply remove it from the computer...In simple terms, the extra onboard RAM will allow extra textures and page transitions to be held in RAM, as opposed to on-call from the harddrive via the Page File. What you will see (and it is only rarely noted in non-technical forums) is the FS will use more RAM when you have more RAM for it to use. This usually translates into decreased loading times between view transitions, smoother updating of texture-laden scenery (such as photo-realistic and photo-mapped) and better handling of panning and scolling. Unlikely that fps will be affected, but the appearance will be of a smoother sim.However, it will only do this if you DON'T mess around with page file settings, except as noted above. Windows XP `knows` when more RAM is added and WILL use it, but a page file is necessary for the correct operation of the operating system. You bypass it at your peril. And switching off the paging file will result in absolutely no benefit for games as Appplications installed in your computer `steal` it first, as Windows XP is designed to do. The advantage of the speed of RAM is offset by the fact forcing XP to use it makes it much slower to release no longer needed files from memory.Having said all that, as long as you have Systen Restore switched on and know how to launch Win XP in Safe Mode you can experiment at your leisure. You can't do any permanent damage to your computer by removing the swap file, just prevent applications from loading, lose all debug messages and kernel dump information, cause it to fail to load games and applications and generally ruin your entire day while you realise it wasn't such a good idea after all.Have fun!Allcott

RAM can be complicated. It comes in many "speeds" and varieties, and some motherboards require you to install two sticks of the same type at a time to get maximum performance - Dual Channel and Rambus come to mind. You might do a bit of research here to eliminate this as a possible cause of not seeing a very big increase. My sense is that RAM will really increase smoothness more than a dramatic increase in frames. Just an observation.

I disagree. When I had 1.25 gig of RAM(long story as to why I have 512 mb RAM now, but basically the 768 mb of RAM died :-mad) I removed the swap file and it ran GREAT! I can assure you that in my experience things loaded faster, and worked better without the swap file. XP was much, much, MUCH smoother without the swap file. Don't know where you get your information from, but I would have to disagree respectfully based on my experience.I also found that anything above 768mb of RAM did not really result in performance increases of any noticable value. No faster load times, no smoother sim. However, going from 512 to 768 was like flipping a light switch. Much better :)Please note that my opinions are based on experience. They represent my view, and may not work best for you.

"In simple terms, the extra onboard RAM will allow extra textures and page transitions to be held in RAM, as opposed to on-call from the harddrive via the Page File. What you will see (and it is only rarely noted in non-technical forums) is the FS will use more RAM when you have more RAM for it to use. This usually translates into decreased loading times between view transitions, smoother updating of texture-laden scenery (such as photo-realistic and photo-mapped) and better handling of panning and scolling. Unlikely that fps will be affected, but the appearance will be of a smoother sim."Bravo, Allcot! Great explanation.I have a gig of ram, and have tried running my system both with and without a page file. I noticed no difference. Fact of the matter is though, that even if you disable the page file XP builds one in the background. The PF can't be eliminated! So I have mine set to have a 400MB PF on my primary partition. This works best for me and my system.One thing I strongly recommend is that the page file be set to a fixed size. Fragmenting is much less of a problem then.Just my $.02 worth,Greg

Well, I certainly seem to get good mileage out of 1G RAM. As you can see by the attached screenies, I have only 166K left out of 1G after loading up my standard FS applications for an online flight. I usually run Windows media player too, which gives me even less change out of 1G.Take a look for yourself with Windows Task Manager (CTRL-ALT-DEL once) and see how much RAM your system is using with your stock FS layout.Gary

Your observation about the possible requirement to have two identical sticks might be hitting the target. In effect I am rather puzzled with the results I am getting when apllying the Freshdiagnose benchmark: the marks with a single stick are higher that those I get with the two sticks! My initial stick is MDT, PC2700 (333MHz) and the new one is Kingston PC3200 (400MHz). Both are DDR, of course.I will make further tests to try to understand what happens.Best Regards,

>I disagree. When I had 1.25 gig of RAM(long story as to why>I have 512 mb RAM now, but basically the 768 mb of RAM died>:-mad) I removed the swap file and it ran GREAT! I can assure>you that in my experience things loaded faster, and worked>better without the swap file. XP was much, much, MUCH>smoother without the swap file. Don't know where you get your>information from, but I would have to disagree respectfully>based on my experience.>>I also found that anything above 768mb of RAM did not really>result in performance increases of any noticable value. No>faster load times, no smoother sim. However, going from 512>to 768 was like flipping a light switch. Much better :)>>Please note that my opinions are based on experience. They>represent my view, and may not work best for you.Well, my information came from the Source:http://www.microsoft.com/WindowsXP/expertz...es/03june16.aspA guy at Microsoft who actually helped create the page file structure for Windows XP, so if I can't convince you then maybe he can. The plain fact is your computer has a page file (not a swap file) whether you like it or not. It's just whether all the applications, programs and packages on your computer like working with a visible page file. If they do, and they can't find it, you get error messages all over the place, but without a page file there is nowhere for the debug log to write to, so there is no way to troubleshoot. I have no discernible performance difference between page file `disabled` and a page file distributed between my two hard drives, with one on the C:/ drive, which also contains the OS, and the other on D:/ drive, which also contains FS and most of my programs. With 512meg RAM I maintain a `split` page file so that two drives may be accessed at once. Frankly, the current size of modern hard drives means that the max size of the page file is pretty much irrelevant. The minimum size is more important, and impacts on the fragmentation and use of the page file. If the minimum size is more than the max usage of the page file, then leaving Windows to manage it seems to be a pretty simple and sensible option.I think this is sufficient technical explanation with references for this thread, but if personal experience is that `no page file` works best for you, then as I said, with a little care it's a non-risky experiment. But you still have a page file, just no control over it.Allcott