Memory Management XP vs Vista

[Kosta]

Hi!!

Here is a vers peculiar occurance I am confronted with:
XP vs Vista Memory Management.

I run the Flight Simulator 2004 on my computer. The sim itself is newly installed with some addons.
Same installation of FS2004 has been tested under XP and Vista with same graphical settings, same Nvidia driver and same Nhancer settings.
Process explorer has been used as a measurement tool (Virtual Size).

When I start the flight, both start with approx. 950mb VS (Virtual Size).

Approximately 4 hours into the flight, VS under XP is around 1600mb, and VS in Vista is around 1050mb.

I wouldn't be concerned about the size of VS, if my sim didn't crash at the end of the flight in XP, and didn't crash in Vista.

Though, my biggest problems, why not Vista, are because some online tools I am using for flying are not Vista compatible, and my audio programs majorly don't work under Vista. And the biggest problem, flat panel scaling (640x480) also doesn't work properly. So, Vista is a no-go...

Also to mention, I also tried a fresh install of XP with SP3, without any special tweaks or disabled services, with the same result.

Can anyone tell me, why is there such discrepancy in memory usage?

[Muhad]

I can't speak to Vista.

How much system memory do you have?

My WXP(sp2) system has 4 gb of system memory. I don't always use the /3GB switch because COD4 gets nuts. I have noticed that when using FSX the memory goes up to about 1600 like yours. I never crash out of FSX. With FSX I don't use the /3GB switch. My system sees 3GB (physical address extension) and supposedly will split the memory around 1.5GB for the o/s and 1.5GB for FSX.

Here is more on that ... http://support.microsoft.com/kb/316739

I experimented with the /3GB and /userva switches and never noticed any performance changes. However these switches seem to cause some problems with some game.

[Kosta]

I have 4GB installed.

The /3GB switch hurts my application for flying (British Airways Virtual ACARS), only crashes if I use the switch, though, it helps with the flight (it doesn't crash).
FSX uses much more RAM, so 1600 for FSX is usually OK. Though not for FS9.
Reading various forums, I saw people posting that if FS crosses VS of 2000, it will crash. To prevent the crash, you can use the /3GB switch, but as I said already...

The only weird thing is that Vista says 1050mb after 4hrs and XP32 says 1600mb after 4hrs. Same installation.

You would have no idea whats up with that?

Kosta

[Blkout]

Vista has far better memory management. It's one of the new features.

[Kosta]

Hmm, I guess so. Maybe you know why flat panel scaling isn't working as it should under Vista with Nvidia 8800GT?? Drivers 177.92.

[Blkout]

Hmm, I guess so. Maybe you know why flat panel scaling isn't working as it should under Vista with Nvidia 8800GT?? Drivers 177.92.

Don't know, but I do know it's an Nvidia driver issue, not a Vista issue.

[Kosta]

Yeah, I guessed so much, must be "Nvidia driver issue under Vista" issue. Because the same driver version, 177.92, is working properly under XP (in 640x480 mode).

[mikeyakame]

I didn't realise Microsoft implemented Memory Management in XP at least it was never very competent when it came to responsiveness of switching tasks.

[Mr.Guvernment]

Yeah, I guessed so much, must be "Nvidia driver issue under Vista" issue. Because the same driver version, 177.92, is working properly under XP (in 640x480 mode).

the drivers arent coded the same, they don't just take the drive for XP and slap vista on it and off you go, there are differences in the coding of the driver, otherwise why release a vista driver and an XP drive and not one big fat happy family one... (if this is the case why did SLI not work properly on vista when it worked on XP when vista first came out...)