hi,
i just updated my pc from 2 to 4 gig ram.
but the ts still uses 1.22gb as a max.
can i increase what the TS uses?
how to increase the memory (RAM) the TS uses?
Débuté par
Cador
, nov. 13 2009 07:09
#1
Posté 13 novembre 2009 - 07:09
#2
Posté 13 novembre 2009 - 07:26
Which max are we talking about?
Are you looking at the task manager's memory consumption to tell how much it's using?
Are you looking at the task manager's memory consumption to tell how much it's using?
#3
Posté 13 novembre 2009 - 07:28
no,
just looking at the bottom right of the TS
toolset memory usage, stays at 1.22gb
just looking at the bottom right of the TS
toolset memory usage, stays at 1.22gb
#4
Posté 13 novembre 2009 - 07:30
It probably doesn't need more...?
#5
Posté 13 novembre 2009 - 07:32
sorry, to clarify, Windows will give max memory up to its single process limit (2GB for XP) automatically as long as your page file is set to big enough.
To check your page file, it's under computer->properties->advanced->performance->advanced->Virtual Memory (click the change button)
That'll tell you what your page file is currently set to. By default I think it's set to an initial size of 1500 MB and max of 3000 MB. You can change that if you want (assuming you have plenty of HDD space) to something bigger, but I don't think it's going to change the toolset's consumption any.
To check your page file, it's under computer->properties->advanced->performance->advanced->Virtual Memory (click the change button)
That'll tell you what your page file is currently set to. By default I think it's set to an initial size of 1500 MB and max of 3000 MB. You can change that if you want (assuming you have plenty of HDD space) to something bigger, but I don't think it's going to change the toolset's consumption any.
#6
Posté 13 novembre 2009 - 07:45
ohh... so i can´t use more than 2gb under xp 
thats bad...
thats bad...
#7
Posté 13 novembre 2009 - 07:59
Thank you Microsoft.
#8
Posté 13 novembre 2009 - 08:20
because microsoft invented 32bit memory address constrictions, amirite? it had nothing to do with the Intel 80386 processor.
#9
Posté 13 novembre 2009 - 09:56
And yet they could have bumped the limit for 64-bit OSs, but didn't by default. So yes, thank you MS.
Don't get me wrong, I use Windows, and I dig Win7, but leaving memory restrictions for 64-bit XP to 2GB per process even when they're no longer restricted by the 80386 architecture is dumb.
Don't get me wrong, I use Windows, and I dig Win7, but leaving memory restrictions for 64-bit XP to 2GB per process even when they're no longer restricted by the 80386 architecture is dumb.
#10
Posté 13 novembre 2009 - 10:54
Astorax wrote...
And yet they could have bumped the limit for 64-bit OSs, but didn't by default. So yes, thank you MS.
Don't get me wrong, I use Windows, and I dig Win7, but leaving memory restrictions for 64-bit XP to 2GB per process even when they're no longer restricted by the 80386 architecture is dumb.
I think that had more to do with 64-Bit XP being more of a hack togeather job then anything else. MS seen a small demand and thought that OS's where going to move to purely 64-Bit. But that wasn't the case so it ended up being a mess.
There is already early word that Windows 8 is going to be 128-Bit OS.
#11
Posté 09 juin 2011 - 04:51
What about under Win 7 64bit? Whats the per process memory restriction? And why is Bioware so in the dark age they're running XP and 32 bit? (My main OS, linux, has come out with a dozen new versions since xp was released).
Modifié par mellic, 09 juin 2011 - 04:54 .





Retour en haut






