Windows 7 3 GB switch

SSHOAIB · Oct 27, 2010

Hi
I have a windows 7 enterprise 32 bitmachine with core i7/ATI 4670 and 3GB DDR3 RAM. I would like to use bcdedit to increase OS independent RAM. With BCDEdit is it safe to give all 3 GB (3072) to the softwares? Is it gonna make win 7 un-bootable?

On the same machine I used XP 32 bit pro before and used the /3 GB switch without any problem.
Please help I need my Sound production software to use more ram handling a lot of big wav file I cannot normally load.
thanks

yowanvista · Oct 27, 2010

my Sound production software to use more ram

Then the best option is to add more RAM and use x64

mckillwashere · Oct 27, 2010

I agree with yowanvista, more ram and x64 would be better....

What socket 17 is it??
if its a 1366 6gb or ram and x64 you will see a very large performance boost

SSHOAIB · Oct 27, 2010

I know going to 64 bit will be better but on my exisiting 32 bit OS giving all 3gb - is it gonna make the windows unbootable?
thanks

mckillwashere · Oct 27, 2010

Your license covers both x64 and x86 version of the os.

Barman58 · Oct 27, 2010

If you starve the system of memory before you start win7 is is certain to have a hit on system performance, just as physically removing memory would do.

Win7 memory management is very advanced and designed to manage the fluid use of available RAM better than previous operating systems from Microsoft.

If you have an issue with available memory for your particular application IMO the best solution would of course be the additional Memory x64 route, but if this is not an option try an audit of what you are actually using your memory for.

Look at start-up programs and your own working methods and try to eliminate any unneeded memory use

have a look here Sysinternals Process Utilities and use the tools to streamline your useage, this will hopefully improve your performance whilst retaining the fluidity in the system to cover changes in requirements of system processes.

Things such as setting unneeded or little used services to manual mode (not disabled) will also increase the available memory for your application.

If you check out some of the methods used by the gaming community to maximise their system performance for games there may well be adaptions you can use to improve your own system

j3anders · Oct 28, 2010

The 3GB switch won't do anything for you. Your software is still capable of allocating 4GB of virtual memory assuming you've got the RAM and swap for it. Physical memory is not virtual memory is not virtual address space.

Raymond Chen can tell you all about it: Search - MSDN Blogs

GeneO · Oct 28, 2010

j3anders said:
The 3GB switch won't do anything for you. Your software is still capable of allocating 4GB of virtual memory assuming you've got the RAM and swap for it. Physical memory is not virtual memory is not virtual address space.

Raymond Chen can tell you all about it: Search - MSDN Blogs

Not to an individual process. On the 32 bit OS, any process is limited to 2GB of virtual address space unless you use the /3G switch.

I used /3G under XP for Photoshop. I always had problems with program crashes when its working set grew to near the maximum. Some programs, like some ATI graphics components, would even fail to start with the /3G switch. It is really not well supported.

If you need an app to acces for than 2GB of memory, I would advise avoiding the /3G route and go for x64.

- Gene

sygnus21 · Oct 28, 2010

yowanvista said:
my Sound production software to use more ram

Click to expand...

Then the best option is to add more RAM and use x64

That's assuming the software is 64-bit compatible. Yeah, he can move to a 64-bit OS, add more RAM, then discover that the software isn't 64-bit compatible :eek:

@ SSHOAIB,

If you do consider moving to a 64-bit OS, do your homework first! and make sure your hardware and software is compatible with a 64-bit OS.

As for your recording program... does it have an option to increase the RAM usage? Sort of like this in Adobe Photoshop....

Other than that, that's my two cents.

stormy13 · Oct 28, 2010

GeneO said:
Not to an individual process. On the 32 bit OS, any process is limited to 2GB of virtual address space unless you use the /3G switch.

I used /3G under XP for Photoshop

Forgot to mention that for a 32 bit app to use more than 2 GB it also has to be "largeaddressaware", of which I'm guessing (never used it) that Photoshop is one of those.

GeneO · Oct 28, 2010

stormy13 said:
GeneO said:

Not to an individual process. On the 32 bit OS, any process is limited to 2GB of virtual address space unless you use the /3G switch.

I used /3G under XP for Photoshop

Click to expand...

Forgot to mention that for a 32 bit app to use more than 2 GB it also has to be "largeaddressaware", of which I'm guessing (never used it) that Photoshop is one of those.

Yes, it is. And you brought up a good point - if the software isn't large address aware there isn't any point for /3G and if it isn't 64 bit there isn't any point for x64.

cluberti · Oct 28, 2010

Not to mention that 3GB means you're reducing your kernel VA to 1GB, halving nonpaged pool maximum, more than halving paged pool maximum, drastically reducing the available PTEs, and shrinking desktop sharedsection space as well. All in all, unless you *absolutely* need it, you should avoid /3GB - especially on a client. This was really meant for server-based OSes and applications rather than userland stuff, although there are usermode apps that can use it (like Photoshop CS2 or newer). Even if you go to x64 and run an x86 app, if it's compiled LargeAddressAware, it'll get access to all 4GB of VA available in the Wow64 VM (because there's no kernel sharing in Wow64), which is a nice benefit for apps that really do want as much of that 3GB of VA they can get, but are x86-only.

If you're unsure about an app, you can always use dumpbin.exe /headers (for those of you with Visual Studio - it does have free versions, after all) to see what characteristics an .exe has (dumpbin will tell you if an .exe can handle large addresses, aka was compiled with the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE linker flag). Of note, editbin.exe (for adding linker flags to an already-compiled app) will not work against something compiled with the /GL option, if I remember correctly. Dumpbin.exe used to also fail, but I think that was fixed as of the version that shipped with VS2005.

SSHOAIB · Oct 29, 2010

Hi Guys I know 64 bit is the best bet but my Q is:
"If I use /3GB switch on my 32 bit 3GB (not 4 GB) machine - is it gonna make the Windows crash in the first place/unbootable?" I am happy to undergo some performance degrade but not a windows crash on the same machine and was still happy with a little bit of perf degrade.
Thanks

sygnus21 · Oct 29, 2010

Hi SSHOAIB,

I believe your question has been answered. Have you read the replies posted....

Here http://www.sevenforums.com/performance-maintenance/120756-windows-7-3-gb-switch.html#post1039123

and here http://www.sevenforums.com/performance-maintenance/120756-windows-7-3-gb-switch.html#post1041791

and also cluberti's post?

They recommend against using the switch. And the performance hit could cause system instabilities.

SSHOAIB · Oct 29, 2010

Hi Sygnus21
I just tried to load about 20 tracks in my DAW (FL Studio 9) which are all 24 bit wav files - 1.35 GB. I cannot import more than 975 MB of Wav. After that It just did nothing (same as XP 32 bit)
For Barman's reply: So even with win 7 better memory management it does not help.
To Geneo post: I used /3GB switch in XP 32 bit - never had a problem - and I had ATI.

To Cluberti's reply: He mentioned using /3GB will leave 1 GB for OS - well I do not have 4 GB RAM - I have 3 GB RAM.

The main reason I posted this issue is because of different boot structure of Win7 to XP (bcdedit to boot.ini).

With all due respect all I want know is: what would be the consequence if I use /3GB on 3GB system than of using a /3GB switch on a 4 GB system?
thanks

mckillwashere · Oct 29, 2010

SSHOAIB said:
For Barman's reply: So even with win 7 better memory management it does not help.

Better memory management it does have but not when you are asking the OS to do something that is Lethal to the health of the Operating system. Pretty much what you are going is like saying "hi body here is all this nice food, to bad only my right leg can have anything that come from it... Sorry rest of body." I can see why you are trying to do such a thing. But adding more ram will be the easiest thing in the long run and will save you MANY issues.

Yes it is possible. But is it practical? Its like trying to make a panoramic photo from 10 photos in Photoshop cs5 and 512 ram its not practical... Yes it can be done JUST TAKE FOREVER.

sygnus21 · Oct 29, 2010

SSHOAIB said:
With all due respect all I want know is: what would be the consequence if I use /3GB on 3GB system than of using a /3GB switch on a 4 GB system?
thanks

Good question. Unfrotunately I don't have the answer; Hopefully someone else does.

Sorry

SSHOAIB · Oct 29, 2010

Well I took the risk - I backed up my C: and used the /3GB switch.
I loaded the same wavs and it worked. The total RAM ticked to 2.5 GB out of 3 GB.
I know I will have some performance issues - thinking may be to turn it off most of the time and turn on when I need it - I only need it for mixing phase - which is probably I will not be doing all the time - it requires only a restart.

Thanks to all for your helpful infos. 64 bit is the best solution - will think about it soon

mckillwashere · Oct 29, 2010

I may make a suggestion
Use BCDedit and make 2 boot record one for and one without the 3gb switch so you just choose on boot which one you want...

cluberti · Oct 29, 2010

I think there's a basic problem here with some posters confusing the /3GB switch and actual RAM. Physical RAM and virtual address space have nothing to do with each other.

As to whether or not /3GB will make your OS unstable, the answer is "probably not". Probably not, because there are still drivers out there that have issues with /3GB and PAE, and limiting the OS' available VA to 1GB could cause issues if you try to use the OS heavily... "could cause issues". I think what SSHOAIB did was the best option - back up your system and give it a try if you think it might help, but I would still recommend going x64 versus using /3GB on an x86 OS.

Windows 7 3 GB switch

New member

My Computer

New member

My Computer

Insomnia Master

My Computer

New member

My Computer

Insomnia Master

My Computer

Post no evil ;)

My Computers

New member

My Computer

New member

My Computer

New member

My Computer

OutTooLunch

My Computer

New member

My Computer

Cat herder

My Computer

New member

My Computer

New member

My Computer

New member

My Computer

Insomnia Master

My Computer

New member

My Computer

New member

My Computer

Insomnia Master

My Computer

Cat herder

My Computer

Similar threads