If anyone has any ideas or suggestions I'd be very appreciative.Įrm, I think you're roached on this one. This has been a very expensive and painful process to effectively a few hundered meg of memory that weren't actually used in the Sonar process. Maybe I'm showing my ignorance here and Sonar already supports it. ![]() More, I'd love to see Cakewalk support 3GB if possible. If anyone from Cakewalk would like to comment I'd love to know for sure. I've not figured out a way to test a file to find out if it is large address aware, but the only conclusion I am left with is that Sonar is not. ![]() So I do some more research and it turns out that if the app isn't compiled with IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE in the process header, the app will maintain the 2GB limit. as I have a gob of apps/plugins, and what do I find out? Sonar and Kontakt still refuse to pass 2GB. So I decide XP has stabilized out so why not upgrade to XP, then I'll have my 3GB of RAM and I'll be happy. ![]() So what I find out is that in Windows 2000, any given process can only handle 2GB of user space RAM, but XP can handle 3GB if you enable the /3GB boot flag. Recently due to using a lot of large sampled instruments (and wanting performance) I decided to add 1GB to my system.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |