A better fix is to just use the 64-bit version of Vista. If your computer is incapable of running Vista x64, then Windows XP is better suited for you as an operating system.
For one thing that isn't a quick fix. Secondly, the 64 bit OS still runs 32 bit apps with a limit of 2GB application address space 'each' (one benefit is 'each' since the pool from the OS is much larger). 32 bit "large address aware" apps (which Sins isn't) on a 64 bit OS have 4GB address space available to them. while native 64 bit apps into the TB. Do the research, that is 100% accurate.
Regarding your BCDEdit tweak, it's not advisable. There is a reason why 2 gigabytes of address space is reserved for the kernel and it has nothing to do with that hotfix (which deals with memory usage in the usermode half). By reducing the amount of address space available to the kernel, you can cause the kernel to run out of memory which will lead to stability problems with your computer. Even if it works right now, a software or hardware change could break the configuration down the line.
5-10 years ago that was sound logic. Today if people have properly coded drivers(98%) I can recommend they change application address space on 32 bit OS's "if
" they have applications that require or benefit. If you don't have the applications that benefit (Sins is one that "cannot" use above 2GB regardless) you shouldn't change it. So I am curious why that helped the OP as Sins is still hard limited <2GB virt addr space. People should know what they are doing and why, most people lack scope on how memory management works in Windows, especially grasping virtual address space. Personally I use Photoshop , Google Earth (modified), as well as several other games(SupCom, COH, etc) and apps that enjoy having >2GB application address space available too them on XP which I run /3GB consistently. Their is no deleterious performance or stability issues arising from lowering the kernel space if done wisely, or maybe even unwisely for that matter, although many cry wolf without proof, there is some proof to the contrary that performance is unaffected. The lack of ability to see what all addresses are mapped to, outside of the windows debugger, makes proving this difficult, as well as each machine mapping things uniquely dependant on it's unique devices. 100% of PC's cannot run with the application space changed and a couple percent will crash on bootup so someone better know how to recover from that with Vista
. The OP raising it to 3048 isn't necessary at all (more is not better). MS usually suggests 2800 because it allows some leeway. Also I would actually make a seperate boot option than changing the only existing one. /3GB and /userva options are valid and beneficial for those stuck with 32 bit OS's, not having migrated to 64 bit yet, with the apps that need more resources. I know people can find opinions to the contrary, I have read them all. It's another case of people fearing what they don't understand, but in honesty people shouldn't be faulted for playing it safe either.
To discuss the merits of this subject is usually far beyond the scope of a gaming environment like this although gaming is where the 2GB barrier is most infamous lately. Some of these specific memory issues people have experienced may be due to other issues too (bad sticks with certain addresses, DEP, etc.). Someone needs to actually track the real address space usage (cannot be found in task manager) to know if this is the "real" problem.
Anyone without the Vista hotfix, as well as a videocard with large local memory, is bound to run into the 2GB address space limit at some point. Make sure you all have the hotfix.
The reason Vista uses more memory is because it keeps portions of your most used files and programs in memory most of the time for faster loading.
Your talking about RAM usage with superfetch. None of that has anything to do with the real issue of this thread of usermode app address space usage (which also has nothing to do with how much RAM someone has or virtual memory assigned as a paging file). It can be confusing if people don't delineate, just clarifying.
EDIT: I can see now you were replying to dcatz on memory usage in Vista. But seriously Vista does have quite a bit larger memory footprint than XP (180MB at install), superfetch or no superfetch.
Also, as an FYI it is now a fact that Vista uses larger amounts of virtual application address space than XP in the same games. So Vista will hit the 2GB userva limit before XP, even after the much needed Vista hotfix.
Only reason I can speak with some authority on the subject is because I did my research in the subject far beyond reading articles on it, which I also have done thoroughly. But who am I kidding, the value of an opinion on the internet is about zilch. Take it for what it's worth.
Anyone that would like to learn more about this as it pertains to gaming can see the 3 part series at Anandtech:part 1
]part 2part 3