Windows 3 GB Switch

[Scott Rosenberg]

hey guys,

have any of you edited your boot.ini files to include the 3 GB switch? any probs withthe OS afterwards? was there a significant gain in the performance of photoshop?

thanks,

[Jeremy Moore]

Isn't this only applicable to Windows Server 2003? I had looked into it previously, but as I run XP I didn't think it was an option. Will be awaiting word from the experts!

[Scott Rosenberg]

jeremy, it works with the following OS's...

- Windows XP Professional
- Windows Server 2003
- Windows Server 2003, Enterprise Edition
- Windows Server 2003, Datacenter Edition
- Windows 2000 Advanced Server
- Windows 2000 Datacenter Server
- Windows NT Server 4.0, Enterprise Edition

[Michael Graves]

Scott's right. The switch works with all the applications he listed. I set my XP box with4GB of RAM to use the switch just to play with it. I didn't see any huge discernable difference in performance. There was a bit of a boost perhaps. My test wasn't exactly scientific. I took an image that was about 80MB and time how long it took to apply the Unsharp mask. Applied the switch and tried the same stunt on the same file. I picked up about 15% on that one filter. I'm sure that filters that are more memory intensive that processor intensive will see a bigger improvement. It shouldn't hurt you to try it. But make sure you make a Restore Point on your system before you change your BOOT.INI file. Not all computers like the /3GB switch.

[Scott Rosenberg]

here's a way to try it out safely... sorta a dual-boot set-up.

michael, i wonder if the gains would be more pronounced on a larger file... i guess there's one sure way to find out - i'll make the edits and give it a try!

[Jeremy Moore]

Let us know what you think, Scott. I've got a box I use at work with 4gb of RAM and with the large Betterlight files I have to deal with any speed increase is beneficial!

[Ed Richards]

It makes a much bigger difference on a large file - it increases the size of the file or the number of edits you can do before PS has to swap to disk. If you never hit that limit, it will not make much difference. It will also let you run more programs along with PS and stay within the limit. (As long as you have at least 4 gigs of RAM). Setting a restore point is smart.

[Michael Graves]

here's a way to try it out safely... sorta a dual-boot set-up.

michael, i wonder if the gains would be more pronounced on a larger file... i guess there's one sure way to find out - i'll make the edits and give it a try!

I'm betting it would be significanly more pronounced. As I indicated, I did very limited tests. I chose that one because for the images I process for my editor the unsharp mask it the one step that takes the longest. Therefore that is the one that interested me the most. It's also more CPU intensive than it is RAM intensive as a singular process. Another thing that will come into play is how many history items you have for a particular image. Keep in mind that you're created a new copy of the image for each change in history. The more of these steps you can keep in RAM, the fewer times your system has to hit the hard drive reading from the scratch disk. That process is a real performance killer. More memory is alway better. And if you have the memory to support it...and it your system doesn't balk...definitely use the switch. A few Dell's I've bumped into blue-screened in high-memory usage situations with that switch engaged, but those were 2 year old models.

[Ed Richards]

If your machine crashes, make sure you have the latest bios revision.

[Scott Rosenberg]

thanks for the additional info, fellas.

michael, your signature line is precisely what's kept me from trying this! photoshop ain't broke, and i'm all too aware of the nightmare one can bring upon themselves by tinkering with the OS!

sure would be nice to be able to make the most of the 4gigs i've got installed...