>Hi Thomas and Jos,
>
>if you load 30 instances of VFP on an x86 server with 3 GB of ram, each one taking 100MB of memory, you will find all those instances running in the space below 2GB. VFP can not address memory above 2GB. Why? Here http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/wz223b1z(v=vs.80).aspx and here http://us.battle.net/wow/en/forum/topic/1658706617?page=6 (it's been a big thing in the gaming community). Given when VFP was written, this makes sense. It's not that it can't address _more_ than 2 GB of memory (although that's true also), but that it can't address _above_ the 2GB line. This is true for every x86-compiled program, except those that has the /LARGEADDRESSAWARE flag set in the linker; or those who are capable, if the corresponding header flag (usually called the LARGEMEMORYAWARE flag by the gamers, but not by Microsoft) is set in the header of the EXE.
>
>I've tested on Windows 2008 R2 (which is always x64), where there is no /PAE flag because nearly all 4GB of the lower 4GB are automatically made available to x86 programs, using the modifed EXE, and, no joy, still crammed into 4GB. I left a note for Calvin on his blog, but he doesn't really answer those, and I've had no answer.
>
>Hank
>

Hank,

Are you confusing virtual and physical memory ?

The 2 GB for vfp is a limit to the virtual address space.

Each of your 30 instances will be addressing virtual memory below 2GB, but that does not mean that the physical address will be below 2GB