In my case, no, but my programs were written for minimal RAM available in 2002.
I am usually running with 128-256MB (tested to be fastest) in phys. RAM 2GB - 4GB.
Colleague of mine claimed to see a difference when slinging [datawise] huge SQL queries.
SSD and giving RAM to disk cache (>> small VM when not using internal VM-disc!) are speedups

regards

thomas

>I've done this; seen no difference in total memory utilization. Have you seen otherwise?
>
>
>>Nope, vfp is not compiled with that switch. You can patch the exe as it is only an adress,
>>You can find programs doing that for you - some even so simple you can follow if running in an interpreter,
>>so you won't get a virus. At least compare before and after patching - should be minimal change ;-)
>>
>>
>>>Thanks Craig, so the question is, if I modify the boot.ini with the /3GB flag, does VFP 9 or VFP 9 applications compiled with /LARGEADDRESSAWARE switch?!?
>>>
>>>>http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/hardware/gg487508.aspx
>>>>
>>>>>Sorry but like to jump in here Craig. What happens to the extra 1GB, mine too has 4GB but Windows XP says 3.50GB RAM. Are other apps / utilities able to use this extra RAM? Can we make Windows move the PageFile onto the extra memory (by adding lots more) onto a RAM Drive if it can use beyond that 3/3.5GB RAM?
>>>>>
>>>>>Please advise
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks and regards
>>>>>Bhavbhuti