BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Martin Thomas" data-source="post: 1245840" data-attributes="member: 8214">I've seen temporary files in Photoshop increase by the file size with each action performed and can reach Gb proportions in no time although it can be restricted by limiting the number of history states.You are quite right to point out that XP only addresses 4Gb of RAM but I believe there workarounds to increase this limit. Vista will support much more than you can currently buy and currently install in a standard motherboard.For the technically minded who want to improve their Windows XP (32bit) memory allocation I found the following useful:Windows XP Pro can use up to 4GB of RAM, but when you first install all of it you will only see 3 GB. this is caused by one or both of the following: 1. There is a BIOS setting that uses a portion of the RAM as a temp file backup solution, which can be disabled in the BIOS.2. Add the /PAE switch to the boot.ini file, this will access the full 4GB, but will limit 2GB to the OS and 2GB to other programs. If you add the /3GB switch after the /PAE it will allocate 1GB RAM to the OS, and 3GB to all other apps. 3. The PAE kernel can be enabled automatically without the /PAE switch present in the boot entry if the system has DEP enabled (/NOEXECUTE switch is present) or the system processor supports hardware-enforced DEP. Presence of the /NOEXECUTE switch on a system with a processor that supports hardware-enforced DEP implies the /PAE switch. If the system processor is capable of hardware-enforced DEP and the /NOEXECUTE switch is not present in the boot entry, Windows assumes /NOEXECUTE=optin by default and enables PAE mode.4. Phew!....The bottom line is that editing high quality video (DV and especially HD) is very resource hungry but if you simply want to transfer your tapes to disk and produce compressed quality output then most modern PC's will be adequate (but as I mentioned below, it seems a waste to record in HD then degrade its quality).Hope this helps.Martin</blockquote>

Verification