• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

Large Address Aware

Thanks

Thanks for the fast reply! I also read the thread about getting The Sims 3 in 64 bits, and I don't know where I should post this (link below), or if it is even relevant to anyone, but I read it a little while ago and it was a really great explanation in fairly non-technical terms about how memory works in modern systems.

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert...memory-does-not-refer-to-physical-memory.aspx

What I gathered from reading it is that having a 64 bit binary allows the process to much more easily deal with having a large amount of address space (it literally can load more address space at the same time). It also explains why not everyone encounters this error in The Sims 3. The trick is to make sure there is a large amount of contiguous space available.

I mention this here because it can apply to other games and programs that get this error, it is just that The Sims 3 is just very notorious for its memory problems.
I personally have 16 GB of RAM and have not had any memory problems with TS3. I use only one mod: velocitygrass's add any lot size script, and I have all of the expansions except the newest one and a lot of store content.
 
I cannot drag any executables into the listview of version 2.0.4. Tried on Win7 and Vista.
Neither individually nor multiple at once.
All .NET frameworks are installed and up to date.
 
Are you sure you'd dragging an executable on to it and not a link to an executable? Links won't work; executables will. If you want to add an executable via a link, use the "Add" option. "Add" will dereference the link.
 
FordGT90Concept said:
Are you sure you'd dragging an executable on to it and not a link to an executable?
Click to expand...
Yes. Here's a screenrecording (200kb): http://i.imgur.com/IWr2wFu.gif
I recorded this with the basic view, which also should support drag&drop, as mentioned in the opening posting.
Tested with LAA 2.0.4 on XP, Vista and Win7, .NET 3.5 (and pretty much every other version) is installed and up to date.
 
Last edited:
Ohhhh, I thought you were in advanced mode. I'll look into that...

Edit: I checked the code and it will only accept the drop on the text box field for the file path. I watched your GIF and it appears you held it over the text box field at the beginning but the icon didn't change to the [+] symbol indicating it would accept it. I don't have HL2 but the closest I do have is Portal 2. I tried dragging and dropping portal2.exe and noticed it was a bit delayed but once it caught up, it did work as expected. Maybe you aren't hovering over the textbox long enough before dropping?

Also, can you switch to Advanced Mode and see if dragging and dropping is working there?

Make note if the ( / ) is replaced with [+] or if it stays ( / ).


Edit: I tried on Server 2003 and at first, it was giving the ( / ) when holding it over the text box field. After a second or two, it changed to [+] and then I could successfully drop it. Does the same happen for you?
 
Last edited:
No, it doesn't work, no matter if in basic, intermediate, advanced mode, or if I keep holding the dragged exe over the window for a minute.
I tried it in a clean Win7-installation, right after OS-install and .NET 3.5 install, with no luck.
Isn't there some kind of debug-mode with logging to see what the program does and why it's not accepting the drag-and-drop-action?
 
Try this one. It most likely won't work but I made a minor tweak that might fix it.

Assuming it doesn't work, can I write debugging info to C:\debug.txt? Also, what processor are you using?
 
Last edited:
The UAC-dialog is shown, so being able to write to C:\ should be the case, but the new version doesn't do that on XP or on 7 (x86 and x64).
CPUs are C2D and Core i5 first gen.

EDIT:
I have to correct the previous postings, as drag and drop apparently is working fine on all my XP-machines. Sloppy testing, I guess, sorry.
But it doesn't work on any Win7-installation, neither x86 or x64, pre-SP1 or with SP1, with all updates or none.
I'm out of ideas now.
 
Last edited:
Have you tried starting LAA via Run as Administrator? Your UAC comment makes me think maybe UAC is the reason why dropping isn't working.
 
Yes, and doesn't work either.
I'm wondering why this program is asking for admin-rights to begin with.

EDIT: Apparently UAC blocks drag and drop from normal programs (explorer.exe etc.) to elevated programs (LAA): http://stackoverflow.com/questions/...-explorer-to-run-as-administrator-application
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/mossbiz/archive/2010/06/10/add-an-assembly-to-the-global-assembly-cache-on-windows-server-2008-r2.aspx
http://helgeklein.com/blog/2010/03/how-to-enable-drag-and-drop-for-an-elevated-mfc-application-on-vistawindows-7/

Too bad.
 
Last edited:
That would explain it.

The reason why it requires elevated rights is because normal permissions do not allow one program to access the data for another, especially inside Program Files. After install, executables are usually limited to its own directory (and children) and Users\account.

I'll upload one with "highestAvailable" so you can see how it works for you.
 
Maybe it's possible to change the program so it starts with limited privileges, and when the actual LAA-flag-change happen, it invokes itself with some parameters, and that instance then asks for the elevation.

And the new file doesn't work either.
 
Yeah, so I think it is safe to say that with UAC enabled, there's some operating systems where drag and drop won't work. If UAC is disabled and it is running on an administrator account, it works fine.

The intended purpose of the program requires high permissions so it makes sense that people get prompted for those permissions before they even start the program. I don't think it is wise to change that (pretty sure it isn't possible either).


Edit: I added a "Known Bugs" section to the OP describing this issue.
 
Last edited:
Crap. I did the "bcdedit /set IncreaseUserVA 3072" thing, thinking it would help me run a game I have with a bit less lag, but now the game runs WORSE than before. When I got into the late game with tons of units fighting in large battles, suddenly I started getting a bunch of weird graphical artifacts all over my screen, and then both of my monitors went black for about a minute as though my computer's entire graphical capacity was suspended and reinitialized or something. How do I undo this? I'm afraid I don't know what the setting was before, and I don't have a system restore point from before I made the change. Please help. :(

My computer has 4gb of RAM total, but it's a 6-7 year old machine. It's running Windows 7 32 bit.
 
Ric Adbur said:
Crap. I did the "bcdedit /set IncreaseUserVA 3072" thing, thinking it would help me run a game I have with a bit less lag, but now the game runs WORSE than before. When I got into the late game with tons of units fighting in large battles, suddenly I started getting a bunch of weird graphical artifacts all over my screen, and then both of my monitors went black for about a minute as though my computer's entire graphical capacity was suspended and reinitialized or something. How do I undo this? I'm afraid I don't know what the setting was before, and I don't have a system restore point from before I made the change. Please help. :(

My computer has 4gb of RAM total, but it's a 6-7 year old machine. It's running Windows 7 32 bit.
Click to expand...

change the 3072 to another number.

and then upgrade to 64 bit!
 
bcdedit /deletevalue IncreaseUserVA

That will put it back the way it was.
 
Yeah I figured it out. I can't wait until I can upgrade to 64 bit. This has been a good machine, but it's really starting to show it's age more and more these days. :(
 
Can this be used for Steam games?
 
damric said:
Can this be used for Steam games?
Click to expand...
You can try. If the game crashes on start or otherwise refuses to run, put it back to the way it was. I think Steamworks doesn't allow modifying the bit but other DRM like SecuROM does. It depends on the DRM the title uses and to what extent they allow the executable to be modified.
 
Is there still a benefit to using this on an x64 system, or is more for "legacy" games, say older than 2012.
 
Lopez0101 said:
Is there still a benefit to using this on an x64 system, or is more for "legacy" games, say older than 2012.
Click to expand...


the entire point of it, is for an x64 system.


i'm still yet to see more than a handful of x64 games, so this is still very handy.
 
It is best to use it on a 64-bit operating system so that the 32-bit large address aware application can use all 4 GiB of memory (assuming you have more than 4 GiB installed in your computer).

By default, programs are not large address aware so most of them aren't. Only some really benefit from > 2 GiB of memory though.
 
I'm playing Battfield 3, cause I read its good to test CPU stability (and I've overclocked my new 4690k). With the new CPU I got 16Gb ram and when I see the total ram usage, its like 4Gb Ram and 4Gb page file. So I was seaching for a tweak to use more RAM. I read that there is no 64bit executable for BF3 only BF4.

Should I try this out? Does punkbuster ban for it?
 
I suspect it is already large address aware so no, I wouldn't recommend changing the bit. I do know Battlefield 4 has 64-bit executables.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top