Well, then, maybe I am missing something here, if trying to get Windows to utilize it's full 4GB of memory (instead of just having it display 4GB) is not a performance issue. If the patch actually does stop SHIV from crashing, isn't that an improvement in performance to some degree? I understood what the programmer meant when he spoke of "Large Address Awareness". As far as the Kernel is concerned, that word pops up quite a bit on that web page, and I didn't only rely on the info found on his page. I was checking other similar apps and Microsoft's own website.
My reference to the Placebo Effect was an inference drawn upon the many users (in my searching) who claimed that they had the patch installed but didn't see
any effect, improvements or enhancements to their gaming. In fact, many never checked their systems or had them benchmarked to compare the before/after effect on their PC. To me, that's tantamount to a placebo effect.
If one wants to install the patch blindly, that's their prerogative. I refer to the closing in my original reply, "
The whole point to this is that one should thoroughly research any patches to be installed in their PC and hopefully, no one installs it simply on the strength of an unknown who posted the patch."
There was no malice intended in wanting users to beware of a patch that involved, from my searching, some serious questions.
Post Script: I knew I should've posted link references but there were so many and I was too lazy, and I thought that would've been too presumptuous.
