Re: RAM and Virtual Memory
From: Richard Urban (richardurbanREMOVETHIS_at_hotmail.com)
Date: 04/13/04
- Next message: Bruce Chambers: "Re: Network, firewall and XP"
- Previous message: Bruce Chambers: "Re: changing the motherboard and uP in PC system w/XP installed"
- In reply to: Jim: "Re: RAM and Virtual Memory"
- Next in thread: Jim: "Re: RAM and Virtual Memory"
- Reply: Jim: "Re: RAM and Virtual Memory"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 21:47:07 -0400
Try running PhotoShop (extreme changes and mods to the photo) or AutoCad (a
25 layer - 52 meg drawing, that has to be redrawn due to changes) without a
pagefile!
-- Regards: Richard Urban aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-) "Jim" <null@null.com> wrote in message news:o7Fec.597$Yf6.387@fed1read07... > The referenced article is WRONG ( http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php ) in > one > respect, you do NOT need a paging file *if* you have sufficient RAM, > period. > It's just plain wrong in this one respect, and should be rewritten. The > continued reporting that the paging file is necessary is bogus. NOT if > you > have sufficient RAM! The virtually memory subsystem is always *there* > since > it's an integral part of the OS, but it's implementation in the form of > the > paging file (pagefile.sys normally) may or may not be necessary. It all > just depends on whether you have enough RAM to make it irrelevant, and > thus, > the paging file *can*, under those circumstances, be deleted. > > More comments below... > > "Shane Steinmetz" <revieweroftime{REMOVETHIS}@silverinterlocution.org> > wrote > in message news:ezwIlsNIEHA.2744@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... >> I have a question about the use of RAM by Windows XP, Home Edition. >> >> I have 256 MB of RAM. Well, I notice that Windows always insists on >> using a pagefile, even if RAM is available -- however small. I thought > that >> virtual RAM was only used when all physical RAM was consumed. Why is >> Windows choosing to use a pagefile even when there's physical RAM > available? >> > > Not exactly correct, it's more a case of Windows always using the VM > (virtual memory) subsystem, rather than the file itself. > > I have 1GB of RAM and have disabled the paging file completely! And yet, > Task Manager shows that at least part of the kernal remains "paged". > Physically, that's impossible, since pagefile.sys doesn't even exist under > C:\ anymore. That leads me to believe that the way virtual memory usage > is > being calculated is NOT strictly on consumption of the physical paging > file, > but some other factor, something more abstract in the VM. I can't be > more > specific because I don't know exactly what that is, but it has to be > something else, perhaps memory management reporting the difference between > *real* vs *potential/delayed* allocations, and throwing the latter into > the > VM (paging file) bucket. Something akin to how applications are loaded, > i.e., only piece-meal as they are needed. > >> Also, I would like some advice. >> >> I'm using an old computer. It's an HP Pavilion 8700, which was >> handed >> down to me by my father. There's some hardware changes, and I've > installed >> a non-OEM version of Windows XP, Home Edition on it. The maximum amount > of >> RAM my computer can take is 512 MB. (It can take SDRAM, PC100.) I have > 256 >> MB right now. I am somewhat demanding of this computer. I use it for >> the >> Internet and often run multiple programs at the same time, and sometimes >> play some demanding games. Do you think that upgrading to 512 MB will > show >> noticeable performance improvements, within my operating system and >> within >> the programs I run? >> > > More memory only matters and is useful if you can actually use it. 256MB > is, frankly, only adequate for XP, I believe 512MB is ideal for the > average > user. If you want to virtually guarantee that the paging file is NOT > needed > and can in fact be disabled, you probably need to reach the 1GB level at a > minimum, obviously beyond your current capabilities. > > You can easily exceed the 256MB mark w/ a few apps running concurrently, > or > w/ audio/video editing apps, for example. Once you do, you hit the paging > file, and performance deteriorates rapidily. For most, the pain of > *waiting* for IO swapping to complete becomes intolerable. > > So monitor your usage, if you rarely if ever come close to 256MB in usage, > more memory buys you nothing. If you do (and it's highly likely you > will), > more memory is one of the best investments you can make. There's simply > no > comparison in performance between a system that's constantly paging vs. > one > that is not. > > HTH > > Jim > >> I appreciate any responses. >> >> Shane Steinmetz >> >> > >
- Next message: Bruce Chambers: "Re: Network, firewall and XP"
- Previous message: Bruce Chambers: "Re: changing the motherboard and uP in PC system w/XP installed"
- In reply to: Jim: "Re: RAM and Virtual Memory"
- Next in thread: Jim: "Re: RAM and Virtual Memory"
- Reply: Jim: "Re: RAM and Virtual Memory"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
