Re: Installing Extra RAM
- From: "Gerry" <gerry@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 14:34:58 -0000
David
That's not the debate you were having with Leonard as it looked to me.
It was pointless because pursuing it as you both did did not achieve
much for either of you.
I answer a lot of questions in these newsgroups relating to managing
memory. There is no one solution suits all. I am not convinced that
system managed is the best solution but there you are. We all have our
funny ideas.
--
Regards.
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David B. wrote:
Not pointless at all, more than once I've had a customer come in
because they were getting low virtual memory errors in XP, after
questioning I find out they upgrade from 128 or 256 MB to a GB, I go
in set the swap file from factory fixed size (it's still set to the
proper size for the original 128 or 256MB) to system managed, problem
solved.
"Gerry" <gerry@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:uM1MzxnNIHA.5264@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dave
Your point is correct but the point David B and Leonard were at
loggerheads over was a different point. A bit of a pointless debate
because the pagefile sizing assumptions by Microsoft were, with the
advent of larger drives, demonstrably wrong. The late Alex Nichol
pointed this out in his still relevant Article in 2004.
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Installing Extra RAM
- From: Lil' Dave
- Re: Installing Extra RAM
- From: Daave
- Re: Installing Extra RAM
- From: David B.
- Re: Installing Extra RAM
- References:
- Re: Installing Extra RAM
- From: Lil' Dave
- Re: Installing Extra RAM
- From: Gerry
- Re: Installing Extra RAM
- From: David B.
- Re: Installing Extra RAM
- Prev by Date: Re: Installing Extra RAM
- Next by Date: Re: Installing Extra RAM
- Previous by thread: Re: Installing Extra RAM
- Next by thread: Re: Installing Extra RAM
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading