Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

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?

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?

I appreciate any responses.

Shane Steinmetz

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Virtual Memory in Windows XP
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php

--
Carey Frisch
Microsoft MVP
Windows XP - Shell/User

Be Smart! Protect your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"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?
|
| 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?
|
| I appreciate any responses.
|
| Shane Steinmetz
|
|

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Thank you for the reference. It seems to have broadened my insight on the
subject of virtual RAM a bit.

So, I guess virtual RAM is a necessity.

Alright, then. Does anyone have any advice for my current memory
situation, which I discussed in my first post?

Shane Steinmetz


"Carey Frisch [MVP]" <mrxp2004@nospamyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eppaJzNIEHA.2656@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> Virtual Memory in Windows XP
> http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php
>
> --
> Carey Frisch
> Microsoft MVP
> Windows XP - Shell/User
>
> Be Smart! Protect your PC!
> http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------
>
> "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?
> |
> | 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?
> |
> | I appreciate any responses.
> |
> | Shane Steinmetz
> |
> |
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

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
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

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 news7Fec.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
>>
>>
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Read my post carefully, if you have *sufficient* RAM, you do NOT need a
paging file! Period!

If you're running Photoshop and it *needs* more RAM than you have currently
have installed, then by definition, you do NOT have *sufficient* RAM. I
choose my words VERY carefully. For many people who do NOT do memory
intensive applications like audio/video/photo editing, they never exceed the
available RAM. If they don't, they do not need the paging file!!!

The document is plain WRONG. I have no such use for memory intensive
applications, I have 1GB of RAM, and never exceed more than 570MB under the
worst of conditions. I do not need a paging file, and have indeed, disabled
it. The system runs perfectly, and has for the past four months.

If you have *sufficient* RAM, you do NOT need a paging file.

Jim


"Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%23y%2357kPIEHA.3144@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> 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
news7Fec.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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

I have ran without one with no problems sept photohop7 bitched for not
having a page file. 1Gig ram


"Jim" <null@null.com> wrote in message news:ROHec.959$Yf6.811@fed1read07...
> Read my post carefully, if you have *sufficient* RAM, you do NOT need a
> paging file! Period!
>
> If you're running Photoshop and it *needs* more RAM than you have
currently
> have installed, then by definition, you do NOT have *sufficient* RAM. I
> choose my words VERY carefully. For many people who do NOT do memory
> intensive applications like audio/video/photo editing, they never exceed
the
> available RAM. If they don't, they do not need the paging file!!!
>
> The document is plain WRONG. I have no such use for memory intensive
> applications, I have 1GB of RAM, and never exceed more than 570MB under
the
> worst of conditions. I do not need a paging file, and have indeed,
disabled
> it. The system runs perfectly, and has for the past four months.
>
> If you have *sufficient* RAM, you do NOT need a paging file.
>
> Jim
>
>
> "Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23y%2357kPIEHA.3144@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > Try running PhotoShop (extreme changes and mods to the photo) or AutoCad
> (a
> > 25 layer - 52 meg drawing, that has to be redrawn due to changes)
without
> a
> > pagefile!
> >
> > --
> > Regards:
> >
> > Richard Urban
> >
> > aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)
> >
> > "Jim" <null@null.com> wrote in message
> news7Fec.597$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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

Ditto.

I have 3 PCs running XP Pro, 2 have 1 Gig each, and my main P4 has 2Gig. I
have never used a paging file.

One PC has been running XP Pro for almost 2 years now, 1Gig, NO page file.

What's the use. Why slow your PC down when you can run everything in memory.


"Jim" <null@null.com> wrote in message news:ROHec.959$Yf6.811@fed1read07...
> Read my post carefully, if you have *sufficient* RAM, you do NOT need a
> paging file! Period!
>
> If you're running Photoshop and it *needs* more RAM than you have
currently
> have installed, then by definition, you do NOT have *sufficient* RAM. I
> choose my words VERY carefully. For many people who do NOT do memory
> intensive applications like audio/video/photo editing, they never exceed
the
> available RAM. If they don't, they do not need the paging file!!!
>
> The document is plain WRONG. I have no such use for memory intensive
> applications, I have 1GB of RAM, and never exceed more than 570MB under
the
> worst of conditions. I do not need a paging file, and have indeed,
disabled
> it. The system runs perfectly, and has for the past four months.
>
> If you have *sufficient* RAM, you do NOT need a paging file.
>
> Jim
>
>
> "Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23y%2357kPIEHA.3144@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > Try running PhotoShop (extreme changes and mods to the photo) or AutoCad
> (a
> > 25 layer - 52 meg drawing, that has to be redrawn due to changes)
without
> a
> > pagefile!
> >
> > --
> > Regards:
> >
> > Richard Urban
> >
> > aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)
> >
> > "Jim" <null@null.com> wrote in message
> news7Fec.597$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
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

I guess the person was writing with the presumption that not many people
stock up highly on RAM. Just how much RAM does the average user have? 256
MB or less, from what -I've- seen.

Shane Steinmetz

"Jim" <null@null.com> wrote in message news:ROHec.959$Yf6.811@fed1read07...
> Read my post carefully, if you have *sufficient* RAM, you do NOT need a
> paging file! Period!
>
> If you're running Photoshop and it *needs* more RAM than you have
currently
> have installed, then by definition, you do NOT have *sufficient* RAM. I
> choose my words VERY carefully. For many people who do NOT do memory
> intensive applications like audio/video/photo editing, they never exceed
the
> available RAM. If they don't, they do not need the paging file!!!
>
> The document is plain WRONG. I have no such use for memory intensive
> applications, I have 1GB of RAM, and never exceed more than 570MB under
the
> worst of conditions. I do not need a paging file, and have indeed,
disabled
> it. The system runs perfectly, and has for the past four months.
>
> If you have *sufficient* RAM, you do NOT need a paging file.
>
> Jim
>
>
> "Richard Urban" <richardurbanREMOVETHIS@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:%23y%2357kPIEHA.3144@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> > Try running PhotoShop (extreme changes and mods to the photo) or AutoCad
> (a
> > 25 layer - 52 meg drawing, that has to be redrawn due to changes)
without
> a
> > pagefile!
> >
> > --
> > Regards:
> >
> > Richard Urban
> >
> > aka Crusty (-: Old B@stard :-)
> >
> > "Jim" <null@null.com> wrote in message
> news7Fec.597$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.
>