Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (
More info?)
Yes, a great example of "not getting it".
Photoshop has no business looking at the paging file. The virtual memory
subsystem is suppose to be *hidden* from applications, indeed, it's even
worse in this case, Photoshop is actually looking for the *implementation*
(in the form of pagefile.sys)!
The application has no business delving into the VM or its implementation.
It should only be inquiring the OS about available memory. In response, the
OS should be calculating the available memory as RAM + VM (potential), or
whatever else Windows decides to use to emulate memory, perhaps NOTHING. If
the paging file is disabled, then naturally the result of RAM + VM = RAM.
That's *all* Photoshop or any other application need concern itself about.
If the call to return available memory is reported, for example, as 1GB, and
Photoshop doesn't like it, fine, it can scream its head off. If the OS
reports 16GB (4GB RAM + 12GB of *potential* maximum VM), and Photoshop
*still* doesn't like, it can scream it's head off, AGAIN. In the end, if
Photoshop is not happy, then it should inform the user there is insufficient
memory (not complain about the lack of a paging file). It might then
*suggest* (ONE TIME!) increasing RAM and/or offer additional information
that Windows can extend *physical* RAM through the VM subsystem and perhaps
provide some guidance how to achieve this through references to Windows
help.
Btw, it's not as if using VM that memory can't be exhausted! Suppose the
maximum limits on VM (pagefile.sys expansion) are still too low?! Photoshop
is still wrong, it would be much better off consulting the OS which will
then consider the true potential for expansion, NOT just the mere presensce
and/or current allocation of pagefile.sys. So now the application whines
ceaselessly because it's has foolishly built in a dependence on the memory
system implementation. Incredibly dumb, this is programming 101 stuff.
Jim
"Shane Steinmetz" <revieweroftime{REMOVETHIS}@silverinterlocution.org> wrote
in message news:%23OJXr1QIEHA.2844@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> Wow. The program actually told you that you needed to having a paging
file?
>
> Shane Steinmetz
>
> "Nick Burns" <thedoc@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:O$4qE2PIEHA.3848@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> > I have ran without one with no problems sept photohop7 bitched for not
> > having a page file. 1Gig ram
> >
> >
> > "Jim" <null@null.com> wrote in message
> news:ROHec.959$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
> > > news
7Fec.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
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>