paging file neccessary or not ?

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

Dear group,

I was in the process of advising a collegue on how much RAM she needed in
her new PC.

I have a system with an Athlon 1.33GHz processor and 768 MBytes of 266MHz
DDR RAM.
(I originally fitted a whole GByte but one of my RAM slots turned out to be
faulty.)

I have been having performance issues when running Google Desktop Search and
AVG antivirus.
(delays when clicking on shortcuts etc)

I realise now I don't understand the meaning of the "memory meter" in task
manager (as well as just about everything else !)

It occured to me that my XP Pro might have configured itself to suit
outdated expectations of hardware and might be unneccesarily using clunky
hard drive instead of speedy RAM.

Having now just set the paging file size to zero, I find the performance has
improved significantly and the PF Usage meter now never exceeds 512MBytes no
matter how hard I push the machine .....

Is there a way to make Windows take full advantage of all my RAM or any
more I choose to fit ?
(RAM disk perhaps) Or can I give my spare 256MBytes away ?

thanks...

Jeremy
16 answers Last reply
More about paging file neccessary
  1. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    "brugnospamsia" <brugnospamsia@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:ThhUd.24409$8B3.4978@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
    > Dear group,
    >
    > I was in the process of advising a collegue on how much RAM she needed in
    > her new PC.
    >
    > I have a system with an Athlon 1.33GHz processor and 768 MBytes of 266MHz
    > DDR RAM.
    > (I originally fitted a whole GByte but one of my RAM slots turned out to
    be
    > faulty.)
    >
    > I have been having performance issues when running Google Desktop Search
    and
    > AVG antivirus.
    > (delays when clicking on shortcuts etc)
    >
    > I realise now I don't understand the meaning of the "memory meter" in task
    > manager (as well as just about everything else !)
    >
    > It occured to me that my XP Pro might have configured itself to suit
    > outdated expectations of hardware and might be unneccesarily using clunky
    > hard drive instead of speedy RAM.
    >
    > Having now just set the paging file size to zero, I find the performance
    has
    > improved significantly and the PF Usage meter now never exceeds 512MBytes
    no
    > matter how hard I push the machine .....
    >
    > Is there a way to make Windows take full advantage of all my RAM or any
    > more I choose to fit ?
    > (RAM disk perhaps) Or can I give my spare 256MBytes away ?
    >
    > thanks...


    it's usually best to just let windows manage your page file,then forget it.
    trying "tricks" such as ram disks will do nothing at all to help
    performance.

    as to the amount of ram you need...that will depend on the apps you run.
    IE: if you go "heavy" graphics such as video editing, or working on large
    images with many
    layers in Photoshop....even a gig of RAM will probably not be enough...
    but for just "general" use 256 - 512 megs of RAM is usually fine.

    as far a google desktop search...
    i think i'd just let it run and index all your files before trying
    to run an co-current apps.

    same with AVG...
    you may want to configure it to run it's checks during a period of time
    when you are not using your machine...
    trying to run apps at the same time as a virsu scan can definately
    be problematic
  2. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Hi,

    The pagefile is necessary, even if you don't page. Many programs will expect
    it to be there, as memory space is allocated to it as the program is loaded.
    With 768MB of memory, you likely will not be doing much paging unless you
    run some really hefty games or do a lot of graphics editing. You can set the
    initial pagefile size to something small, say 100MB, unless you have need of
    a memory dump on system failure (which will require that the pagefile
    initialize at least the same size as the dump). What you may have been
    experiencing is that the system was previously set to focus on background
    programs and services, and is now set to focus on programs. This could
    account for the delay you are seeing. You may enjoy this read on virtual
    memory management in WindowsXP, it was written by MVP Alex Nichol:
    http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

    --
    Best of Luck,

    Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
    http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
    Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
    www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
    Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

    "brugnospamsia" <brugnospamsia@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:ThhUd.24409$8B3.4978@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
    > Dear group,
    >
    > I was in the process of advising a collegue on how much RAM she needed in
    > her new PC.
    >
    > I have a system with an Athlon 1.33GHz processor and 768 MBytes of 266MHz
    > DDR RAM.
    > (I originally fitted a whole GByte but one of my RAM slots turned out to
    > be faulty.)
    >
    > I have been having performance issues when running Google Desktop Search
    > and AVG antivirus.
    > (delays when clicking on shortcuts etc)
    >
    > I realise now I don't understand the meaning of the "memory meter" in task
    > manager (as well as just about everything else !)
    >
    > It occured to me that my XP Pro might have configured itself to suit
    > outdated expectations of hardware and might be unneccesarily using clunky
    > hard drive instead of speedy RAM.
    >
    > Having now just set the paging file size to zero, I find the performance
    > has improved significantly and the PF Usage meter now never exceeds
    > 512MBytes no matter how hard I push the machine .....
    >
    > Is there a way to make Windows take full advantage of all my RAM or any
    > more I choose to fit ?
    > (RAM disk perhaps) Or can I give my spare 256MBytes away ?
    >
    > thanks...
    >
    > Jeremy
    >
  3. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Let the system manage the pagefile. The pagefile will not prevent your
    system from utilizing your full ram when it wants to.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "brugnospamsia" <brugnospamsia@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:ThhUd.24409$8B3.4978@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
    > Dear group,
    >
    > I was in the process of advising a collegue on how much RAM she needed in
    > her new PC.
    >
    > I have a system with an Athlon 1.33GHz processor and 768 MBytes of 266MHz
    > DDR RAM.
    > (I originally fitted a whole GByte but one of my RAM slots turned out to
    > be faulty.)
    >
    > I have been having performance issues when running Google Desktop Search
    > and AVG antivirus.
    > (delays when clicking on shortcuts etc)
    >
    > I realise now I don't understand the meaning of the "memory meter" in task
    > manager (as well as just about everything else !)
    >
    > It occured to me that my XP Pro might have configured itself to suit
    > outdated expectations of hardware and might be unneccesarily using clunky
    > hard drive instead of speedy RAM.
    >
    > Having now just set the paging file size to zero, I find the performance
    > has improved significantly and the PF Usage meter now never exceeds
    > 512MBytes no matter how hard I push the machine .....
    >
    > Is there a way to make Windows take full advantage of all my RAM or any
    > more I choose to fit ?
    > (RAM disk perhaps) Or can I give my spare 256MBytes away ?
    >
    > thanks...
    >
    > Jeremy
    >
  4. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    In news:ThhUd.24409$8B3.4978@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk,
    brugnospamsia <brugnospamsia@blueyonder.co.uk> typed:

    > Dear group,
    >
    > I was in the process of advising a collegue on how much RAM she
    > needed in her new PC.
    >
    > I have a system with an Athlon 1.33GHz processor and 768 MBytes
    > of
    > 266MHz DDR RAM.
    > (I originally fitted a whole GByte but one of my RAM slots
    > turned out
    > to be faulty.)
    >
    > I have been having performance issues when running Google
    > Desktop
    > Search and AVG antivirus.
    > (delays when clicking on shortcuts etc)
    >
    > I realise now I don't understand the meaning of the "memory
    > meter" in
    > task manager (as well as just about everything else !)
    >
    > It occured to me that my XP Pro might have configured itself to
    > suit
    > outdated expectations of hardware and might be unneccesarily
    > using
    > clunky hard drive instead of speedy RAM.


    No.


    > Having now just set the paging file size to zero,


    Not a good thing to do. Page file space is allocated in
    anticipation of posible need for it. Without a page file, that
    allocation gets made in real memory (RAM) instead, and that
    results in locking out some of your RAM, and preventing you from
    being able to use it.

    Having a page file present never hurts you and can't improve
    performance. If you don't need to use it, that's fine, but it's
    being their doesn't hurt you. It's like the overdraft protection
    on my checking account. it's there to help me if I need it, but
    if I don't use it, its being available never hurts me.


    > I find the
    > performance has improved significantly


    I suggest that you're either mistaken or that it's due to some
    other factor. It can not be as a result of turning off the page
    file.


    > and the PF Usage meter now
    > never exceeds 512MBytes no matter how hard I push the machine
    > .....
    >
    > Is there a way to make Windows take full advantage of all my
    > RAM or
    > any more I choose to fit ?
    > (RAM disk perhaps) Or can I give my spare 256MBytes away ?


    How much memory you need depends on what apps you run, but almost
    everyone needs at least 256MB for decent performance. For some
    people, for example those who edit large photographic images,
    more than 256MB--even much more--can be required for good
    performance.

    Unless you're running apps that are very memory-intensive, 768MB
    is significantly more than most people need. Chances are that if
    you gave away 256MB, your performance wouldn't decrease at all.


    --
    Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
    Please reply to the newsgroup
  5. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Placing the page file on another partition on the same drive is ineffective.
    Placing it on a different drive on a separate controller can help in slow
    systems with small hard drives, but otherwise offers negligible performance
    improvement.

    Please post in plain text.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "plb2862" <plb2862@cox.net> wrote in message
    news:%alUd.24047$Tt.23229@fed1read05...
    Pagefile is necessary. However, size is arbitrary with at least a minimum of
    2MB and windows XP has adjusted mine when I set it too low. Usually, it is
    set to 2 MB minimum and 1½ times Physical RAM. Some suggestions are 1½ to 3
    times Physical RAM. In your case minimum could be 2 MB or 768 x 1½ = 1152
    MB or maximum could be 768 x 1½ = 1152 MB or 768 x 3 = 2304 MB. Personally,
    I don't use this general guide that is documented in MS KB and other
    sources. I have 512 MB and I set my minimum and maximum to 768 MB.
    All-be-it, I don't do severe processing (large graphic file processing) and
    I monitor my pagefile using a utility called pagemon.exe I only use
    approximately 33% - about 252 MB at the peak use. If you do a lot of
    intensive graphics manipulation, you need at least 1GB Physical RAM and I
    would also set the pagefile.sys to the recommended 1½ to 3 times Physical
    RAM. I know you have a bad memory slot but, if you needed to could you up
    the DIMMs on the slots you have (2-512MB DIMMS)? Here is another technique
    that some MVPs won't agree with. On my 38GB HD I have C:, D:, E:, F:, G:,
    (7GB each) and H: (3GB) partitions. I put a 2MB pagefile on each C: - F:
    partition and 760 MB on the H: partition which is totally dedicated to
    pagefile.sys with a little extra space. Some may want to know why 7GB on
    the partitions which has to do with future dual boot restrictions. The 3GB
    final partition is large enough to expand the pagefile.sys to 3 times the
    Physical RAM.

    "brugnospamsia" <brugnospamsia@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:ThhUd.24409$8B3.4978@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
    > Dear group,
    >
    > I was in the process of advising a collegue on how much RAM she needed in
    > her new PC.
    >
    > I have a system with an Athlon 1.33GHz processor and 768 MBytes of 266MHz
    > DDR RAM.
    > (I originally fitted a whole GByte but one of my RAM slots turned out to
    > be
    > faulty.)
    >
    > I have been having performance issues when running Google Desktop Search
    > and
    > AVG antivirus.
    > (delays when clicking on shortcuts etc)
    >
    > I realise now I don't understand the meaning of the "memory meter" in task
    > manager (as well as just about everything else !)
    >
    > It occured to me that my XP Pro might have configured itself to suit
    > outdated expectations of hardware and might be unneccesarily using clunky
    > hard drive instead of speedy RAM.
    >
    > Having now just set the paging file size to zero, I find the performance
    > has
    > improved significantly and the PF Usage meter now never exceeds 512MBytes
    > no
    > matter how hard I push the machine .....
    >
    > Is there a way to make Windows take full advantage of all my RAM or any
    > more I choose to fit ?
    > (RAM disk perhaps) Or can I give my spare 256MBytes away ?
    >
    > thanks...
    >
    > Jeremy
    >
    >
  6. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    While I won't disagree with your suggestion, you should be aware that
    placing the pagefile on a different volume on the same drive can be an issue
    if paging is heavy. A lot of paging will cause excessive drive head movement
    as it jumps back and forth between the paging volume and the boot volume. If
    paging is light, or relatively non-existent, then this won't be a problem.
    I'm not sure how it would react to a memory dump on system failure.

    --
    Best of Luck,

    Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
    http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
    Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
    www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
    Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

    "plb2862" <plb2862@cox.net> wrote in message
    news:%alUd.24047$Tt.23229@fed1read05...
    Pagefile is necessary. However, size is arbitrary with at least a minimum of
    2MB and windows XP has adjusted mine when I set it too low. Usually, it is
    set to 2 MB minimum and 1½ times Physical RAM. Some suggestions are 1½ to 3
    times Physical RAM. In your case minimum could be 2 MB or 768 x 1½ = 1152
    MB or maximum could be 768 x 1½ = 1152 MB or 768 x 3 = 2304 MB. Personally,
    I don't use this general guide that is documented in MS KB and other
    sources. I have 512 MB and I set my minimum and maximum to 768 MB.
    All-be-it, I don't do severe processing (large graphic file processing) and
    I monitor my pagefile using a utility called pagemon.exe I only use
    approximately 33% - about 252 MB at the peak use. If you do a lot of
    intensive graphics manipulation, you need at least 1GB Physical RAM and I
    would also set the pagefile.sys to the recommended 1½ to 3 times Physical
    RAM. I know you have a bad memory slot but, if you needed to could you up
    the DIMMs on the slots you have (2-512MB DIMMS)? Here is another technique
    that some MVPs won't agree with. On my 38GB HD I have C:, D:, E:, F:, G:,
    (7GB each) and H: (3GB) partitions. I put a 2MB pagefile on each C: - F:
    partition and 760 MB on the H: partition which is totally dedicated to
    pagefile.sys with a little extra space. Some may want to know why 7GB on
    the partitions which has to do with future dual boot restrictions. The 3GB
    final partition is large enough to expand the pagefile.sys to 3 times the
    Physical RAM.

    "brugnospamsia" <brugnospamsia@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:ThhUd.24409$8B3.4978@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
    > Dear group,
    >
    > I was in the process of advising a collegue on how much RAM she needed in
    > her new PC.
    >
    > I have a system with an Athlon 1.33GHz processor and 768 MBytes of 266MHz
    > DDR RAM.
    > (I originally fitted a whole GByte but one of my RAM slots turned out to
    > be
    > faulty.)
    >
    > I have been having performance issues when running Google Desktop Search
    > and
    > AVG antivirus.
    > (delays when clicking on shortcuts etc)
    >
    > I realise now I don't understand the meaning of the "memory meter" in task
    > manager (as well as just about everything else !)
    >
    > It occured to me that my XP Pro might have configured itself to suit
    > outdated expectations of hardware and might be unneccesarily using clunky
    > hard drive instead of speedy RAM.
    >
    > Having now just set the paging file size to zero, I find the performance
    > has
    > improved significantly and the PF Usage meter now never exceeds 512MBytes
    > no
    > matter how hard I push the machine .....
    >
    > Is there a way to make Windows take full advantage of all my RAM or any
    > more I choose to fit ?
    > (RAM disk perhaps) Or can I give my spare 256MBytes away ?
    >
    > thanks...
    >
    > Jeremy
    >
    >
  7. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Over a year now and no failures and no speed issues, It must be a fluke
    although the point of having 2MB on each of the partitions helps in keeping
    the system from crashing. It took a lot of research to find this solution.
    And what I'm left with is a primary partition that can handle all (without
    going over 7GB - so I can dual boot) of my OS primary programs without
    slowing the system down. In my case it works and is efficient and that may
    be because this system does Office documents and e-mail and not any intense
    graphic manipulation.

    "Rick "Nutcase" Rogers" <rick@mvps.org> wrote in message
    news:uAQaLjQHFHA.560@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    > While I won't disagree with your suggestion, you should be aware that
    > placing the pagefile on a different volume on the same drive can be an
    > issue if paging is heavy. A lot of paging will cause excessive drive head
    > movement as it jumps back and forth between the paging volume and the boot
    > volume. If paging is light, or relatively non-existent, then this won't be
    > a problem. I'm not sure how it would react to a memory dump on system
    > failure.
    >
    > --
    > Best of Luck,
    >
    > Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
    > http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
    > Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
    > www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
    > Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
    >
    > "plb2862" <plb2862@cox.net> wrote in message
    > news:%alUd.24047$Tt.23229@fed1read05...
    > Pagefile is necessary. However, size is arbitrary with at least a minimum
    > of 2MB and windows XP has adjusted mine when I set it too low. Usually,
    > it is set to 2 MB minimum and 1½ times Physical RAM. Some suggestions are
    > 1½ to 3 times Physical RAM. In your case minimum could be 2 MB or 768 x
    > 1½ = 1152 MB or maximum could be 768 x 1½ = 1152 MB or 768 x 3 = 2304 MB.
    > Personally, I don't use this general guide that is documented in MS KB and
    > other sources. I have 512 MB and I set my minimum and maximum to 768 MB.
    > All-be-it, I don't do severe processing (large graphic file processing)
    > and I monitor my pagefile using a utility called pagemon.exe I only use
    > approximately 33% - about 252 MB at the peak use. If you do a lot of
    > intensive graphics manipulation, you need at least 1GB Physical RAM and I
    > would also set the pagefile.sys to the recommended 1½ to 3 times Physical
    > RAM. I know you have a bad memory slot but, if you needed to could you up
    > the DIMMs on the slots you have (2-512MB DIMMS)? Here is another
    > technique that some MVPs won't agree with. On my 38GB HD I have C:, D:,
    > E:, F:, G:, (7GB each) and H: (3GB) partitions. I put a 2MB pagefile on
    > each C: - F: partition and 760 MB on the H: partition which is totally
    > dedicated to pagefile.sys with a little extra space. Some may want to
    > know why 7GB on the partitions which has to do with future dual boot
    > restrictions. The 3GB final partition is large enough to expand the
    > pagefile.sys to 3 times the Physical RAM.
    >
    > "brugnospamsia" <brugnospamsia@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
    > news:ThhUd.24409$8B3.4978@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
    >> Dear group,
    >>
    >> I was in the process of advising a collegue on how much RAM she needed in
    >> her new PC.
    >>
    >> I have a system with an Athlon 1.33GHz processor and 768 MBytes of 266MHz
    >> DDR RAM.
    >> (I originally fitted a whole GByte but one of my RAM slots turned out to
    >> be
    >> faulty.)
    >>
    >> I have been having performance issues when running Google Desktop Search
    >> and
    >> AVG antivirus.
    >> (delays when clicking on shortcuts etc)
    >>
    >> I realise now I don't understand the meaning of the "memory meter" in
    >> task
    >> manager (as well as just about everything else !)
    >>
    >> It occured to me that my XP Pro might have configured itself to suit
    >> outdated expectations of hardware and might be unneccesarily using clunky
    >> hard drive instead of speedy RAM.
    >>
    >> Having now just set the paging file size to zero, I find the performance
    >> has
    >> improved significantly and the PF Usage meter now never exceeds 512MBytes
    >> no
    >> matter how hard I push the machine .....
    >>
    >> Is there a way to make Windows take full advantage of all my RAM or any
    >> more I choose to fit ?
    >> (RAM disk perhaps) Or can I give my spare 256MBytes away ?
    >>
    >> thanks...
    >>
    >> Jeremy
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  8. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    You can't turn off apging.The pagefile is merely on target.

    --
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.microscum.com/mscommunity/
    "brugnospamsia" <brugnospamsia@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:ThhUd.24409$8B3.4978@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
    > Dear group,
    >
    > I was in the process of advising a collegue on how much RAM she needed in
    > her new PC.
    >
    > I have a system with an Athlon 1.33GHz processor and 768 MBytes of 266MHz
    > DDR RAM.
    > (I originally fitted a whole GByte but one of my RAM slots turned out to be
    > faulty.)
    >
    > I have been having performance issues when running Google Desktop Search and
    > AVG antivirus.
    > (delays when clicking on shortcuts etc)
    >
    > I realise now I don't understand the meaning of the "memory meter" in task
    > manager (as well as just about everything else !)
    >
    > It occured to me that my XP Pro might have configured itself to suit
    > outdated expectations of hardware and might be unneccesarily using clunky
    > hard drive instead of speedy RAM.
    >
    > Having now just set the paging file size to zero, I find the performance has
    > improved significantly and the PF Usage meter now never exceeds 512MBytes no
    > matter how hard I push the machine .....
    >
    > Is there a way to make Windows take full advantage of all my RAM or any
    > more I choose to fit ?
    > (RAM disk perhaps) Or can I give my spare 256MBytes away ?
    >
    > thanks...
    >
    > Jeremy
    >
    >
  9. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
    news:%231kcZ1OHFHA.2616@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    > In news:ThhUd.24409$8B3.4978@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk,
    > brugnospamsia <brugnospamsia@blueyonder.co.uk> typed:
    >

    <SNIP>
    >

    >> Having now just set the paging file size to zero,
    >
    >
    <SNIP>
    >
    >> I find the
    >> performance has improved significantly
    >
    >
    > I suggest that you're either mistaken or that it's due to some other
    > factor. It can not be as a result of turning off the page file.
    >

    Well I'm fairly certain that is all I did. - made the same sort of
    difference defragging did.

    I wish Windows had built-in optimisation which would simply tell me if
    adding an extra GByte of RAM would significantly improve performance ...

    What I have now done for now ... as a result of Googling (something I
    should have done before I posted) is allow Windows to manage the paging
    file, but with some registry tweaks which hopefully are a bit more robust
    than taking away the safety net.

    http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&threadm=OaNDCKIxCHA.2564%40TK2MSFTNGP12&rnum=3&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dwindows%2Bxp%2Bpaging%2Bfile%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26c2coff%3D1%26selm%3DOaNDCKIxCHA.2564%2540TK2MSFTNGP12%26rnum%3D3

    The next thing I'll probably do is put the paging file on a second hard
    drive.

    Thanks for all the advice folks.

    I can see I have a lot of reading to do ;-)

    Jeremy
  10. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    It is more useful if the second drive is on a different controller (SATA
    drives always are) so that you can get asynchronius read/writes.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "brugnospamsia" <brugnospamsia@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:qvvUd.25047$8B3.18916@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
    >
    > "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
    > news:%231kcZ1OHFHA.2616@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >> In news:ThhUd.24409$8B3.4978@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk,
    >> brugnospamsia <brugnospamsia@blueyonder.co.uk> typed:
    >>
    >
    > <SNIP>
    >>
    >
    >>> Having now just set the paging file size to zero,
    >>
    >>
    > <SNIP>
    >>
    >>> I find the
    >>> performance has improved significantly
    >>
    >>
    >> I suggest that you're either mistaken or that it's due to some other
    >> factor. It can not be as a result of turning off the page file.
    >>
    >
    > Well I'm fairly certain that is all I did. - made the same sort of
    > difference defragging did.
    >
    > I wish Windows had built-in optimisation which would simply tell me if
    > adding an extra GByte of RAM would significantly improve performance ...
    >
    > What I have now done for now ... as a result of Googling (something I
    > should have done before I posted) is allow Windows to manage the paging
    > file, but with some registry tweaks which hopefully are a bit more robust
    > than taking away the safety net.
    >
    > http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&threadm=OaNDCKIxCHA.2564%40TK2MSFTNGP12&rnum=3&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dwindows%2Bxp%2Bpaging%2Bfile%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26c2coff%3D1%26selm%3DOaNDCKIxCHA.2564%2540TK2MSFTNGP12%26rnum%3D3
    >
    > The next thing I'll probably do is put the paging file on a second hard
    > drive.
    >
    > Thanks for all the advice folks.
    >
    > I can see I have a lot of reading to do ;-)
    >
    > Jeremy
    >
  11. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Why the 7GB partitions for dual booting?

    --
    Best of Luck,

    Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
    http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
    Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
    www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
    Windows help - www.rickrogers.org

    "plb2862" <plb2862@cox.net> wrote in message
    news:P_vUd.27779$Tt.16466@fed1read05...
    > Over a year now and no failures and no speed issues, It must be a fluke
    > although the point of having 2MB on each of the partitions helps in
    > keeping the system from crashing. It took a lot of research to find this
    > solution. And what I'm left with is a primary partition that can handle
    > all (without going over 7GB - so I can dual boot) of my OS primary
    > programs without slowing the system down. In my case it works and is
    > efficient and that may be because this system does Office documents and
    > e-mail and not any intense graphic manipulation.
    >
    > "Rick "Nutcase" Rogers" <rick@mvps.org> wrote in message
    > news:uAQaLjQHFHA.560@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    >> While I won't disagree with your suggestion, you should be aware that
    >> placing the pagefile on a different volume on the same drive can be an
    >> issue if paging is heavy. A lot of paging will cause excessive drive head
    >> movement as it jumps back and forth between the paging volume and the
    >> boot volume. If paging is light, or relatively non-existent, then this
    >> won't be a problem. I'm not sure how it would react to a memory dump on
    >> system failure.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Best of Luck,
    >>
    >> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
    >> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
    >> Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
    >> www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
    >> Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
    >>
    >> "plb2862" <plb2862@cox.net> wrote in message
    >> news:%alUd.24047$Tt.23229@fed1read05...
    >> Pagefile is necessary. However, size is arbitrary with at least a minimum
    >> of 2MB and windows XP has adjusted mine when I set it too low. Usually,
    >> it is set to 2 MB minimum and 1½ times Physical RAM. Some suggestions
    >> are 1½ to 3 times Physical RAM. In your case minimum could be 2 MB or
    >> 768 x 1½ = 1152 MB or maximum could be 768 x 1½ = 1152 MB or 768 x 3 =
    >> 2304 MB. Personally, I don't use this general guide that is documented in
    >> MS KB and other sources. I have 512 MB and I set my minimum and maximum
    >> to 768 MB. All-be-it, I don't do severe processing (large graphic file
    >> processing) and I monitor my pagefile using a utility called pagemon.exe
    >> I only use approximately 33% - about 252 MB at the peak use. If you do a
    >> lot of intensive graphics manipulation, you need at least 1GB Physical
    >> RAM and I would also set the pagefile.sys to the recommended 1½ to 3
    >> times Physical RAM. I know you have a bad memory slot but, if you needed
    >> to could you up the DIMMs on the slots you have (2-512MB DIMMS)? Here is
    >> another technique that some MVPs won't agree with. On my 38GB HD I have
    >> C:, D:, E:, F:, G:, (7GB each) and H: (3GB) partitions. I put a 2MB
    >> pagefile on each C: - F: partition and 760 MB on the H: partition which
    >> is totally dedicated to pagefile.sys with a little extra space. Some may
    >> want to know why 7GB on the partitions which has to do with future dual
    >> boot restrictions. The 3GB final partition is large enough to expand the
    >> pagefile.sys to 3 times the Physical RAM.
    >>
    >> "brugnospamsia" <brugnospamsia@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
    >> news:ThhUd.24409$8B3.4978@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
    >>> Dear group,
    >>>
    >>> I was in the process of advising a collegue on how much RAM she needed
    >>> in
    >>> her new PC.
    >>>
    >>> I have a system with an Athlon 1.33GHz processor and 768 MBytes of
    >>> 266MHz
    >>> DDR RAM.
    >>> (I originally fitted a whole GByte but one of my RAM slots turned out to
    >>> be
    >>> faulty.)
    >>>
    >>> I have been having performance issues when running Google Desktop Search
    >>> and
    >>> AVG antivirus.
    >>> (delays when clicking on shortcuts etc)
    >>>
    >>> I realise now I don't understand the meaning of the "memory meter" in
    >>> task
    >>> manager (as well as just about everything else !)
    >>>
    >>> It occured to me that my XP Pro might have configured itself to suit
    >>> outdated expectations of hardware and might be unneccesarily using
    >>> clunky
    >>> hard drive instead of speedy RAM.
    >>>
    >>> Having now just set the paging file size to zero, I find the performance
    >>> has
    >>> improved significantly and the PF Usage meter now never exceeds
    >>> 512MBytes no
    >>> matter how hard I push the machine .....
    >>>
    >>> Is there a way to make Windows take full advantage of all my RAM or any
    >>> more I choose to fit ?
    >>> (RAM disk perhaps) Or can I give my spare 256MBytes away ?
    >>>
    >>> thanks...
    >>>
    >>> Jeremy
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  12. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Because I have an older system with the 8 GB barrier in the BIOS. All boot
    sectors need to be located within the first 8 GB to boot with this AMI BIOS.
    Linux use the BIOS only for booting. All you have to do is, to install the
    boot-Partition within the BIOS limit and the rest of the disk is available
    after their IDE-drivers have loaded.

    Here are some limitations of the older system BIOS:

    AMI-Barriers:

    Until end of 97, beginning of 1998 the BIOS was limited to 8 GB.


    (2 GB, 4 GB, 8 GB) on Phoenix equipped systems.

    AWARD-Barriers:

    Date Barrier
    Until End of 1994 504 MB
    Until End of 1997/Begin of 1998 8 GB
    Until Mid of 1999 32 GB


    "Rick "Nutcase" Rogers" <rick@mvps.org> wrote in message
    news:upbYKYYHFHA.3216@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    > Why the 7GB partitions for dual booting?
    >
    > --
    > Best of Luck,
    >
    > Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
    > http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
    > Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
    > www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
    > Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
    >
    > "plb2862" <plb2862@cox.net> wrote in message
    > news:P_vUd.27779$Tt.16466@fed1read05...
    >> Over a year now and no failures and no speed issues, It must be a fluke
    >> although the point of having 2MB on each of the partitions helps in
    >> keeping the system from crashing. It took a lot of research to find this
    >> solution. And what I'm left with is a primary partition that can handle
    >> all (without going over 7GB - so I can dual boot) of my OS primary
    >> programs without slowing the system down. In my case it works and is
    >> efficient and that may be because this system does Office documents and
    >> e-mail and not any intense graphic manipulation.
    >>
    >> "Rick "Nutcase" Rogers" <rick@mvps.org> wrote in message
    >> news:uAQaLjQHFHA.560@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
    >>> While I won't disagree with your suggestion, you should be aware that
    >>> placing the pagefile on a different volume on the same drive can be an
    >>> issue if paging is heavy. A lot of paging will cause excessive drive
    >>> head movement as it jumps back and forth between the paging volume and
    >>> the boot volume. If paging is light, or relatively non-existent, then
    >>> this won't be a problem. I'm not sure how it would react to a memory
    >>> dump on system failure.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Best of Luck,
    >>>
    >>> Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
    >>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
    >>> Associate Expert - WindowsXP Expert Zone
    >>> www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
    >>> Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
    >>>
    >>> "plb2862" <plb2862@cox.net> wrote in message
    >>> news:%alUd.24047$Tt.23229@fed1read05...
    >>> Pagefile is necessary. However, size is arbitrary with at least a
    >>> minimum of 2MB and windows XP has adjusted mine when I set it too low.
    >>> Usually, it is set to 2 MB minimum and 1½ times Physical RAM. Some
    >>> suggestions are 1½ to 3 times Physical RAM. In your case minimum could
    >>> be 2 MB or 768 x 1½ = 1152 MB or maximum could be 768 x 1½ = 1152 MB or
    >>> 768 x 3 = 2304 MB. Personally, I don't use this general guide that is
    >>> documented in MS KB and other sources. I have 512 MB and I set my
    >>> minimum and maximum to 768 MB. All-be-it, I don't do severe processing
    >>> (large graphic file processing) and I monitor my pagefile using a
    >>> utility called pagemon.exe I only use approximately 33% - about 252 MB
    >>> at the peak use. If you do a lot of intensive graphics manipulation,
    >>> you need at least 1GB Physical RAM and I would also set the pagefile.sys
    >>> to the recommended 1½ to 3 times Physical RAM. I know you have a bad
    >>> memory slot but, if you needed to could you up the DIMMs on the slots
    >>> you have (2-512MB DIMMS)? Here is another technique that some MVPs
    >>> won't agree with. On my 38GB HD I have C:, D:, E:, F:, G:, (7GB each)
    >>> and H: (3GB) partitions. I put a 2MB pagefile on each C: - F: partition
    >>> and 760 MB on the H: partition which is totally dedicated to
    >>> pagefile.sys with a little extra space. Some may want to know why 7GB
    >>> on the partitions which has to do with future dual boot restrictions.
    >>> The 3GB final partition is large enough to expand the pagefile.sys to 3
    >>> times the Physical RAM.
    >>>
    >>> "brugnospamsia" <brugnospamsia@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
    >>> news:ThhUd.24409$8B3.4978@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
    >>>> Dear group,
    >>>>
    >>>> I was in the process of advising a collegue on how much RAM she needed
    >>>> in
    >>>> her new PC.
    >>>>
    >>>> I have a system with an Athlon 1.33GHz processor and 768 MBytes of
    >>>> 266MHz
    >>>> DDR RAM.
    >>>> (I originally fitted a whole GByte but one of my RAM slots turned out
    >>>> to be
    >>>> faulty.)
    >>>>
    >>>> I have been having performance issues when running Google Desktop
    >>>> Search and
    >>>> AVG antivirus.
    >>>> (delays when clicking on shortcuts etc)
    >>>>
    >>>> I realise now I don't understand the meaning of the "memory meter" in
    >>>> task
    >>>> manager (as well as just about everything else !)
    >>>>
    >>>> It occured to me that my XP Pro might have configured itself to suit
    >>>> outdated expectations of hardware and might be unneccesarily using
    >>>> clunky
    >>>> hard drive instead of speedy RAM.
    >>>>
    >>>> Having now just set the paging file size to zero, I find the
    >>>> performance has
    >>>> improved significantly and the PF Usage meter now never exceeds
    >>>> 512MBytes no
    >>>> matter how hard I push the machine .....
    >>>>
    >>>> Is there a way to make Windows take full advantage of all my RAM or
    >>>> any
    >>>> more I choose to fit ?
    >>>> (RAM disk perhaps) Or can I give my spare 256MBytes away ?
    >>>>
    >>>> thanks...
    >>>>
    >>>> Jeremy
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  13. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:eajPxLVHFHA.3088@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    > It is more useful if the second drive is on a different controller (SATA
    > drives always are) so that you can get asynchronius read/writes.
    >
    luckily I have an unused RAID conroller on my Abit motherboard and a couple
    of 40GByte drives.
    (not sure if I'm going RAID per se though)


    > --
    > Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    > (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    > "brugnospamsia" <brugnospamsia@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
    > news:qvvUd.25047$8B3.18916@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
    >>
    >> "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
    >> news:%231kcZ1OHFHA.2616@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >>> In news:ThhUd.24409$8B3.4978@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk,
    >>> brugnospamsia <brugnospamsia@blueyonder.co.uk> typed:
    >>>
    >>
    >> <SNIP>
    >>>
    >>
    >>>> Having now just set the paging file size to zero,
    >>>
    >>>
    >> <SNIP>
    >>>
    >>>> I find the
    >>>> performance has improved significantly
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I suggest that you're either mistaken or that it's due to some other
    >>> factor. It can not be as a result of turning off the page file.
    >>>
    >>
    >> Well I'm fairly certain that is all I did. - made the same sort of
    >> difference defragging did.
    >>
    >> I wish Windows had built-in optimisation which would simply tell me if
    >> adding an extra GByte of RAM would significantly improve performance ...
    >>
    >> What I have now done for now ... as a result of Googling (something I
    >> should have done before I posted) is allow Windows to manage the paging
    >> file, but with some registry tweaks which hopefully are a bit more robust
    >> than taking away the safety net.
    >>
    >> http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&threadm=OaNDCKIxCHA.2564%40TK2MSFTNGP12&rnum=3&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dwindows%2Bxp%2Bpaging%2Bfile%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26c2coff%3D1%26selm%3DOaNDCKIxCHA.2564%2540TK2MSFTNGP12%26rnum%3D3
    >>
    >> The next thing I'll probably do is put the paging file on a second hard
    >> drive.
    >>
    >> Thanks for all the advice folks.
    >>
    >> I can see I have a lot of reading to do ;-)
    >>
    >> Jeremy
    >>
    >
    >
  14. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    But would you put the pagefile on a raid array?

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "brugnospamsia" <brugnospamsia@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:GBzUd.25077$8B3.440@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
    >
    > "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> wrote in message
    > news:eajPxLVHFHA.3088@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >> It is more useful if the second drive is on a different controller (SATA
    >> drives always are) so that you can get asynchronius read/writes.
    >>
    > luckily I have an unused RAID conroller on my Abit motherboard and a
    > couple of 40GByte drives.
    > (not sure if I'm going RAID per se though)
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >> --
    >> Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    >> (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    >> "brugnospamsia" <brugnospamsia@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
    >> news:qvvUd.25047$8B3.18916@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
    >>>
    >>> "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
    >>> news:%231kcZ1OHFHA.2616@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >>>> In news:ThhUd.24409$8B3.4978@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk,
    >>>> brugnospamsia <brugnospamsia@blueyonder.co.uk> typed:
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> <SNIP>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>>> Having now just set the paging file size to zero,
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> <SNIP>
    >>>>
    >>>>> I find the
    >>>>> performance has improved significantly
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I suggest that you're either mistaken or that it's due to some other
    >>>> factor. It can not be as a result of turning off the page file.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Well I'm fairly certain that is all I did. - made the same sort of
    >>> difference defragging did.
    >>>
    >>> I wish Windows had built-in optimisation which would simply tell me if
    >>> adding an extra GByte of RAM would significantly improve performance ...
    >>>
    >>> What I have now done for now ... as a result of Googling (something I
    >>> should have done before I posted) is allow Windows to manage the paging
    >>> file, but with some registry tweaks which hopefully are a bit more
    >>> robust than taking away the safety net.
    >>>
    >>> http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&threadm=OaNDCKIxCHA.2564%40TK2MSFTNGP12&rnum=3&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dwindows%2Bxp%2Bpaging%2Bfile%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26c2coff%3D1%26selm%3DOaNDCKIxCHA.2564%2540TK2MSFTNGP12%26rnum%3D3
    >>>
    >>> The next thing I'll probably do is put the paging file on a second hard
    >>> drive.
    >>>
    >>> Thanks for all the advice folks.
    >>>
    >>> I can see I have a lot of reading to do ;-)
    >>>
    >>> Jeremy
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  15. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    In news:eajPxLVHFHA.3088@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl,
    Colin Barnhorst <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> typed:

    > It is more useful if the second drive is on a different
    > controller
    > (SATA drives always are) so that you can get asynchronius
    > read/writes.


    Yes, a second controller is best of all, but even if it's a
    second physical drive on the same controller, you can often save
    on drive head movement.

    But this all assumes significant use of the page file. For many
    of us with relatively modern machines, we have enough RAM for the
    page file to be little used. If that's case, it hardly matters
    where the page file is.

    --
    Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
    Please reply to the newsgroup


    >> "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in
    >> message
    >> news:%231kcZ1OHFHA.2616@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >>> In news:ThhUd.24409$8B3.4978@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk,
    >>> brugnospamsia <brugnospamsia@blueyonder.co.uk> typed:
    >>>
    >>
    >> <SNIP>
    >>>
    >>
    >>>> Having now just set the paging file size to zero,
    >>>
    >>>
    >> <SNIP>
    >>>
    >>>> I find the
    >>>> performance has improved significantly
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> I suggest that you're either mistaken or that it's due to
    >>> some other
    >>> factor. It can not be as a result of turning off the page
    >>> file.
    >>>
    >>
    >> Well I'm fairly certain that is all I did. - made the same
    >> sort of
    >> difference defragging did.
    >>
    >> I wish Windows had built-in optimisation which would simply
    >> tell me
    >> if adding an extra GByte of RAM would significantly improve
    >> performance ... What I have now done for now ... as a result
    >> of Googling (something
    >> I should have done before I posted) is allow Windows to manage
    >> the
    >> paging file, but with some registry tweaks which hopefully are
    >> a bit
    >> more robust than taking away the safety net.
    >>
    >> http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&threadm=OaNDCKIxCHA.2564%40TK2MSFTNGP12&rnum=3&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dwindows%2Bxp%2Bpaging%2Bfile%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26c2coff%3D1%26selm%3DOaNDCKIxCHA.2564%2540TK2MSFTNGP12%26rnum%3D3
    >>
    >> The next thing I'll probably do is put the paging file on a
    >> second
    >> hard drive.
    >>
    >> Thanks for all the advice folks.
    >>
    >> I can see I have a lot of reading to do ;-)
    >>
    >> Jeremy
  16. Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

    Yes, a lot of lore about the page file comes from hardware starved Win9x
    days. These days the hardware has far outrun the software and most of what
    I read about in this newsgroup about the page file is just plain urban
    legend.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
    news:umUhHpbHFHA.2784@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
    > In news:eajPxLVHFHA.3088@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl,
    > Colin Barnhorst <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> typed:
    >
    >> It is more useful if the second drive is on a different controller
    >> (SATA drives always are) so that you can get asynchronius read/writes.
    >
    >
    > Yes, a second controller is best of all, but even if it's a second
    > physical drive on the same controller, you can often save on drive head
    > movement.
    >
    > But this all assumes significant use of the page file. For many of us with
    > relatively modern machines, we have enough RAM for the page file to be
    > little used. If that's case, it hardly matters where the page file is.
    >
    > --
    > Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
    > Please reply to the newsgroup
    >
    >
    >
    >>> "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
    >>> news:%231kcZ1OHFHA.2616@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    >>>> In news:ThhUd.24409$8B3.4978@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk,
    >>>> brugnospamsia <brugnospamsia@blueyonder.co.uk> typed:
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> <SNIP>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>>> Having now just set the paging file size to zero,
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> <SNIP>
    >>>>
    >>>>> I find the
    >>>>> performance has improved significantly
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I suggest that you're either mistaken or that it's due to some other
    >>>> factor. It can not be as a result of turning off the page file.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Well I'm fairly certain that is all I did. - made the same sort of
    >>> difference defragging did.
    >>>
    >>> I wish Windows had built-in optimisation which would simply tell me
    >>> if adding an extra GByte of RAM would significantly improve
    >>> performance ... What I have now done for now ... as a result of
    >>> Googling (something
    >>> I should have done before I posted) is allow Windows to manage the
    >>> paging file, but with some registry tweaks which hopefully are a bit
    >>> more robust than taking away the safety net.
    >>>
    >>> http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&threadm=OaNDCKIxCHA.2564%40TK2MSFTNGP12&rnum=3&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dwindows%2Bxp%2Bpaging%2Bfile%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26c2coff%3D1%26selm%3DOaNDCKIxCHA.2564%2540TK2MSFTNGP12%26rnum%3D3
    >>>
    >>> The next thing I'll probably do is put the paging file on a second
    >>> hard drive.
    >>>
    >>> Thanks for all the advice folks.
    >>>
    >>> I can see I have a lot of reading to do ;-)
    >>>
    >>> Jeremy
    >
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

RAM Windows XP