Is It A Good Idea To Adjust The Pagefile?
- Thread starter GoNYIsles
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Boot Safe Mode Windows XP
it depends on what you use your computer for. I use mine for everything. Games, internet, watching dvds, even programing! ANd i dont even use a swap file (most of the time). I have 512 MB to. But there are some programs (mostly games) witch require a swap file. Mine Currently is 128MB and i have had no problems. Then when i dont use the programs that require a swap file sometimes i set it back to 0. So yes it is a good idea.
1. It makes your computer less fragmented
2. Frees up space
3. Makes windows use ram more instead of HD Space.
So try 128 MB and see what happens. If anything gos wrong boot into safemode and change it.
Supporting AMD with your breakable stuff.
1. It makes your computer less fragmented
2. Frees up space
3. Makes windows use ram more instead of HD Space.
So try 128 MB and see what happens. If anything gos wrong boot into safemode and change it.
Supporting AMD with your breakable stuff.
Actually, 512 x 1.5 = 768. 
Which, by the way, is exactly what I would choose as the minimum and maximum numbers when setting a custom paging file with 512MB of RAM. This will stop Windows from adjusting the size of the file, which eliminates paging (hence the name of the file.)
If you have two hard drives, an even better solution would be to place a 2MB paging file on the primary partition that contains the OS files, and the rest of the file (766MB) on the first partition of the second drive. This is for several reasons. 1.) Windows only needs 2MB to boot safely, without errors. 2.) It moves the bulk of the file off to a separate drive, which can slightly increase performance, due to IDE read/limitations. 3.) If you intend to use an imaging program like Norton Ghost or Drive Image 2002 (which is my personal choice) to back up the OS partition, the image will be considerably smaller without the extra 766MB, which effectively cuts an entire CD-R disk off the back up set.
I wouldn't recommend running the OS without a paging file unless you have at least 768MB of RAM ... and even then, expect that certain programs might not run or install correctly if the paging file is missing. With that much RAM, problems wouldn't arise frequently, but it <i>can</i> happen upon occasion, especially when multi-tasking memory intensive applications, such as graphic arts programs, or running older games.
<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=328&s=91c282f2e5207e99b7a652ee13b3512a" target="_new"><font color=green>My System Rigs</font color=green></A>
___________________________________________
<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/" target="_new"><b><font color=purple>BTVILLARIN.com</font color=purple></b></A> - <i><font color=orange>Your Computer Questions Answered</font color=orange></i>
Which, by the way, is exactly what I would choose as the minimum and maximum numbers when setting a custom paging file with 512MB of RAM. This will stop Windows from adjusting the size of the file, which eliminates paging (hence the name of the file.)
If you have two hard drives, an even better solution would be to place a 2MB paging file on the primary partition that contains the OS files, and the rest of the file (766MB) on the first partition of the second drive. This is for several reasons. 1.) Windows only needs 2MB to boot safely, without errors. 2.) It moves the bulk of the file off to a separate drive, which can slightly increase performance, due to IDE read/limitations. 3.) If you intend to use an imaging program like Norton Ghost or Drive Image 2002 (which is my personal choice) to back up the OS partition, the image will be considerably smaller without the extra 766MB, which effectively cuts an entire CD-R disk off the back up set.
I wouldn't recommend running the OS without a paging file unless you have at least 768MB of RAM ... and even then, expect that certain programs might not run or install correctly if the paging file is missing. With that much RAM, problems wouldn't arise frequently, but it <i>can</i> happen upon occasion, especially when multi-tasking memory intensive applications, such as graphic arts programs, or running older games.
<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=328&s=91c282f2e5207e99b7a652ee13b3512a" target="_new"><font color=green>My System Rigs</font color=green></A>
___________________________________________
<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/" target="_new"><b><font color=purple>BTVILLARIN.com</font color=purple></b></A> - <i><font color=orange>Your Computer Questions Answered</font color=orange></i>
FYI ... WinXP automatically taps the physical memory before using the paging file, unlike in Win9x, which required a change to the system.ini file to change the priority.
It does free up space to reduce or eliminate the paging file, but when the file is customized, so that both the minimum or maximum are the same, the fragmentation of the file is nearly nonexistent. It's when the file is being regularly paged, and is laid out all over the disk (due to Windows managment) that fragmentation really becomes an issue.
While you can certainly set a smaller file size, and not necessarily use the 1.5x times the physical memory method pushed by MS, I would tend to think that 128MB might be cutting it a little close. To be sure, you might wish to temporarily add a <A HREF="http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=305610" target="_new">System Monitor Counter</A> for the paging file, and keep track of it for a while, so you can discover just how large the file need actually be, even in demanding situations. This would be better than just arbitrarily choosing a number, or running the system without the file when you have less than 768MB of RAM (which is the minimum amount recommended by MS for a system before eliminating the file completely.)
Toey
<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=328&s=91c282f2e5207e99b7a652ee13b3512a" target="_new"><font color=green>My System Rigs</font color=green></A>
___________________________________________
<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/" target="_new"><b><font color=purple>BTVILLARIN.com</font color=purple></b></A> - <i><font color=orange>Your Computer Questions Answered</font color=orange></i>
It does free up space to reduce or eliminate the paging file, but when the file is customized, so that both the minimum or maximum are the same, the fragmentation of the file is nearly nonexistent. It's when the file is being regularly paged, and is laid out all over the disk (due to Windows managment) that fragmentation really becomes an issue.
While you can certainly set a smaller file size, and not necessarily use the 1.5x times the physical memory method pushed by MS, I would tend to think that 128MB might be cutting it a little close. To be sure, you might wish to temporarily add a <A HREF="http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=305610" target="_new">System Monitor Counter</A> for the paging file, and keep track of it for a while, so you can discover just how large the file need actually be, even in demanding situations. This would be better than just arbitrarily choosing a number, or running the system without the file when you have less than 768MB of RAM (which is the minimum amount recommended by MS for a system before eliminating the file completely.)
Toey
<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/index.php?act=ST&f=41&t=328&s=91c282f2e5207e99b7a652ee13b3512a" target="_new"><font color=green>My System Rigs</font color=green></A>
___________________________________________
<A HREF="http://forums.btvillarin.com/" target="_new"><b><font color=purple>BTVILLARIN.com</font color=purple></b></A> - <i><font color=orange>Your Computer Questions Answered</font color=orange></i>
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
News Firefox user loses 7,470 opened tabs saved over two years after they can’t restore browsing session- Started by Admin
- Replies: 58
-
News Apple debuts M4 processor in new iPad Pros with 38 TOPS on neural engine
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 80
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram