RAM optimisation in XP

i was wonderring if anyone could explain if the RAM/page file usage is optimally configured as default in XP pro to make use of physical RAM as much as possible before paging, or whether tweaks are needed to force it into conservative swap file usage as in old win98 days.

I have a system with 1gig RAM installed. I noticed that on startup it says in Task manager that physical RAM available = 801486 [out of total 1048048] with system cache 304936. My Page File usage [in the graph] is 158MB. I have turned off alot of services already as per info elsewhere.

To test the changes i opened up loads of IE windows/word/powerpoint/excel/WMP etc.
The total avaliable RAM decreased to 720000 [as i would expect with a greater load] but the PF usage increased to 284MB.
Does this mean that the system is using this much page file, or that it has reserved more [but isnt using it]??
I am also intrigued that physical RAM usage increased by around 80MB but the PF usage increased by 126MB - why the doscrepancy?

i ask on the hand hand so that i can play around with settings if needs be in the run-up to an imminent reinstall but more importantly to increase my knowledge base in general in these matters. I would be grateful for help in this regard.
I have followed the raging swap file threads as best i can so look forward to knowing about this too
5 answers Last reply
More about optimisation
  1. anybody? nobody?
  2. did you see <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/software/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=36359#36359" target="_new">this post?</A>

    <pre> \|/
    jlanka (. .)
  3. thnaks- that was very useful.

    as a follow-up, if i dont do anything other than make the page file a fixed size, if there any way i can force-move it to the front of the OS partition? Norton Speedisk does this but i dont have htis for XP and using diskeeper it has defragged the page file but stuck it at the end of the hdd.
  4. IMHO, having it on a seperate drive is more important

    <pre> \|/
    jlanka (. .)
  5. yeah that's fine but as i dont have a separate drive it doesnt help me plan with what i do have.
Ask a new question

Read More

RAM Windows XP