re: windows 2000 still swaps with 1 gig ram
Tuesday, February 19, 2002 at 9:16 am
Windows 2000 Annoyances Discussion Forum
Posted by Michael
(2800 messages posted)
So you SELL PC's for a living! That explains why you're missing the point...
On Sunday, February 17, 2002 at 10:15 pm, Me wrote:
>Ok for starters. 256mb and 512mb. Well I have sold enough computer`s to customers
>to know that there is a difference. Not on all aplications granted. The avarage
>joe blow user wont notice the difference but the heavy power users do notice the
>difference. I have used 256 and 512 on the exact same machine and I can notice the
>difference in even win98. Now how you can say the there is no difference between
>using a page file and memory is I dont know. Memory has a transfer rate in a real
>world enviroment of about 400-700 megs a second and a hard drive has about 20-50megs
>a second sustained. So explain how using a hard drive for tempory storage is faster
>than ram. Because I would really like to know how to make a hard drive transfer
at
>600meg a second. Now as for disabling virtual memory it is right in front of you.
>The window bar says "virtual memory settings" and in the options it has your drives
>you can use and it has for the file settings A custom size B system managed size
>and C NO PAGING FILE. And I dont know how disabling the paging file can cause you
>to lose data in shutdows. In an abnormal shutdown it is lost anyway and to my knowledge
>the paging file is purged at startup anyway. So what is the difference between having
>the data totaly lost and having it on the drive in a totaly useless form.
>
>
>On Sunday, February 17, 2002 at 1:47 pm, Lazerus wrote:
>
>We at Microsoft, don't recommend anything above 256 for gaming, if your using a
>server,
>or doing some serious video editing, then you'd need to go up higher than that,
>other
>than that, there is no real performance increase, and nothing you'd see to the naked
>eye. I really don't see how he was out of line? If you'd done your home work ME,
>then you'd know that the option you are describing is disabling the write caching,
>and that isn't supported on all drives. You also fail to mention that disabling
>the write cache, or 'page file' as you choose to call it, increases the likelihood
>of data loss on any shutdown, accidental, or intentional.
>
>Next time do your homework before suggesting something dangerous like that.
>
>Good Day
>
>Lazerus
>
>
>
>
>On Sunday, February 17, 2002 at 7:53 am, Michael wrote:
>
>Actually, Curt didn't make any suggestions as to what the machine is used for, he
>just stated the case for the average user, so I don't know why you think Curt is
>"...out of line...".
>
>Also, I agree with Curt about the RAM. I do a lot of programming with my PC, and
>compiling is very resource intensive, and I know that it is pretty pointless to
>put
>more than 256MB RAM in the machine - it is just a waste of money to start piling
>up the RAM thinking it will make it go faster.
>
>It is also not a sensible thing to disable virtual memory. Some types of program
>rely on it being there, such as CAD programs, and you have made the assumption that
>the poster isn't using these programs. It seems like you are doing what you accused
>Curt of doing and making assumptions...
>
>There is never any good reason to disable virtual memory, and it will almost always
>affect performance. Adding huge amounts of RAM and disabling virtual memory do not
>increase performance - one makes an unnecessary hole in your bank balance, and the
>other can potentially degrade performance.
>
>
>On Saturday, February 16, 2002 at 11:48 pm, Me wrote:
>First off Ed didnt say what he was using that machine for Curt R so I think you
>are
>out of line to comment on what he does and doesnt need for ram. But anyway 256mb
>is not enough ram for the heavy gamer anymore. 6 months ago that was true but not
>no. For basic home computing 256mb is enough. But for a medium to heavy gamer 512mb
>is what you will need. Now for memory in win2k you can disable the page file (Swap
>memory). I will tell exactly how for the benefit of anyone else reading this message.
>Just go into system, Advanced, performance and then virtual memory settings. In
>there
>is a setting to disable the paging file. Just change the setting to no paging file
>and your set. At least that is how it works for me. Hope this helps
>
>
>On Saturday, February 16, 2002 at 9:40 pm, Curt R wrote:
>First off, unless you're running a very heavily used server or graphically intense
>
>program, you'll never need more than 256 MB's of RAM. With 1 GB in a PC that's
>used
>for basic home use and gaming you'll have in excess of 700 MB's of RAM sitting unused
>
>all the time. Secondly, decreasing the pagefile size won't force 2000 to use the
>
>RAM first. As far as I know there's no way to force 2000 to use up all available
>
>RAM before going to a swap file. Just leave your swapfile to the default settings
>
>and don't worry about it.
>
>
>On Saturday, February 16, 2002 at 8:06 pm, Ed wrote:
>I have 1 gig ram, and windows 2000 still swaps. I set the swap to the smallest
>
>it
>will allow, and it says "increasing swap file size." Does anyone have any idea
>
>how
>this can be prevented? Are there any registry settings where I can tell win2k to
>
>NOT swap at all?
>
>Thanks
>
>
>
|
All messages in this thread [show all]
 |  | | | | |  | re: windows 2000 still swaps with 1 gig ram (Michael: Tue, Feb 19, 2002, 9:16 am) |
| |
| |
| |
Return to the Windows 2000 Discussion Forum
|
|
