Swap file

[Guest]

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

If I have a computer that has 1 gig of ram and I only have one application
open at a time, do I really need to have file swap enabled?

I know that "rule of thumb" of 1.5 the ram for swap file but it gets really
ridiculous when you are running a computer with 1 gig or more of ram. I have
another computer with 384 MB of ram and the swap set to 576 MB. That totals
960 MB which has not been a problem for everything I do (AutoCAD 2005,
Office 2003, games, Adobe Photoshop CS, etc. -NOT all opened at the same
time). With my new computer the total memory would be 2.5 gigs......a little
over kill I'd say for running the same apps.

I would think there would be a performance/speed increase if playing a game
like Call of Duty, which only requires 128 MB of ram and recommended 256 MB.
.....which all would be off the ram instead of some on ram and some on swap.

--
~Jeff~
[Microsoft Windows XP Home]

 

[Guest]

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

sorry....meant to say 2.5 times the ram in my post

--
~Jeff~
[Microsoft Windows XP Pro,Office 2000]
"~Jeff~" <~Jeff~@~nomail~.com> wrote in message
news:OJwf7FV3EHA.2016@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> If I have a computer that has 1 gig of ram and I only have one application
> open at a time, do I really need to have file swap enabled?
>
> I know that "rule of thumb" of 1.5 the ram for swap file but it gets
really
> ridiculous when you are running a computer with 1 gig or more of ram. I
have
> another computer with 384 MB of ram and the swap set to 576 MB. That
totals
> 960 MB which has not been a problem for everything I do (AutoCAD 2005,
> Office 2003, games, Adobe Photoshop CS, etc. -NOT all opened at the same
> time). With my new computer the total memory would be 2.5 gigs......a
little
> over kill I'd say for running the same apps.
>
> I would think there would be a performance/speed increase if playing a
game
> like Call of Duty, which only requires 128 MB of ram and recommended 256
MB.
> ....which all would be off the ram instead of some on ram and some on
swap.
>
> --
> ~Jeff~
> [Microsoft Windows XP Home]
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 13:16:19 -0500, ~Jeff~ wrote:

> If I have a computer that has 1 gig of ram and I only have one application
> open at a time, do I really need to have file swap enabled?
>
> I know that "rule of thumb" of 1.5 the ram for swap file but it gets really
> ridiculous when you are running a computer with 1 gig or more of ram. I have
> another computer with 384 MB of ram and the swap set to 576 MB. That totals
> 960 MB which has not been a problem for everything I do (AutoCAD 2005,
> Office 2003, games, Adobe Photoshop CS, etc. -NOT all opened at the same
> time). With my new computer the total memory would be 2.5 gigs......a little
> over kill I'd say for running the same apps.
>
> I would think there would be a performance/speed increase if playing a game
> like Call of Duty, which only requires 128 MB of ram and recommended 256 MB.
> ....which all would be off the ram instead of some on ram and some on swap.

A good article about virtual memory (includes discussion about the
pagefile) can be found here: http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm
--
Sharon F
MS-MVP ~ Windows Shell/User

 

[Guest]

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

I believe modern operating system/applications will try to run first off RAM
and not the swap file.
I've also heard that some applications will not even run if
the swap file is not enabled.
If I'm mistaken, hopefully someone better informed
will add their 2 cents

"~Jeff~" <~Jeff~@~nomail~.com> wrote in message
news:OJwf7FV3EHA.2016@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl...
> If I have a computer that has 1 gig of ram and I only have one application
> open at a time, do I really need to have file swap enabled?
>
> I know that "rule of thumb" of 1.5 the ram for swap file but it gets
> really
> ridiculous when you are running a computer with 1 gig or more of ram. I
> have
> another computer with 384 MB of ram and the swap set to 576 MB. That
> totals
> 960 MB which has not been a problem for everything I do (AutoCAD 2005,
> Office 2003, games, Adobe Photoshop CS, etc. -NOT all opened at the same
> time). With my new computer the total memory would be 2.5 gigs......a
> little
> over kill I'd say for running the same apps.
>
> I would think there would be a performance/speed increase if playing a
> game
> like Call of Duty, which only requires 128 MB of ram and recommended 256
> MB.
> ....which all would be off the ram instead of some on ram and some on
> swap.
>
> --
> ~Jeff~
> [Microsoft Windows XP Home]
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

I've been succesfully running my PC for at least 1 year without a swap
file. ("No paging file" under Windows XP with 1 gig of physical RAM) And
I must say that I find programs ALOT more responsive then with a swap
file. The only program that might complain is Photoshop... but just
press "OK" on startup and the program runs fine. It's only recently that
i've encountered games (Half-Life 2) that might want more then 1 gig
(more like 850 meg - if I look at the Peak under Task Manager) but the
game still runs without a hitch.

I say do it. You won't regret it.

~Jeff~ wrote:
> If I have a computer that has 1 gig of ram and I only have one application
> open at a time, do I really need to have file swap enabled?
>
> I know that "rule of thumb" of 1.5 the ram for swap file but it gets really
> ridiculous when you are running a computer with 1 gig or more of ram. I have
> another computer with 384 MB of ram and the swap set to 576 MB. That totals
> 960 MB which has not been a problem for everything I do (AutoCAD 2005,
> Office 2003, games, Adobe Photoshop CS, etc. -NOT all opened at the same
> time). With my new computer the total memory would be 2.5 gigs......a little
> over kill I'd say for running the same apps.
>
> I would think there would be a performance/speed increase if playing a game
> like Call of Duty, which only requires 128 MB of ram and recommended 256 MB.
> ....which all would be off the ram instead of some on ram and some on swap.
>