Page file setting?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BOB
  • Start date Start date
B

BOB

Home computer doing mostly web browsing with some word processing, quicken
and some photo editing. What is the best setting for stability and
performance?

TIA
B
 
BOB said:
Home computer doing mostly web browsing with some word processing, quicken
and some photo editing. What is the best setting for stability and
performance?
Click to expand...
B,

Photo editing? Photoshop?
MH
 
Sun said:
Home computer doing mostly web browsing with some word processing, quicken
and some photo editing. What is the best setting for stability and
performance?
Click to expand...

The best setting is to let Windows handle it.
 
The book "Windows XP MVP" by John Barnett and others states on page 586, and
I quote: 'Windows XP can generally manage its own virtual memory settings.
However, you can manually specify a minimum and maximum size for the page
file. The commonly recommended amount is 1.5 times the amount of physical
RAM that is installed on the computer.' endquote

My own preference is to agree with the book.
 
Jerry

"The commonly recommended amount is 1.5 times the amount of physical
RAM that is installed on the computer.' "

This statement does not reflect current thinking!
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

--

Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England

Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
Jerry said:
The book "Windows XP MVP" by John Barnett and others states on page
586, and I quote: 'Windows XP can generally manage its own virtual
memory settings. However, you can manually specify a minimum and
maximum size for the page file. The commonly recommended amount is
1.5 times the amount of physical RAM that is installed on the
computer.' endquote
My own preference is to agree with the book.
Click to expand...


Commonly recommended, but nevertheless wrong.

This "commonly recommended" advice gets gets it exactly backward. The more
ram you have, the *less* page file you need. If if someone has 64MB of RAM
(the official minimum for Windows XP), this recommendation says he should
have 96MB of page file, but if his page file is that small, the computer
will hardly be able to run any applications at all.

And if he has 2GB of RAM (more than almost anybody needs)and has 3GB of page
file, he has way more page file than almost anyone needs, and is just
wasting disk space.
 
System managed, for all but a very few circumstances.

--


Regards,

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP Windows Shell/User

Quote from George Ankner:
If you knew as much as you think you know,
You would realize that you don't know what you thought you knew!
 
Jerry said:
The book "Windows XP MVP" by John Barnett and others states on page 586, and
I quote: 'Windows XP can generally manage its own virtual memory settings.
However, you can manually specify a minimum and maximum size for the page
file. The commonly recommended amount is 1.5 times the amount of physical
RAM that is installed on the computer.' endquote
Click to expand...

That statement only proves that the authors have absolutely zero
knowledge about virtual memory and how it works in Windows XP. I
would be extremely cautious about using any advice that originates
from such a source.

Any statement that relates Windows virtual memory settings to a
multiple of the amount of RAM is totally, completely, absolutely, and
utterly false.

Windows XP uses the virtual memory paging file to compensate for the
*lack* of sufficient RAM to satisfy the total memory requirements of
the computer.

More RAM means less virtual memory paging file and less RAM means more
virtual memory paging file. Virtual memory paging file requirements
are *inversely* related to the amount of physical RAM in the computer.

Hope this clarifies the situation.

Good luck

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."
 
Ron Martell said:
That statement only proves that the authors have absolutely zero
knowledge about virtual memory and how it works in Windows XP. I
would be extremely cautious about using any advice that originates
from such a source.

Any statement that relates Windows virtual memory settings to a
multiple of the amount of RAM is totally, completely, absolutely, and
utterly false.

Windows XP uses the virtual memory paging file to compensate for the
*lack* of sufficient RAM to satisfy the total memory requirements of
the computer.

More RAM means less virtual memory paging file and less RAM means more
virtual memory paging file. Virtual memory paging file requirements
are *inversely* related to the amount of physical RAM in the computer.
Click to expand...
The source of the quote from the above book can be found in the following
Microsoft KB article.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555223/en-us

MH
 
Ron

Don't forget that despite the fact we all believe that using
a multiple is wrong the Microsoft Knowledge Base Article
asserting this advice has not been withdrawn.

How to configure paging files for optimization and recovery in Windows XP
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314482/en-us

No doubt John's book was written before the body of opinion
against the recommendation became so well publicised.

--

Regards.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England

Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
Ron

Correction!

John's book was written after it had become common knowledge
that the multiplier was contentious.

An extract from John's website "In 2005 I authored, along with
Curt Simmons, Alan Simpson and David Dalan, a new addition to
the Windows XP library entitled "Windows XP MVP" The book will
be on sale in September (USA) and October (UK). "

--

Regards.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England

Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
Gerry said:
Ron

Correction!

John's book was written after it had become common knowledge
that the multiplier was contentious.

An extract from John's website "In 2005 I authored, along with
Curt Simmons, Alan Simpson and David Dalan, a new addition to
the Windows XP library entitled "Windows XP MVP" The book will
be on sale in September (USA) and October (UK). "
Click to expand...


It's also worth pointing out that the same erroneous multipler advice has
been promulgated since at least Windows 98 days, and probably before. Many
of us have been pointing out that it's wrong for a very long time..
 
The source of the quote from the above book can be found in the following
Microsoft KB article.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555223/en-us

MH
Click to expand...

The Microsoft Knowledge Base is not infallible. The article you
referenced is a case in point.

I stand by my statements regarding virtual memory.

Ron Martell Duncan B.C. Canada
--
Microsoft MVP (1997 - 2006)
On-Line Help Computer Service
http://onlinehelp.bc.ca

"Anyone who thinks that they are too small to make a difference
has never been in bed with a mosquito."
 
Mon, 13 Feb 2006 20:44:26 -0800 from Ron Martell
The Microsoft Knowledge Base is not infallible.
Click to expand...

Would it do any good for any MVPs to point the error out to Microsoft
and ask for the page to be changed?
 
Stan

The Article has a "COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS CONTENT DISCLAIMER"!

These recommendations are a matter of opinion and not fact. So technically
they are not in error!


--

Regards.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England

Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
Tue, 14 Feb 2006 15:15:35 -0000 from Gerry Cornell
The Article has a "COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS CONTENT DISCLAIMER"!

These recommendations are a matter of opinion and not fact. So technically
they are not in error!
Click to expand...

Is there no procedure to correct an erroneous community opinion? That
would be worse even than Wikipedia.

I know that nothing should surprise me at Microsoft, but I'd think
they'd want to correct an error that's published under their logo,
disclaimer or no disclaimer.
 
Back
Top