XP Size Questions

[marx404]

I am putting together a new computer. I will be using XP Pro (32 bit of
course). The new PC will have a 500G SATA drive and 4G DDR Ram. I plan on
partitioning the HD in two.

How big much HD space is visible to XP Pro?

How much RAM can XP physically see and use?

Lastly, I always use the 1.5X rule for my page file but I don't think I will
need one that big, what's a decent size PF for this much RAM?

 

[Ron Badour]

I am not sure on the hard drive size--try googling for the answer if someone
doesn't provide it.

4 GB ram.

Let Windows handle the page file.

--
Regards

Ron Badour
MS MVP
Windows Desktop Experience

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

I am putting together a new computer. I will be using XP Pro (32 bit of
course). The new PC will have a 500G SATA drive and 4G DDR Ram. I plan on
partitioning the HD in two.

Why do you want two partitions? Such a plan is good for some people,
but not for everyone. Before you decide on that, I recommend that you
read this article I recently wrote on partitioning: "Understanding
Disk Partitioning" at
http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=326

How big much HD space is visible to XP Pro?

All of it, but your drive will not actually be 500GB. All hard drive
manufacturers define 1GB as 1,000,000,000 bytes, while the rest of the
computer world, including Windows, defines it as 2 to the 30th power
(1,073,741,824) bytes. So a 500 billion byte drive is actually a
little under 466GB. Some people point out that the official
international standard defines the "G" of GB as one billion, not
1,073,741,824. Correct though they are, using the binary value of GB
is so well established in the computer world that I consider using the
decimal value of a billion to be deceptive marketing.

How much RAM can XP physically see and use?

That depends. All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just
Vista/XP) have a 4GB address space. That's the theoretical upper limit
beyond which you can not go.

But you can't use the entire 4GB of address space. Even though you
have a 4GB address space, you can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM.
That's because some of that space is used by hardware and is not
available to the operating system and applications. The amount you can
use varies, depending on what hardware you have installed, but can
range from as little as 2GB to as much as 3.5GB. It's usually around
3.1GB.

Note that the hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual
RAM itself. The rest of the RAM goes unused because there is no
address space to map it to.

And by the way, why do you want that much RAM? How much you will use
depends on what apps you run, but that much is more than most people
can effectively use.

Lastly, I always use the 1.5X rule for my page file but I don't think I will
need one that big, what's a decent size PF for this much RAM?

That "rule," as you call it, is just advice that some people give, but
it's very poor advice, as far as I'm concerned. If someone has 64MB of
RAM (the official minimum for Windows XP), he should have 96MB of page
file? If your page file is that small, the computer will hardly be
able to run any applications at all.

And if you have 4GB of RAM (more than almost anybody needs), you
should have 6GB of page file? That's almost certainly far more than is
needed, and is just a waste of disk space.

I would just let Windows manage the page file size.

 

[Twayne]

I am putting together a new computer. I will be using XP Pro (32 bit
of course). The new PC will have a 500G SATA drive and 4G DDR Ram. I
plan on partitioning the HD in two.

Partitioning is good most of the time. Whether you do it to make
backups easier to do (1 for the OS, the other for data) or whatever,
give it some thought first so you get the best situation you can. If
you dont' have valid reasons for it you might as well stick with 1
partition; it won't gain you anything but more things to monitor for
health.

How big much HD space is visible to XP Pro?

That depends on what you actually mean. XP can use as much RAM as you
give it, IFF the programs it runs require that much room. OTOH, for XP
Pro itself, it depends on what you install with it and what you do with
it. 10 Gig is plenty for some, many find 25 to 50 Gig much better and
some even allow 80 Gig for the OS. The idea is to make sure you have
lots of room to grow into w/r to hard drive space.
XP can "see" as much HD space as you have.

How much RAM can XP physically see and use?

As I understand it:
Usually between 3.1 and 3.6 Gig, depending. A 32 bit bus can address 4
Gig of addresses. But some addresses have to be used for other parts of
the system, so however many addresses get used for other parts of the
system are not going to be able to be addressed as RAM because it's used
for something else, like a video card, DMA, bus controls, etc. etc.. So
if half a Gig of address space were needed for "other" things in the
system, that only leave 3.5 Gig of addresses to use to address RAM with.
So you end up with 3.5 Gig of RAM, or whatever the real world numbr
might work out to be; I used 500 because it made the math easy.
So, going from 3 Gig to 4 Gig of RAM may or may not actually gain the
user anything. The real world limit is a little over 3 Gig when 4 Gig
is installed.

Lastly, I always use the 1.5X rule for my page file but I don't think
I will need one that big, what's a decent size PF for this much RAM?

The 1.5x is a myth and is only applicable at certain specific
situations. In your case, with 4 Gig of RAM installed, your page file
should be never or only very seldom used, depending on how strenuous the
apps you run are on RAM. So unless you are running some very
specialized applications that need tons of RAM, like video editing and
rendering with a profession app, not MovieMaker, the pagefile will sit
there empty (meaning a hundred/two hundred meg size) nearly 24/7.
So ... set the pagefile to System Managed Size and forget it. Most
of the time it'll probably be around a couple hundred meg and wont'
change substantially up or down. Thus, the pagefile at System Managed
Setting will occupy very little of your drive space.
There are also a gazillion or two page file monitors available around
on the web should you wish to monitor your pagefile to see if it gets
used much or not. But unless you're a super-user, which from your
questions you are not, it's most lilkely going to be a waste of time.
OTOH it's educational though, so ... <g>.

HTH,

Twayne`

 

[Twayne]

Why do you want two partitions? Such a plan is good for some people,
but not for everyone. Before you decide on that, I recommend that you
read this article I recently wrote on partitioning: "Understanding
Disk Partitioning" at
http://www.computorcompanion.com/LPMArticle.asp?ID=326

Stop spamming! If you're going to send people to a resource, at least
use something that's not straight out of your ego and lousy personal
opinions and guesses as you've so often done. Are you afraid to also
list other resources as verivication/clarification efforts or something?
I've NO idea whether your article is any good or not because I wouldn't
waste my time on your writings and plagairizations and boilerplates.

That said, here are a few good resources. Notice that my own page is
not among them although I think it's better because it organizes data
more logically:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_file#Addressing_Limits_on_32_bit_Hardware
http://www.theeldergeek.com/paging_file.htm
http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-1056269.html

....



That depends. All 32-bit client versions of Windows (not just
Vista/XP) have a 4GB address space. That's the theoretical upper limit
beyond which you can not go.

But you can't use the entire 4GB of address space.

You can USE it, and you DO use it; just not for RAM access.

Even though you

have a 4GB address space, you can only use *around* 3.1GB of RAM.

3.1 Gig of Address Space.

That's because some of that space is used by hardware and is not
available to the operating system and applications. The amount you can
use varies, depending on what hardware you have installed, but can
range from as little as 2GB to as much as 3.5GB. It's usually around
3.1GB.

Where does the 2 Gig come from? Cite please?

Note that the hardware is using the address *space*, not the actual
RAM itself. The rest of the RAM goes unused because there is no
address space to map it to.

And by the way, why do you want that much RAM? How much you will use
depends on what apps you run, but that much is more than most people
can effectively use.

Yeah, be sure to explain how he might only be able to make use of 2 Gig
of RAM with 2 Gig of address space used up as you reference above.

 

[marx404]

Thanks to everyone for their answers. I'm not sure about the "super-user"
thing, but as this new machine is being built for longevity and will be
loaded with XP for now and Windows7 (I dislike Vista) much later on and the
hardware I am using is destined for that use but being used for XP now, I
kinda needed a refresher on size availabilities on the current OS (XP Pro
32).

Years ago when I took my A+ and MCSE they taught us the 1.5 rule for page
files, guess it is now obsolete. I am somewhat of a power user as I do
maintain my PCs frequently and monitor everything that goes on ergo why I
like a static PF also.

 

[Jim Cladingboel]

Pretty sure XP/sp3 will see the whole drive. I always have 2 partitions.
I use the second to save important info. Quicken backups, downloaded
programs, program updates, drivers for my hardware. If C: gets trashed, I
have a way to restore drivers, etc.


KenW

My XP Home has no problem with my external 500 GB HDD and
writes to it at about 300 mbps, about 37 MBps via USB2.
Re partitions. You should definitely have at least one smallish
partition for Drive C, around 15/20 GB should be ample. This
allows you to back up your system using a program such as
DriveImageXML (freeware) and never have to worry about
reinstalling XP. HTH,

Jim.

 

[marx404]

Thanks, I always do partition my drive in at least two , one for the OS, one
for storage. I use an external USB HD for back ups.

 

[Anna]

I am putting together a new computer. I will be using XP Pro (32 bit of
course). The new PC will have a 500G SATA drive and 4G DDR Ram. I plan on
partitioning the HD in two.

How big much HD space is visible to XP Pro?

How much RAM can XP physically see and use?

Lastly, I always use the 1.5X rule for my page file but I don't think I
will need one that big, what's a decent size PF for this much RAM?

Thanks to everyone for their answers. I'm not sure about the "super-user"
thing, but as this new machine is being built for longevity and will be
loaded with XP for now and Windows7 (I dislike Vista) much later on and
the hardware I am using is destined for that use but being used for XP
now, I kinda needed a refresher on size availabilities on the current OS
(XP Pro 32).

Years ago when I took my A+ and MCSE they taught us the 1.5 rule for page
files, guess it is now obsolete. I am somewhat of a power user as I do
maintain my PCs frequently and monitor everything that goes on ergo why I
like a static PF also.

marx...
I assume from your initial post that you will be building your desktop PC.
Since you're already rec'd suggestions re multi-partitioning and various
other isssues you raised I won't address those aspects. However, let me
suggest that you consider the following hardware configuration that you
might find advantageous in your situation.

Assuming your desktop case will have at least one available (vacant) 5 1/4"
bay (two such would be even better), consider installing a removable HDD to
house another HDD in addition to your internal HDD.

I don't know how familiar you are with these devices so let me give you a
bit of info on them. Basically they're two-piece affairs - the "mobile rack"
itself and the inner tray or caddy (in which the hard drive resides) that
slides into the rack. They come in all-aluminum models or a combination of
aluminum-plastic, or all-plastic, ranging in price from about $15 to $50.
Mobile racks come in various versions, depending upon whether the hard drive
to be housed is an IDE/ATA, SATA, or SCSI device. A Google search for
"removable hard drive mobile racks" will result in a wealth of information
on these products and their vendors.

The installation of these devices is simplicity itself - no more difficult
than installing an optical drive. After the rack is installed you just plop
the hard drive into the removable tray (caddy), make two simple connections
(power & data cable), and slide the tray into the mobile rack. Note that the
removable hard drive mobile racks we are discussing are designed to be
installed in desktop computers and not laptop or notebook computers. The
size, weight, and design considerations of laptops/notebooks (generally) do
not allow for this hardware configuration.

These mobile racks are nearly always equipped with a ON-OFF keylock, so a
simple turn of the key, in effect, activates/deactivates the HDD. For added
security you can push or pull the removable tray in or out using the tray's
handle and thus electrically/physically connect or disconnect the HDD from
the system. No more difficult than opening or closing a small desk drawer.

As one example of a mobile rack configuration...for the past three years or
so we've been primarily using the Athena Power MR-125 mobile rack designed
for a SATA HDD. See
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817123302. It's an
all-plastic model but has proven very reliable for us. (It also comes in an
all-aluminum version at slightly higher cost). It has a bottom-mounted 80mm
fan that's virtually inaudible. What we particularly like about it (aside
from its reliability) is that rather than use an ON-OFF keylock, a simple
push-to-release lever turns the device on or off, thus it can be easily
physically connected or /disconnected from the system. It's a particularly
important consideration for us since we're continually changing HDDs and
trying to find the key can be an annoyance. But most of these devices do
come with the keylock mechanism. There are many other mobile racks on the
market to house SATA HDDs and you can peruse newegg's offerings as a sample
of what's available.

Do you see the enormous advantage of this type of hardware configuration as
it applies to your particular objective? In your particular situation
(assuming you would be working with a single removable HDD rather than two
removable HDDs) you would install one of your SATA HDDs internally and using
another SATA HDD, install that latter drive in the removable tray of the
mobile rack. The latter would be connected to your motherboard's first
(SATA0 or SATA1) connector, while the internally-connected SATA HDD would be
connected to the second (SATA1 or SATA2) connector. (Naturally I'm assuming
this is a non-RAID configuration). So when the removable HDD is "on", the
system will boot to that drive and the internally-connected HDD would serve
as a secondary HDD. When the removable HDD is "off", the system would boot
to the internally-connected SATA HDD.

Thus with this hardware configuration you could, for example, install the XP
OS on the removable HDD and install the Windows 7 OS on your internal HDD.
Do you see the enormous advantage of this hardware arrangement? Each OS is
effectively isolated from each other except when the user desires otherwise.
There's no need to fiddle with modifications of the BIOS settings nor
setting up a multi-boot type of program to affect the boot process. It's an
ideal system for computing with multiple operating systems or meeting one's
special interests.

For even additional flexibility working with your HDDs, installing *two*
removable HDDs would be even better. Obviously you would need *two* vacant 5
1/4" bays on your desktop case to achieve this configuration. Again, with
this configuration, each drive is effectively isolated from each other, but
if for any reason you want both drives connected during bootup, you can
easily achieve that configuration as well.

Keep in mind that another significant advantage of using a removable HDD is
that now you can have an *unlimited* number of HDDs at your disposal by
simply using additional removable trays in the mobile rack to house
additional drives. So that another important advantage of using this
hardware configuration is that you'll be able to use one or more other
removable HDDs as one or more backups drive for your day-to-day working
HDDs.

We've worked with these removable hard drive affairs for about a dozen years
now and have helped hundreds of users install & operate this kind of system.
Virtually ever user we're aware of has found this hardware arrangement a
most desirable configuration in a desktop PC environment. We've encountered
no negative performance issues using these devices in comparison with
internally-installed HDDs and find the flexibility and peace of mind you
gain from this configuration an enormous advantage.

So do give it some thought if it is practical in your situation.
Anna

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Pretty sure XP/sp3 will see the whole drive.

Yes, it will.

I always have 2 partitions.
I use the second to save important info. Quicken backups, downloaded
programs, program updates, drivers for my hardware. If C: gets trashed, I
have a way to restore drivers, etc.

My personal view is that although there are sometimes good reasons for
having two partitions, that's not a good reason. What you say suggests
that you don't do regular backups of that important info. Your
solution to the "if C: gets trashed" problem should be to have an
external backup of it. Your way, you are vulnerable to loss of the
entire drive to risks like a hard drive crash, user error, nearby
lightning strike, virus attack, even theft of the computer. If one of
those occurs, you lose not only C:, but also your important info.

To me the main good reason for having two partitions is that your
backup scheme is to backup data only (or anything you call "important
info"), rather than imaging or cloning everything. If that's what you
do, backup is facilitated by having everything you need to backup in a
separate partition.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Years ago when I took my A+ and MCSE they taught us the 1.5 rule for page
files, guess it is now obsolete.

It was *never* a good rule, not in any version of Windows.

 

[Unknown]

On the contrary. It was a very good rule before huge memory modules were
made.
When you could only get a small amount of memory in a computer a good
rule was to make page files size 1.5 times memory size. Don't you remember?

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

On the contrary. It was a very good rule before huge memory modules were
made.
When you could only get a small amount of memory in a computer a good
rule was to make page files size 1.5 times memory size. Don't you remember?

Yes, I remember that the "rule" was often quoted. And yes I also
remember that it was always poor practice.

The page file (or swap file) substitutes for RAM when you don't have
enough RAM to run the apps that you are running. So in general, for
any given set of applications, the more RAM you have, the *less* page
file you need.

 

[Richard]

I am putting together a new computer. I will be using XP Pro (32 bit of
course). The new PC will have a 500G SATA drive and 4G DDR Ram. I plan on
partitioning the HD in two.

Hi, A good starting point would be to set your system partition at 50GB, and
a second partition at either 50GB or 100GB, (if you need that much space
starting out,) and leave the rest unallocated. Windows can handle additional
expansion if there is unallocated space and there would be no need for 3rd
party partitioning utilities. Should the need arise to reformat and
reinstall Windows, only the system partition would need a clean sweep.
If/when you upgrade to Windows 7, there would be no need to disturb the
other partitions either. Smaller partitions will "chkdsk" and "defrag"
quicker. A partition that is primarly used for storage would not need to be
defragged, except maybe after an annual spring cleaning of old files no
longer needed. (It does not matter if files that are not accessed have
fragmentation.) There are a number of other pros and cons, as you have seen
from other replies. I personally do not think that one giant partition is a
good idea.

How big much HD space is visible to XP Pro?

If I recall correctly, with plain XP with no Service Packs, only 128GB, but
with at least SP2, no worries.

How much RAM can XP physically see and use?

The maximum address space is 4G, some of which is used by other things
besides RAM of course, but you can expect to have 3.1+G available for your
RAM to use.

Lastly, I always use the 1.5X rule for my page file but I don't think I
will need one that big, what's a decent size PF for this much RAM?

Back in the days of Windows 9x, it was sometimes useful to obsess and tinker
with virtual memory management, but with XP, there is no need to do anything
except let Windows manage the page file, especially since you have more than
2G RAM.

(Don't forget to provide for removable media backups of your Valued Data.

FWIW. --Richard

 

[marx404]

Thank you again to everyone who replied.

Anna, yes, I will be building the computer from scratch, Thank you and
Richard for your suggestions of a removable HD. I am very familiar with them
and now with the new tower there shall be ample room for one, whereas I did
not in my old computer. I have found some hot swappable SATA trays and HDs,
very affordable.

As far as partitions are concerned, again very familiar. Personally I always
split the drive in two equal sizes, one for the OS one for data. Yes, a
smaller partition takes less time to defrag. Also, a common issue with
legacy apps (which I have many that I use) is that they want to be installed
and utilize the C drive, ergo one may have issues if installing to any other
lettered partition.

I have been very successful with my 200G drive. I partition it in two, the C
drive for my OS and app installs then my D for media. I have been again very
successfully using a 200G USB external HD (my own HD in a USB case) to
perform full and incremental back ups of each partition using -gasp- MS
Backup already built into XP. I frequently maintain and check the health of
my HD and have used MS backup with great success, very happy with it.

Perhaps we might want to start another thread on partitioning as this is
quite a subject and many users have varied opinions and methods.

 

[Unknown]

Then, you really don't remember if you say it was poor practice.
Why would it be poor practice on a system with minimal memory?

On the contrary. It was a very good rule before huge memory modules were
made.
When you could only get a small amount of memory in a computer a good
rule was to make page files size 1.5 times memory size. Don't you
remember?

Yes, I remember that the "rule" was often quoted. And yes I also
remember that it was always poor practice.

The page file (or swap file) substitutes for RAM when you don't have
enough RAM to run the apps that you are running. So in general, for
any given set of applications, the more RAM you have, the *less* page
file you need.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Then, you really don't remember if you say it was poor practice.

Nonsense!


Why would it be poor practice on a system with minimal memory?

Because on a system with minimal memory, 1.5 times the amount of
memory is almost never enough.

And on a system with lots of memory, 1.5 times that amount is almost
always considerably more than is needed.

As I said, The page file (or swap file) substitutes for RAM when you
don't have enough RAM to run the apps that you are running. So in
general, for any given set of applications, the more RAM you have, the
*less* page file you need.

 

[Mist]

Concur with Anna about the removeable HDDs.

Having been bit more than once with various backup schemes/apps they
have come to be the nearest true solution.

One rack drive, two HDD though you can use more.

Rack HDD #1: Monday, Wednesday, Friday
Rack HDD #2: Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday

Full backup each day to whichever HDD is present.

On Sunday, take each to ISO and burn to disc making two copies, one for
local, one for off-site storage.

At the most, in the event of disaster, strike, or layoff, you lose only
the current day.

I've made a "Working" partition, size is dependent on your desires and
needs. Let's say I want to work on a Research data file and the
statistical file that goes with it. Quick copy to Working, do my thing.
If I'm happy, they're copied back to where they live. Why? At times I'm
funble-fingered and that includes the mouse. This way prevents me
mostly from screwing up more than one file.

Just suggestions. Works for me, so far.

Mist

 

[Unknown]

Because on a system with minimal memory, 1.5 times the amount of
memory is almost never enough.

Ridiculous-----give example.

And on a system with lots of memory, 1.5 times that amount is almost
always considerably more than is needed.

Almost??? ----Not so! Give example!

As I said, The page file (or swap file) substitutes for RAM when you
don't have enough RAM to run the apps that you are running. So in
general, for any given set of applications, the more RAM you have, the
*less* page file you need.

I understand that! BUT, like I said years ago when a computer could'nt
install more 1.5 x memory size was a good guide line.