Upgraded to 64bit but a bit unsure about RAM

Hey everyone, another quick question.

Today i upgraded to 64bit version of vista, now i was hoping i would have all 4gb accessible but im not too sure if its all there or not, prehaps its mapping memory to hardware? But im not to bright when it comes to ram :/.



Are all 4gb of ram being fully utilised?

I had the 32bit vista running pretty much the same, just it showed 3gb of mem usable not 4, but it looks like cached/free is just 3gb?

This is something i cant grasp so any help helping me understand ram would be great.

Maybe my gpu is hogging?



Thanks everyone,

Catacylsm

 

Note what it says after "total".

 

Yeah its definitely recognizing all 4 gigs of ram. The memory gauge that says 1.12 is just how much is in use. What it says below, next to total, would be how much you have.

 

Wanna see me cause some controversy??? If you look below you will find my Vista Tweaks thread. One of the tweaks speaks of shutting down your system cache completely. The reason is this. As long as the cache is on, it gets priority over your ram and, believe it or not, your hard drive pagefile is being used rather than ram.

With 4gb ram, you can safely shut down the pagefile and then you will see a noticeable difference in performance. The reason is simple; you are forcing your system to utilize the ram you have installed.

I have been doing this for 2 plus years since I first suggested this and have never once had a prob...

Just a thought...

 

I might give that a chance at some point, but keep in mind that some programs will require the page file to even start.

 

So your saying that Microsoft forces your computer to use the slower route? This doesn't make sense to me. To me wouldn't the ram be used first and then the pagefile? Or wouldn't they both be used in conjunction to provide best performance? I'm not saying your wrong, i'm just questioning the situation.

 

No...this goes back to the days of lesser ram. MS came out with more powerful systems yet the ram was still very expensive and then, ultimately, earlier OS versions were limited to being 32bit which ONLY can use 2Gb ram....this up to including Vista.

Because of this, the pagefile is necessary. It is also the safest route for the manufacturer to have pagefile as the primary resource in ram use.

Now, 64 but comes along and we can move up to 4gb or more ram...

So...pagefile use is not necessary unless you are using software intensive programs like Autocad or what not.

At the end of the day, the only way to get the system to use your ram to its fullest is to shut down pagefile completely. As you can imagine, ram is much faster than a system cache which is limited by the speed of your herddrive and must compete with hardrive use of other things being drawn from and stored on it.

 

actually, i'm going to address the above, hang on.

 

Here...from the guide....

Regain Valuable Disk Space

22. Reduce or Eliminate the Size of Your Disk Cache

By default, Vista utilizes several gigabytes of hard disk space with a file called pagefile.sys in your root drive. Through some time and patience, Vista users with 2 or more gigabytes of ram will be able to gain a great deal of that much needed space back and increase performance by slowly reducing the 'pagefile' or disk cache, or even eliminating it.. For example, I have elected to shut down my pagefile completely whereas, previously, I had reduced it to 600mb minimum and 1200mb maximum. I decided on this after watching my RAM usage carefully and seeing that, with my use, I never came close to using 4Gb. My space savings was well over 3.5Gb of hard disk space.

On shutting it off, I immediately saw a boost in performance which was unexpected. Having done a little background as to the reasoning for this, I learned that pagefile is utilized by your system even when it is not needed. By shutting it off, you are forcing the sytem to use your RAM to its full potential.

Should you elect to reduce, a common belief is that the pagefile should be 1.5 times the total amount of your ram and the minimum and maximum should both be the same if your sure no more will be required. This will prevent excessive disk activity at times when it is required for the pagefile to expand.

 

All 4gb are there, but super cache is giving some of it to your gpu's. I dont think turning it off is an option (in vista there was a hack for xp)

 

"It is also the safest route for the manufacturer to have pagefile as the primary resource in ram use." Why would it be the safest? To me the safest would having RAM be primary and the pagefile cover the overflow.

 

This is not true. A typical disk drive is at least a few orders of magnitude slower than RAM. If what you said was true, systems would be running at a crawl.

The truth is that disabling the page file causes more I/O to occur. More memory than necessary will be consumed, and these are only two of the shortcomings of disabling the page file. A third is that the dumper won't work in the event of a system crash, meaning troubleshooting is that much harder.

A 32-bit operating system is not limited to using 2GB of memory. Processes, by default, are alotted a 2GB virtual address space. Virtual addresses are mapped to physical addresses in memory by the OS's memory manager. When another process or the OS itself requires more memory, unused pages from other processes are paged to disk.

Huh?

Huh?

Disk space is dirt cheap. The premise sucks.

 

Love the argument.... I am sure it is coming from someone who has never actually tested the theory as I and so many others have.

A few orders of magnitude? Come on now... When comparing the speed of ram (which has no mechanical movement by the way) and the entire process of a hd cache ( find address on hard disk, arm moves, must wait for address to become available, picks up information) you could not even confuse a laymen on the difference. Now, add to that the fact that the hd has to order up its information which means the cache is also competing with other orders.

So in laymens terms, it just so happens that when a program is started, it actually has to go to the disk, find the info, execute, place it in the cache and so on....

Disabling a cache causes more IO to occur?? Really??? This is new and i would love to see information regarding this.

IN any case...tell you what... head to the Vista tweaks thread and watch how much you get jumped on. This has been hashed out for years now and the end result is your system runs better and faster when you have the ram to use and choose not to waste efficiency on a disk cache that slows immensely as you get into more intensive direction (which you forgot to adrress or mention by the way)...

This would never appear as such if one just used their pc for solitaire though. Thanks for coming out.

 

Hes not debating the fact that ram is faster than the pagefile... Again why would Microsoft do this? They want to make Vista seem as slow as possible?

 

No... MS had to do this because the sale of 64Bit could not be made when it came out, therefore ram size was limited. price of ram was also through the roof for anyone who remembers. It was simple symantics. If 4gb ram could not be used, pagefile is necessary for most. Actually, I found that I had no problem with only 2Gb ram as well...but thats another story.

 

Yes but just they would still make ram the primary source. They wouldn't put pagefile first just because they felt like it..

 

Well, it kind of makes sense. Instead of having your computer split I/O operations between two sources (RAM and pagefile), it's all going to one (RAM). Thus, more I/O to RAM.

 

OP: Superfetch is using up all your RAM. Superfetch caches commonly used programs into your RAM for faster loading. This dynamically occurs on startup and every time your RAM is freed up.

I find it chokes up my startup because its too busy preloading crap into the RAM before my programs even load.

Ive disabled mine a long time ago as it stops the HD thrashing. My system only uses about 1gb of RAM per se, but superfetch will preload an extra 3GB of programs im not even going to use, which thrashes the HD for about 3-5mins at startup and even more everytime the RAM is freed up (eg. exiting a game). Think of how much HD usage it uses compared to its benefits.. 1% faster loading? no thanks.

HD thrashing = more power consumption, more heat & more wear.

Oh and no performance loss with superfetch disabled. Yes i know RAM is faster than HD's but HD's these days are fast anyway. Disabling it just reverts it back to XP style memory caching. (XP was fast at everything last time i checked)

Its great for desktops but i wouldnt enable it on notebooks.

I definitely wouldnt use it on a notebook with 8gb RAM, expect your HD to go nuts for like 10mins, filling your RAM up with 8gb of crap your not even gonna use.

I know everyone is going to say you crazy flipfire.. blah blah blah. Just try it and shut up. I had a thread a while ago discussing it.

 

I'm not sure how you concluded this.

Where did you become confused? I clearly said that RAM is at least a few orders of magnitude faster than spinning disks. That's a big difference in speed.

Right off, without a page file, any memory reservations made must be converted into commitments. Programs, with the goal of reducing unnecessary memory usage, will reserve (backed by the page file), then commit memory as needed. As a real-world example, let's consider the reservation and commitment of the user-mode stack for each thread on the system. By default, the reservation size is 1MB. Without a page file, this becomes a 1MB commitment. Opening Task Manager on my system reveals that 650 threads are currently existent. Without a page file, that's 650MB of memory consumed, on the threads, alone. Applications usually make a larger reservation than commitment in memory when launched. As example let's say application X reserved 512 pages but only commited the first...64, resulting in 256KB of memory use. But this means nothing when the original 512 page reservation becomes a 512 page commitment, jacking up memory use by 8 times to 2MB. And this is a miniscule application in terms of memory demands. Imagine this phenomenom across all applications on a given system, with their wildly varying memory requirements! Less physical memory is now available than what could have been, had there existed a page file.

With all that in mind, memory that could have been used by Windows for file cache cannot, and you depend on your disk more, a horribly slow contraption next to RAM. Therefore, chances of your machine performing a logical I/O, and thus cache hit, are diminished, resulting in physical I/O (hitting those lovely spinning disks) to occur.

How do you prefer reclaiming control of your machine when your memory runs out and you are without a page file? Holding the power button? Yanking the power plug?

Since Windows can't swap out data to a page file that doesn't exist, the dumper is going to have a hell of a time...NOT WORKING...when something goes wrong on your system and you need to troubleshoot it.

I think the guide needs to be scrapped if this is any indication of how poorly thought-out it may be. I mean, the career software engineers at Microsoft must have everything backwards, right? Or maybe they did think out the successful, reliable deployment of an operating system upon millions of machines...

I use mine for software development, media work, and gaming. It's irrelevant, but hey, why not share?

The availability of 64-bit operating systems has no bearing on the price of memory. With PAE enabled on 32-bit Windows server operating systems, Intel's 36-bit address bus could be taken advantage of in order to address 64 GB of memory. RAM size was not limited, as you put it, and I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make, anyway.

You just contradicted yourself and still stand by your point? Have you seen and compared benchmarks of memory speeds versus a disk? The difference is enormous.

If you don't want the memory to be utilized, take it out?

 

I'm becoming convinced that the whole "disable your page file" crowd is becoming something akin to Scientologists or something. It's worse than the anti-v-sync cult. At least they have an argument backed up by something reasonable. I've never disabled my pagefile, and experienced great performance, without the risk of a machine that chokes up when it maxxes out the RAM. Have fun with your page files off though, by all means.

Running with page file disabled is like driving without a seatbelt. I mean, you don't need seatbelts 99.9% of the time, and it just makes it take 5 seconds longer to get out of your car. Forget that silly thing... sheesh...

 

As far as im aware, running a page file is good (Theres about a gig of stuff running by boot up) on the HDD, but i can see this superfetch kicking in, curios as to why say, the game files from eve online float in there when not in use though.

Here is another question, does superfetch allow ram allocation to programs when i require high amounts of ram?

Say i was running photoshop and i had the memory allocation in the preferences to full, i only get about 1.7gb (unless thats the limit) but i should atleast be able to access 2.5 if my system uses about 1?

What im really trying to do i guess is fill the ram up, just to see if all the memory can be allocated correctly.

Great thread guys, im getting alot of info here hehe.

 

Yes Superfetch is dynamic, it will automatically allocate that memory when needed, and after you close that program, superfetch will re-populate. (unless photoshop was already cached by superfetch). It learns from your daily habits.

 

Aha, that is indeed pretty smart, also ive noticed when switching to 64bit i get 0 hard faults at all, i used to have 300 spikes occasionally but this is so much more sound.

 

Try not to get personal guys, deleted some posts. Keep it factual.

Dont need benchmarks, already know the maths between the two.

Have you actually seen real world results in regards to superfetch? Its next to nothing. You cant always rely on benchmarks numbers for everything

No that wasnt my point *sigh*. You missed the part about it using the HD. I couldnt care less if Vista loaded 3gb of crap into my RAM, its about the HD being used to load a ton of crap i wont even use.

 

I understand, was just poking fun at that.

Yep.

I understand where you're coming from, but you must be booting your machine fresh frequently for the added time to become an absolutely large value? Most of the time I'm either resuming my laptop from sleep or hibernate, but I suppose that's personal preference.

 

Yes, but notebooks are mainly used for mobile use. Im not saying Superfetch is a bad technology and its wasting RAM, it just isnt suited for battery/mobile use.

Heres a good scenario, when i travel to work and back on a train, i type and view documents on MS word. I only use Word and occasionally winamp.

Why should superfetch have to load an extra 3gb of other crap into my RAM on startup at the expense of my HD when i only needed to use Word. (which is about 50mb max ram usage). Any HD today could page that in a second.

Btw I have 4gb x64 Vista. My programs alone will only use up about 1GB of RAM usage at startup. If i enable superfetch it will fill up the other 3GB of my ram which takes about 2-3mins to complete.

 

My quick input on this thread: Call me cynical, but if someone is going to write guides about OS performance and how to use my HD and RAM, and doesn't even understand how it works, like saying that 32-bit OS's only use 2 gb's of RAM..... will not have his guide read by me, or many of his posts taken seriously.

 

Well, there is, of course, that.

 

Wow...this thread has taken off and I missed the deleted posts? First and foremost... if I somehow mistated that Vista 32 only uses 2Gb of ram, it was simply because in the time of its introduction and until 4Gb came out, thats what most used. It was very uncommon for anyone to grab 4Gb of ram to get what little more they can squeeze out of the OS.

Next, I am really not sure why there would be any argument associated to this. Pagefile was simply created to provide virtual memory because ram in systems was not sufficient, simple but true... Did you notice that there is even an option to completely turn it off or adjust it yourself.

I really don't care if you turn it off or not and simply explained that there is a power/performance increase because when off, the system is forced to run the faster ram that you paid for rather than a virtual cache in your hard drive.

With respect to the 'writing guides' comments, I am gonna venture that you may be referring to my guide. Well, many have tried to discount some of the things in it but never had. It is the most popular guide available on the web for fine tuning your Vista, hands down. This site has given permission to site of different countries to print in a number of different languages.

The theory has been attacked several times within the Guide thread and yet to be discredited by anyone who has utilized it. I really don't understand how one can create a foundation for a debate on a theory that they have never tried to disprove themselves and against another who has proven it over and over again.

Like I said...over 2 years now...system is a speed demon and, well, the Guide speaks for itself.

If you want to continue using virtual memory and never using your valuable ram to its full extent, all the power to ya. My advice..try it, put a ram monitor on your gadget list and watch closely.

EDIT: Ok lets change this a bit. Now adays it is entirely possible that my system may be equipped with 8Gb ram, an amount that takes an enormous amount of effort to use at any given time. Am I going to use pagefile still? Why exactly?

Oh and still rflcptr...have you tested this out by doing as suggested ever yourself???

 

Just a few exceprts to help those involved:

The virtual memory comes into the picture when the physical memory cannot hold the data that the application requires it to. Since hard drives are much slower as compared to RAM, accessing data from virtual memory is slower, and there is naturally a significant effect on system performance. Moreover, Windows XP uses the virtual memory all the time, regardless of free physical memory, so optimisation of the page file is essential for a faster system.

And:

Because your computer has a finite amount of RAM, it is possible to run out of memory when too many programs are running at one time. This is where virtual memory comes in. Virtual memory increases the available memory your computer has by enlarging the "address space," or places in memory where data can be stored. It does this by using hard disk space for additional memory allocation. However, since the hard drive is much slower than the RAM, data stored in virtual memory must be mapped back to real memory in order to be used.

The process of mapping data back and forth between the hard drive and the RAM takes longer than accessing it directly from the memory. This means that the more virtual memory is used, the more it will slow your computer down. While virtual memory enables your computer to run more programs than it could otherwise, it is best to have as much physical memory as possible. This allows your computer to run most programs directly from the RAM, avoiding the need to use virtual memory. Having more RAM means your computer works less, making it a faster, happier machine.

And:

Virtual memory is used as additional memory for programs and the operating system when the system runs out of RAM. If the RAM is full, the system will take a section of the RAM that is not being used and store it on the hard drive thus creating virtual memory. This operation occurs automatically without any interaction from the user. The downside of virtual memory is that it can have an impact on the performance of the system since the computer needs to access the hard drive more frequently.


Now guys, these are the very first 3 articles I pulled up BUT... I read through about 6 or 7, none of which has any different view:

1. virtual memory is only used to provide additional ram because many systems do not have enough;

2. it slows the performance severly;

3. the more it is used, the more it slows.

So...in the end...when you have enough ram (4Gb), why would you use any virtual memory, especially since they have provided an option to turn it off???


Anyway nice little chat and any further questions, simply google 'virtual memory' and explained.

 

Les, i have a question, i have 3gb in my machine just now, i'm upgrading to 4gb later this week, so you are saying i can choose the option 'no paging file' under virtual memory, and my laptop will run better using the 3gb or 4gb memory installed?

And also i wont have any problems, should i wait till i have 4gb before turning it off?


Currently i have the paging file initial and max size set to the recommended, which is 4599.

 

He'll say yes with absolutely no knowledge of what you do with your system which is blatantly irresponsible.

 

Well your OS gobbles up like one gb, and even on a quiet system with not too many apps/programs, page file can still eat about 800-1.2gb on virtual paging, so what i may do is.

Get a 4 gb and 2gb stick (because i like to keep atleast 3 free) and disable page filing to see if it yields any better results ( i could really only see startup time increasing but then again im not sure, the HDD has to transfer to the RAM like it does when it has to transfer to page file, in effect wouldn't that mean page file has a better yield in boot up time?

Im still noob at this kind of stuff but im learning a great deal.

 

No, you clearly said that a 32-bit OS can ONLY use, at most, 2GB.

1) Post benchmarks of the alleged performance gains of running without a page file.
2) Did you see my points about the system's lack of reliability, manageability, and causes for more I/O with the page file off?

You also have the option of running through the registry and deleting keys as you like. That doesn't make it a good idea.

This isn't a tangible argument. It's like saying that because some pop-artist's albums are popular, they must be good. It's fallacy at best.

One of my systems is currently using 12GB of memory. It still has a page file. There are no performance hits. My system maintains performance, reliability, and predictability with the page file enabled. That would be why you should leave it on.

It doesn't provide "additional ram".

This is false.

What does this mean?

You cannot keep a straight face and make such a far-reaching claim like this with absolutely no idea of how someone is going to use their system, and there's an incredibly high number of possible software and hardware configurations in the world.

 

Mate, read this post so you'll understand why running without a page file will result in greater memory usage, thus moving you much closer to your 4GB barrier (which, if breached, will cause you to lose control of your system), and make it much more likely for I/O (slowwww) to occur. Even if you've correctly measured your memory usage now, it's no guarantee that something (memory leak, large file, demanding program) in the future won't push you over the edge. Further, if you happen to be running a 32-bit operating system, you're amount of available memory is going to be further constrained as a result of hardware mapping within the 32-bit address space. If you're using a 64-bit operating system, a process's virtual address space is 8 terabytes (as opposed to the default 2GB virtual address space on a 32-bit OS). This would make it very easy for that process's memory demands to encroach on the 4GB memory limit in your system (remember what else is running on the system).

 

I'm curious Les, which 6 or 7 articles did you pull up? I'm amazed that each one you found said you got a speed increase... because I Googled "vista turn off page file" and the first 5 websites I got were people asking on forums and one or two articles... which ALL said NOT to turn it off because it can cause instability and will fill your ram faster.

Here was a rather official one: http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/windows/en-US/Help/596FB57F-CC9D-4AC5-A813-5C0830E9156A1033.mspx

On this page, there was apparently a message from someone that works at Microsoft. Whether you believe it or not, I don't know, but this is what he said: http://www.mydigitallife.info/2008/...al-memory-change-or-disable-paging-file-size/

At Vistax64.com people told this guy NOT to disable it: http://www.vistax64.com/vista-performance-maintenance/141260-turn-off-page-file.html

Another forum, most people said leave it on, one guy said turn it off, even with 2gb ram.... http://thevistaforums.com/index.php?showtopic=25473



In any case, people who turn it off and get no out of memory problems, I assume only have a few tabs open in their internet browser, don't play large ram-intensive games, and definitely don't edit large pictures in Photoshop or similar... and they DEFINITELY don't do that all at once!!

 

Ahh i see, that post is very helpful I can definately see now why i would not mess with page filing at all, it would be quite silly really. Page filing needs to be there really because it would just freeze up a system if not, its like an overflow if too much memory is required.

 

Like I said earlier.. It's there for a reason. Microsoft doesn't put it there just for the heck of it.

 

I still can't see the benefit of turning off the page file. In my head I'm thinking that since I have 8gbs of ram and I generally do not fill it. The computer will likely use the ram before it uses the HDD for virtual memory. Since I never push 8gbs, then the virtual memory will not be used anyways?

This is really confusing. It's hard to see how the virtual memory is even in use if I have enough ram to sustain whatever activities I'm doing.

 

You guys, quite frankly, haven't got a clue of which you speak because you have not done it. And thats good for you if you are happy. You strike back with redderick because you have no basis for any of your claims, yet when i quote articles directly off the internet, you make it sound like I am making them up.

As for Microsoft, it is kind of amusing for someone to say that, if they did it there must be a reason right? Microsoft was leading the way against the 64bit push for the longest time but look now; its simply the demand from the consumer that brings it out. Why were they against it? Money ....they couldn't profit because software companies weren't supporting it.

I bring you the definition of virtual memory and you throw it back saying well it isn't so. Those articles were the first few after I googled exactly what i said.

Now we r going to argue that virtual memory is there to provide additional ram to system that need it?

And we are going to argue that shutting it off when you have sufficient ram is no good, although Microsoft has conveniently supplied a 'no paging file' button to use IF YOU HAVE ENOUGH MEMORY.

Citizen...Google as I stated, not your own choosing. There is no sense questioning anything about turning page file off until you understand where virtual memory came from, what its purpose is and what it does. It slows down your system significantly and the logic behind it is common sense. Looks like a duck...quacks like a duck...well...its not a chicken.

Anyway...to the question regarding 3Gb ram to 4...

First, will you be running 64 bit because if you are not 3gb is the maximum you can use. In either case, do this. Download the system monitor which is one of the top gadget downloads in Vista and then monitor you ram and pagefile usage. If you are never above the threshold of the 3Gb (or 4Gb if you have it and have moved to 64bit) you have, then why are you wasting valuable disk space and performance with pagefile? The answer the proponents can never give is why do we use pagefile if we have adequate ram.

To have...I think he said 12Gb in a 64bit system and still use pagefile, well...who is foolish now.

 

N4N....

The system uses pagefile BEFORE and with ram. If the system used all your ram first like it should, there would be any concern. You can monitor this with the same gadget I mentioned above.

Anyway folks..been nice rehashing old arguments that have been proven over and over to work. This is 2 plus years old. Turning off pagefile has been argued over and over and it always the same composition. One side argues for and has done the background and is using it while the other argues against basing their argument on theory of what they have read and no practical application.

Who would I trust?? Well...simply look at the positive responses that have returned on the Tweaks Guide...a thread that was put together through the efforts of many more experienced than I here that, when something wasn't believe, actually conducted the tests rather than shouting 'Won't Work'

A debate or argument cannot be one in theory alone....otherwise the world would still be flat now wouldn't it.

Oh and with 8Gb and 64bit.

1. Shut down Your page file.
2. Unhide your files.
3. Go to the root of c: and delete pagefil.sys and gain 3.5gb back.

Come back later and tell everyone what you think and if you saw a visible improvement ok?

 

I turned it off today, I haven't noticed a difference. Probably because it wasn't causing slowdowns before, since my system uses RAM BEFORE it uses the pagefile. I definitely didn't see any boost in performance though.

I agree, Microsoft likes to make money... I don't think anybody is going to argue with you there. You keep speaking of logic though... please tell me... if this guy DOES work for Microsoft... how is him saying "keep the page file on" going to make them one cent? Logically....

Glad you pointed that out. You said I should go search for what it meant, so I did. This is what the Wikipedia article said in the first paragraph:

Interesting eh?

Once again you say virtual memory is additional ram... no... it's just hard drive space reserved for the system... not only is it used as an overflow but it is used to cache SMALL things that is not loaded into RAM. You don't need more than a few gigs for a pagefile.

The argument is that it doesn't make a difference in performance and is actually a part of how Windows works. Did you know that even if you shut off the pagefile it still uses some hard drive space whether you like it or not? I personally haven't run out of RAM since the 128mb days, but from what I've read is if you run out of RAM and don't have your pagefile, Windows will either make one for you or you'll lock up/crash/BSOD. What is the reason NOT to have it on?

Already did. The nice thing about Google is you can be more specific when you search

Who?

This is a big post... but I'm going to go back up to where you said you searched through some articles to see what you found... this is the post. Let's actually read what you posted.

Nobody disagrees that paging from the hard drive is slower than RAM, ie. accessing data from virtual memory. Just because you have a pagefile though, doesn't mean Windows is going to use that before RAM. How stupidly do you think Windows is coded?

I don't see why this is applicable. We've all agreed that most of us have enough RAM for most tasks, so why are we talking about overflowing the RAM? If anything, this is proving the point of the need for a pagefile.

Thanks for color-coating everything. What does the blue and red mean though? Back on topic... once again, you are pointing out what happens when you run out of RAM. If you are reading this any differently, then you are taking it out of context. Read the part you so aptly highlighted in red, the latter part: "it is best to have as much physical memory as possible". Right... we all have 3-4gb of RAM nowadays... what does it have to do with the pagefile? Oh yes... Windows is retarded and wants to use your slow hard drive before RAM.

Wow, once again, showing what happens when all your RAM is used up. Thanks for the tip.

And now we can see how you were not able to apply what you read, but instead take it out of context to prove your point.

 

Seriously, how do you figure your pagefile is being used before your RAM? If you can prove this to me, I will be very impressed.

Edit: This is really the core of the argument here.... you think Windows would use the pagefile before RAM. I disagree, because it's a ridiculous idea, since it would cause exactly what you say: slowdowns. Just a quick idea for you though... you do know how your RAM gets its information, right?

 

Ok this line of discussion is getting silly. You have taken articles that I quoted, one being from microsoft, and replied with the belief that they were just written and thought of by me.

You now have challenged the entirety of the internet.

Next, you should not even be here if you are not able to simply check the usage of ram and virtual memory and cache through any number of programs....

Not even worth responding any more...Im arguing with 2 guys who have nothing to offer and will come back with argument to anything they cant understand.

Question still stands...Have either of you tried this??? I have done it. Thousand have done it after reading the thread all with positive response. the thread has been published in several different languages and read by millions I can confidently say...but I'm wrong just now after all this time. Nobody brought this to my attention, or any of the several others who helped me with this Tweak after all this time.

Wonder why.

If anybody seriously needs assistance...pm me.


Oh and citizen...the blue and red highlighted the quotes I pulled from several open sources, including MS, on the internet. They are supporting points that are openly available to all. Im sorry I never linked each to you.

 

Umm nice try. I was pointing out exactly what they said and then pointed out how you mis-applied them. Did you read any of my responses? I never said they were written by you... I was telling you what they were saying.

hahahaha wow... what does that even mean? If by saying this you believe everything on the internet, then great... have fun with that.

I asked you to prove to me that virtual memory is being used BEFORE RAM. Yes, anybody with some knowledge of Windows can open up the task manager and see how much RAM is in use. Right now I have 1636mb of 3072 mb of ram available... what's your point?

Are you sure? I figured by posting what I found on the internet and trying to find what you found on the internet... and asking if you could back it up with anything that actually supported your claim, instead of a bunch of paragraphs that say virtual memory is used when RAM is full... then I'm waiting for those.

Hate to quote myself here, but:

Are you even reading my replies? Or just getting upset that I don't agree?

I didn't realize you were taking this so personally. You are referring to this article, correct? The one with 20+ tips and tweaks? Where the whole debate this thread is based on is in one or two sentences of that thread? I read tip 22, it's the only tip I don't agree with. So I'm not saying you didn't write a good article... just don't agree with turning off the pagefile, that's all. Way to take it way too personally though and try to brag about your immense success on the internet

 

That comparison has nothing to do with what i said.. I'm trying to explain that the pagefile is there for a reason and if it didn't need to be there why would they put it there? That's like saying I never use my emergency brake so I will just take it off because its just weighing me down..

 

And these dozens of users who claim they've seen a performance increase - is that a placebo effect, just a perceived improvement? Or something actually concrete?
I'm keeping my page file on, thanks. I trust Windows to do what's best for itself.

 

Well what we need is concrete, but am i right when i saw that pagefile.sys gets deleted after pagefile is turned off?

What we should do is test both methods, by seing if the system can survive 2 instances of prime95 with heavy ram usage on both.

We need to flood the memory to see the effect after the system cannot deal with an overflow or even if it can or not.

I did see evidence of a speed up when turning page filing off a slower system though, definately in the start up time.

 

The thing is, it's going to be the same... when you run out of RAM, you run out of RAM. No if's and's or but's about it. When you run out of RAM your hard drive is going to be used, whether you have a page file or not. The problem with that is if you don't have a page file, you get out of memory boxes that pop up, possible lock ups or crashes... all because you didn't have a page file, even if it's only 1 or 2 gb's big.

 

I couldn't see a noticeable improvement, but I have tried this on my older laptop, which was running Ubuntu. After switching the swap(pagefile) off the computer ran much more quickly, but once I hit 1gb(the amount of ram the computer had) the program which had reached this limit would instantly close. So I'm sure there is some benefit in performance without a pagefile.