I've disabled my paging file in Windows XP..ok?

Is it ok? I have 3 GB of RAM.

Using Windows XP Service Pack 3.......is what i've done ok?

 

. how long have you made the change?
. how is ur laptop performing so far?
. u r the only one that can decide it, after presumably that u have read many threads/posts here regarding the pro and the con of not having a pagefile

cheers ...

 

Urm we just had a long thread on this. Really I think we decided its not a good idea to disable the page file. I have always felt this way as a tech, and I dont care how much ram you have.

But if you were concerned why would you act first and then ask questions later, shouldn't it be the reverse?

 

Ive done it for months now and noticed USUALLY it gives a pretty good general boost but at times it is a little slower

 

I'll keep it for a while and see how it goes then

 

Just like X2P, I have run XP for a long time (years in my case) without the paging file. In my case, I had 1 GB of memory for most of that time (now I have 2 GB) and never had problems. With 3 GB it is 99.99% certain that you will be better off without the pagefile. But I know fairly well what I am doing, so this might not be advisable for the novice user.

To better assess whether you need the pagefile, get FreeRAM XP Pro and check how much free RAM you have when using your PC normally. If you never get less than 512 MB free, you should be just fine (even less than 512 MB free is usually OK).

 

It's ok as long as you don`t use very huge RAM needing programs. 3 Gb is pretty much enough for anything, but just for safe keeping,I left it on at 512 MB. Although your choice will eliminate a lot of disk trashing.
Put it on a probation,if you don`t get any slowdowns,it`s perfectly ok.

 

I always turn off my paging file because I have 4GB on a Windows XP machine. It's never been an issue.

I wouldn't recommend it for Windows Vista because memory is handled differently but i'm not too worried about not having a page file in XP.

 

I've turn pagefile off for about a month now, don't have had any problem nor slow down. Actually, I do not feel any improvement either. So real benefit from turning it off is you would have more HDD space, I guess. and I have 2GB RAM.

 

And no disk thrasing.So less disk activity ,lower hdd temps and better battery life

 

wow - this is the first (personally observation) charlatan claim about not having a pagefile that will result in these benefits!

numbers please? i would not do them myself, because i would not run my comp w/o a pagefile, so - if u r so kind:
. share with us the number regarding lower hdd temp and battery life
. when ur normal apps open and running w/o pagefile
. comparing to when ur normal apps open and running w pagefile

it will an eye opener for me

cheers ...

 

If I wasn't using Photoshop I would consider disabling it.

 

I am STILL waiting for some REAL numbers as to why anyone should consider running without a page file.

All we ever see is folks saying "oh it's fine I have done it for years". But never a reason WHY! We get the occasional claim of better performance, better battery life. But only the claim, never the DATA. We even get folks who admit they felt NO performance difference countering those who claim they do. And yet none of the folks who "see" a difference ever back up that assertion with facts.

Gary

 

I use MATLAB on my laptop. Either when running someone else's code, or when using my own code without care or with bugs still present, it happens to try to reserve memory space for a 100000x100000 array instead of a 100000x1 array, which will easily occupy the whole RAM and the pagefile. When the program tries to do computations on that matrix, since some of the matrix is on the HDD it will generate a LOT of HDD access requests which can easily freeze the computer for several minutes before I can kill the MATLAB process and re-start it (I don't have a dual-core computer, but I think this will also happen with dual-cores, as they share the same disk access bus). If, however, I just don't have a pagefile, it just says "Error: out of memory" and I don't need to restart it.

That's the main benefit in my view. Instead of slowing your computer to a crawl, RAM-hungry programs simply won't run until you free enough RAM. I like it that way, but as I said, I know fairly well what I'm doing.

Side note: the above quotes are not helpful, and I would even classify the first one as "unfriendly" to say the least. Instead of hitting at someone who thinks different of you, support your own claims. Why don't you tell us why using a pagefile might be beneficial? We might all learn something...

 

>.< good point actually now looking at it my hd temp went up 1 Degree in total while it also makes more noise vs less.

 

cool, a straight forward personal explanation of a personal preference of using non-pagefile

this is quite interesting, let me try:
. "Why don't you tell us why using a pagefile might be beneficial?" - i dont need to in this case - because enough peoples out there, better technically and expertly than myself, had talked about it, had written about it. The "it" being addressing to ur question.
. now, it exists, of course, others that think otherwise. Which is quite fine. U can dig my posts, when u have time, then u can see for urself that i never "hitting at someone who thinks different of you".

bottom line:
. one reserves one own's opinion, but opinion would be valuable and informative and helpul to others that come along and "read", only when one can back up with personal valid experiences.
. U stated urs above, that is good. Readers can then choose for themselves which one to go - in ur case, acccepting these "out of memory .." as part of the belief of using non.pagefile.
. it is not un-friendly to ask anyone to back up statement with figure and facts, especially in tech forums.
. when the numbers are good and verify-able, heck, i might convert myself to not using pagefile in order to reap the benefits the specific "no disk thrasing.So less disk activity ,lower hdd temps and better battery life"

there are threads for flame war, threads for fan-(girls/boys) and threads for informative ideas and inputs. There are enough threads about why pagefile vs why not-pagefile. I was hoping to see this thread lead to better inputs.

Now, it will be very very informative, from this thread, if many more, following your lead to put out personal numbers, personal observations and personal experiences in the usage of a non-pagefile system

cheers ...

 

Yes the first one was a bit unfriendly. But I am casting no aspersions on anyone. I truly would like to see some real numbers. Your case is a good one and makes perfect sense. But as you said it is pretty much a special case.

99% of the talk about how great it is to disable the pagefile is anecdotal. And while in your case you can easily recover from the "error: out of memory" situation because you DO know what you are doing and understand the ramifications, the blanket statement, as presented by some folks here, that the average Joe or Jane should just turn off the pagefile ignores the fact that it may lead poor Jane or Joe to hours of lost work, because their application that ran out of space was a bit less graceful than MatLab.

The "you don't need a pagefile" has become, to me, a classic urban myth. But I am very willing to change my mind, if anyone can provide some data on the performance enhancements or longer battery life or cooler temps it allegedly gives.

Gary

 

by the way, I know Vista 32 bit can only utilize 3 G of RAM. Anything more is a waste.

How does XP hand that? can it handle 3 GB fine? how about more?

 

I've heard some apps like to have a pagefile, so I set mine at 512mb

 

Any 32 bit OS, be it XP, Vista or whatever, can only handle 3gb.

Gary

 

I have done this before and have ran into no problems. But then again many programs won't tell you if they crashed due to an out of memory error. Many programs dont' give much of an error message anyways when it crashes.

 

It makes no difference. You won't gain anything, and you add a chance of applications crashing. That chance may be relatively small when you have 3GB RAM, but it can still happen.

At the same time, it won't boost your performance compared to if you just let Windows manage the pagefile, despite what you read.

So generally, it's a lousy idea at worst, and a complete waste of time in the best case.

But if you want to sabotage your computer, who am I to stop you?

 

Varies from a few minutes to a few douzen,depending on what I do. And please refrain yourself from throwing second guesses around if you want polite responses in return.
In my case it works. And as everyone else , we can only speak from experience.I feel that my programs run the same, but the HD works less than before. Try it yourself before calling somebody a charlatan buddy

 

Just to chime in here; my desktop which runs Vista x64 with 4 gigs of RAM _seems_ to run smoother for me with less disk thrashing without the page file. I don't have any hard numbers, but I also like to reclaim the space reserved by pagefile.sys I also game on this machine without a pagefile, and haven't encountered out of memory errors with games. I have multitasked to the point of almost exhausting the 4 gigs, and when programs start acting stragely (e.g. not redrawing windows) then you know you're outta luck... or RAM in this case.

 

I agree with you but still we have no numbers to back this up. I think this whole notion could be put to rest if someone did some real world benchmarks. I wish I had the time to devote to this task. [sigh]

Gary

 

Bull! There is absoutely no way you are seeing differences of MINUTES because you have no pagefile.

Gary

 

meaning "having a non-page file environment"? since anyone can say this, with or without using a pagefile

who was 2nd-guessing? u made a "general" statement; i asked (nicely) for some numbers to back up ur statment

agree. if u so stated upfront in ur op

1) i did not call you a charlatan
2) i stand by my statement, calling ur claim charlatan - general term, when not backing up by concrete and repeated result.
- Oh, dont get offended. I use the same term (charlatan) in my post, pertaining to my approaches when I wrote something that might or might not work, when stating my personal experiences on my personal environment - feel free to dig my posts, there will be plenty me-charlatan there
3) i tried the non-pagefile approach myself. it did not work for me, to the point that can backup ur "claim" of better battery life, non-disk thrashing etc ... but i would be more than happy to try again if u stated out ur environment, ur set up etc .. so i can at least get a closer test

cheers ...

 

In my case I noticed a battery increase from 2:02 to 2:24 just after disabling the page file, same light and power saving settings,same winamp listening ,and minor browsing.
Although I will say it might not be from the paging file being disable,A LOT of the disk thrashing from before is gone.
Anyone can call BS as much as he or she likes,if it works for me, I don`t really care

 

Interesting results. Just keep in mind that XP writes to the swap even if it has 3GB of RAM; the reason why is because in the event of a power-off, the HDD retains the data. In other words, disabling the swap reduces stability/reliability. For a beginner, I wouldn't recommend it. But, if you're experienced at recovering hosed operating systems, be my guest .

 

Like any tweak. Do it at your own risk.

For example. Overclocking your computer can shorten its lifespan. Will you notice the shorten lifespan? that is a question in and of itself where evidence to support each opinion is circumstantial at best.

I say the best way to put this to rest is try it yourself and see if you are ok with the results. There is no single configuration, no single benchmark that settles EVERYONES needs.

All we can do is retell our experiences and let you make your own decision. Wow, I sound like such a conservative.... Which I am.

BUSH WON TWICE IN A ROW!!! BYAGHGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

That's why I disable mine. Only have 2GB too.

Although I may just set it to 512MB.