L
Lil' Dave
Hudster said:
David B. is correct. What I've found is you have to do a reboot/cold boot
for the swapfile change to take effect.
Dave
David B. is correct. What I've found is you have to do a reboot/cold boot
for the swapfile change to take effect.
Dave
G
Gerry
Dave
Your point is correct but the point David B and Leonard were at
loggerheads over was a different point. A bit of a pointless debate
because the pagefile sizing assumptions by Microsoft were, with the
advent of larger drives, demonstrably wrong. The late Alex Nichol
pointed this out in his still relevant Article in 2004.
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm
Adding RAM does not automatically mean you need to increase the pagefile
size. A myth propagated by the original Microsoft programmers when they
created the virtual memory management set up for Windows XP. They
haven't even corrected the Knowledge Base Article put out at the time of
the Windows XP launch.
--
Regards.
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your point is correct but the point David B and Leonard were at
loggerheads over was a different point. A bit of a pointless debate
because the pagefile sizing assumptions by Microsoft were, with the
advent of larger drives, demonstrably wrong. The late Alex Nichol
pointed this out in his still relevant Article in 2004.
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm
Adding RAM does not automatically mean you need to increase the pagefile
size. A myth propagated by the original Microsoft programmers when they
created the virtual memory management set up for Windows XP. They
haven't even corrected the Knowledge Base Article put out at the time of
the Windows XP launch.
--
Regards.
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
D
David B.
Not pointless at all, more than once I've had a customer come in because
they were getting low virtual memory errors in XP, after questioning I find
out they upgrade from 128 or 256 MB to a GB, I go in set the swap file from
factory fixed size (it's still set to the proper size for the original 128
or 256MB) to system managed, problem solved.
they were getting low virtual memory errors in XP, after questioning I find
out they upgrade from 128 or 256 MB to a GB, I go in set the swap file from
factory fixed size (it's still set to the proper size for the original 128
or 256MB) to system managed, problem solved.
G
Gerry
David
That's not the debate you were having with Leonard as it looked to me.
It was pointless because pursuing it as you both did did not achieve
much for either of you.
I answer a lot of questions in these newsgroups relating to managing
memory. There is no one solution suits all. I am not convinced that
system managed is the best solution but there you are. We all have our
funny ideas.
--
Regards.
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's not the debate you were having with Leonard as it looked to me.
It was pointless because pursuing it as you both did did not achieve
much for either of you.
I answer a lot of questions in these newsgroups relating to managing
memory. There is no one solution suits all. I am not convinced that
system managed is the best solution but there you are. We all have our
funny ideas.
--
Regards.
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
G
Gerry
David
You appreciate that your exchange started when Leonard answered a post
you made to something I had written. When I replied you did not respond.
You might like to answer the points I originally made.
--
Regards.
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You appreciate that your exchange started when Leonard answered a post
you made to something I had written. When I replied you did not respond.
You might like to answer the points I originally made.
--
Regards.
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
D
David B.
All our debate was about was the default setting, I was right and he was
not, I achieved my point.
As far as your points, for general use, system managed does not cause any
significant problems, few customers want me to spend a half hour of their
money calculating what they need for a page file.
not, I achieved my point.
As far as your points, for general use, system managed does not cause any
significant problems, few customers want me to spend a half hour of their
money calculating what they need for a page file.
D
Daave
Gerry said:
It looked that way to me.
Leonard kept on insisting that by default, XP lets the system manage
virtual memory, which is not true. If XP did indeed do this, then David
B.'s customers would never have gotten the low virtual memory errors
after they increased their amount of RAM.
G
Gerry
David
No doubt this statement is true "few customers want me to spend a half
hour of their money calculating what they need for a page file".
They can of course get free and appropriate advice here if they are
prepared to do the leg work themselves. I have given the necessary
pointers many times over the last few years.
--
Regards.
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No doubt this statement is true "few customers want me to spend a half
hour of their money calculating what they need for a page file".
They can of course get free and appropriate advice here if they are
prepared to do the leg work themselves. I have given the necessary
pointers many times over the last few years.
--
Regards.
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
G
Gerry
Daave
"Except for the swapfile, it will be set for the pre upgrade amount of
RAM as I said in my post.".
This is the statement which provoked Leonard's first post. In my view
the statement by David B is wrong but you can argue that his meaning is
not clear.
The question by the OP was about installing extra RAM and "am I required
to change any settings". The answer is no because the new RAM is
automatically registered by the system. David B introduced the subject
of the pagefile but making changes to pagefile settings is not required
as he implied. You can if you want make changes, it is an option the
user may wish to do. David B's statement is wrong regarding the pagefile
as it makes an assumption about the users settings which the OP has not
revealed.
Leonard is an adherent to the school of thought that letting Windows
manage the page file is best. He seems to have made one mistake when he
said that this the default. When it was pointed out that he was wrong he
backed off asking for a truce. Look again "Leonard kept on insisting
that by default" is an exageration. The whole exchange was pointless
because neither knew what pagefile settings the OP had.
--
Regards.
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Except for the swapfile, it will be set for the pre upgrade amount of
RAM as I said in my post.".
This is the statement which provoked Leonard's first post. In my view
the statement by David B is wrong but you can argue that his meaning is
not clear.
The question by the OP was about installing extra RAM and "am I required
to change any settings". The answer is no because the new RAM is
automatically registered by the system. David B introduced the subject
of the pagefile but making changes to pagefile settings is not required
as he implied. You can if you want make changes, it is an option the
user may wish to do. David B's statement is wrong regarding the pagefile
as it makes an assumption about the users settings which the OP has not
revealed.
Leonard is an adherent to the school of thought that letting Windows
manage the page file is best. He seems to have made one mistake when he
said that this the default. When it was pointed out that he was wrong he
backed off asking for a truce. Look again "Leonard kept on insisting
that by default" is an exageration. The whole exchange was pointless
because neither knew what pagefile settings the OP had.
--
Regards.
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
D
David B.
They absolutely could, but most of my customers are not the do it yourself
type as far as their computers are concerned, they want to drop it off, have
it fixed, and pick it up, they could care less how it works and have no
desire to learn. I educate when I can, but hanging out in Microsoft's
newsgroups is not something many of them would care to do, many are even
amazed that you can research problems with Google, if that gives you any
clue
type as far as their computers are concerned, they want to drop it off, have
it fixed, and pick it up, they could care less how it works and have no
desire to learn. I educate when I can, but hanging out in Microsoft's
newsgroups is not something many of them would care to do, many are even
amazed that you can research problems with Google, if that gives you any
clue
D
David B.
You have misunderstood. If you have a PC with Windows XP, and 256 MB of RAM,
if you upgrade the RAM to 512MB or 1GB, Windows WILL NOT automatically
adjust the swap file to match the upgrade, the page file setting will remain
unchanged after the upgrade, you need to either manually adjust the size for
the additional RAM or take the easier route and set it to system managed, I
will stress this because there seems to be some confusion.
WINDOWS XP'S PAGE FILE IS NOT SET TO SYSTEM MANAGED BY DEFAULT, IT WILL NOT
AUTOMATICALLY CHANGE THE SWAP FILE SIZE WHEN ADDING OR REMOVING RAM FROM THE
SYSTEM.
You people are on here arguing with me about exactly what I said, it SHOULD
be set to system managed, but it is not be default, Windows Vista is.
if you upgrade the RAM to 512MB or 1GB, Windows WILL NOT automatically
adjust the swap file to match the upgrade, the page file setting will remain
unchanged after the upgrade, you need to either manually adjust the size for
the additional RAM or take the easier route and set it to system managed, I
will stress this because there seems to be some confusion.
WINDOWS XP'S PAGE FILE IS NOT SET TO SYSTEM MANAGED BY DEFAULT, IT WILL NOT
AUTOMATICALLY CHANGE THE SWAP FILE SIZE WHEN ADDING OR REMOVING RAM FROM THE
SYSTEM.
You people are on here arguing with me about exactly what I said, it SHOULD
be set to system managed, but it is not be default, Windows Vista is.
D
David B.
Oh, and the OP DID reveal his was NOT set to system managed, I quote;
"Thanks mate, have changed as you have suggested."
"Thanks mate, have changed as you have suggested."
G
Gerry
Not really David.
Did you or did you not say this ""Except for the swapfile, it will be
set for the pre upgrade amount of RAM as I said in my post."?.
Perhaps it was another David B?
--
Hope this helps.
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Did you or did you not say this ""Except for the swapfile, it will be
set for the pre upgrade amount of RAM as I said in my post."?.
Perhaps it was another David B?
--
Hope this helps.
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
G
Gerry
Not originally David and only after you said this "Except for the
swapfile, it will be set for the pre upgrade amount of RAM as
I said in my post.".
--
Regards.
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
swapfile, it will be set for the pre upgrade amount of RAM as
I said in my post.".
--
Regards.
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
D
David B.
Of course I said it, and it is correct, if you upgrade RAM, and have a
default XP installation, the swap file will remain set at the size it was
set at before you upgraded the RAM, that's why you need to change the
setting to system managed. I don't see why people are having such a hard
time here.
default XP installation, the swap file will remain set at the size it was
set at before you upgraded the RAM, that's why you need to change the
setting to system managed. I don't see why people are having such a hard
time here.
D
David B.
You seem to have an unhealthy focus on this statement.
G
Gerry
David
Not correct as you said it. Your rephrasing at least makes your meaning
clearer. Having said that you are still not undertanding that "that's
why you need to change the setting to system managed." is only your
opinion that others are not obliged to share. Nobody's having a hard
time, other than you as far as I can see.
--
Hope this helps.
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not correct as you said it. Your rephrasing at least makes your meaning
clearer. Having said that you are still not undertanding that "that's
why you need to change the setting to system managed." is only your
opinion that others are not obliged to share. Nobody's having a hard
time, other than you as far as I can see.
--
Hope this helps.
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
D
Daave
I've been following this thread from the beginning and not only does it
all make sense to me, I can see why there's some confusion.
Hudster, David B., Leonard, and you are talking about different, yet
related things.
Hudster asked his initial question, wanting to know if XP will recognize
the extra RAM he planned on installing.
You correctly responded yes:
"No manual adjustments required. If the system recognizes the new RAM it
is automatic."
David B. added:
"Except for the swapfile, it will be set for the pre upgrade amount of
RAM"
What he clearly meant was (here's my paraphrase):
"Yes, the system will automatically recognize the new RAM. However, if
Virtual Memory hadn't been changed to System Managed (which is often
recommended by many techs, especially for people who like to "set it and
forget it") and instead has its original default settings, then it's
possible that those settings may eventually lead to error messages.
True, a lot of the time, it won't matter, but it can and has happened.
Granted, it's more likely if someone is upgrading from 128 MB, which is
quite rare these days. Still, it can and has happened."
Gerry, you really latched on to David's statement. His "it" is not
referencing your "it." Your "it" is the system. His "it" is the
pagefile. It seems like you perceived he was disagreeing with you. He
wasn't. He was adding information.
Then later, Leonard challenged him. Leonard said that:
"The correct setting for the page file is almost always 'system managed
size' and that's where you should have it."
This is incorrect. David B. pointed that out. Leonard never admitted he
was in error and wanted to agree to disagree.
But David B. was correct. Leonard was wrong. And David B. correctly
pointed out that Leonard was:
"posting incorrect information."
Then you chimed in, answering Lil' Dave's post, stating that David B.
and Leonard were having a pointless debate. And in most situations, I
would agree (that is, even though David B. was correct about XP's
default settings for Virtual Memory, the end result is normally the
same).
Example: I have 256 MB of RAM in my PC. Max Virtual Memory is 768 MB. If
I were to double my RAM, even though Windows won't change the max for
VM, there wouldn't be a problem because (as pointed out in Alex's
article) 700 to 800 MB as a maximum is good for *any* amount of RAM
(but he did suggest a higher value is also fine, provided that there's
enough disk space)
So that's that. Stop picking on him!
all make sense to me, I can see why there's some confusion.
Hudster, David B., Leonard, and you are talking about different, yet
related things.
Hudster asked his initial question, wanting to know if XP will recognize
the extra RAM he planned on installing.
You correctly responded yes:
"No manual adjustments required. If the system recognizes the new RAM it
is automatic."
David B. added:
"Except for the swapfile, it will be set for the pre upgrade amount of
RAM"
What he clearly meant was (here's my paraphrase):
"Yes, the system will automatically recognize the new RAM. However, if
Virtual Memory hadn't been changed to System Managed (which is often
recommended by many techs, especially for people who like to "set it and
forget it") and instead has its original default settings, then it's
possible that those settings may eventually lead to error messages.
True, a lot of the time, it won't matter, but it can and has happened.
Granted, it's more likely if someone is upgrading from 128 MB, which is
quite rare these days. Still, it can and has happened."
Gerry, you really latched on to David's statement. His "it" is not
referencing your "it." Your "it" is the system. His "it" is the
pagefile. It seems like you perceived he was disagreeing with you. He
wasn't. He was adding information.
Then later, Leonard challenged him. Leonard said that:
"The correct setting for the page file is almost always 'system managed
size' and that's where you should have it."
This is incorrect. David B. pointed that out. Leonard never admitted he
was in error and wanted to agree to disagree.
But David B. was correct. Leonard was wrong. And David B. correctly
pointed out that Leonard was:
"posting incorrect information."
Then you chimed in, answering Lil' Dave's post, stating that David B.
and Leonard were having a pointless debate. And in most situations, I
would agree (that is, even though David B. was correct about XP's
default settings for Virtual Memory, the end result is normally the
same).
Example: I have 256 MB of RAM in my PC. Max Virtual Memory is 768 MB. If
I were to double my RAM, even though Windows won't change the max for
VM, there wouldn't be a problem because (as pointed out in Alex's
article) 700 to 800 MB as a maximum is good for *any* amount of RAM
(but he did suggest a higher value is also fine, provided that there's
enough disk space)
So that's that. Stop picking on him!
G
Gerry
Daave
Blessed are the peacemakers!
I am not picking on David B. The subject of virtual memory management is
a controversial one. There are two main schools of thought, one being to
let Windows manage and the other the contrary. Within these two
standpoints there is further diversity of opinion. Neither is right as
each have their advantages and disadvantages. The user has choices and
David B is just refusing to acknowledge that this is so. He also
conveniently ignores questions that don't suit his case.
The only point where Leonard was perhaps incorrect was his original
statement statement that "Let Windows" manage is the default. When
Leonard made this slip David B went after Leonard like a bulldog. I
would not have overmuch sympathy for David B as he is well able to take
care of himself, even if he now feels persecuted as Leonard did earlier.
It's all a storm in a tea cup which will blow over.
--
Regards.
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Blessed are the peacemakers!
I am not picking on David B. The subject of virtual memory management is
a controversial one. There are two main schools of thought, one being to
let Windows manage and the other the contrary. Within these two
standpoints there is further diversity of opinion. Neither is right as
each have their advantages and disadvantages. The user has choices and
David B is just refusing to acknowledge that this is so. He also
conveniently ignores questions that don't suit his case.
The only point where Leonard was perhaps incorrect was his original
statement statement that "Let Windows" manage is the default. When
Leonard made this slip David B went after Leonard like a bulldog. I
would not have overmuch sympathy for David B as he is well able to take
care of himself, even if he now feels persecuted as Leonard did earlier.
It's all a storm in a tea cup which will blow over.
--
Regards.
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
D
David B.
Your opinion is no more or less valid than mine, I really don't care who
agrees or doesn't agree, continue to give your advise and I will continue to
give mine.
--
agrees or doesn't agree, continue to give your advise and I will continue to
give mine.
--