Agreed. I felt your frustration! And I agree it's time to put this one
to rest, too.

"David B." wrote in message
...
Good job deciphering Daave, all I originally wanted to do was get
people to realize WHAT the default page file setting was, and it
snowballed. I think it's time to put this one to rest.

--
----
Crosspost, do not multipost
http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
How to ask a question http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
How to Post http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
__________________________________________________ _______________________________

"Daave" wrote in message
...
LOL

Now it looks like I'm adding to the confusion.

I'll correct my previous post... I left something out...

(see below)


Daave wrote:
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."

My mistake.

For some reason, when I pasted the above, I had the following on the
brain (also said by Leonard):

"XP by default is set to system managed size."

That would have been the challenge. But Leonard hadn't said it yet!
(But
by the time he did, *that* is what the debate was really about. At
least
that's what I noticed more than anything else. Leonard was wrong. And
David B. wanted to point out the mistake.)

So going back, what Leonard said was more like a non sequitur. After
David B. made his remark that sometimes Virtual Memory settings need
to
be changed after the installation of memory (in instances when Let
System Manage had *not* been chosen), Leonard said:

"The correct setting for the page file is almost always 'system
managed
size' and that's where you should have it."

This was a non sequitur and also happened to be something David B.
agreed with! Perhaps David B. used a tone. But perhaps he didn't. And
in
Usenet, it's easy to assume there was a tone when there wasn't. So
maybe
you (and maybe Leonard) thought David B. was being snarky when he
replied:

"Umm, that's what I said, XP by default is set to a fixed size."

And then the thread devolved into its current mess!

Distilled:

Both Leonard and David B. think it's good to let the system manage
VM.

Leonard mistakenly said that by default XP lets the system manage VM.

That was the point that David B. disagreed with (correctly).

Leonard was under the impression that they both believed the same
thing:
that it is *good* to let the system manage VM. While that may be
true,
he didn't realize he had made a wrong statement and just saw the
disagreement as one over semantics. But it really wasn't. But it's
easy
to get lost and think that it's a pointless debate anyway.

Okay, I'm done now. Good night!


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! :-)