If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Installing Extra RAM
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! :-) |
Ads |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Installing Extra RAM
Good Golly Mrs. Molly what a thread...
OK guys someone here is going to pay. After loading all these thread/replies, my Swap file/Page File and my Memory is SHOT, so pay up now :) -- All the best, SG How to Write a Newsgroup Post: http://www.elephantboycomputers.com/page2.html#Usenet "Daave" wrote in message ... 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! :-) |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Installing Extra RAM
Generally speaking (doesn't fit all), if you have adequate hard drive space,
leave the swapfile at default location and assure its system managed size after increasing RAM. I can imagine many exceptions. -- Dave "Gerry" wrote in message ... 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ David B. wrote: 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. "Gerry" wrote in message ... 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 |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Installing Extra RAM
Remove your sound card and drop in boiling water for 45 minutes, reinstall
while still wet, that should take care of it -- ---- Crosspost, do not multipost http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm How to ask a question http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375 __________________________________________________ _______________________________ "SG" wrote in message ... Good Golly Mrs. Molly what a thread... OK guys someone here is going to pay. After loading all these thread/replies, my Swap file/Page File and my Memory is SHOT, so pay up now :) -- All the best, SG How to Write a Newsgroup Post: http://www.elephantboycomputers.com/page2.html#Usenet |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Installing Extra RAM
OH Great, now my speakers have a bubbling sound coming from them. :
Last post, but it was fun to ease the tension in this thread. -- All the best, SG How to Write a Newsgroup Post: http://www.elephantboycomputers.com/page2.html#Usenet "David B." wrote in message ... Remove your sound card and drop in boiling water for 45 minutes, reinstall while still wet, that should take care of it -- ---- Crosspost, do not multipost http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm How to ask a question http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375 __________________________________________________ _______________________________ "SG" wrote in message ... Good Golly Mrs. Molly what a thread... OK guys someone here is going to pay. After loading all these thread/replies, my Swap file/Page File and my Memory is SHOT, so pay up now :) -- All the best, SG How to Write a Newsgroup Post: http://www.elephantboycomputers.com/page2.html#Usenet |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|