Installing Extra RAM

Look...what's the difference? You got your RAM, your computer works
great, what else matters? I don't want to argue, I have to catch up with
I Love New York 2. Makes my family look normal.

---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

David B. wrote:
Evidently you don't remember changing the setting after you did yours,
it is not set to system managed by default.

Leonard Grey wrote:
XP by default is set to system managed size.

Not according to Microsoft.

David B. is correct and a simple Google search will confirm this.

David

The answer to the question is as I said. Changing the size of the
pagefile is optional and not absolutely necessary. Arguably if you
substantially increase RAM then less pagefile is needed.

See the Section headed How large should the pagefile be?
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm


--
Regards.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


David B. wrote:
Except for the swapfile, it will be set for the pre upgrade amount of
RAM as I said in my post.


"Gerry" wrote in message
...
Alan

No manual adjustments required. If the system recognises the new RAM
it is automatic.

--



Hope this helps.

Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hudster wrote:
Hi,

If I install extra RAM into my PC, am I required to change any
settings under XP or will the system automatically adjust anyway?

Cheers.

Alan

Do a fresh default install on one of them and see what it's set to when your
done.

--
----
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
__________________________________________________ _______________________________

"Tom [Pepper] Willett" wrote in message
...
Every windows XP computer in our company and at my home is set to system
managed by default.

Several of these computers have had memory upgrades and are still at
system
managed by default.

All work just fine.


"David B." wrote in message
...
: Evidently you don't remember changing the setting after you did yours,
it
is
: not set to system managed by default.
:
: --
:
: ----
: Crosspost, do not multipost http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/mul_crss.htm
: How to ask a question http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
:
__________________________________________________ _______________________________
:
:
: "Leonard Grey" wrote in message
: ...
: Evidentally you didn't do mine. ;-)
:
: Truce?
:
: ---
: Leonard Grey
: Errare humanum est
:
: David B. wrote:
: No it is not, XP by default is set to a fixed size, determined by the
: amount of RAM you have installed during installation. I do 3 to 5 XP
: installations a week, trust me on this.
:
:

It matters that your posting incorrect information.

--
----
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
__________________________________________________ _______________________________

"Leonard Grey" wrote in message
...
Look...what's the difference? You got your RAM, your computer works great,
what else matters? I don't want to argue, I have to catch up with I Love
New York 2. Makes my family look normal.

---
Leonard Grey
Errare humanum est

David B. wrote:
Evidently you don't remember changing the setting after you did yours, it
is not set to system managed by default.

"Hudster" wrote in message
...
Hi,

If I install extra RAM into my PC, am I required to change any settings
under XP or will the system automatically adjust anyway?

Cheers.

Alan

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

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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Lil' Dave wrote:
"Hudster" wrote in message
...
Hi,

If I install extra RAM into my PC, am I required to change any
settings under XP or will the system automatically adjust anyway?

Cheers.

Alan

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

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.

--

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


"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

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

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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

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.

--

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


"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

"Gerry" wrote in message
...
David

That's not the debate you were having with Leonard as it looked to me.

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.

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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


David B. wrote:
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.


"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

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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Daave wrote:
"Gerry" wrote in message
...
David

That's not the debate you were having with Leonard as it looked to
me.

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.

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

--

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


"Gerry" wrote in message
...
David

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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


David B. wrote:
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.


"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