Page file size for 1 GB RAM?

I just upgraded my Athlon 1800 512 MB to 1 GB. Is there any general
consensus on the 'best' setting I should use for page file please? I
recall a few years ago much debate/controversy over this, but wonder
if a consensus has now emerged? My CPU is now slow by today's
standards (runs at 1533 MHz), so I naturally want to get the most out
of this extra RAM.

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK

Terry

System managed is the best setting..


"Terry Pinnell" wrote in message
...
I just upgraded my Athlon 1800 512 MB to 1 GB. Is there any general
consensus on the 'best' setting I should use for page file please? I
recall a few years ago much debate/controversy over this, but wonder
if a consensus has now emerged? My CPU is now slow by today's
standards (runs at 1533 MHz), so I naturally want to get the most out
of this extra RAM.

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK

--


Mike Hall
MS MVP Windows Shell/User
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/

"System managed size"

---
Leonard Grey
Since no one was buying 'Earl Grey'

Terry Pinnell wrote:
I just upgraded my Athlon 1800 512 MB to 1 GB. Is there any general
consensus on the 'best' setting I should use for page file please? I
recall a few years ago much debate/controversy over this, but wonder
if a consensus has now emerged? My CPU is now slow by today's
standards (runs at 1533 MHz), so I naturally want to get the most out
of this extra RAM.

On Mar 21, 11:40 am, Terry Pinnell
wrote:
I just upgraded my Athlon 1800 512 MB to 1 GB. Is there any general
consensus on the 'best' setting I should use for page file please? I
recall a few years ago much debate/controversy over this, but wonder
if a consensus has now emerged? My CPU is now slow by today's
standards (runs at 1533 MHz), so I naturally want to get the most out
of this extra RAM.

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK

It depends on your computer's usage
If you are using multiple apps simultaneously with often switching
between them then let system manage your pagefile

If you are using one application or if you are playing mostly games
then you can switch pagefile completely off (ONLY in WinXP !! ). It
can increase performance.

wrote:

On Mar 21, 11:40 am, Terry Pinnell
wrote:
I just upgraded my Athlon 1800 512 MB to 1 GB. Is there any general
consensus on the 'best' setting I should use for page file please? I
recall a few years ago much debate/controversy over this, but wonder
if a consensus has now emerged? My CPU is now slow by today's
standards (runs at 1533 MHz), so I naturally want to get the most out
of this extra RAM.

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK

It depends on your computer's usage
If you are using multiple apps simultaneously with often switching
between them then let system manage your pagefile

If you are using one application or if you are playing mostly games
then you can switch pagefile completely off (ONLY in WinXP !! ). It
can increase performance.

Thanks all. My usage fits the first category - lots of apps, switching
frequently. So I've left it at 'System managed' and see it has
allocated 1.5 GB. Seems a heck of a lot, but if that really is
needed...

Despite asking about this before, I've never had a convincing
explanation of why swap file size should *increase* with RAM, rather
than the opposite.

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK

Terry Pinnell wrote:

I just upgraded my Athlon 1800 512 MB to 1 GB. Is there any general
consensus on the 'best' setting I should use for page file please? I
recall a few years ago much debate/controversy over this, but wonder
if a consensus has now emerged? My CPU is now slow by today's
standards (runs at 1533 MHz), so I naturally want to get the most out
of this extra RAM.


With 1GB of RAM (it depends on what apps you run, but that's considerably
more than most people need), it is unlikely that you will use the page file
much, if at all. So any changes you make will have little or no effect on
performance. You can use the default settings, or you can save some disk
space by setting a small initial value (200MB or so) and leaving the maximum
large. It probably won't matter much either way.

For more information, this article by the late MVP, Alex Nichol, is
excellent: "Virtual Memory in Windows XP" at
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

By the way, unless you run particularly memory hungry applications (editing
large graphics images or videos) you will probably see *no* difference in
performance as a result of your memory upgrade. Most people don't run apps
that require that much memory. You often hear people saying that more memory
is better, but that's true only up to a point. Beyond that point (and 512MB
is that point or even beyond it, for most people), more memory doesn't hurt,
but it doesn't help either. More memory helps only when what you are running
causes you to use the page file instead of RAM. If you're in that situation,
adding RAM reduces (or eliminates) page file use, and speeds up performance.
If you're not in that situation, the RAM does next to nothing for you.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

System Managed...

Which on my system takes 1.5 GB.

DSH

"Terry Pinnell" wrote in message
...

I just upgraded my Athlon 1800 512 MB to 1 GB. Is there any general
consensus on the 'best' setting I should use for page file please? I
recall a few years ago much debate/controversy over this, but wonder
if a consensus has now emerged? My CPU is now slow by today's
standards (runs at 1533 MHz), so I naturally want to get the most out
of this extra RAM.

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:

Terry Pinnell wrote:

I just upgraded my Athlon 1800 512 MB to 1 GB. Is there any general
consensus on the 'best' setting I should use for page file please? I
recall a few years ago much debate/controversy over this, but wonder
if a consensus has now emerged? My CPU is now slow by today's
standards (runs at 1533 MHz), so I naturally want to get the most out
of this extra RAM.


With 1GB of RAM (it depends on what apps you run, but that's considerably
more than most people need), it is unlikely that you will use the page file
much, if at all. So any changes you make will have little or no effect on
performance. You can use the default settings, or you can save some disk
space by setting a small initial value (200MB or so) and leaving the maximum
large. It probably won't matter much either way.

For more information, this article by the late MVP, Alex Nichol, is
excellent: "Virtual Memory in Windows XP" at
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

By the way, unless you run particularly memory hungry applications (editing
large graphics images or videos) you will probably see *no* difference in
performance as a result of your memory upgrade. Most people don't run apps
that require that much memory. You often hear people saying that more memory
is better, but that's true only up to a point. Beyond that point (and 512MB
is that point or even beyond it, for most people), more memory doesn't hurt,
but it doesn't help either. More memory helps only when what you are running
causes you to use the page file instead of RAM. If you're in that situation,
adding RAM reduces (or eliminates) page file use, and speeds up performance.
If you're not in that situation, the RAM does next to nothing for you.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

Thanks. Yes, I might typically simultaneously be editing a movie,
playing a DVD, using a mapping program, writing a spreadsheet, playing
an MP3 or maybe converting one to WAV, and half a dozen other things -
such as composing this in Agent! So my page file gets a lot of use.

--
Terry, West Sussex, UK

Terry Pinnell wrote:

"Ken Blake, MVP" wrote:

Terry Pinnell wrote:

I just upgraded my Athlon 1800 512 MB to 1 GB. Is there any general
consensus on the 'best' setting I should use for page file please? I
recall a few years ago much debate/controversy over this, but wonder
if a consensus has now emerged? My CPU is now slow by today's
standards (runs at 1533 MHz), so I naturally want to get the most
out of this extra RAM.


With 1GB of RAM (it depends on what apps you run, but that's
considerably more than most people need), it is unlikely that you
will use the page file much, if at all. So any changes you make will
have little or no effect on performance. You can use the default
settings, or you can save some disk space by setting a small initial
value (200MB or so) and leaving the maximum large. It probably won't
matter much either way.

For more information, this article by the late MVP, Alex Nichol, is
excellent: "Virtual Memory in Windows XP" at
http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

By the way, unless you run particularly memory hungry applications
(editing large graphics images or videos) you will probably see *no*
difference in performance as a result of your memory upgrade. Most
people don't run apps that require that much memory. You often hear
people saying that more memory is better, but that's true only up to
a point. Beyond that point (and 512MB is that point or even beyond
it, for most people), more memory doesn't hurt, but it doesn't help
either. More memory helps only when what you are running causes you
to use the page file instead of RAM. If you're in that situation,
adding RAM reduces (or eliminates) page file use, and speeds up
performance. If you're not in that situation, the RAM does next to
nothing for you.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

Thanks. Yes, I might typically simultaneously be editing a movie,
playing a DVD, using a mapping program, writing a spreadsheet, playing
an MP3 or maybe converting one to WAV, and half a dozen other things -
such as composing this in Agent! So my page file gets a lot of use.


OK, so it sounds like upgrading to 1GB *did* make sense for you. Glad to
hear it. A lot of people who don't need that much RAM do this with the
mistaken notion that more RAM is always better, and just waste their money.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup