Installing Extra RAM

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.

--

----
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
...
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.

Oh, and the OP DID reveal his was NOT set to system managed, I quote;
"Thanks mate, have changed as you have suggested."

--

----
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
...
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.

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

David B. wrote:
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.

"Gerry" wrote in message
...
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.

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


David B. wrote:
Oh, and the OP DID reveal his was NOT set to system managed, I quote;
"Thanks mate, have changed as you have suggested."


"Gerry" wrote in message
...
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.

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.

--

----
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
...
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

David B. wrote:
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.

"Gerry" wrote in message
...
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.

You seem to have an unhealthy focus on this statement.

--

----
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
...
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


David B. wrote:
Oh, and the OP DID reveal his was NOT set to system managed, I quote;
"Thanks mate, have changed as you have suggested."


"Gerry" wrote in message
...
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.

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

David B. wrote:
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.


"Gerry" wrote in message
...
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

David B. wrote:
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.

"Gerry" wrote in message
...
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.

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! :-)




Gerry wrote:
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.


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.

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



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."

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! :-)




Gerry wrote:
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.


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.

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.

--
----
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
__________________________________________________ _______________________________

"Gerry" wrote in message
...
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

David B. wrote:
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.


"Gerry" wrote in message
...
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

David B. wrote:
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.

"Gerry" wrote in message
...
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.

I think Leonard was getting testy because I pointed out he was incorrect,
and there's always another one that has to come along and defend the person
whose getting persecuted because they don't have a clue what they're talking
about, I won't loose any sleep over 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
How to Post http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
__________________________________________________ _______________________________

"Daave" wrote in message
...
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! :-)




Gerry wrote:
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.


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.

He was not "perhaps" incorrect, he was incorrect.

--
----
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
__________________________________________________ _______________________________

"Gerry" wrote in message
...
Daave


The only point where Leonard was perhaps incorrect was his original
statement statement that "Let Windows" manage is the default.

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! :-)

Gerry wrote:
Daave

Blessed are the peacemakers!

Amen, bro! I feel like someone should buy me a beer. :-)

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.

That's not what I thought he said. I believe he said that while some
people (folks like you and me, for instance) like to tinker around with
settings to manually find that sweet spot of pagefile size, most folks
would rather just let the system manage VM. And it just so happens that
that's usually a good decision. But I'm burnt out looking at all these
posts, and even I would be happy to agree to disagree!

He also conveniently ignores questions that don't suit his case.

In fairness to him, I didn't see that at all. He was ticked that Leonard
kept on insisting that XP's default is to let the system manage VM. To
him, that was the entire debate. And frankly, that's how I saw it, too.
That's why I was kind of sympathetic. You brought up your thoughts on
following the information in the Alex Nichol article, but that was the
last thing on his mind; he was just frustrated that Leonard kept on
repeating the wrong information!

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.

Perceptions are fascinating, huh? And you know, that's a big reason
nations fight wars.

You know, between this thread and my exchanges with Unknown over
Ccleaner and AdAware, I think I need to take a break!

--
"Good night and good luck."

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! :-)