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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Installing Extra RAM
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. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Installing Extra RAM
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 |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Installing Extra RAM
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. : : |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Installing Extra RAM
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. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Installing Extra RAM
"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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Installing Extra RAM
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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Installing Extra RAM
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Installing Extra RAM
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Installing Extra RAM
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Installing Extra RAM
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Installing Extra RAM
"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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Installing Extra 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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Installing Extra RAM
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. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Installing Extra 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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|