Installing XP
Uncle Nobby
I have a computer that has Win 98 and I want to install XP, not an upgrade.
Can I install XP over Win 98 or should I re format the disc and install XP?
Thanx
Gordon
news:eO61%23TaRI...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Is your machine up to spec for XP? You really need at LEAST 512 MB RAM......
Ken Blake, MVP
wrote:
> I have a computer that has Win 98 and I want to install XP, not an upgrade.
>
> Can I install XP over Win 98 or should I re format the disc and install XP?
If yours is a retail copy of Windows XP (either Full or Upgrade), not
an OEM one, yes, you can do an upgrade. OEM copies, however, can not
do upgrades.
The more important question, and the one where you will get dissenting
opinions, is *should* you do an upgrade. Here's my view:
Although many people will tell you that formatting and installing
cleanly is the best way to go, I disagree. Unlike with previous
versions of Windows, an upgrade to XP replaces almost everything, and
usually works very well.
My recommendation is to at least try the upgrade, since it's much
easier than a clean installation. You can always change your mind and
reinstall cleanly if problems develop.
However, don't assume that doing an upgrade relieves you of the need
to backup your data, etc. before beginning. Before starting to
upgrade, it's always prudent to recognize that things like a sudden
power loss can occur in the middle of it and cause the loss of
everything. For that reason you should make sure you have backups and
anything else you need to reinstall if the worst happens.
By the way, if you do decide to do a clean installation rather than an
upgrade, formatting is done as part of the installation, and doesn't
have to be done first. Just boot from the Windows XP CD (change the
BIOS boot order if necessary to accomplish this) and follow the
prompts for a clean installation (delete the existing partition by
pressing "D" when prompted, then create a new one).
You can find detailed instructions here:
http://michaelstevenstech.com/cleanxpinstall.html
or here
http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org/how_do_i_install_windows_xp.htm
or here http://windowsxp.mvps.org/XPClean.htm
or here http://www.webtree.ca/windowsxp/clean_install.htm
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
philo
Since you specifically said you want to install XP without upgrading your
win98...
you can format the drive from within the context of your XP installation.
Just boot with your XP cd and go.
If you still have your win98 cd...you can purchase an XP upgrade cd and
still perform a clean install.
NOTE: Be sure to backup your data first!!!!!
Also...if your machine was old enough to have win98 on it...
you should be sure of the specs that XP needs to run well.
Regardless of what is stated as the minimum hardware...
Unless you have a 500mhz cpu and 256 megs of ram...there would be no sense
in even attempting to run XP.
Realistically you should have about a 1ghz cpu (or more) and 512 megs of RAM
or more
Unknown
requirements for XP before you start.
Windows XP Professional System Requirements:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/upgrading/sysreqs.mspx
For XP Home PC requirements see:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/systemrequirements.mspx
Just keep in mind that these are minimum requirements and in reality XP
really likes 348 to 512MB of memory.
JS
"Uncle Nobby" <u...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:eO61%23TaRI...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Bill Sharpe
I've also installed Office 2007 Pro. However, I don't push it by running
more than two applications at a time. And, yes, it takes a while to
start up.
Bill
Sam Hobbs
news:Or8JTbaR...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
I agree that 256 MB can be frustrating and painful but XP Pro does work with
just 256 MB. I certainly agree that we need to recommend more than 256 MB.
Sam Hobbs
news:%23$ldElaRI...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
> Unless you have a 500mhz cpu and 256 megs of ram...there would be no sense
> in even attempting to run XP.
More than 256 MB is more important than 500 MHz. With just 256 MB, XP is
choked for memory more than it is choked for processing.
Ken Blake, MVP
I don't agree at all. It depends entirely on what apps you run. For
many people running XP, 256MB is fine.
Unknown
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:k8f3n31fvqibbpf8c...@4ax.com...
Ken Blake, MVP
wrote:
> Describe the 'many people' you think are happy with 256 meg.
One is a 5'8" man with gray hair and a beard. Another is a woman about
50, with brown hair, and... ;-)
I don't know how to describe them in any meaningful way. These are
people who run typical business applications. They are not power
users, and don't run particular memory-hungry applications--certainly
no photo- or video-editing. They do E-mail, browse the web, some
word-processing, etc.
For such people, 256MB is often just fine. And *many* people fall into
that category of relatively light use. The point again is that how
much RAM you need for good performance is *not* the same for everyone,
and depends entirely on what apps you run.
Unknown
I have yet to hear from anyone who would say they noticed no improvement
in updating from 256 to 512 megs.
Following these newsgroups, indications are that the best improvement one
can make on their system is a memory increase from 256 to 512 megs.
If they are perfectly happy with speed, they don't post here asking about
it.
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
Sam Hobbs
news:k8f3n31fvqibbpf8c...@4ax.com...
>
> many people running XP, 256MB is fine.
I said nothing about applications. I said XP.
I have only 256 MB of physical memory. XP for me definitely thrashes when
it boots and I have tried to eliminate everything from the startup that
might contribute to the problem. The reason I know there is a problem is
because I am using the performance monitor. I have a 350 MHz processor that
is not the bottleneck.
People might be happy with 256 MB of memory but probably because they don't
realize how much their system thashes.
Ken Blake, MVP
wrote:
> In other words, you posted emotions rather than facts.
Feel free to draw whatever conclusions you want, whether or not they
are justified. But argue with someone else. I'm not interested.
Ken Blake, MVP
<sam...@social.rr.com_change_social_to_socal> wrote:
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:k8f3n31fvqibbpf8c...@4ax.com...
> >
> > I don't agree at all. It depends entirely on what apps you run. For
> > many people running XP, 256MB is fine.
>
> I said nothing about applications. I said XP.
>
> I have only 256 MB of physical memory. XP for me definitely thrashes when
> it boots and I have tried to eliminate everything from the startup that
> might contribute to the problem. The reason I know there is a problem is
> because I am using the performance monitor. I have a 350 MHz processor that
> is not the bottleneck.
I am certainly not claiming that adding RAM to *your* 256MB system
will not result in a speedup. Even if that were true (and I will
accept that it probably isn't, based on what you say), there's no way
I could know that. What I stated is that it is *not* true that adding
RAM to *any* 256MB system will result in a speedup. The point is that
it depends entirely on what apps you run.
To start at the lowest possible level, consider a person who uses his
computer to do nothing but play solitaire. Do you agree that a 512MB
system will be no faster than a 256MB one?
Good. Now lets take the next step. Imagine someone who plays solitaire
and also sends and receives E-mail. He too will see no improvement by
going from 256MB to 512MB.
And so on. There is a wide spectrum of what people do with their
systems, starting with those who do little more than play solitaire at
the low end and ending with those who do things like photo- and
video-editing at the high end. These people do *not* have identical
memory needs. Those at the high-end need more (*much* more) than those
at the low end. You apparently need 512MB (or maybe more). The next
person, who edits large photographic images, may need 2GB. And for a
third person, who does little more than E-mail, some web-browsing, and
writing an occasional document in Wordpad (and make no mistake about
it--there are *many* people who don't do much more than that), 256MB
can be just fine.
Daave
> Describe the 'many people' you think are happy with 256 meg.
My PC at work has only 256 MB of RAM, and it's plenty fast. It rarely
uses the pagefile. Then again, I don't have any resource-hungry apps
running in the background and I don't multitask. Just e-mail, light Web
browsing. and Office applications like Word and Excel.
Now would I recommend 256 MB to the average PC user. Certainly not. Most
people I know like to be able to multitask and/or view streaming media.
But for non-demanding use, 256 MB is fine.
Walter
Ken Blake, MVP
Yes, my point exactly. How much RAM you need for good performance
depends on your use--what apps you run. It is *not* a
one-size-fits-all situation.
Many computer users use their computers in non-demanding ways. I
personally know dozens of people, starting with my wife, who do
nothing but E-mail, a little web browsing, and some light word
processing. I don't want to claim that most computer users fall into
that category, because I have no statistics to support it, but clearly
there are many who do.
Unknown
And I might add the cost is ridiculously low.
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
Daave
I've used 512 MB RAM on an identical system. No difference in
performance when using the PC in a very conservative manner (e-mail,
light Web browsing, word processing, no multitasking, no viewing
streaming media, no RAM-hungry apps); 256 MB is ample and Commit Charge
figures verify this.
But I do agree that people should run with at least 512 MB because the
price of memory *is* low, and most people I would suspect don't run
their PCs as conservatively as I do when I'm at work. Also, habits and
needs change over time, so more memory is usually not a bad idea.
Unknown
"Daave" <dcwash...@myrealboxXYZ.invalid> wrote in message
news:O47JEaK...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
Ken Blake, MVP
wrote:
> But, they are surprised at the difference when they operate with 512 megs.
Sigh. *Some* people are.
> And I might add the cost is ridiculously low.
That's the single point you've made that I agree with. The difference
in cost between 256MB and 512MB is low enough that if there is any
question about whether the additional RAM is needed in a particular
situation, most people who are not on a very tight budget should
spring for the additional RAM.
However, that's a very different statement from saying that *everyone*
will see a performance boost by going from 256MB to 512MB.
Ken Blake, MVP
wrote:
> Well said!
Then all three of us agree. Good.
Unknown
people buying a new car should buy one without a spare tire.
Be realistic.
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
Unknown
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
Bill Sharpe
saying that in many instances 256 mb is perfectly adequate.
Bill
Sam Hobbs
news:OdmrZoaS...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> No one is arguing that there's no improvement with more ram. We're just
> saying that in many instances 256 mb is perfectly adequate.
And I am saying that based on my personal experience 256 MB is inadequate
for me for executing just XP Pro and I want people to know to expect a slow
system if they use just 256 MB for their system using XP Pro.
Sam Hobbs
> On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:39:28 -0800, "Sam Hobbs"
> <sam...@social.rr.com_change_social_to_socal> wrote:
>
>> I said nothing about applications. I said XP.
>
> it depends entirely on what apps you run.
I said nothing about applications. I said XP. XP is slow to start.
Perhaps the antivirus software is a problem, but I hope you are not
suggesting that antivirus software not be used.
Gordon
> saying that in many instances 256 mb is perfectly adequate.
>
> Bill
As someone who recently retired as a Systems Accountant I would say from a
large amount of experience that in most cases 256 MB is NOT adequate....
Daave
That doesn't contradict what Bill wrote.
Daave
*Most likely* the antivirus is the problem!
Easy solution:
1. Don't use RAM-hogging antivirus apps (such as Norton or McAfee).
2. Schedule downloads and scans to run at times other than startup
(e.g., overnight).
Ken Blake, MVP
<sam...@social.rr.com_change_social_to_socal> wrote:
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:mi06n39tj6h503833...@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:39:28 -0800, "Sam Hobbs"
> > <sam...@social.rr.com_change_social_to_socal> wrote:
> >
> >> I said nothing about applications. I said XP.
> >
> > The point is that
> > it depends entirely on what apps you run.
>
> I said nothing about applications. I said XP. XP is slow to start.
Two points:
1. How long it takes XP to start depends very greatly on what
applications start automatically with it.
2. How long it takes XP to start is inconsequential for most people.
Most people start their computers once a day or even less frequently.
In the overall scheme of things, even a few minutes to start up isn't
very important. Personally I power on my computer when I get up in the
morning, then go get my coffee. When I come back, it's done booting. I
don't know how long it took to boot and I don't care.
> Perhaps the antivirus software is a problem, but I hope you are not
> suggesting that antivirus software not be used.
Of course not.
Gordon
Weeeellll yes it does.
Quote:
"We're just saying that in many instances 256 mb is perfectly adequate."
And in MY experience 256 MB is NOT adequate in most cases.
Daave
Yes, the two statements can be true and not contradict each other.
In *your* experience, 256 MB is not adequate in *most* cases, but in
*many* cases (not necessarily most), 256 MB is perfectly adequate.
Gordon
Have you actually TRIED to run XP with anything more than one or two IE6
windows open and OE6 on only 256 MB?
As soon as you add IE7, Office 2003 or 2007 into the equation, even 512 MB
IS NOT SUFFICIENT for adequate performance.
Daave
I've tried it and I can assure you that 256 MB is fine. Still, I
wouldn't recommend that small amount for the average user. But when
using a PC conservatively (e-mail, light Web browsing, word processing,
no multitasking, no viewing streaming media, no RAM-hungry apps,
avoiding Norton and McAfee, scheduling virus scans to run when I am away
from the PC), 256 MB is ample and Commit Charge figures verify this.
Unknown
superior than
256 megs and in ALMOST every case a speed increase is sensed.
"Daave" <dcwash...@myrealboxXYZ.invalid> wrote in message
Unknown
long
bootup time is annoying.
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:mjqcn3tji3h7i5b1d...@4ax.com...
Ken Blake, MVP
I don't whether he has, but I have, on more than one computer. It
worked fine.
By the way, what you have *open* is largely irrelevant. It's what you
are actively using that counts. An application that's open and not
being used quickly gets paged out, and takes up virtual memory, but
little or no real memory.
There's no performance penalty for that. The performance penalty comes
about when you are constantly shuttling things in and out of the page
file, because they are all in active use, and there isn't enough real
memory to contain it all at once.
Daave
I'm in favor a minimum of 512 MB for most people. You're the one looking
to argue even when you agree!
http://groups.google.com/group/microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics/msg/659f9945b7e517ec?hl=en
Check and mate.
Sam Hobbs
>
> By the way, what you have *open* is largely irrelevant. It's what you
> are actively using that counts. An application that's open and not
> being used quickly gets paged out, and takes up virtual memory, but
> little or no real memory.
Excellent point and that is what I have tried to say.
> The performance penalty comes
> about when you are constantly shuttling things in and out of the page
> file, because they are all in active use, and there isn't enough real
> memory to contain it all at once.
I think the established term is thrashing.
Sam Hobbs
>
> 2. How long it takes XP to start is inconsequential for most people.
In this context, I consider startup time to be an indication of XP's
performance using the configuration it is in. Yes, it does depend on
whatever else is starting so bad performance at startup might be misleading
but if that is acknowledged as an influence then poor performance by the
startup is a possible indication of overall poor performance.
Definitely if the poor performance only occurs during startup then most
people could live with that.
Bill Sharpe
mb does result in faster performance. However, my laptop runs fine for
what I want to do with just 256 mb ram. And Daave seems to agree with me.
My desktop PC has 1 gb memory and is three years newer than the laptop.
Of course it's faster and I wouldn't want to go back to minimum memory
on that machine.
I haven't seen any new PC's advertised lately with less than 512 mb. And
I'd want more than that if I were buying a new machine today.
Bill
Bill Sharpe
> That of course is YOU personally. I power up my computer AFTER coffee and a
> long
> bootup time is annoying.
Geez, have a second cup of coffee and relax...
Bill
Ken Blake, MVP
<sam...@social.rr.com_change_social_to_socal> wrote:
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:v15dn3tqobas8tksm...@4ax.com...
> >
> > By the way, what you have *open* is largely irrelevant. It's what you
> > are actively using that counts. An application that's open and not
> > being used quickly gets paged out, and takes up virtual memory, but
> > little or no real memory.
>
> Excellent point and that is what I have tried to say.
Good, glad we agree.
> > The performance penalty comes
> > about when you are constantly shuttling things in and out of the page
> > file, because they are all in active use, and there isn't enough real
> > memory to contain it all at once.
>
> I think the established term is thrashing.
Yes, it is. I usually try to avoid using technical terms in the
newsgroups, because not everyone understands what they mean.
Ken Blake, MVP
<sam...@social.rr.com_change_social_to_socal> wrote:
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:mjqcn3tji3h7i5b1d...@4ax.com...
> >
> > 2. How long it takes XP to start is inconsequential for most people.
>
> In this context, I consider startup time to be an indication of XP's
> performance using the configuration it is in. Yes, it does depend on
> whatever else is starting so bad performance at startup might be misleading
Although I don't disagree, in my view that "might" should be changed
to "is usually," or at least "is often."
> but if that is acknowledged as an influence then poor performance by the
> startup is a possible indication of overall poor performance.
Possible, yes. But often not. If overall performance *is* poor, then
it should be addressed, and what you have starting automatically
should certainly be looked at as a possible cause of poor performance.
But it's wrong to assume that slow startup automatically means poor
general performance.
I think many people mistakenly assume that a slow startup slows down
everything else, but that's not always (maybe not even usually) the
case.
That's why my standard newsgroup post on slow startup includes the
sentence "Assuming that the computer's speed is otherwise
satisfactory, it may not be worth worrying about."
My own system is a very good case in point. It starts extremely
slowly, because I automatically start a number of applications (not
just background ones) that I use and always keep open all day. These
include Outlook, Forte Agent, Excel, IE7 with Maxthon running on top
of it, and Quicken. If I didn't start them automatically, I would
start them manually just after startup, and it's easier to do it
automatically.
Starting all those programs automatically makes a very slow startup,
but after startup, my performance is just fine.
> Definitely if the poor performance only occurs during startup then most
> people could live with that.
Yes, that is exactly the point I was making.
Sam Hobbs
>
> 256 MB is ample and Commit Charge figures verify this.
I don't understand how Commit Charge figures are relevant. See the following
article; it's description of the Commit Charge figures does not indicate a
relevance.
The Memory Shell Game
http://blogs.msdn.com/ntdebugging/archive/2007/10/10/the-memory-shell-game.aspx
Sam Hobbs
>
> I think many people mistakenly assume that a slow startup slows down
> everything else
I don't. If anything I said indicates otherwise then I was not clear.
> My own system is a very good case in point. It starts extremely
> slowly, because I automatically start a number of applications (not
> just background ones) that I use and always keep open all day. These
> include Outlook, Forte Agent, Excel, IE7 with Maxthon running on top
> of it, and Quicken. If I didn't start them automatically, I would
> start them manually just after startup, and it's easier to do it
> automatically.
That's great if the system can do all that without the multiple processes
causing paging that would not occur when there is less for the system to do.
If there is a lot of paging (thrashing) caused by Windows trying to do so
much that it is forced to do a lot of physical paging (hard faults) that it
would not need to do with a lighter workload then it would be reasonable to
reduce the workload during startup.
Unknown
matter how much caffeine is ingested.news:uEcAfM%23SIH...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Daave
This is my understanding:
If the peak level is less than the amount of RAM, the PC doesn't need to
use the pagefile (therefore, performance is at optimal level). I believe
that article was addressing whenever the commit charge is *higher* than
the amount of RAM, the amount of thrashing may not be as high as one
might expect, depending on whether or not I/O is kept to a minimum.
Ken Blake, MVP
<sam...@social.rr.com_change_social_to_socal> wrote:
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:dphin3hejddl265n9...@4ax.com...
> >
> > I think many people mistakenly assume that a slow startup slows down
> > everything else
>
> I don't. If anything I said indicates otherwise then I was not clear.
Sorry--no, I didn't think you did. I was pointing that others do, and
that's why I so often stress that a slow startup, in and of itself, is
not necessarily a problem, and for many people often isn't.
> > My own system is a very good case in point. It starts extremely
> > slowly, because I automatically start a number of applications (not
> > just background ones) that I use and always keep open all day. These
> > include Outlook, Forte Agent, Excel, IE7 with Maxthon running on top
> > of it, and Quicken. If I didn't start them automatically, I would
> > start them manually just after startup, and it's easier to do it
> > automatically.
>
> That's great if the system can do all that without the multiple processes
> causing paging that would not occur when there is less for the system to do.
> If there is a lot of paging (thrashing) caused by Windows trying to do so
> much that it is forced to do a lot of physical paging (hard faults) that it
> would not need to do with a lighter workload then it would be reasonable to
> reduce the workload during startup.
Again, the thrashing would occur if several of the programs are in
simultaneous use. Since I keep all these loaded because I use one or
the other frequently throughout the day, but hardly ever use multiples
at the same time, they don't compete with each other for RAM, and
thrashing is not an issue. Performance is fine.
Sam Hobbs
Probably you are correct that if physical memory is adequate enough to
provide all the memory for all the applications executing then the pagefile
is not needed. The assumption is that physical memory is often not adequate,
however processes usually have some memory that is used so rarely that it is
efficient to page out the memory that is rarely used. If however there is
enough physical memory then it still is not necessary to page anything out.
If that is the case then there is no need to discuss anything here; anyone
with sufficient main memory can ignore this. The problem is when there is
such an inadequate supply of main memory that there are performance problems
due to that problem.
Yes, it is true that "whenever the commit charge is *higher* than the amount
of RAM, the amount of thrashing may not be as high as one might expect" but
it is also true that the amount of thrashing might be higher than one might
expect; both situations are possible and the commit charge does not indicate
which is true.
Sam Hobbs
>
> Again, the thrashing would occur if several of the programs are in
> simultaneous use. Since I keep all these loaded because I use one or
> the other frequently throughout the day, but hardly ever use multiples
> at the same time, they don't compete with each other for RAM, and
> thrashing is not an issue. Performance is fine.
I was referring to loading startup with many things to do during startup.
During startup, the programs will likely execute simultaneously with other
programs. This automatic execution of multiple processes could choke main
memory more than at any other time and therefore a limited amount of main
memory could force use of virtual storage. If multiple processes compete for
main memory during the unusual startup environment that occurs during
startup then they might require more time than if they executed at a less
resource-intensive time.
I am speaking theoretically; I assume it does not apply to your system.
Daave
That is the case. :-)
Ken Blake, MVP
<sam...@social.rr.com_change_social_to_socal> wrote:
> Probably you are correct that if physical memory is adequate enough to
> provide all the memory for all the applications executing then the pagefile
> is not needed.
Nope, that isn't true. Applications often pre-allocate memory for
*potential* use, and in many cases, that potential use never becomes
actual use. Those allocations normally get paged out very quickly
because they are not in use, but if there is no page file they have to
stay in real memory. The result is that without a page file, you
effectively get locked out of some of your real memory, and you can't
actually use all of it.
Add to that that there is *no* advantage to not having a page file
(except for saving a tiny amount of disk space) and it's clear that it
should never to turned off.
For more information, read "Virtual Memory in Windows XP" by the late
MVP Alex Nichol at http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm
Ken Blake, MVP
Well, I'm not absolutely sure I completely understand you, but if you
are saying that competition for real memory, and consequent thrashing,
occurs while the programs are being loaded at startup, yes that's
true, and I agree. I'm sure it does apply to my system, and that's
part of the reason that my startup is slow. But as I said, I start up
very seldom, and I don't mind its being slow, since performance is
otherwise fine.
Sam Hobbs
"Ken Blake, MVP" <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
What in particular in that article do you think it says that the "result is
that without a page file, you effectively get locked out of some of your
real memory, and you can't actually use all of it"?
As for "they have to stay in real memory", staying in real memory is ideal.
It is foolish to force Windows to swap anything to the pagefile if there is
enough real memory to satisfy all memory requirements for all processes
executing in a system.
The article says "the optimisation implied by this has been found not to
justify the overhead, and normally there is only a single page file in the
first instance". The author does not understand the value of using multiple
physical drives for pagefiles.
Ken Blake, MVP
<sam...@social.rr.com_change_social_to_socal> wrote:
"Doing this would waste a lot of the RAM. The reason is that when
programs ask for an allocation of Virtual memory space, they may ask
for a great deal more than they ever actually bring into use — the
total may easily run to hundreds of megabytes. These addresses have to
be assigned to somewhere by the system. If there is a page file
available, the system can assign them to it"
> As for "they have to stay in real memory", staying in real memory is ideal.
> It is foolish to force Windows to swap anything to the pagefile if there is
> enough real memory to satisfy all memory requirements for all processes
> executing in a system.
No. We are talking here about allocations that will probably never be
used. What you say is true only for what is used.
Sam Hobbs
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2008 00:14:00 -0800, "Sam Hobbs"
> <sam...@social.rr.com_change_social_to_socal> wrote:
>
>> What in particular in that article do you think it says that the "result
>> is
>> that without a page file, you effectively get locked out of some of your
>> real memory, and you can't actually use all of it"?
>
>
> "Doing this would waste a lot of the RAM. The reason is that when
> programs ask for an allocation of Virtual memory space, they may ask
> total may easily run to hundreds of megabytes. These addresses have to
> be assigned to somewhere by the system. If there is a page file
> available, the system can assign them to it"
That is too vague for me to be sure and I don't trust the accuracy. Let's
leave this to be judged by each person. You can help everyone by finding
something more reliable; maybe I will.
Rick Merrill
Accidently launch an extra copy of a drawing program and POOF! you are
out of memory.
There is NEVER "enough" RAM to run 1 each of all your programs.