<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: Windows Xp Tweaks that do not work</title> <atom:link href="http://www.pallab.net/2005/09/23/windows_xp_tweaks_that_do_not_work/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.pallab.net/2005/09/23/windows_xp_tweaks_that_do_not_work/</link> <description></description> <lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 03:03:28 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator> <item><title>By: Pallab</title><link>http://www.pallab.net/2005/09/23/windows_xp_tweaks_that_do_not_work/comment-page-1/#comment-76569</link> <dc:creator>Pallab</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:43:54 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">#comment-76569</guid> <description>Thanks for the insightful comment.
Most of the tweaking guides seems to suggest that it is better to set a fixed Page file size instead of letting system manage it or providing a range. The logic seems to be that the system ends up spending too much time adjusting the Page File size and ends up degrading performance. Also the pagefile may get fragmented if the system keeps continuously resizing it.
Do these claims have any substance?</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the insightful comment.<br
/> Most of the tweaking guides seems to suggest that it is better to set a fixed Page file size instead of letting system manage it or providing a range. The logic seems to be that the system ends up spending too much time adjusting the Page File size and ends up degrading performance. Also the pagefile may get fragmented if the system keeps continuously resizing it.<br
/> Do these claims have any substance?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Larry Miller</title><link>http://www.pallab.net/2005/09/23/windows_xp_tweaks_that_do_not_work/comment-page-1/#comment-76568</link> <dc:creator>Larry Miller</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 15:57:50 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">#comment-76568</guid> <description>Setting the initial size of the pagefile to 1.5 x RAM size does indeed seem counterintuitive. But that doesn&#039;t mean it is wrong.
For a given workload, the more RAM you have, the less pagefile that will be required. But Windows has no idea what your workload is going to be - but it can make a reasonable guess. In general, the memory demands placed on a computer will be in proportion to RAM size. Playing a modern game with only 128MB of RAM isn&#039;t going to provide a satisfying experience no matter what size the pagefile. A large pagefile would be a waste as performance will become unacceptable long before it is filled. A system with 4GB of RAM will be suitable for modern games, video editing, and more. This means a great deal of data will be handled, some of which will be only rarely accessed, if at all. The pagefle was designed to handle this, leaving the precious RAM for more important uses.
Windows designers learned very early that a pagefile about 1.5 x RAM size would be necessary to make optimum use of RAM, whatever it&#039;s size. If you have 128MB of RAM and are pushing it hard, that may not be enough. If you have 4GB and use it only for light duties that will more than needed. But more than needed does not mean too much. A larger than necessary pagefile will not encourage excessive use and it will not produce fragmentation.
That was the reasoning behind the 1.5 x RAM rule. It won&#039;t be suitable for everyone but it will usually be close.
Bottom line: unless you have a very good reason, and you understand what you are doing, leave pagefile settings on default.
Source: &quot;Inside Microsoft Windows 2000&quot;. Heavy reading but far more accurate than you will find anywhere else.
Larry Miller
Microsoft MCSA</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Setting the initial size of the pagefile to 1.5 x RAM size does indeed seem counterintuitive. But that doesn&#8217;t mean it is wrong.</p><p>For a given workload, the more RAM you have, the less pagefile that will be required. But Windows has no idea what your workload is going to be &#8211; but it can make a reasonable guess. In general, the memory demands placed on a computer will be in proportion to RAM size. Playing a modern game with only 128MB of RAM isn&#8217;t going to provide a satisfying experience no matter what size the pagefile. A large pagefile would be a waste as performance will become unacceptable long before it is filled. A system with 4GB of RAM will be suitable for modern games, video editing, and more. This means a great deal of data will be handled, some of which will be only rarely accessed, if at all. The pagefle was designed to handle this, leaving the precious RAM for more important uses.</p><p>Windows designers learned very early that a pagefile about 1.5 x RAM size would be necessary to make optimum use of RAM, whatever it&#8217;s size. If you have 128MB of RAM and are pushing it hard, that may not be enough. If you have 4GB and use it only for light duties that will more than needed. But more than needed does not mean too much. A larger than necessary pagefile will not encourage excessive use and it will not produce fragmentation.</p><p>That was the reasoning behind the 1.5 x RAM rule. It won&#8217;t be suitable for everyone but it will usually be close.</p><p>Bottom line: unless you have a very good reason, and you understand what you are doing, leave pagefile settings on default.</p><p>Source: &#8220;Inside Microsoft Windows 2000&#8243;. Heavy reading but far more accurate than you will find anywhere else.</p><p>Larry Miller<br
/> Microsoft MCSA</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: waaargh</title><link>http://www.pallab.net/2005/09/23/windows_xp_tweaks_that_do_not_work/comment-page-1/#comment-76161</link> <dc:creator>waaargh</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:05:54 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">#comment-76161</guid> <description>a huge page file might become fragmented and thus, help decrease performance, make sure of this before setting a big enough page file. Yes I know this is old as hell, I am just bored. XD
....still what I said applies well for todays 1Gig and up machines still suing XP, and probably with Vista since the way to allocate data among them is practically the same.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>a huge page file might become fragmented and thus, help decrease performance, make sure of this before setting a big enough page file. Yes I know this is old as hell, I am just bored. XD</p><p>&#8230;.still what I said applies well for todays 1Gig and up machines still suing XP, and probably with Vista since the way to allocate data among them is practically the same.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
