virtual memory with 16gb ram installed
- Thread starter adbp1
- Start date
- Status
Nobody is "smacking" anybody around. Not the OP, not "hansp", not anyone.
OcUK is a forum of knowledge, insight, learning and unencumbered technological thought. There is no room at all for half truths, hearsay or predictions. When discussing a subject of the complexity of virtual memory anybody that doesn't know what they're talking about should be very quiet and just listen. It is apparent that, as is seemingly quite normal with this subject, a fair few contributors don't have a single utter clue about the subject. They were using the words "virtual memory" and "page file" almost interchangeably. This is not acceptable on OcUK. You can get away with it on a lesser technology forum but not here; the bar is higher.
The thread has not been derailed. The OP's question was answered. Then the thread required explanation as to why a number of the original answers were wrong. Unfortunately there is no "simple" explanation with this subject and this forum is lucky enough to have contributors that aren't willing to compromise by dishing out the typical spiel you'll find about virtual memory on other forums.
I stand by all of my answers and explanations. I don't believe I have posted erroneous, confusing or conflicting information. If you think I have then by all means point it out.
OcUK is a forum of knowledge, insight, learning and unencumbered technological thought. There is no room at all for half truths, hearsay or predictions. When discussing a subject of the complexity of virtual memory anybody that doesn't know what they're talking about should be very quiet and just listen. It is apparent that, as is seemingly quite normal with this subject, a fair few contributors don't have a single utter clue about the subject. They were using the words "virtual memory" and "page file" almost interchangeably. This is not acceptable on OcUK. You can get away with it on a lesser technology forum but not here; the bar is higher.
The thread has not been derailed. The OP's question was answered. Then the thread required explanation as to why a number of the original answers were wrong. Unfortunately there is no "simple" explanation with this subject and this forum is lucky enough to have contributors that aren't willing to compromise by dishing out the typical spiel you'll find about virtual memory on other forums.
I stand by all of my answers and explanations. I don't believe I have posted erroneous, confusing or conflicting information. If you think I have then by all means point it out.
I'm sure they do since the two concepts are inextricably linked (as I have already said). However the two terms are absolutely not interchangeable and I would be interested if you've seen Microsoft articles on the web that clearly confuse the two.
The GUI design of the relevant screens in Windows has always been that way. It stems back to at least Win2000 maybe even NT4. It's from a time when naivety around virtual memory was rampant, even within Microsoft. Back then the only guys that knew how this stuff really worked was Dave Cutler and his team. Nowadays you have to know how virtual memory works just to get passed a Microsoft technical interview. Unfortunately using the wording on some age old GUI screens as a "defence" or argument against the facts being presented in this thread is not really going to wash. There are plenty of good articles on Wikipedia, for a start, on the subject of virtual memory and how it is related to the page file. I would suggest you and everyone go read those. I really wouldn't advise learning about computer science from the way that GUI's are designed.
They have many KBs where they talk about the page file as virtual memory.
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-vista/What-is-virtual-memory
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/826513
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/Change-the-size-of-virtual-memory
I can go on for days. "Virtual memory" is Microsoft's term to describe the page file to normal users. That is means something else when we talk memory management and cpu architecture is something else.
The guy was told several times that he talked nonsense - because he used Microsoft terminology. That is the "smacking around"-part.
They are all wrong, if we talk cpu architecture. I can add from a couple of books I have here...
From Microsoft Press, MCTS (exam 70-680):
"The Performance Options tool lets you configure visual effects and specify whether the
system is adjusted for best performance of applications or background services. It lets
you configure page file (virtual memory) settings and DEP."
From Microsoft Press, Windows 7 Inside out:
"Virtual memory consists of physical memory plus the amount of space in the page file, which is stored on the hard disk."
Can you see why many people refers to the page file as virtual memory?
From Microsoft Press, MCTS (exam 70-680):
"The Performance Options tool lets you configure visual effects and specify whether the
system is adjusted for best performance of applications or background services. It lets
you configure page file (virtual memory) settings and DEP."
From Microsoft Press, Windows 7 Inside out:
"Virtual memory consists of physical memory plus the amount of space in the page file, which is stored on the hard disk."
Can you see why many people refers to the page file as virtual memory?
Last edited:
If you are so keen on details, you need to be more detailed here. Protected mode in itself doesn't give you that. You can run in protected mode without paging.
Most of those are fine really. Yes they simplify things a little bit but it's pretty clear they're talking about virtual memory as the thing that encompasses both RAM and the page file. Which is correct. They don't mention about memory mapped files, which is another component to virtual memory, but on those sort of articles that would be superfluous information.
The first one is wrong (ish) yes. But the author clearly was just describing what you see on the particular GUI screens, which as we already know have been labelled wrong for many years. Hell even Task Manager used to be labelled all wrong and they only fixed that in Windows 7!
The second quote looks fine to me. It implies that virtual memory encompasses both RAM and page file. Which is correct.
I'm not really sure what the point of this is. Why are you so keen to prove that people (and even Microsoft's technical writers) get the two terms mixed up? Are you suggesting that because it is such a common mistake that we here on OcUK should just ignore it and allow ourselves to make the same mistake? Sorry, but no. When the facts are well known, seemingly even to yourself, why would you willingly want to write something that you know to be wrong?
It's not that I'm "keen on details". It's that the confusion over VM and the Page File terminology is a fatal mistake to make for somebody trying to choose the best size for their page file.
The fact that you can run protected mode without paging (which yes is correct) is irrelevant really to the discussion.
I'm not really sure what your purpose is here? What are you trying to achieve? It seems like you're aware how VM and Paging works in general, which is good. But you're also seemingly happy that people continue to use the wrong terminology. Why?
Last edited:
Here you prove my point. Physical ram and the page file are components of the virtual memory system, but it is strictly not virtual memory as you go rambling about in one of your first posts where you attacked the guy, because he said the page file was virtual memory.
It is relevant in the sense that you want all the facts to be true. You just told me that you cannot tell half truths on this forum.
I'm trying (in vain) to make you realize how ridiculous your attack was. You could just have pointed out that the page file is a component of the entire virtual memory system, if you felt that need.
Last edited:
I think you are just trolling actually. You're so desperate to one-up me but you simply aren't going to achieve that because I know too much about this subject. Run along now.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
I think this discussion has moved on from being constructive.
- Status