Pray tell.
Windows XP partition size
- Thread starter Barno
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 12 Aug 2005
- Posts
- 1,025
- Location
- Team 10
Got my pagefile disabled and it's been fine 
windows isn't designed to run without one, it still wants to page even if you have 4gb ram
disabling it causes instability in certain situations, fact
the sysinternals guys did a big test on it, conclusion - set windows to manage it.
i'm all for performance boosts, disabling pagefile is not one of them
disabling it causes instability in certain situations, fact
the sysinternals guys did a big test on it, conclusion - set windows to manage it.
i'm all for performance boosts, disabling pagefile is not one of them
14.8 GB. because that`s the size of my Mtron SSD
Default install with apps. Restore, hybernate and Pagefile disabled. (have been for >5 years no problems) 7.64 GB free.
I`ve used a 6 GB partition before with an nlited install, apps and all the above disabled. About 2.5 GB free space if I remember right.
I expect when I get around to nLiteing again my ssd will be about a quarter full.
Default install with apps. Restore, hybernate and Pagefile disabled. (have been for >5 years no problems) 7.64 GB free.
I`ve used a 6 GB partition before with an nlited install, apps and all the above disabled. About 2.5 GB free space if I remember right.
I expect when I get around to nLiteing again my ssd will be about a quarter full.
Yet!
Read up on it
2 years can't be wrong.
Haven't used a pagefile/swap partition in Windows nor Linux since about 2001 - when I could afford enough RAM for the programs I need to run simultaneously. Never had a problem. Haven't seen a BSOD on my machines for years. Never hear my HD's crunching themselves through the floor due to paging 
Where's this proof that it's bad?
There's a similar division of 'whats best' about swap partitions in Linux, and I can see the point when you have a multiuser server with potentially hundreds of programs started by different users mostly inactive or idling, but using disk as a substitute for RAM is needless when you can buy 4GB for under a ton. Of course, Linux has a rather more mature virtual memory system, which can actually be turned on/off and resized, use network devices for paging etc, without rebooting.
Back on topic : OP: My desktop has an 8GB XP install with a bunch of apps installed on C:. I redirect my user profile to my RAID5 logical drive and keep XP and my most used apps on RAID0. Very fast/easy to image/restore - 'reinstalled' XP in about 5 mins the other week after a slight mishap with VMware (my fault, managed to boot the C: drive as a raw disk from a VM, which the real XP didn't like too much...).
My EEE 901 laptop is using XP installed on the 4GB SSD. I install apps on the other SSD (actually formatted as ext3 for Linux, access using ext2ifs). 2GB free on C:, no probs
Where's this proof that it's bad?
There's a similar division of 'whats best' about swap partitions in Linux, and I can see the point when you have a multiuser server with potentially hundreds of programs started by different users mostly inactive or idling, but using disk as a substitute for RAM is needless when you can buy 4GB for under a ton. Of course, Linux has a rather more mature virtual memory system, which can actually be turned on/off and resized, use network devices for paging etc, without rebooting.
Back on topic : OP: My desktop has an 8GB XP install with a bunch of apps installed on C:. I redirect my user profile to my RAID5 logical drive and keep XP and my most used apps on RAID0. Very fast/easy to image/restore - 'reinstalled' XP in about 5 mins the other week after a slight mishap with VMware (my fault, managed to boot the C: drive as a raw disk from a VM, which the real XP didn't like too much...).
My EEE 901 laptop is using XP installed on the 4GB SSD. I install apps on the other SSD (actually formatted as ext3 for Linux, access using ext2ifs). 2GB free on C:, no probs
Last edited: