Fixed. Dim8400 for example.
And the XPS is a PCI-E-equipped system with a 650W unit.
<done with the PSU stuff here>
Fixed. Dim8400 for example.Some of Dell's AGP-equipped and PCI-E equipped systems also have far less than 350W - some at 305W, and some less. It certainly isn't a de-facto requirement.
And the XPS is a PCI-E-equipped system with a 650W unit.Power
[*] Output Wattage: 350 Watts
lol, you don't even know. Windows has it as a percentage. For modern systems, the default setting equals several gigabytes. The minimum is 1%, I have it at 2%, and my partitions C: is 20GB. It's at just over 400MB. That max is 12%; that's 2.5GB. If I left it on for all the partitons (2 drives at 120GB), I would be wasting 25 gigabytes.Yes, it will use hard disk space. Hard disk space costs about 50 cents per gigabyte. What do you care? Even if it uses a full gigabyte (which I doubt), I'd pay 50 cents for peace of mind.
I know what I use, and what I would have to activate to use something else. I have at least 15-20 services disabled or set to manual, and I could easily be saving over 50 MB of memory.
This thread is retarded. It seems like the thread starter is saying "just upgrade to get better performance, instead of getting the most out of what you have."
Take the indexing service for example: I had it fully enabled a long time ago, and it would randomly take up to 50% of the processor and start accessing the hard drive.
Concerning the page files [sic].
I have Virtual Memory disabled altogether because I multitask constantly, and switching back and forth between programs would be slow as hell. But it is true that the best way to have it set up is on a second drive. If you're accessing something from the C: drive, and then something needs to be swapped, of course the load on the drive will be greater, and using a second drive will spread the load.
And why would you question the use of "swap files"? It just shows how little you know, which further discredits your "findings", because they're the same thing. The swap file just happens to use none other than... pages! Windows just uses the name "pagefile.sys".
lol, you don't even know. Windows has it as a percentage.
And no, I can't just shell out 12 bucks for the extra space.
Originally posted by: Tsosczb
I have Virtual Memory disabled altogether
It just shows how little you know
I have Virtual Memory disabled altogether
Originally posted by: Tsosczb
xxx
What the hell are you talking about? How does any of that equate to me lying? I already covered the stuff about the tests, and why I disabled it. And adding the "Put up or shut up" sure said something there.Originally posted by: n0cmonkeyYou're lying, and not well.Originally posted by: Tsosczb
I have Virtual Memory disabled altogether
Read the OP. He tested turning off services, it didn't help. he tested messing with the pagefile, it didn't help. Who's looking like a retard now? :beer:
Put up or shut up.
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/1615/vmem39ua.pngOriginally posted by: KoolDrew
It's funny that you say this, yet you don't even know the difference between Virtual Memory and the page file.It just shows how little you know
:roll:I have Virtual Memory disabled altogether
You can disable the page file (which I assume you meant), but Virtual Memory is always in operation and cannot be ?turned off.? You are also still paging to disk, just not to the page file.
Disabling the pagefile is not a smart idea. All it does is waste a lot of RAM.
Laffo. I bet you're one of those idiots that ends up with 10 items in your systray, and thinks it doesn't affect anything. Your synthetic tests don't mean anything.Originally posted by: Fresh DaemonBUT IT DOES NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE TO PERFORMANCE. Did you read the test results at all? Who cares how it works if it doesn't do anything? This is like all the patents on file for time machines. How they work is less important than if they work.I know what I use, and what I would have to activate to use something else. I have at least 15-20 services disabled or set to manual, and I could easily be saving over 50 MB of memory.
wtf...As a German friend of mind once remarked: "When digging for potatoes, it is less important to dig quickly than to dig where the potatoes are."
It's only bad if the person doing it is as ignorant as yourself. You think saving up to 100MB and a few other resources isn't worth it? That's ok, Microsoft has all that stuff enabled by default just to lessen the difficulty for the average user, so you don't worry about it.Nope. It's saying "this is not a good way to get the most out of what you have." Overclocking is a good way. Custom drivers are a good way. Services tweaking is a BAD way.<hr
This thread is retarded. It seems like the thread starter is saying "just upgrade to get better performance, instead of getting the most out of what you have."
So everyone has SP2? Ok. It was just one example, anyway.And in SP2 it is disabled by default. Next.
What the hell? Your search engine sucks, and why post it here? How about you look it up at a more reputable site."Page file" is the correct useage. Swapfile is incorrect. Read and learn: http://mutazilite.arstechnica.com/cgi-bin/htsearch?words=pagefile&x=0&y=0
Well, first of all, it's common sense. Going to the page file when you switch between programs will greatly slow it down, and having the pagefile on a second hard drive will eliminate the need to access the page file at the same time as whatever else. Your simplistic tests may not reveal this, but if you would actually pay attention to your PC you would notice it.Any evidence of this? Have you actually measured the performance, or did you just perform the tweak and convince yourself it was faster (the well-documented placebo effect)?I have Virtual Memory disabled altogether because I multitask constantly, and switching back and forth between programs would be slow as hell. But it is true that the best way to have it set up is on a second drive. If you're accessing something from the C: drive, and then something needs to be swapped, of course the load on the drive will be greater, and using a second drive will spread the load.
Deprecated *nix terminology? Uhh, previous versions of windows used plain old swap files, and Linux and others still use it.Swapfile is now-deprecated *NIX terminology and dates back to the days of MMU's when memory chunks were swapped from RAM to disk and back again, before hardware memory protection. Modern virtual memory is not the same thing.
No, it's not. Just like I mentioned to someone else, maybe you should bring that up with Microsoft. If fact, make it a collaborative effort.It's also incorrect to call the swapfile "virtual memory" as BV does, virtual memory is always in use whether you have a pagefile or not.
...Ah, you mean Windows automatically allocates disk space based on how large the drive is, i.e. based on how much space you have? Amazing!
Uhh... wtf? That doesn't have anything to do with what I was saying. Stop being an asshat and pay attention next time. You were simply wrong in what you had said (or assumes, really).Next you'll be telling me how evil it is that MS gave you a way to disable, downsize or even upsize it, very simply and without ever touching the services or the registry.
Please, tell me who I should give my 12 dollars to to increase the size of my hard drives.If you don't have $12 to spare then perhaps you should rethink this rather expensive hobby.
No you did not cover that stuff. You don't even know how memory works in Windows XP, W2K, or W3K.Originally posted by: Tsosczb
What the hell are you talking about? How does any of that equate to me lying? I already covered the stuff about the tests, and why I disabled it. And adding the "Put up or shut up" sure said something there.
They already know. You don't understand VM, page faults, mem alloc, etc. You have turned off the use of the pagefile for a VM store. BTW, if you run it out, you can crash like that. BUT, you are too cocky and don't know enough to listen to OS engineers.http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/1615/vmem39ua.png
Hmm... fancy that. It says "Virtual Memory", and only has one set of options to choose from. And I already mentioned why I disabled it, maybe you should read my whole post next time. It doesn't just "waste a lot of RAM".
Hey, wait a minute.... could Microsoft be wrong? Maybe you should start a letter to them, pointing it out.
Connected to the internet, you are a moron if you don't. Firewall non-withstanding (btw, they can be hacked, cracked, and bypassed too).So everyone has SP2? Ok. It was just one example, anyway.
Swapfile is a Windows 3.x term. Pagefile IS correct as that is where pages of memory are moved from main mem to the pagefile.What the hell? Your search engine sucks, and why post it here? How about you look it up at a more reputable site.
"Swap file" really isn't incorrect. Neither is "page file"; it may just be more correct. Even Microsoft sometimes uses them interchangably. A swap file is what it is, and always has been. Page file is just an altered form. Your attempted correcton was just ostentatious and ignorant.
Again, you do not know how VM works. XP moves the least referenced pages to the pagefile. If you are paging memory that is active, you need more memory, plain and simple.Well, first of all, it's common sense. Going to the page file when you switch between programs will greatly slow it down, and having the pagefile on a second hard drive will eliminate the need to access the page file at the same time as whatever else. Your simplistic tests may not reveal this, but if you would actually pay attention to your PC you would notice it.
VM uses the pagefile as a store. The pagefile is not VM.No, it's not. Just like I mentioned to someone else, maybe you should bring that up with Microsoft. If fact, make it a collaborative effort.
Uhh, no. That's simply incorrect. And I hope you don't think Windows stopped using a typical swapfile at 3.x; try a little later.Originally posted by: gsellis
Swapfile is a Windows 3.x term.
Uhh, as I mentioned, it's not me saying it's that, it's what Windows says. How about you look at your own freaking windows before you tell me that crap.VM uses the pagefile as a store. The pagefile is not VM.No, it's not. Just like I mentioned to someone else, maybe you should bring that up with Microsoft. If fact, make it a collaborative effort.
I suggest you go to msdn.microsoft.com and start looking up pagefile, virtual memory, and page fault.
You're the one condoning bloatware. Shame on you, you're no power user.Originally posted by: Fresh Daemon
This guy, judging by his language, his flaming and his extreme ignorance, is a troll. You won't be able to get through to him anyway, he's very proud of his prejudices and won't abandon them for any amount of hard evidence.
Maybe it's BV himself. He certainly seems angry and misinformed enough.
Misinformed, like.... this?and misinformed enough.
Even if it uses a full gigabyte (which I doubt),
What the hell are you talking about? How does any of that equate to me lying? I already covered the stuff about the tests, and why I disabled it. And adding the "Put up or shut up" sure said something there.
http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/1615/vmem39ua.png
Hmm... fancy that. It says "Virtual Memory", and only has one set of options to choose from. And I already mentioned why I disabled it, maybe you should read my whole post next time. It doesn't just "waste a lot of RAM".
Hey, wait a minute.... could Microsoft be wrong? Maybe you should start a letter to them, pointing it out.
It's only bad if the person doing it is as ignorant as yourself. You think saving up to 100MB and a few other resources isn't worth it? That's ok, Microsoft has all that stuff enabled by default just to lessen the difficulty for the average user, so you don't worry about it.
So everyone has SP2? Ok. It was just one example, anyway.
What the hell? Your search engine sucks, and why post it here? How about you look it up at a more reputable site.
"Swap file" really isn't incorrect. Neither is "page file"; it may just be more correct. Even Microsoft sometimes uses them interchangably. A swap file is what it is, and always has been. Page file is just an altered form. Your attempted correcton was just ostentatious and ignorant.
Well, first of all, it's common sense. Going to the page file when you switch between programs will greatly slow it down, and having the pagefile on a second hard drive will eliminate the need to access the page file at the same time as whatever else. Your simplistic tests may not reveal this, but if you would actually pay attention to your PC you would notice it.
No, it's not. Just like I mentioned to someone else, maybe you should bring that up with Microsoft. If fact, make it a collaborative effort.
Windows context.Originally posted by: Fresh DaemonThe problem is that you illustrate your own ignorance by talking about "disabling virtual memory". You CANNOT disable virtual memory. This is like bragging how you drove your car with the engine off. Basically, you showed everyone in this thread that you don't have the first clue how operating systems work, and then you expect us to believe the rest of your ranting. Sorry, but no.I already covered the stuff about the tests, and why I disabled it.
Yes, Windows context.I'm glad you posted this shot, because it disproves your point. Under "virtual memory" you have the power to control or disable multiple pagefiles and to manage Windows memory useage patterns.
Who cares; not applicable. Windows context. How about you understand what people are saying before you assume they don't know something and start a pedantic rant.This is virtual memory: the abstraction of multiple volatile media into one pool of virtual memory for programs.
Ugh, you're so slow. I already covered this in a couple places. Look them up, please.The second shot is even worse for you. See how it mentions "paging files" multiple times? See how it never mentions "swap files" or "swapping" even once? Good.
Uhh, no. I wasn't making any baseless conjecture. Since you gladly accept the bloat that comes default with Windows, I just assumed your lack of concern bled into other areas, such as filling the sytem tray with sh|t galore. Because, according to you, these types of things don't affect performance in the slightest.This is called an ad hominem fallacy, and is not an argument.I bet you're one of those idiots that ends up with 10 items in your systray, and thinks it doesn't affect anything.
It's called common sense. First of all, you don't know when a service is going to do something. You could randomly have a service take up a few CPU cycles, and it would be well within the margin of error for your test. Or you cold have some kind of network action take place, and you wouldn't know when it is going to happen or whether it would affect any test. As far as setting the pagefile is concerned, your test is even worse for that, because it loads everything to perform the test. It may totally skip over the nature of paging.That is a subjective statement and worthless. To make it objective you need evidence. You have none. Maybe you will surprise us all, but I doubt it.Your synthetic tests don't mean anything.
Again you have faulty figures, and no common sense. Unless you actually know what each process or service takes up, you have no room to question this; also considering how you didn't even test it with the paging file disabled. Plus, you don't know how my system is set up, so why even try to act like your numbers are what everything has to follow?Suddenly I can save up to 100MB? That's a pretty big inflation considering the most I could ever save with Windows services was 33MB, and that was at a level so crippled it was useless.
Lmao, "bullplop". You sure are one cool dude. And your use of the word "functional" is misguided.Now you are managing to triple that figure, and somehow have a more functional system? Bullplop.
Are you able to read? I wonder, because nowhere did "should" get mentioned until you brought it up now. Who cares what you think. Simple fact is that not everyone has it, and not everyone is going to get it.Unless you're using a pirated copy, yes, everyone should have SP2.So everyone has SP2? Ok. It was just one example, anyway.
So would it be wrong of me to assume you think the service somehow does it's job without taking any resource whatsoever?Windows Automatic Update will install it for you (unless you're dumb enough to disable it to "increase performance" - cough, cough).
This crap is even worse than simple ad hominems. Not only do you make baseless assumptions, you act like what you say has any meaning to it. I would advise you to stop giving your asinine advice.So, either you're using a warez copy of Windows, or you are suffering from your own "performance tweaks". Can't say I didn't warn you.
.......lmfao. You gave me a link to some shi**y looking site, with only the search being "pagefile". Ok, searching for a word like that doesn't prove anything to me, nor is it even on topic.If you know a site where more technically adept people post than Ars Technica I would like to see it.
Finishing a paragraph may. And you saying that doesn't make it not true, nor does it make your statement true. Talk about fallacies, you just accused me of something and did it in the process.Saying it multiple times does not make it so."Swap file" really isn't incorrect.
Well that certainly was a retarded thing to say, considering I said "sometimes", and they wouldn't have used both terms at once for the window's dialog.Where? They certainly didn't in your screenshot!Even Microsoft sometimes uses them interchangably.
You saying it doesn't make it true!Maybe you can find some example where they use the terms interchangeably for the end user, who has been confused by twits such as yourself and other people like BV who write "technical" articles despite the fact that they are definitely not qualified to do so (one of the disadvantages of the Internet as opposed to print is that anybody can write about anything, whereas for nonfiction books, publishers tend to pick people with good credentials in their field).
Who cares, I already covered the point your talking about.As Drew has pointed out, Microsoft's developer-oriented material never makes that confusion.
Jesus christ, stfu."Common sense" is usually an oxymoron.
omg liek ur totally doing the ad hominem fallacy dood. Spare me the pseudo-witticisms.When you've looked up oxymoron on dictionary.com, also look up "counter-intuitive".
You saying it doesn't make it true. And neither do your synthetic tests.Windows services tweaking is what you call "counter-intuitive". It seems like it would help, but it doesn't. This is the danger of failing to follow scientific method and assuming your conclusions rather than testing your hypotheses.
Try all the way through the 9x family.Pre-Windows 95 versions may use "swapfile",
Covered this, too. I don't know why you can't see that it's still a swap file, or a file used for swapping. "Swapping" in itself doesn't define what is being swapped.but BV is not talking about those. This article, and the BV articles it debunked, were discussing Windows XP, which definitely does not use "swapfiles".
So they don't use the most correct term because downtime and upgrades? Gee, I didn't know that changing a few ASCII characters could be so problematic.Linux still uses the term "swap" because it has inherited it from *NIX. *NIX terminology and methodology does not tend to change much because *NIX is usually run on large networks and big iron where upgrades have to be as smooth as possible to avoid costly downtime, so they change as little as possible.
You're the one who was so worried about trying to correct some other dude for not being specific enough.Why don't you bring it up with Microsoft?
Who cares. This doesn't add to anything you say, or help make it true.In fact, there are two Microsoft employees who post here. I'll PM them to this thread and you can tell them your nonsense. I bet you $50 they laugh their asses off.
Jesus christ you're so damn slow. 1. My point was that you can't talk about cents or a few dollars because you have to get the whole part. 2. You were just wrong about that, plain and simple. I don't care about what the other dude said, so there was no need to bring up anything about it, and no one even mentioned anything about the registry or "hacks".If you're building a new system, $12 is a frequent sum for a jump up in capacity. If you have an existing system, then just use the tools Microsoft has provided for you to adjust the size of the system restore files. No need for registry and services hacks. If you weren't so busy calling people "asshats", you would have understood that.
LMFAO. Ok, this is it. You're just being one stupid motherfuxking idiot. Fraudulent? Ad hominem? You don't even know what you're talking about. You being like, "omg tha processes dun do nuthin," is condoning it, and having useless features running is totally unnecessary. I don't see how hard it is to understand that what you say just doesn't add up. Sure, spending more money will make your system run better, and will diminish the affects of any stray processes, but that's a fu*king stupid mentality. And like I said (which you apparently ignored), having everything open and running like that really isn't the best thing for security. Sometimes all it does is leave more openings for someone to take advantage of.Again, fraudulent and ad hominem.You're the one condoning bloatware.
Originally posted by: Tsosczb
Uhh, no. That's simply incorrect. And I hope you don't think Windows stopped using a typical swapfile at 3.x; try a little later.Originally posted by: gsellis
Swapfile is a Windows 3.x term.
VM uses the pagefile as a store. The pagefile is not VM.No, it's not. Just like I mentioned to someone else, maybe you should bring that up with Microsoft. If fact, make it a collaborative effort.
I suggest you go to msdn.microsoft.com and start looking up pagefile, virtual memory, and page fault.
Instead of arguing with everyone (notice no one has stepped up to your defense), why don't you read a little using the keywords for your search. You are acting like a 8th-9th grading that can't admit he is wrong.
It's not good to condone OS bloat. Windows has tons of stuff activated be default (which is actually worse for security), only so the user doesn't have to activate anything to use the resource. I know what I use, and what I would have to activate to use something else. I have at least 15-20 services disabled or set to manual, and I could easily be saving over 50 MB of memory.
Plus, each service has to start up with Windows, and stop with Windows. Wouldn't you think having 20 items in the startup list would be a problem? The startup would be slow as hell, and it needlessly eats resources. After it all opens, you may look at the resources being used, and not see any significant CPU time, but I can guarantee that anything you do will end up being slower.
I have Virtual Memory disabled altogether because I multitask constantly
and switching back and forth between programs would be slow as hell
And why would you question the use of "swap files"? It just shows how little you know, which further discredits your "findings", because they're the same thing. The swap file just happens to use none other than... pages! Windows just uses the name "pagefile.sys".
Windows context.Originally posted by: KoolDrew
He said you were lying since disabling Virtual Memory cannot be done.
Windows context.Microsoft has used the term Virtual Memory incorrectly in its UI. You can check out some MSDN articles that use the term properly. Even then the screenshot doesn't say Virtual Memory is disabled. It says the pagefile is, which are two completely different things.
It doesn't waste anything. It just tries to save memory in places, and I don't like the way it worked for me. To me, it's not a waste.Also disabling the pagefile does waste a lot of RAM.
No crap. And again, Windows context.First of all you have to understand that the pagefile is by far NOT the only file involved with paging. Every .exe and .dll are, so by disabling the pagefile you are not disabling paging. Disabling paging cannot be done.
I don't keep useless programs open, and don't want any kind of delay when I switch between them. I have the RAM for it, so again, no waste. In fact, it would be a waste to not use the extra RAM you have and force more use of the HD.So when you do disable the pagefile all you are doing is forcing the system to heep ALL private virtual memory in RAM and only allowing code and mapped files to be paged. Even if some of the other stuff has not been touched for hours and will not be touched again it will have to stay in RAM. This is definitely a waste of RAM.
For me, it's not worth it. "not used much" is enough to bother me.You may THINK you want to disable the pagefile, but you really do not. If you have enough memory the pagefile is not used much anyway.
I have plenty, and I still didn't like it.If you do not have enough RAM, that there is a lot of pagefile usage, you need more RAM.
Yeah, if you do. And doing so would put more reliance on the HD, and would slow down multi-tasking.There is always a practical need for a pagefile, because you can always use the extra RAM for other things.
Having useless processes open is much more of a waste than having my used programs take up more.Isn't it people like you that disable services to make room for other things in RAM?
Functionality I don't need, and processing cycles I don't care to waste. If you watch the right columns in the Task Manager, you'd see that things are still being done. And you're wrong right from the start anyway, because simply the starting the service takes up resources. Instead of having Windows manage its memory, why not remove the need.You're the ignorant one. Disabling services is bad because it does not improve performance in any way and you lose a lot of funcionality in the process. The fact of the matter is that if a service is unused it will use no CPU cycles at all, and Windows will reclaim its memory as needed.
Oh, so this is fact? While it's not the best thing, it certainly doesn't make anyone an idiot.You are an idiot if you don't.So everyone has SP2? Ok. It was just one example, anyway.
Or... swapfiles move data from RAM to the HD, and pagefiles just move data in a different way. It would mean that it's still a swapfile, it just works differently, so it's called a pagefile.Swapfiles operate by swapping entire processes from system memory into the swapfile. A Paging file operates by moving pages from system memory into the pagefile.
Windows context.Originally posted by: Fresh DaemonThe problem is that you illustrate your own ignorance by talking about "disabling virtual memory". You CANNOT disable virtual memory. This is like bragging how you drove your car with the engine off. Basically, you showed everyone in this thread that you don't have the first clue how operating systems work, and then you expect us to believe the rest of your ranting. Sorry, but no.I already covered the stuff about the tests, and why I disabled it.
Yes, Windows context.I'm glad you posted this shot, because it disproves your point. Under "virtual memory" you have the power to control or disable multiple pagefiles and to manage Windows memory useage patterns.
Who cares; not applicable. Windows context. How about you understand what people are saying before you assume they don't know something and start a pedantic rant.This is virtual memory: the abstraction of multiple volatile media into one pool of virtual memory for programs.
Ugh, you're so slow. I already covered this in a couple places. Look them up, please.The second shot is even worse for you. See how it mentions "paging files" multiple times? See how it never mentions "swap files" or "swapping" even once? Good.
Uhh, no. I wasn't making any baseless conjecture. Since you gladly accept the bloat that comes default with Windows, I just assumed your lack of concern bled into other areas, such as filling the sytem tray with sh|t galore. Because, according to you, these types of things don't affect performance in the slightest.This is called an ad hominem fallacy, and is not an argument.I bet you're one of those idiots that ends up with 10 items in your systray, and thinks it doesn't affect anything.
It's called common sense. First of all, you don't know when a service is going to do something. You could randomly have a service take up a few CPU cycles, and it would be well within the margin of error for your test. Or you cold have some kind of network action take place, and you wouldn't know when it is going to happen or whether it would affect any test. As far as setting the pagefile is concerned, your test is even worse for that, because it loads everything to perform the test. It may totally skip over the nature of paging.That is a subjective statement and worthless. To make it objective you need evidence. You have none. Maybe you will surprise us all, but I doubt it.Your synthetic tests don't mean anything.
Again you have faulty figures, and no common sense. Unless you actually know what each process or service takes up, you have no room to question this; also considering how you didn't even test it with the paging file disabled. Plus, you don't know how my system is set up, so why even try to act like your numbers are what everything has to follow?Suddenly I can save up to 100MB? That's a pretty big inflation considering the most I could ever save with Windows services was 33MB, and that was at a level so crippled it was useless.
Lmao, "bullplop". You sure are one cool dude. And your use of the word "functional" is misguided.Now you are managing to triple that figure, and somehow have a more functional system? Bullplop.
Are you able to read? I wonder, because nowhere did "should" get mentioned until you brought it up now. Who cares what you think. Simple fact is that not everyone has it, and not everyone is going to get it.Unless you're using a pirated copy, yes, everyone should have SP2.So everyone has SP2? Ok. It was just one example, anyway.
So would it be wrong of me to assume you think the service somehow does it's job without taking any resource whatsoever?Windows Automatic Update will install it for you (unless you're dumb enough to disable it to "increase performance" - cough, cough).
This crap is even worse than simple ad hominems. Not only do you make baseless assumptions, you act like what you say has any meaning to it. I would advise you to stop giving your asinine advice.So, either you're using a warez copy of Windows, or you are suffering from your own "performance tweaks". Can't say I didn't warn you.
.......lmfao. You gave me a link to some shi[/i]tty looking site, with only the search being "pagefile". Ok, searching for a word like that doesn't prove anything to me, nor is it even on topic.If you know a site where more technically adept people post than Ars Technica I would like to see it.
Finishing a paragraph may. And you saying that doesn't make it not true, nor does it make your statement true. Talk about fallacies, you just accused me of something and did it in the process.Saying it multiple times does not make it so."Swap file" really isn't incorrect.
Well that certainly was a retarded thing to say, considering I said "sometimes", and they wouldn't have used both terms at once for the window's dialog.Where? They certainly didn't in your screenshot!Even Microsoft sometimes uses them interchangably.
You saying it doesn't make it true!Maybe you can find some example where they use the terms interchangeably for the end user, who has been confused by twits such as yourself and other people like BV who write "technical" articles despite the fact that they are definitely not qualified to do so (one of the disadvantages of the Internet as opposed to print is that anybody can write about anything, whereas for nonfiction books, publishers tend to pick people with good credentials in their field).
Who cares, I already covered the point your talking about.As Drew has pointed out, Microsoft's developer-oriented material never makes that confusion.
Jesus christ, stfu."Common sense" is usually an oxymoron.
omg liek ur totally doing the ad hominem fallacy dood. Spare me the pseudo-witticisms.When you've looked up oxymoron on dictionary.com, also look up "counter-intuitive".
You saying it doesn't make it true. And neither do your synthetic tests.Windows services tweaking is what you call "counter-intuitive". It seems like it would help, but it doesn't. This is the danger of failing to follow scientific method and assuming your conclusions rather than testing your hypotheses.
Try all the way through the 9x family.Pre-Windows 95 versions may use "swapfile",
Covered this, too. I don't know why you can't see that it's still a swap file, or a file used for swapping. "Swapping" in itself doesn't define what is being swapped.but BV is not talking about those. This article, and the BV articles it debunked, were discussing Windows XP, which definitely does not use "swapfiles".
So they don't use the most correct term because downtime and upgrades? Gee, I didn't know that changing a few ASCII characters could be so problematic.Linux still uses the term "swap" because it has inherited it from *NIX. *NIX terminology and methodology does not tend to change much because *NIX is usually run on large networks and big iron where upgrades have to be as smooth as possible to avoid costly downtime, so they change as little as possible.
You're the one who was so worried about trying to correct some other dude for not being specific enough.Why don't you bring it up with Microsoft?
Who cares. This doesn't add to anything you say, or help make it true.In fact, there are two Microsoft employees who post here. I'll PM them to this thread and you can tell them your nonsense. I bet you $50 they laugh their asses off.
Jesus christ you're so damn slow. 1. My point was that you can't talk about cents or a few dollars because you have to get the whole part. 2. You were just wrong about that, plain and simple. I don't care about what the other dude said, so there was no need to bring up anything about it, and no one even mentioned anything about the registry or "hacks".If you're building a new system, $12 is a frequent sum for a jump up in capacity. If you have an existing system, then just use the tools Microsoft has provided for you to adjust the size of the system restore files. No need for registry and services hacks. If you weren't so busy calling people "asshats", you would have understood that.
LMFAO. Ok, this is it. You're just being one stupid motherfu[/i]cking idiot. Fraudulent? Ad hominem? You don't even know what you're talking about. You being like, "omg tha processes dun do nuthin," is condoning it, and having useless features running is totally unnecessary. I don't see how hard it is to understand that what you say just doesn't add up. Sure, spending more money will make your system run better, and will diminish the affects of any stray processes, but that's a fu*king stupid mentality. And like I said (which you apparently ignored), having everything open and running like that really isn't the best thing for security. Sometimes all it does is leave more openings for someone to take advantage of.Again, fraudulent and ad hominem.You're the one condoning bloatware.
Yeah, "unless".....Originally posted by: Nothinman
The security aspect is negligable unless you're directly connected to the Internet or have all ports forwarded to your machine.
Huh? Remnants would still be in memory, and it would still have to take up some resources to start, be paged out, and then later stopped.And that 50M of memory, if it's anywhere close to that, would have be reused anyway if you're not using those services.
That's some truly terrific advice. I'll get right on that. [/notreally]So? Use hibernation or standby, it'll save you a lot more time in the long run anyway.
Yeah, "unless".....
Huh? Remnants would still be in memory, and it would still have to take up some resources to start, be paged out, and then later stopped.
That's some truly terrific advice. I'll get right on that. [/notreally]
Thanks for the advice, dood. I care.Originally posted by: Nothinman
If your box is directly connected to the Internet you either know what you're doing or you've got no idea what you're doing, so you're either screwed or you'll be fine.
Even though it seems you just contradicted yourself here, whatever.No remnants will stay in memory if the memory is needed and the service isn't being used. The only parts that stay will be the shared libraries that other binaries are using as well.
Your mom.And who cares about startup time?
Uhh, how? I really would like to hear this.Use some proper power-management and hibernation and you'll never have to see a full bootup again.
Yeah, I really should listen to your advice, when it wouldn't even affect anything, and doesn't even apply to what I was talking about. I know what they do, and why I wouldn't want them set. Please refrain from your unsolicited and ignorant advice.Then you're more of an idiot than I originally thought and after reading your posts, I thought pretty poorly about you. If you want to have a real discussion on how VM works and why you're confused that's fine, but your attitude needs fixing.That's some truly terrific advice. I'll get right on that. [/notreally]
Even though it seems you just contradicted yourself here, whatever.
Your mom.
Uhh, how? I really would like to hear this.
Yeah, I really should listen to your advice, when it wouldn't even affect anything, and doesn't even apply to what I was talking about. I know what they do, and why I wouldn't want them set. Please refrain from your unsolicited and ignorant advice.
Windows implements a virtual memory system based on a flat (linear) address space that provides
each process with the illusion of having its own large, private address space. Virtual
memory provides a logical view of memory that might not correspond to its physical layout.
At run time, the memory manager, with assistance from hardware, translates, or maps, the virtual
addresses into physical addresses, where the data is actually stored. By controlling the
protection and mapping, the operating system can ensure that individual processes don?t
bump into one another or overwrite operating system data. Figure 1-3 illustrates three virtually
contiguous pages mapped to three discontiguous pages in physical memory.
Because most systems have much less physical memory than the total virtual memory in use
by the running processes, the memory manager transfers, or pages, some of the memory contents
to disk. Paging data to disk frees physical memory so that it can be used for other processes
or for the operating system itself. When a thread accesses a virtual address that has
been paged to disk, the virtual memory manager loads the information back into memory
from disk