RAM/page file in Windows XP/2000 [Archive] - Glock Talk


View Full Version : RAM/page file in Windows XP/2000

06-01-2005, 11:35
When you do a memory upgrade to a Windows XP/2000 computer, how many of you actually change the page file settings? I am just wondering, because I sometimes forget to do it. The default is 1.5 times the amount of installed RAM. Do you think that it actually matters if the page file is/is not increased when you add additional memory to a PC?

06-01-2005, 12:08
Set the min size to 1.5 times the RAM, set the max size to 3 times the RAM.

06-01-2005, 13:56
FWIW, I always set BOTH the Min and Max to 1.5X the amount of RAM installed if the amount is under 1024MB, and I set both to 1GB if the physical RAM is at or over 1024MB.

That way Winblows can't overwrite vital files with virtual RAM data as easily...


06-02-2005, 06:15
Originally posted by fastvfr
That way Winblows can't overwrite vital files with virtual RAM data as easily...

Can you explain what you mean by this?

06-22-2005, 10:55
Setting the min & max ram identical prevents fragmenting of the page file. Given there is only one hard drive, I set both to 2x ram, up to 768 megs ram, and leave it at 1536 for 1024 megs.

Works for me.

IF there is a 2nd hard drive, I "ALWAYS" make the 2nd hard drive a master drive (jumpered that way + on the end of the 2nd IDE cable)
and install the page file/virtual memory on that drive.

Same protocol. 2x ram for less than 1024, 1536 for 1024. Max & Min both.

The test of a configuration protocol is uptime.

If the system "just works" then you're not wrong.

If Any windows system can run satisfactorily weeks at a time with no freeze-ups, you got it right.

Anything less, continue to tweak.

06-23-2005, 08:20
I agree with mitch and fast, but I do set mine at 2048 min & max because of the game I play. Star Wars Galaxies is very memory intensive and it seems to help to have it just a tad bigger. I also have it on my 2nd hard drive.

06-23-2005, 16:23
Have you considered boosting your ram up some, while it happens to be cheap? Right now I'm sort of amazed at how long it's been reasonable, can't last.

I'm running a couple machines @ 1.5 gigs, and while for everyday use that's pointless, those two comps (m' kids gamers) do seem to be a bit happier with an oversufficiency.

In personal testing, with what *I* do on a comp, I gain no real benefits by exceeding 768, but it was about as cheap to run 1024 dual channel considering the deals I got.

Just a thought ;Q

Oh, and btw, reminds me.. there's an easy way to tell a good tech, from a bad one..

The bad ones know everything.