🚀 go-pugleaf

In the relevant help file, Windows 95 suggests that it is prudent to
leave virtual memory management to the OS.
 
However, I have noticed lately that there appears to be a great deal
of disk-thrashing going on even when system resources are still being
reported as above 80%

Is it the case that Win95 actually allocates virtual memory on a
dynamic and therefore temporary basis ?
And is this not then, by definition, less efficient than defining a
permanent swap space ?

My 486DX266 (16Mb, 1.1gig) used to run just fine and dandy under 3.11
with a 16Mb permanent swap file. 
What are the reasons for not specifying a similar setup under Win95 ?

Paul Lynch