Virtual Memory - does Win95 really know best ? - Thread - go-pugleaf

Thread View: comp.os.ms-windows.setup.win95

4 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

4 total messages Started by Paul Lynch Tue, 28 Jan 1997 00:00

Virtual Memory - does Win95 really know best ?

#154

Author: Paul Lynch
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 00:00

19 lines
1191 bytes


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

Re: Virtual Memory - does Win95 really know best ?

#155

Author: Chrisopher Bamford
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 00:00

14 lines
930 bytes

Paul Lynch (paul@p-s-b.demon.co.uk) wrote:

[snip]

: What are the reasons for not specifying a similar setup under Win95 ?

: Paul Lynch

Hi,

  I'd like to know as well please.

Chris.

Re: Virtual Memory - does Win95 really know best ?

#153

Author: CMB Research and Database Design
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 1997 00:00

22 lines
999 bytes

Ya, whats the deal with the windows 95 not letting you set VM.

On Wed, 29 Jan 1997 10:51:58 GMT, chrisb@apiltd.demon.co.uk
(Chrisopher Bamford) wrote:

>Paul Lynch (paul@p-s-b.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>: What are the reasons for not specifying a similar setup under Win95 ?
>
>: Paul Lynch
>
>Hi,
>
>  I'd like to know as well please.
>
>Chris.
>
>

Re: Virtual Memory - does Win95 really know best ?

#152

Author: Fred Schulz
Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 00:00

45 lines
1959 bytes

In article <32f95d74.14358443@news.guam.net>, c0315@kuentos.guam.net (CMB Research and Database Design) wrote:
>Ya, whats the deal with the windows 95 not letting you set VM.

Win 95 does let you set it.  I do my self.  Just make sure you set it high 
enough. I have 40 Megs of actual ram.   After defraging my HD I set the swap 
file to a Min of 40 megs and a Max of 40 Megs.  This creates a Permanent swap 
file rather than  tempoary one.  I figure if your asking this question I do 
not have to go into why a permanent is better.  Also by doing this along with 
setting my vcache manually in system.ini I have completely stopped that little 
problem of my Hard drive just taking off when I am doing nothing.   What I 
have done in affect is stopped the Swap file from shrinking.

Hope this helps

>
>On Wed, 29 Jan 1997 10:51:58 GMT, chrisb@apiltd.demon.co.uk
>(Chrisopher Bamford) wrote:
>
>>Paul Lynch (paul@p-s-b.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>: What are the reasons for not specifying a similar setup under Win95 ?
>>
>>: Paul Lynch
>>
>>Hi,
>>
>>  I'd like to know as well please.
>>
>>Chris.
>>
>>
>

Aloha!

Fred Schulz, MCT, MCPS                      
freds@aloha.com                                         
fred@ctchawaii.com
http://www.aloha.com/~freds
http://ctchawaii.com

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads