Memory Usage in XP....

[KayleeDog]

I have just recently installed XP on my new Epox 266A, Athalon 1800+ XP rig with 768 MB of Crucial DDR ram. I have heard that XP is better on memory usage, is this just a rumor? The reason I ask because I notice now when you hit Ctrl+Alt+Del and go to performance it shows you Page File Usage instead of actual memory usage on the left. My page file stays around 100MB or so, and then I look to the right at the actual physical memory being used and its around 175 MB or so with 600 MB Available. Why does XP need to show/use such a big page file when I have all that extra memory available?

 

[TheManiacal1]

win2k does this as well... i don't know why, but it would seem that it's not just an xp issue.

 

[btvillarin]

I wish I could answer why, but I don't know the technical reason. Only thing I can recommend is Cacheman 5, includes the setting to disable executive paging. It forces the core Windows system to be kept in memory and not paged to disk. Here's the registry setting Cacheman could enable (with the convienence in a GUI):
http://www.winguides.com/registry/display.php/399

 

[Spade]

NT OSes have always been memory hogs due to the OS running applications in their own memory space vice sharing the memory like Win 9x.

 

[KayleeDog]

Ok, I disabled system paging. Thanks. I also saw on Tweak XP's page that you could disable your virtual memory if you had alot of ram, well I tried this and when I went to run Photoshop 6.0 it stopped and said that there wasn't enough virtual memory, but everything else ran fine, and it seemed faster since it was using my 768MB of ram instead of the disk...

 

[KayleeDog]

Just testing my rig link at bottom

 

[KIAman]

I don't know if i heard right, but even if you set your pagefile to 0mb, windows will still create a hidden tmp pagefile anyways so nomatter what it will use a hd based pagefile, except with the setting at 0mb yer comp will either not run or windows will bich at u. BTW keeping windows core in RAM takes like up to like 500+ mb of yer RAM.

 

[c0rv1d43]

Okay, I can't help myself. I have to use a car analogy.

Let's say I've been driving a Stanley Steamer (piston powered external combustion engine) and trade up to a Porsche 911 Turbo. For the sake of argument let's even say that I have an extensive knowledge of steam engine-powered vechicles including boiler design, slide-valve technology, the Carnot cycle, steam tables and direct transmissions. What are the chances that I can trundle my new uber-car into the garage, grind new cam profiles for it, redesign and refit the turbocharger, re-time the ignition, and switch the gearbox ratios with such efficacy that the car will perform materially better in some way when I roll it out of the garage -- or, for that matter, what's the chance I'll make it to the end of the driveway (assuming it doesn't slope downhill toward the road)?

The pagefile and virtual memory in Windows NT/2K/XP are not used like a swap file in a DOS-based OS. It's a tad more involved than just a provision for swapout space for stuff that isn't being used currently. There are a lot of very informative articles and whitepapers at the MSKB, free for the reading. Don't turn your Porsche into a Red Flyer. The name sounds neat, but it's a real dud on the turnpike.

- Collin

 

[MoFunk]

c0rv1d43 WOW!

 

[c0rv1d43]

Someone should probably dope slap me. I've always avoided car analogies like the plague. I guess I was just feeling feisty today.