Running XP kernel in RAM?

[ManyBeers]

I have a book called "Windows XP Hacks", and iin it the author recommends a registry edit that would run the kernel in RAM and thereby increasing performance. Has anyone done this and is it a good idea? Just curious

 

[Nothinman]

It's pointless, the NT VMM won't evict any pages that are being used so if parts of the kernel do get evicted they'll be for things that you aren't using, like serial ports and such. And the kernel itself is only a few Megs, paging parts back in would take less than a second on even an older machine.

 

[P0ldy]

Originally posted by: Nothinman
And the kernel itself is only a few Megs

How is that possible? Considering all the drivers that are in the kernel. To understand by UNIX analogy, are all those drivers simply modules that are loaded into the kernel when the hardware is installed/connected?

 

[Nothinman]

Yes, just about every driver is a seperate entity. It has to be that way for MS to support 3rd party drivers so well.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
I have a book called "Windows XP Hacks", and iin it the author recommends a registry edit that would run the kernel in RAM and thereby increasing performance. Has anyone done this and is it a good idea? Just curious

You won't notice any difference.

 

[ManyBeers]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Originally posted by: ManyBeers
I have a book called "Windows XP Hacks", and iin it the author recommends a registry edit that would run the kernel in RAM and thereby increasing performance. Has anyone done this and is it a good idea? Just curious

You won't notice any difference.

I wasn't going to make the change I was just curious if anybody had.