To challenge an old idea

I entered "putmybigfootinmybigmouth" worked like a charm, didn't need to set no value or anything, there by default settings.
 
Originally posted by allan


A performance hit because you partition? Please. If your system is so underequipped that you would notice any slow down after partitioning your hard drive, then it probably didn't meet the minimum requirements for XP in the first place. Can you run tests that will show a difference? I don't know - maybe. But forget about tests - in everyday operation there is absolutely no noticeable difference in performance or seek time. With the speed of todays HD's and processors any difference would be so minimal as to be absolutely, positively transparent.


sorry, allan, I somehow missed your post, by going to last post all the time...anyway, I put the link in to the white paper, with the referance... after reading through it again, it's asking for this edge in a benchmark, so the performance hit will probably be transparent...on the other hand, the best idea would be to partition with the apps on the same partition, and then you'd have the best of both worlds;)
 
Thanks dealer - I skimmed through the MS document and still don't understand the comment about older versions of Windows installing on more than one partition - never heard of that before and I don't buy it.
 
ah haaa...no, the document has nothing to do with ms installing on multiple hardrives...this document tells us why we they don't do that...my experience, though it might be flawed, as I have no written knowledge, only experience...my friends with older os's, and my previous 3 computors were pre-installed with multiple partitions, and that' s no longer done...again, in my experience

so, when you say you don't buy it, are you talking about my statement, or microsofts statement about the better seek times on a single partition?...
 
Ok - I think I understand -- you are saying that when you purchased computers in the past the hd's had multiple partitions? If so, that had nothing to do with the OS. That was done by the computer supplier for other reasons.

In the old days when manufacturers had the time, you could request that the system be shipped with custom partitions (I used to do that when I ordered from Austin Computers). And some companies were smart enough to know that one large partition was less efficient than multiple partitions, so they broke them up for you by default. But again, this had nothing to do with the OS, which always installed on only the boot drive.

Nowadays these companies are huge assemply lines and it would just take too much time to customize the hd's, so you get one large partition and if you don't like it you have to change it your self.

As for programs taking longer to load if they are on a separate partition, well that's only common sense since many of them still need to install components into the Windows folder(s) or elsewhere on the boot drive, or require support from OS dll's. But I stand by my statement that any slow down would not be noticeable to the everyday user.
 
well, figuring out why these OS's are no longer installed on multiple partitions begs the question, doesn't it...and so far as the speed difference being unnoticeable...probably, no one I know has seen a benchmark...but it's the idea of fine tuning that's the issue to me..:cool: As I pointed out, Microsoft asks for this edge in speed when you are making benchmarks, so the difference is measurable

people like me find no need for the partition, as far as convienience, I create my own virtuall partitions, just by naming umbrella folders, where I then enter sub folders and files, backed up, these umbrellas serve the same purpose as a partition, plus, they're off the box...I'm very happy with my backup standard...of course your standard has the benefit of redundancy, and I'm sure others add yet another step of redundancy...

I have to admit, however, in my next installation, I WILL go to partitions, but I will put my apps on the same partition as the OS, and then I'll have the best of both worlds, won't I? ;)
 
Again, the OS's were never installed on multiple partitons.
 
now, even the computor companies don't do that anymore...my point in my last post, is your reason only begs the question
 
Sorry dealer, I didn't follow your last post but I think what we have here is a problem of semantics. Companies used to partition disks, yes. But that had nothing to do with the OS. The Operating Systems were installed on one drive - the boot drive (typically C: drive). The OS never needed or used more than one partiton for installation - the additional partition(s) were for the users' convenience and had nothing to do with the OS.
 
yes...semantics...my fault...my terminology isn't teck correct...sorry.:(
 
I know I'm re opening a can of worms, but I can't keep this in.

uh oh

It seems as though other sites are still saying the page file as a static value is a better choice, even after they've seen the proper refutation, and have not dissputed said refutation...IT IS NOT A BETTER CHOICE TO CREATE A STATIC PAGE FILE...and it does in fact make no sence to do it...when you read these obsolete suggestions, chuckle to yourself at this the same way you'd chucle at being afraid of black cats.

Once again, xp will page, whether you want it to or not, and you cannot deminish the amount of paging by lowering or eliminating the page file...creating a static page file does absolutely nothing for performance, and only serves to take away a safety net that you might need.

Here's my shot at an annalogy...

you need to breath...that's it, there's nothing anyone can do about it, you will breath...if someone restricts the amount of air you have in this room to breath, thinking that all this heavy breathing slows you down, since you get slower the same time you breath heavy...they will misstakenly think they are helping you by trying to stop you from breathing heavy...you will go to the next room, where there might be more air, even before you need the air, just to make sure you don't run out of air...that's it, you need air, and you will get your air, no matter what.

I think that analogy works, maybe not, but it at least gives a rough idea of why you should not static your page file
 
I gave up reading the differing ideas of the big boys, just too much technical stuff for my liking.
If I make a static Paging File of 768Mb and I have 1280Mb of RAM, it would have to be a very sad and badly designed O.S. that craved more memory.
Then again we are talking Windows :D
 
Dirk, it'll be a program, or a multitude of programs that need more memory, not the os...plus, are you short on disc space? if you are, then what your saying makes sence...I kind of doubt you are short of disc space tho...so what are trying to accomplish by restricting the page file? the size of the page file will not change unless the os wants more memory, so what are you trying to do, and why?

I think this'll explain the situation, if you have say a gig of ram...xp wants to be able to dump the ram somewhere, so it sets itself p to do it...it doesn't use the area it needs to dump, until it dumps...you are still using ram, just xp getting ready to dump, if it needs to, for ahtever, like you loading another program or other teck talk that I don't know about either...hehehe
 
The way I see it, programmes ask the O.S. for memory, a bad O.S. will hand it out hand-over-fist and not ask for it back.
A good O.S. will give memory out only when its needed and will demand and grab it back as soon as possible.

I have lots of space to play with, and I have pushed my comp to its maximum. I have manipulated photos, burned CD's, surfed the Web. And I have yet to get beyond 260Mb of PF Usage.
To cap the Paging File at 260Mb could be considered a restriction, but to cap it at 768Mb cannot.

This is only my opinion ;)
 
like I said, if you are not at risk of needing a bigger page file, you'll never notice a performance hit...but, on the other hand...is it just philisophical? you don't need the disc space, so why are you worried about the safety net?'''anyway, gotta go...we'll talk later
 
At the end of the day I want to control my hard-drive space.
I eliminate all the garbage out of Windows, not because I need the space.
I set a Paging File limit, not because I need the space.
I move many files/folders off the system drive, not because I need the space.

I do it all because I want to control my hard-drive space :D
 
Originally posted by allan
Thanks dealer - I skimmed through the MS document and still don't understand the comment about older versions of Windows installing on more than one partition - never heard of that before and I don't buy it.



ok...I found the white paper I was looking for...here's the quote;

Microsoft strongly encourages system manufacturers to manufacture single NTFS volumes on all systems where a 32-bit version of Windows XP is preinstalled, using the tools described in this article.


this paragraph comes from this article

I would like to point out that this white paer is the actual reason manufacturers stopped preinstalling in partitions...this crystalizes the point I often make, when I say a persons responce "begs the question", in other words, "begs the question" illustrates that a responce is only bringing about a circular argument, and the original question is put to the test only by posing the question again.

...also interesting, the article demonstrates files will be more efficient on the middle, not the beginning of a disk...often experts tell individuals the beginning of the disc is closet to the heads, therefore, that's the most efficient placement for files...the most efficient placement of files is where the heads are located the majority of time, and mathematically, that's going to be on average towards the middle of the disc
 
Hi Dealer me again.
After trying every different combination possible, I’ve decided which the best configuration for me is,
My PC runs better with;
1. Partitions (4 on 1st drive & 3 on the second)
2. Fixed page files’ (3 x page files’) (2 in FAT16 partitions’) (total size 1056MB)
3. FAT32 filing system (XP now runs slightly quicker on my machine)
XP is sooooo good at managing partitions !!!!!
My Computer Management
See pic
 

Members online

No members online now.

Latest profile posts

Also Hi EP and people. I found this place again while looking through a oooollllllldddd backup. I have filled over 10TB and was looking at my collection of antiques. Any bids on the 500Mhz Win 95 fix?
Any of the SP crew still out there?
Xie wrote on Electronic Punk's profile.
Impressed you have kept this alive this long EP! So many sites have come and gone. :(

Just did some crude math and I apparently joined almost 18yrs ago, how is that possible???
hello peeps... is been some time since i last came here.
Electronic Punk wrote on Sazar's profile.
Rest in peace my friend, been trying to find you and finally did in the worst way imaginable.

Forum statistics

Threads
62,015
Messages
673,494
Members
5,621
Latest member
naeemsafi
Back