wow
I don't want to go over all of this again, but so be it
disabling the pagefile simply forces the os to use .exe's and dll's for backup files and address translation instead of the pagefile (the pagefile is a backup file)...there cannot possibly be less paging without the pagefile then there is with the pagefile, and there should never ever be a smaller pagefile then the amount you have in ram (unless you have more then two gigs, and then the os automatically creates no bigger then a 2 gig pagefile)
here's the Microsoft documentation for those of you that think you can disable the pagefile on this virtual memory operating system, or those of you that think you are "getting over" on xp by creating a "pagefile smaller then the default"...you are not, you are only forcing the os to page all over the disc, or establish address translation all over the disc, instead of the more contiguous and efficient environment that's supposed to get the action. (the pagefile)
from the Microsoft knowledge center
No matter what your system configuration is, Windows NT will create and use a paging file.
The paging file is not necessarily a single file; it can be a group of files stored in various locations, across hard disks and partitions. The files are collectively referred to as "the paging file."
...Windows NT requires "backing storage" for everything it keeps in RAM. If Windows NT requires more space in RAM, it must be able to swap out code and data to either the paging file or the original executable file.
pretty simple but let me point out the imprtant text for this conversation;
...Windows NT requires "backing storage" for everything it keeps in RAM.
in point of fact
the os might actually write more to disc without a pagefile then with a pagefile
the pagefile gives the os an area to swap your ram...this doesn't mean it's going to swap, it just wants to be able to swap if it needs to...this is just what makes xp so stable and reliable, and thwarting this strategy, you might as well go back to a dos os
in addition, each bit of memory needs it's own address translation, not shared address translation
just like you need a different apartment then I do, even though you work in the day time and I work at night, I still want my own space
same thing with your memory
2 mbs need at least 2mbs of apartment space to be efficient
4 mbs need for at least 4 mbs of apartment space
INDIVIDUAL ADDRESS TRANSLATION, NOT SHARED ADDRESS TRANSLATION...APARTMENT SPACE IS NOT SHARED, AND ONCE YOU REALIZE THIS, YOU REALIZE LOWERING THE PAGEFILE TO A LOWER FIGURE THEN THE AMOUNT OF RAM IS COUNTER PRODUCTIVE.
in addition, obviously, the os needs room to work above the amount of ram...and this is why ms documents "no less then 1.5 ram with expansion enabled"
enyo
tis true, the os is more responsive with less ram available not more, and the ideal situation is that the os has every bit of memory in use
as close to an "everything always on" operating system as you can get is the objective
the more information in memory, the less the os has to go to disc to get this information
information in your longest ago used memory is both in memory and on the hardrive...therefore, in use and available for a swap
this is very sweet, and it's the reason the amount of "free ram" is a deceiving figure..there is much more ram "avail ab;e" then there is reported as "free" and as I said, ideally, all of your memory is in use, with an abundance "available" at the same time