OK, I can't figure this out, accept it's possible XP is finding a different area to page then your page file...I don't think that's it though, but I am driven to bring up a different issue.
you should never lower your page file, you should never set the file static...the amount of ram you have increases your need for a page file, it does not decrease the need...that was an old belief that is just not true in xp...xp has a designed need to page, and it needs all the ability to page your entire ram...you can't stop it from wanting to do it...now don't get the wrong idea, the OS is not using page instead of ram, in essence, it's preparing to use it...creating addresses, it needs and will have everything it wants, and it doesn't matter if you eliminated the page file, XP will still page the same, only not in the page file, it will find other places to page, and that'll be a huge performance hit...that's the first thing
the second thing, you should never set the page file to a static value...this serves only a negative purpose, and there is no positive purpose to it...the old, information that you will prevent fragmentation is well proven obsolete...you see, the file remains static, it is a static file, even when it's set dynamic...IT ONLY EXPANDS WHEN IT IS ABSOLUTELY NECCCEASSARY...which would you rather have? the crash, or the MYTHICAL fragementation...I say mythical because even when the file expands, it returns to normal on reboot, and the new volume is erased...no fragmentation
leave the default, which will be the necessary 1.5 of whatever your ram is, and you'll also be given the added safety of never having to worry if the file is too small.
Here's the best method for smooth performance...set your ram to about double the ram as the smallest file, and then set expansion to the maximum allowed on the disk...this way, expansion will probably never incur, and In Case you do use all that ram that you have, there will be no penalty of the page file being too small, as xp will just expand it if it becomes necceary
