Stripping Page File across Multiple Hard drives

[Guest 456]

This is an incredible tweak that has improved the performance of my

system by leaps and bounds.

There have been lots of articles and tweaks concerning the Page File.

I have tried them all, however... http://online-windows-xp.blogspot.com/

[Guest John John]

Re: SPAM! Stripping Page File across Multiple Hard drives

 

Re: SPAM! Stripping Page File across Multiple Hard drives

 

456 wrote:

 

SPAM!

[Guest Twayne]

Re: SPAM! Stripping Page File across Multiple Hard drives

 

Re: SPAM! Stripping Page File across Multiple Hard drives

 

John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:

> 456 wrote:

>

> SPAM!

 

This is rather stupid; do you think people can't tell that's spam? Do

you think the spammer is going to see it and feel bad? Waste of time.

[Guest Gerry]

Re: Stripping Page File across Multiple Hard drives

 

In earlier NT systems it was usual to have such a file on each hard

drive partition, if there were more than one partition, with the idea of

having the file as near as possible to the 'action' on the disk. In XP

the optimisation implied by this has been found not to justify the

overhead, and normally there is only a single page file in the first

instance.

 

Source: http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

 

 

--

 

 

 

Hope this helps.

 

Gerry

~~~~

FCA

Stourport, England

Enquire, plan and execute

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

456 wrote:

> This is an incredible tweak that has improved the performance of my

> system by leaps and bounds.

> There have been lots of articles and tweaks concerning the Page File.

> I have tried them all, however...

> http://online-windows-xp.blogspot.com/

[Guest John John]

Re: SPAM! Stripping Page File across Multiple Hard drives

 

Re: SPAM! Stripping Page File across Multiple Hard drives

 

Twayne wrote:

> John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:

>

>>456 wrote:

>>

>>SPAM!

>

>

> This is rather stupid; do you think people can't tell that's spam? Do

> you think the spammer is going to see it and feel bad? Waste of time.

 

No, I don't think that the spammer is going to see it and feel bad, by

having it labeled as spam immediately after it was posted other readers

wiil see a post right below it identifiying as spam and they will skip

over the spam.

 

John

[Guest Alan]

Re: SPAM! Stripping Page File across Multiple Hard drives

 

Re: SPAM! Stripping Page File across Multiple Hard drives

 

The best thing to do with spam and other crap is to ignore it. I know I'm

contradicting myself here by replying, but there's been so many replies to

this post that one more won't really make much difference.

 

Look at who first replied.

1/.'Poprivet' who's now become Twain. Limited knowledge, big ego, mainly

stupid advice.

2/.'Uncle Grumpy' Elderly man with serious personality disorders.

 

People like these have no interest in helping anyone, they just post crap to

inflate their own ego's.

 

DON'T FEED THE TROLL!! Ignore spammers and they will usually go away.

 

Alan.

"John John" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message

news:Oa97XA9VIHA.5340@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...

> Twayne wrote:

>

>> John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:

>>

>>>456 wrote:

>>>

>>>SPAM!

>>

>>

>> This is rather stupid; do you think people can't tell that's spam? Do

>> you think the spammer is going to see it and feel bad? Waste of time.

>

> No, I don't think that the spammer is going to see it and feel bad, by

> having it labeled as spam immediately after it was posted other readers

> wiil see a post right below it identifiying as spam and they will skip

> over the spam.

>

> John

[Guest x@y.z]

Re: SPAM! Stripping Page File across Multiple Hard drives

 

Re: SPAM! Stripping Page File across Multiple Hard drives

 

John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in news:Oa97XA9VIHA.5340

@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:

> Twayne wrote:

>

>> John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:

>>

>>>456 wrote:

>>>

>>>SPAM!

>>

>>

>> This is rather stupid; do you think people can't tell that's spam? Do

>> you think the spammer is going to see it and feel bad? Waste of time.

>

> No, I don't think that the spammer is going to see it and feel bad, by

> having it labeled as spam immediately after it was posted other readers

> wiil see a post right below it identifiying as spam and they will skip

> over the spam.

>

> John

>

 

If one has threads collapsed they only see the original subject and don't

see the reply post identifying it as spam, so it is of no help - in fact,

it adds some perceived "importance" to the original spam post since it

has at least one reply.

 

If one sees the spam subject before the reply post identifying it has

been added and then later comes back to the newsgroup, they see the spam

subject yet again in the reply post. This means that these replies

actually expose us to the spam more often.

 

If the spam is so obviously spam that one feels they can 100% identify it

as spam to everyone else, it is likely that everyone else can figure this

out for themselves, as well.

 

If the message is fraudulent or one has more information than what is in

the original message, by all means point this out, but back it up with

more than just saying *SPAM*, as it is not just a simple spam message in

this case.