Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

[Guest Ken Blake, MVP]

Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

 

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 19:45:41 -0700 (PDT), Borg Vomit

<not_phrynicous@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > Read here for more information:http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

>

> > > I gave up trying to understand and optimize my page file the

> > > same time I gave up on hard drive block sizes.  But I love the idea of

> > > a ram drive--still a viable option for ephemeral 'scratch' disks and

> > > page files.

> >

> > It makes no sense to use a RAM drive for the page file.

>

> What about for things like the Photoshop scratch file?

 

 

As far as I know, that operates similarly to the page file, and

wouldn't make sense for that either. But I'm not a Photoshop user

myself, so I can't be sure.

 

 

--

Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

Please Reply to the Newsgroup

[Guest Tony Sperling]

Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

 

These are interesting thoughts. Putting the System Pagefile on a RAM disc in

order to release the full performance potential, would ideally use more RAM

than is installed. Add in potential caching conflicts and it soon becomes

one project you do not want to investigate!

 

I too, do not have any experience from PS, but conceptually, such swap space

would be application controlled and could be a fraction of your RAM size and

so, boost performance considerably - under the assumption that you know what

you are doing and can be certain that the RAM space can be safely used for

the purpose?

 

Personally, I have not been using RAM Disks since executing *.BAT files

under DOS, my gut feeling today is that the modern OS wouldn't benefit as

much as DOS did allthough the raw executing speed difference might be the

same. The OS and all the sub-systems working together has got to be the

Grand Equalizer, I very much suspect. But the application controlled swap

space is probably a different kettle of fish all together!

 

 

Tony. . .

 

 

"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message

news:2hlnv3tdhdb9a18k0vcs6cun1sha8rqfsu@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 7 Apr 2008 19:45:41 -0700 (PDT), Borg Vomit

> <not_phrynicous@hotmail.com> wrote:

>

> > > Read here for more information:http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm

> >

> > > > I gave up trying to understand and optimize my page file the

> > > > same time I gave up on hard drive block sizes. But I love the idea

of

> > > > a ram drive--still a viable option for ephemeral 'scratch' disks and

> > > > page files.

> > >

> > > It makes no sense to use a RAM drive for the page file.

> >

> > What about for things like the Photoshop scratch file?

>

>

> As far as I know, that operates similarly to the page file, and

> wouldn't make sense for that either. But I'm not a Photoshop user

> myself, so I can't be sure.

>

>

> --

> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience

> Please Reply to the Newsgroup

[Guest Zootal]

Re: Is XP 64 safe? Will it make me happy

 

<snip>

>

> Statistics say that the next Windows version will appeal to me - as it

> stands, Vista is Windows ME all over, but I may not be widely supported

> here

> for that specific remark, many are growing fond of it!

>

>

> Tony. . .

 

With maybe one difference - we bought WinME because we were so sick and

tired Win98 and we were desperate for a stable operating system. WinME

turned out to be worse then Win98. I have two copies of WinME on a shelf

somewhere collecting dust, I think I ran it for all or 2-3 weeks before

going back to Win98.

 

Vista came out and we looked at it and said, "so what?". For the first time

in Microsofts history, they had made a good stable working consumer

operating system (XP), and we have no reason to upgrade to Vista. I own a

copy of Vista, but I have no plans on installing it. It does nothing that I

need that XP won't do.