Jump to content

Welcome to Geeks to Go - Register now for FREE

Geeks To Go is a helpful hub, where thousands of volunteer geeks quickly serve friendly answers and support. Check out the forums and get free advice from the experts. Register now to gain access to all of our features, it's FREE and only takes one minute. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more.

Create Account How it Works
Photo

virtual memory question


  • Please log in to reply

#1
ravydavy

ravydavy

    New Member

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
hail all geeks.
tell me to buy a new computer, but....
windows me, 128 mb ram, 667khz pentium 3, hdd "c" approx 10 gb approx 2 gb free, hdd "d" approx 2 gb (slave) 500 mb free.
typical value noticed in use, virtual memory (managed by windows) 240 mb on disc "c".
had idea that if i selected disc "d" as default for virtual memory, then no read/write/recover etc conflicts with all processes running on disc "c" , i thought this might be a thing to try, separate disc for virtual memory might speed up computer.
windows doesn't think this is a good idea and gives death and destruction notices, which makes me reluctant to make that final click.
any body tried this at home?
opinions gratefully awaited.
thank you all,
dave...
  • 0

Advertisements


#2
Neil Jones

Neil Jones

    Member 5k

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,476 posts
If your hard drive is split into two (hence your Drive C and Drive D) as opposed to having two physical drives in your computer, putting the swap file on the second partition is guaranteed to slow performance down.

On the other hand, if you have two physical drives in the computer then the swap file on the second drive can be a performance boost but only if the second drive is faster than the first one, otherwise you'll have a performance hit.
  • 0

#3
ravydavy

ravydavy

    New Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
thanks neil,
i have two physically seperate drives, that's why i thought using "d" as the virtual memory drive would work, instead of having everything reading and writing to "c".
you are saying that it would only be faster if "d" was a faster drive than "c", then reading/writing to "d" etc. would take less time than reading/writing to "c".
i'm thinking more along the lines of the multitasking potential, but then it's not really multitasking is it? all that's happening is that it switches quickly between running tasks, but it's still only "one thing at a time", isn't it? so no matter what i would like to happen, your answer covers it, only if the drive is faster is the ultimate answer.

more memory on the wish list, i think.

bye,
dave.
  • 0

#4
Neil Jones

Neil Jones

    Member 5k

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,476 posts
In theory putting something like the swap file on the other drive is a great idea. In practice, especially under the Windows 4 series (95, 98 and ME) its usually more trouble than its worth as its not designed for it.

If you find that your virtual memory use is going through the roof, the only real resolution is to throw more physical memory at the computer. You can't eradicate it completely, otherwise some programs will not work.

Multitasking is a common misconception with Windows. Most people think Multitasking is having more than one program open. In reality its Windows giving processor time to each running program even those that don't show up on the taskbar. Windows 95 improved this a lot over Windows 3.1 and Windows 2000 even more over Windows 98.
  • 0

#5
ravydavy

ravydavy

    New Member

  • Topic Starter
  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
thanks neil,
it's more memory then. i'll let you know what happens, i've got a friend with spare memory just waiting to be collected.....
bye,
dave.
  • 0






Similar Topics

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

As Featured On:

Microsoft Yahoo BBC MSN PC Magazine Washington Post HP