Duncan - I've been moving my Windows swap file for years now. And under both Windows Vista and Win 7 you can run without a swap file (XP required one).
--------------------------- Brian Weeden Technical Advisor Secure World Foundation <http://www.secureworldfoundation.org> +1 (514) 466-2756 Canada +1 (202) 683-8534 US On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 8:00 PM, DSinc <[email protected]> wrote: > Rick, > That is a good point, but you focus on "swap files." Think this is a bad > focus. > Yes, RAM is relatively cheap now. Way back when not so. > Yes, hard drives are still relatively cheap now. (I think.) > Way back when I still recall all the list traffic about who's using who's > HD..... :) > The "swap file" issue is just how MS decided to deal with all the possible > combination's of RAM vs. HD that all of us really used. Well, and their own > bogus programming too! > A simple way to market their product to the masses (us). > The "wise guys" learned how to park the "swap file" somewhere other than > C:. Too bad M$ does not give us a choice where the "Windows" swap file > lives....... :( > I have thought about moving my "swap file(s)" for that past 10yrs. I have > not yet moved one of them! > Perhaps I will if/when I dabble with Win7...... :) > Duncan > > > > > On 01/13/2010 19:30, Rick Glazier wrote: > >> Maybe one old idea we need to keep is that hard drives are for storage. >> Swap files are for when RAM was expensive. >> My latest box could have 16G of RAM. (Not in my lifetime.) >> RAM is cheaper and last longer than an SSD. >> That is all we are saying. >> >> Rick Glazier >> >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Winterlight" >> <[email protected]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 6:55 PM >> Subject: Re: [H] SSD question >> >> >> >>> >>>> The real problem is with the concept of a swap file. Ram is cheap >>>> enough to have all you could need. >>>> ----------- >>>> Brian >>>> >>> >>> maybe, but there are some apps that won't run well without the swap >>> file... like Acrobat PRO. And while I noticed a big difference in XP >>> PRO when disabling the swap file in favor of RAM; I have noticed no >>> such performance difference in Vista 64, or 7 64 ,so I let windows put >>> the swap file on my Velociraptor, and keep the RAM for other things. >>> And I stick by the idea that most users are putting the OS on their >>> SSD drives and I bet the average user is not turning off swap >>> files.... surly the manufactures of SSDs would be aware of this. >>> >>> If there is that much of an issue with writes on a SSD then it isn't >>> really a hard drive, and it isn't ready for my dollars. >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On 2010-01-13, at 6:25 PM, Winterlight <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> That doesn't make sense. First these are hard drives... not flash >>>>> drives. Limit writes??... what kind of hard drive is that. People >>>>> typically put their OS on these and pagefile.sys defaults to the C >>>>> drive. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> At 02:28 PM 1/13/2010, you wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Bad idea, you want to LIMIT writes to those, >>>>>> but if you could afford to wear it out, go for it. >>>>>> It would be faster than a SwapFile on an HD. >>>>>> Intel has a white paper on this IIRC. >>>>>> (I don't have any but might have stored the whitepaper.) >>>>>> >>>>>> Rick Glazier >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Winterlight" >>>>>> <[email protected] > >>>>>> To: <[email protected]> >>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 2:32 PM >>>>>> Subject: [H] SSD question >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't want to pop for a larger SSD right now, but I am thinking >>>>>>> of getting a 30GB OCZ just to try out, maybe use it for video >>>>>>> editing, game install. I am wondering how well this might work out >>>>>>> for a pagefile.sys file? How close is it to RAM speeds? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >>
