Spring RTS Engine

Neither Vista nor XP allows a pagefile 4096 MB or above in size. I just tried to us the pagefile to help the friend I mentioned earlier in the thread not two days ago... a no go.

oh lawd, is dat smoth's virtual memory.

Well, that is perplexing. Every time I tried to set it above or at 4096 it told me I couldn't - where is the limitation defined? I wonder if I can change a few values and force a better pagefile for her...

Mine doesn't say anything. It just stops at 4032, not even a full 4 gigs..

Oh well, I have "5" gigs of ram now, that is awesome xD

Why are we talking about pagefile? Pagefile is only used when memory is used up, which isn't an ideal. It doesn't matter how big you can set the pagefile, the bigger issue is that you shouldn't be using it at all. If you compare linux and windows in terms of memory management and requirements linux is far superior. I have yet to see a single bit of my swap partition used on my ubuntu install. Vista may be a new OS, but the system requirements for memory are too much of a leap. You go from 256-512 MB recommended, to 2GB min. That's a four to eight times increase.

I have a large page file because PHOTOSHOP, BRYCE3D and FIREFOX needed it.

smoth wrote: FIREFOX needed it.

lol

Relative wrote:Why are we talking about pagefile? Pagefile is only used when memory is used up, which isn't an ideal. It doesn't matter how big you can set the pagefile, the bigger issue is that you shouldn't be using it at all.

Not true-

Peet wrote:

Relative wrote:Why are we talking about pagefile? Pagefile is only used when memory is used up, which isn't an ideal. It doesn't matter how big you can set the pagefile, the bigger issue is that you shouldn't be using it at all.

Not true-

Yeah, in windows xp I never understood why that is. Doesn't happen on any linux distributions ive tried...

O yeah, I forgot about that. I always thought that was weird too.

XP pages out long-unused stuff to make room for 1) what it predicts will be used alot and prefetch it and 2) file buffers. See also swap prefetch.

anything more than 3 gigs of swap is overkill anyway and you will have problems with using more than 4 gigs of memory total in 32bit vista. this may also be the case with some people saying they can't put more than 4 gigs of swap and some can - the latter probably have 64-bit OS.

deleted

*whew that was a close one, if I'd been caught saying something that stupid it's be all I hear about for a week*

Caydr wrote:deleted

*whew that was a close one, if I'd been caught saying something that stupid it's be all I hear about for a week*

Unlucky; I caught it:

Caydr wrote:AF, I was wrong. I tried Vista again and it rulez!! Can you please forgive me? I'll do anything... and I mean anything

If you say something unintelligent, foolish, or easily misinterpreted - take the rap. Everybody does it to some extent.

do it ironically

Or merely in an erudite manner.

On Linux you can swap out any component for an older or simpler version.

However people tend to review a windows OS with all the fancy features turned on and at max. A fully patched Vista with aero turned off in classic theme to look like windows 9x, running with all unnecesary services turned off and optimized correctly will run fast.

However people also have a habit of comapring these overloaded windows setups with udnerloaded heavily optimized linux installs. Its obvious then that the windows OS with features all set at max will fail to win over the heavily customized linux OS.

Naturally as a new OS, Vista optimization and general performance still has potential speed ups to pass on that have yet to be discovered. Having said that the new driver model after a few years should deliver superior performance over XP because of the changes made to its architecture. But the architecture is new and to expect the necessary driver model changes to deliver instant boosts despite older drivers being shunted into newer APIs and new drivers being written would be foolish.

In the mean time whatever happened to all that XP is crap stuff? Why've you all changed your minds and started defending XP?

Have you ever heard the phrase 'lesser of two evils' ?

Yah, its called Mac OS X

I can't believe you even said that. Mac OS 8 and 9 were worse, I'll admit, but Mac OS X is not the least of the evils, nor near the bottom of the list.