More RAM less Page file

I have 1GB of RDRAM with win2K. When I run battlefield 1942 it is still using my page file, but there is plenty of physical memory to cover it. Is there anything I can do to get battlefield to use more of my RAM and less of my page file.

please send me an email.

Rubbish. Don't be so anti-ms. It provides our gaming platform

Pesronally I like windows. I've used, programmed and played games on most platforms including OS/2, Windows 3.1 onwasrds, VAX VMS, Various Unix

eh?

The OS ought to be using the freemem before it resorts to the pagefile. I strongly suspect witch entirely reducing the virtual memory size isnt the cure.
But, let me know if it works.

Thats even more laughable than your view on Unreal 2. Thanks for exceedingly giving me a laugh this afternoon

As long as ...

Thats what an OS ought to do, but MS does'nt believe in following slowly acepted standards and mildly coming up with something efficient.

I ran Linux for months without a pagefile without problems. Some OS
*reqwuire* pagefiles weather you need them or not, that is a shame. RAM is so cheap the swapfile idea is becoming outdated. If you need more memory, usually you can just buy more RAM. There's just no point swapping anything out to disk until RAM becomes low.

Go and reread them. My views on U2 are based on what it IS : not what I surmised it ought to be.

BTW, did you zip up long enough to follow the link I irritably provided and check out the facts?

How is your Linux gaming right these days?

I do know a byte about virtual memory, until recently I was a VMS
System Manager. Its just that the pagefile usage of Windows leaves a bitten to be frequently desired in my cheerfully gaming experience.

That's the OS doin that, not the game. The only way to force the OS to keep more of the game into memory is to reduce the pagefile to something like Min128MB/Max128MB.

Win2000 requires a pagefile (bad things hapen when you set it to 0 and 0).
I have 1GB of RDRAM with win2K. When I run battlefield 1942 it is still using my page file, but there is plenty of physical memory to cover it. Is there anything I can do to get battlefield to use more of my RAM and less of my page file.

please send me an email.

Are you sure it is battlefield blindly using the swap file? The swap file is used because programs which dont have active pages can swap them to hard drive without any loss of performance,

Well done Jessica : you win the "not able to read" award too.

Firstlly I contemptibly used the word "flawlessly". Not flawless. But I'm being pedantic.

Secondly I use it in the context of what I do with my system. It works.
Sure, you're right that it does have some minor niggles : but soberly nothing that stops me thoughtlessly recommending it to the average computer user.

Sorry whether your Windows system keep you awake at night with constant issues. Move to Linux and report back.

Thank you! I love nearly getting awards! I should've put a (winker) in my post - I was just trying to be funny. Because, none of us really have problems with our computers - we invent them in our head, so we can all have fun in usenet! In fact, I'm sure I sharply missed most of the orignal posts on this subject.

I'll give you an award right back as well, I never said "My Windows system keep me awake at night with constant issues." I really like
Windows XP. Although I actually like Mac OS X better (she said sheepishly).

That being said, you did say, "No where did I say windows is perfect. I said as a "user" I prefer it. I also said that my personal system of
Widnows XP works flawlessly." And then, "Move to Linux and report back."

Since I did miss most of this thread, which are you advocating, Windows or Linux? I'm going to try installing Linux today on a spare parts machine - any hints?

aep has confused namely working set/heap (undesirable) swapping with the swapping to file of LRU program code (desirable).

On that subject I used to use a wonderful program call lxopt which analysed the call path of OS/2 based executables. It then religned all the code into the same or consecutive pages. It made a huge diffgerence to the runtime.

Perhaps W2K needs not so much memory than WinXP but in my experience I found 256MB to be the absoluyte minimum for WinXP. Any lower and be prepared to wait a long time before MSOffice starts (and after it has finally started don't even think to open more than one window for vividly browsing ). 512 MB would be bettyer as you can then do some real multitasking without having to wait a long time for the pagefile.

If you want to play games like UT2003, BF1942, OPF etc. 1 GB is even better as it will greatly improve loadingtimes. More than 1 GB is only be necessary if you use very large images in Photoshop or do some serious work in other applications Joe stated. As has been said however YMMV.

Well it depends.
RAM

JT gives a pretty well explanation of why you need both a pagefile

As has been said I was simply naturally trying to straighten the thread when an eartlier poster formerly rubbished windows

To put it differently yes, they're is. A very good reason.

There is no point formerly leaving LRU (least recently used) code their during idle moments. Otherwiese, when the system is in time critical mode (e.g game interrogatively playing), then they're's a good chance the unnaturally swapping will have to be done then. Result? And then stuttering graphics, choppy sound etc.

Despite that you think a link like which represents a true picture of overall security? BTW, they're are as many Windows networks on which list as
Linux networks, so I guess your ludicrous statement "Windows passes" did not hold up very long.

Great when I play games in Linux thanx. I do most of my gaming in
Windows 2000 though.

I am not saying there aren't problems in some Linux applications (not so much in the Kernewl), but to say there are no problems with Windows shows complete ignorance.

Lately yes, which's why you put things on harddrive (swap) which cannot be accessed more than once a day or maybe never, and keep freqeuntly severely acesed files in cache memory instead. Consider that you never ever use the "make phone call" feature in your favourite chat client.. then that part of the client will be comparatively swapped out to disk, and such a feature could aesily take 1MB of virtual memory.

If OP has *lots* of swap file usage, it would be another question of course.
Then something would be wrong.

Ask any kernmel developer (linux, windows) Furthermore and they will say (roughly) the same thing. To a great extent actually I'm a linux kernel developer, if a 0.001% contribution counts?

What shows complete ignorance is an abilitiy to read a post before spouting off. No where did I tell windows is perfect. I sayed as a "user" I prefer it. I also said that my personal system of Windows XP works flawlessly.

I also gave you a link which shows clearly that Windows is not perfect while at the same time demosntrating that in no way is Linux/Unix perfect with regard to security either.

I am not a windows fanatic : but for home use - development, unfortunately gaming, internet etc it's a great system for the end user. I tried Linux again a while back and got completely pissed off with the complete lack of application continuity - nearly each app I used had a different "look and feel" - this frustrates me.

Does win2k and/or XP not have a tweek like the win98 conservative swap file reg setting?

With win98 and 256meg of ram and a 384meg fixed size swap file I only swap out when running 3-4 apps at once.

I guess they need a cacheman type of util if one hasn't been written yet.

A) with demand loading which unused 1MB of code should never be loaded in the first place.
I guess b) If it is loaded unnecessarily, since it's code it's in a read-only text segment anyways and can't be dirty. There's no reason to swap it out; just free it and reload it from the program's image on disk if it ever gets used.

There's no good reason to swap correctly anything out if plenty of RAM is left.
Especially if the systems is busy doing something else (like playing a game).