Recommended size of swap file with 4 GB ram

brianzion said:

truckerking said:

madtownidiot said:

If you're used to linux, which I'm guessing because you called it a swap file, it should be at least the same size as the memory in your system. You can get away with less than that if you don't plan to do any memory intensive applications, like multiple VMs, graphics music or photo editing etc..

Windows depends much more heavily on the pagefile than linux does on swap. I recommend 1.5x the actual memory for a pagefile, which is what I usually set as a fixed amount immediately after installing windows. Letting windows manage the virtual memory means the pagefile will become fragmented if you later decide to use Photoshop, Nero, or VMware... or even Winrar or 7zip, which can take a huge amount of memory during file compression operations.

yes I'm using very memory intensive applications. I'm for example using Adobe Photoshop CS5 Extended, VmWare Workstation and other Adobe memory intensive applications. I'm also playing pretty heavy games too. But I did a few modifications. Instead of having the swap file on the main partition(the partition with Windows and all my programs installed) I created a new partition with a size of 5 GB and use this ONLY for the swap file because if you do this the main partition does not have to work that much and the computer might be a bit faster

cool and is it working ok ?

well, I haven't got time to really test this configuration but so far it's working pretty good. I'm giong to do heavier tests later to see how its working. I went to the virtual memory options in Windows and set the drive where windows will put the swap file to the partition I created for the swap file and then I let windows manage the size of the file. But so far its working pretty good

great job! windows would let you no if there was a problem windows 7 is so much better than vista as you experiment you will find out:)

brianzion said:

great job! windows would let you no if there was a problem windows 7 is so much better than vista as you experiment you will find out:)

that may be. haven't experimented with vista memory management that much so I don't know if Windows 7 is better. but I have heard that Windows 7 has a better memory management system than vista. I have actually noticed that. When I had Vista on this system Vista used more memory and more cpu power than Windows 7 does. So Windows 7 seems to be better on both memory and cpu usage. I think Windows 7 overall performs better than Vista.

64BIT machines work very well with windows 7 im really happy with mine i will be building my own soon from the motherboard upwards and i am going to make a megga fast one thanks to the knowledge of using so many systems it may cost a bit more than a stock one but i will be rewarded knowing i made it!:)

truckerking said:

brianzion said:

64BIT machines work very well with windows 7 im really happy with mine i will be building my own soon from the motherboard upwards and i am going to make a megga fast one thanks to the knowledge of using so many systems it may cost a bit more than a stock one but i will be rewarded knowing i made it!:)

that's right.

hello hows your machine

you can tell alot from task manager to:)

this is a better task manager go to this link>>>>> Extensions for Windows - The Unofficial Windows Upgrade