Pagefile.sys

Well all I can say is that it works for me. I certainly respect your opinions and this was an interesting debate. I hope Windows 7 users will take it upon themselves to test out what really works.

This is a technical discussion. It's really not a matter of opinion. We are not choosing between a red one or a blue one where opinions matter.

There is just no empirical evidence to suggest disabling the PF is beneficial. Even your own observations don't suggest any benefits - only that your computer did not break when you disabled it.

Curious - have you tried enabling it to see what happens?

I agree this is a technical discussion and I will end this debate with my last comments here. In the past, I did have Pagefile enabled on my SSD and I did experience a "minor" glitch in regards to performance.

Now, a lot has changed over the months in terms of firmware on my SSD, updates, etc,. But I will enable it and see whether or not Pagefile is at all beneficial to me with regards to my specs. I willing to bet it won't be necessary, but I'll give it another whirl.

Thank you.

My specs..
ThinkPad T400
256GB Crucial SSD (firmware 0007 )
8GB Samsung DDR3 RAM
Win7 Ultimate 64bit
CPU Intel core 2 Duo 3.06

But I will enable it and see whether or not Pagefile is at all beneficial to me with regards to my specs. I willing to bet it won't be necessary, but I'll give it another whirl.

Sadly, you are still totally missing the point. Instead of seeing if enabling the PF is beneficial to you, you need to ask yourself, what are the benefits to disabling it? What is it you think you know that Microsoft doesn't? It is their product that creates and uses the PF. And we saw where your information was incorrect with your claims about SSD makers.

What makes you more qualified than the 100s of PhDs, computer scientists, and master programmers that Microsoft has on the Windows development staff?

Do yourself a favor. Find someone, anyone, who supports your position. I have asked repeatedly for you show us some supporting evidence - you have provided none.

If you can't find any, that should tell you something.

I note too that Windows is not the only OS that uses a PF. So does Linux - even with lots of RAM installed.

What makes you more qualified than the 100s of PhDs, computer scientists, and master programmers that Microsoft has on the Windows development staff?

How can they know what his needs are?

How can they know what his needs are?

How does a doctor know what your needs are? They don't. They know what most humans need because they went to years of school. They can determine what your specific needs are because they are FORMALLY TRAINED diagnosticians. And they use specialized tests using specialized equipment with the results analyzed by more formally trained specialists.

And MOST IMPORTANTLY - they prescribe and offer medical advise based on YEARS of empirical testing and retesting - and established published guidelines - not guesses.

But also, your point is EXACTLY one I made earlier. How is it proper or logical to recommend or advise others to disable their PFs when we don't know their needs? It is not. Therefore, we, as helpers, should not be giving advise that is not supported by any evidence it does good.

"Because it did not break my machine" is NO reason to tell others to disable the PF.

Also, they don't know his needs. That is EXACTLY why the default is for Windows to analyze and manage the PF size so the PF can be adjusted on the fly as needed, based on the demands THAT SPECIFIC machine is currently experiencing.

How does he know what his needs are? Does he have inside knowledge how every program he downloads and installs will use memory? We already know some software expects to find a PF, whether it uses it or not. 3rd party software makers don't know what his needs are either, therefore, their only option is to program to the defaults too - and that is an enabled PF.

How does he know what his needs are?

Well, he can start by checking his peak counter in task manager. You like to refer to people like Mark Russinovich. He goes to great lengths to tell people how to check what their needs are.

We already know some software expects to find a PF, whether it uses it or not

How many can that be? And how many have an option to disable that check?

Well, he can start by checking his peak counter in task manager. You like to refer to people like Mark Russinovich. He goes to great lengths to tell people how to check what their needs are.

Yes, and Mark tells how to adjust it - NO WHERE does he, or anyone else say to disable it - unless you can show us a link to a white paper, research paper, KB article or some official document (not a forum poster) that shows where "disabling" the Page File completely is beneficial. Can you? Because I'm pretty darn good at using Google and I have found zero, absolutely no evidence that says disabling the page file improves performance, improves stability, or improves anything. Yet there is plenty of evidence proving having a page file does have benefits.

How many can that be? And how many have an option to disable that check?

How many can that be? How should I know? Examples have been given, but does it matter? If it is a program a poster needs, he needs it.

As for how many have an option to disable it? How should I know that either? But more importantly, how does medeiom know? Or anyone else? Those unknowns alone should be reason enough to leave the defaults as they are. There are 1000s and 1000s of programs out there, some new, many old. Unless otherwise documented, all we can assume is they were programmed with Windows default settings in mind.

@pallesenw - note this discussion is not about tweaking the PF for optimal performance. It is about whether or not it is beneficial to disable it completely, or not. And so far, no one has presented any evidence, or even a plausible explanation justifying disabling the PF. None.

A program as such never needs a page file. What it needs it available memory. If you somehow have a program that malfunctions without a page file, well yes, then you have a need for it.

If I have 16 GB physical ram and never ever commit more than 3-4 GB, well then the need is not that big.

The need to cache as much data as possible is less when you have a very fast SSD.

A program as such never needs a page file. What it needs it available memory. If you somehow have a program that malfunctions without a page file, well yes, then you have a need for it.

If I have 16 GB physical ram and never ever commit more than 3-4 GB, well then the need is not that big.

The need to cache as much data as possible is less when you have a very fast SSD.

That has absolutely NOTHING to do with this controversy. I ask again, can you show us ANY, just one little shred of evidence, a paper or KB article that reports disabling the PF is beneficial?