Lady Fitzgerald said:
Where have you been hiding? Do a search using Page File and SSD for the search terms.
I have - every time this subject comes up. I would ask you do the same. Note I
specifically said there is no
"white paper, study or MSKB article" that claims or recommends disabling or manually setting the PF. Nor is there any paper anywhere (that I can find - I would welcome seeing one if you can find one) that says disabling the PF is "better" even if you have lots of RAM. My point being, there is no professional study by any
recognized expert that
recommends disabling the PF, or even setting
and forgetting a manual size. And for sure, there are no professional studies that conclude messing with the PF
improves performance. On the contrary, there several like this,
Page File Setup - MS TechNet article by Ed Bott that recommend you don't disable it and making it smaller can actually slow down performance.
The forums are full of novices and experienced users who have disabled the PF or set a tiny PF who claim their computer still works fine. But is "
because it didn't break" really a valid justification? I say no.
What I meant by modern Windows are not XP is that we should not and do not need to treat modern versions of Windows like we did XP. That is, what was often necessary to make XP run better are not needed with modern versions of Windows, and in fact, may be detrimental to their performance. Messing with PF and defrag settings are good examples. And it is no longer necessary to disable Indexing either.
Microsoft has not been sitting on their thumbs these last couple decades. I don't have a lot of nice things to say about Microsoft management/business decisions and in particular Microsoft marketing decisions, but their development teams are top notch! They have dozens of PhDs and computer scientists with decades worth of exabytes of empirical data and supercomputers at their disposal. W7, W8, and W10 are not XP.
Microsoft knows how to manage page files and obtain peak performance from Windows without our intervention.
Really? How many battery operated computers have you seen that use 3.5" drives?
I did not know we were talking exclusively about 3.5" drives. The original comment was "all" drives are designed to run "full tilt flat out in speed and capacity". Nothing about 3.5" there. But to that, please provide a link to a hard drive that is designed to run at "variable speeds". And by variable, I mean in the true sense - not 2 speed. I acknowledge there are "green" (energy saving) drives that can run at 2 different speeds.
That's installed "physical" (system) RAM, not virtual RAM or PF size.
jack3 said:
Windows will reset if you lack hdd space
Reset? No it won't. There are many things Windows will do when free disk space gets low. It will, for example, delete Restore Points or even disable System Restore completely. But "reset" Windows? No.
You dont have to use page files and if your on 2x HDD or more move to off the main OS
I never said you have to use Page Files. I said there is absolutely no evidence anywhere indicating running without one is better. But there are studies showing the contrary. And there is no professional study that suggests disabling it. Having 2 or more HDs has absolutely nothing to do with it either. It is all about free disk space - regardless where it is located. That said, if you have multiple drives, running with multiple PFs can improve performance. And if the PF is left on the boot drive, dump data will be saved there if possible.