I have 4GB of memory. I can run all Linux versions with a swap file - in
fact its faster since no hard disk activity is needed.

I have an AMD64 3700 processor as well. I dual boot Vista and XP Pro x64
(Linux distros are a different story - which I won't get into in this post).

I find that I cannot change the swap file size (or for that matter the
location of the swap file) in Vista 64 bit RC2. Is there any way to
eliminate the swap file - I don't think I need it and it will save wear on
my hard drives. If there is no way in RC2 to get around the 4GB swap file
(Windows set size) will that be an option in Vista RTM in January? This
will have a great deal as to whether I shell out.

Is it because of the Ultimate Edition? Obviously I won't be getting that.
In fact messing with Media Center was the only time I blue/black screened.

Marty Felker

To change the swap file size, go to Start, right click on Computer and click
Properties. Then on the left hand side click on Advanced System Settings,
then go to Settings under Performance, and click the Advanced tab.

--
Tom Ziegmann
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft Core OS TechBeta Tester

Windows Vista Ultimate RTM
WEI: 5.7
"Marty Felker" <martinfelker********.com> wrote in message
news:ODDEof0CHHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>I have 4GB of memory. I can run all Linux versions with a swap file - in
>fact its faster since no hard disk activity is needed.
>
> I have an AMD64 3700 processor as well. I dual boot Vista and XP Pro x64
> (Linux distros are a different story - which I won't get into in this
> post).
>
> I find that I cannot change the swap file size (or for that matter the
> location of the swap file) in Vista 64 bit RC2. Is there any way to
> eliminate the swap file - I don't think I need it and it will save wear on
> my hard drives. If there is no way in RC2 to get around the 4GB swap file
> (Windows set size) will that be an option in Vista RTM in January? This
> will have a great deal as to whether I shell out.
>
> Is it because of the Ultimate Edition? Obviously I won't be getting that.
> In fact messing with Media Center was the only time I blue/black screened.
>
> Marty Felker[/color]

Why do away with the"swap file"?
Even if if you have as much ram as possible, Vista will still use virtual
ram on a hard drive.
#
"Marty Felker" <martinfelker********.com> wrote in message
news:ODDEof0CHHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>I have 4GB of memory. I can run all Linux versions with a swap file - in
>fact its faster since no hard disk activity is needed.
>
> I have an AMD64 3700 processor as well. I dual boot Vista and XP Pro x64
> (Linux distros are a different story - which I won't get into in this
> post).
>
> I find that I cannot change the swap file size (or for that matter the
> location of the swap file) in Vista 64 bit RC2. Is there any way to
> eliminate the swap file - I don't think I need it and it will save wear on
> my hard drives. If there is no way in RC2 to get around the 4GB swap file
> (Windows set size) will that be an option in Vista RTM in January? This
> will have a great deal as to whether I shell out.
>
> Is it because of the Ultimate Edition? Obviously I won't be getting that.
> In fact messing with Media Center was the only time I blue/black screened.
>
> Marty Felker
>[/color]

Thanks Tom:

That did it. I'll reboot and if I get an error I'll try to
correct it through the RC2 ISO - otherwise I'll reinstall. Since I reduced
the size of my Vista partition from 43GB to 35GB I'd rather not have a swap
file since it also takes space away from my XP x64 dual boot. I do have a
lot of programs I'd need to reinstall if the swapfile experient fails for XP
x64 - but this is not a production box (in fact I really don't do
"production" except for WP and Email for the most part. I've been
experimenting quite a bit with BootitNG from Terabyte which is a great
program for partion and backup work. Indeed I'll go to maintence and backup
Vista and XP64 which will have a swapfile and the settings for it.

Marty

"Tom Ziegmann" <tziegmann@msn.com> wrote in message
news:71FFA52E-A0CB-48D1-A278-257003D60013@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
> To change the swap file size, go to Start, right click on Computer and
> click Properties. Then on the left hand side click on Advanced System
> Settings, then go to Settings under Performance, and click the Advanced
> tab.
>
> --
> Tom Ziegmann
> Microsoft Certified Professional
> Microsoft Core OS TechBeta Tester
>
> Windows Vista Ultimate RTM
> WEI: 5.7
> "Marty Felker" <martinfelker********.com> wrote in message
> news:ODDEof0CHHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>>I have 4GB of memory. I can run all Linux versions with a swap file - in
>>fact its faster since no hard disk activity is needed.
>>
>> I have an AMD64 3700 processor as well. I dual boot Vista and XP Pro x64
>> (Linux distros are a different story - which I won't get into in this
>> post).
>>
>> I find that I cannot change the swap file size (or for that matter the
>> location of the swap file) in Vista 64 bit RC2. Is there any way to
>> eliminate the swap file - I don't think I need it and it will save wear
>> on my hard drives. If there is no way in RC2 to get around the 4GB swap
>> file (Windows set size) will that be an option in Vista RTM in January?
>> This will have a great deal as to whether I shell out.
>>
>> Is it because of the Ultimate Edition? Obviously I won't be getting
>> that. In fact messing with Media Center was the only time I blue/black
>> screened.
>>
>> Marty Felker[/color]
>[/color]

See my reply to Tom above. The reason to do away with a swapfile if you can
is not only to save 4GB of diskspace but by putting all the apps in memory
rather than the HD you improve performance considerablely AND reduce wear
and tear on your HD. This works well - Linux warns about not using a swap
file as well but it doesn't make a diff.

Others on Linux forums say do away with it as well. Of course you then
can't hibernate - but who cares? It's a feature for laptops anyway.

Marty


"Nero" <nero@rome.it> wrote in message
news:%23XJlvx0CHHA.4620@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Why do away with the"swap file"?
> Even if if you have as much ram as possible, Vista will still use virtual
> ram on a hard drive.
> #
> "Marty Felker" <martinfelker********.com> wrote in message
> news:ODDEof0CHHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>>I have 4GB of memory. I can run all Linux versions with a swap file - in
>>fact its faster since no hard disk activity is needed.
>>
>> I have an AMD64 3700 processor as well. I dual boot Vista and XP Pro x64
>> (Linux distros are a different story - which I won't get into in this
>> post).
>>
>> I find that I cannot change the swap file size (or for that matter the
>> location of the swap file) in Vista 64 bit RC2. Is there any way to
>> eliminate the swap file - I don't think I need it and it will save wear
>> on my hard drives. If there is no way in RC2 to get around the 4GB swap
>> file (Windows set size) will that be an option in Vista RTM in January?
>> This will have a great deal as to whether I shell out.
>>
>> Is it because of the Ultimate Edition? Obviously I won't be getting
>> that. In fact messing with Media Center was the only time I blue/black
>> screened.
>>
>> Marty Felker
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

I have my "swap"file on a spare partition on another hard drive, always have
done.
I have two 160Gb Sata drives, XP on Drive one and Vista on Drive Two.

"Marty Felker" <martinfelker********.com> wrote in message
news:uXZCQF2CHHA.3228@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> See my reply to Tom above. The reason to do away with a swapfile if you
> can is not only to save 4GB of diskspace but by putting all the apps in
> memory rather than the HD you improve performance considerablely AND
> reduce wear and tear on your HD. This works well - Linux warns about not
> using a swap file as well but it doesn't make a diff.
>
> Others on Linux forums say do away with it as well. Of course you then
> can't hibernate - but who cares? It's a feature for laptops anyway.
>
> Marty
>
>
> "Nero" <nero@rome.it> wrote in message
> news:%23XJlvx0CHHA.4620@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> Why do away with the"swap file"?
>> Even if if you have as much ram as possible, Vista will still use virtual
>> ram on a hard drive.
>> #
>> "Marty Felker" <martinfelker********.com> wrote in message
>> news:ODDEof0CHHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>>I have 4GB of memory. I can run all Linux versions with a swap file - in
>>>fact its faster since no hard disk activity is needed.
>>>
>>> I have an AMD64 3700 processor as well. I dual boot Vista and XP Pro
>>> x64 (Linux distros are a different story - which I won't get into in
>>> this post).
>>>
>>> I find that I cannot change the swap file size (or for that matter the
>>> location of the swap file) in Vista 64 bit RC2. Is there any way to
>>> eliminate the swap file - I don't think I need it and it will save wear
>>> on my hard drives. If there is no way in RC2 to get around the 4GB swap
>>> file (Windows set size) will that be an option in Vista RTM in January?
>>> This will have a great deal as to whether I shell out.
>>>
>>> Is it because of the Ultimate Edition? Obviously I won't be getting
>>> that. In fact messing with Media Center was the only time I blue/black
>>> screened.
>>>
>>> Marty Felker
>>>[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>[/color]

Maybe IF I had 4 Gig of ram I would do it.
"Marty Felker" <martinfelker********.com> wrote in message
news:uXZCQF2CHHA.3228@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> See my reply to Tom above. The reason to do away with a swapfile if you
> can is not only to save 4GB of diskspace but by putting all the apps in
> memory rather than the HD you improve performance considerablely AND
> reduce wear and tear on your HD. This works well - Linux warns about not
> using a swap file as well but it doesn't make a diff.
>
> Others on Linux forums say do away with it as well. Of course you then
> can't hibernate - but who cares? It's a feature for laptops anyway.
>
> Marty
>
>
> "Nero" <nero@rome.it> wrote in message
> news:%23XJlvx0CHHA.4620@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> Why do away with the"swap file"?
>> Even if if you have as much ram as possible, Vista will still use virtual
>> ram on a hard drive.
>> #
>> "Marty Felker" <martinfelker********.com> wrote in message
>> news:ODDEof0CHHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>>I have 4GB of memory. I can run all Linux versions with a swap file - in
>>>fact its faster since no hard disk activity is needed.
>>>
>>> I have an AMD64 3700 processor as well. I dual boot Vista and XP Pro
>>> x64 (Linux distros are a different story - which I won't get into in
>>> this post).
>>>
>>> I find that I cannot change the swap file size (or for that matter the
>>> location of the swap file) in Vista 64 bit RC2. Is there any way to
>>> eliminate the swap file - I don't think I need it and it will save wear
>>> on my hard drives. If there is no way in RC2 to get around the 4GB swap
>>> file (Windows set size) will that be an option in Vista RTM in January?
>>> This will have a great deal as to whether I shell out.
>>>
>>> Is it because of the Ultimate Edition? Obviously I won't be getting
>>> that. In fact messing with Media Center was the only time I blue/black
>>> screened.
>>>
>>> Marty Felker
>>>[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>[/color]

Also IF you only have 1-2 Gig of ram, don't forget that SuperFetch pre loads
programs into ram.(Not using external)
SuperBoost uses external storage(USB "flash drives/whatever)to act as
virtual ram.

"Marty Felker" <martinfelker********.com> wrote in message
news:uXZCQF2CHHA.3228@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> See my reply to Tom above. The reason to do away with a swapfile if you
> can is not only to save 4GB of diskspace but by putting all the apps in
> memory rather than the HD you improve performance considerablely AND
> reduce wear and tear on your HD. This works well - Linux warns about not
> using a swap file as well but it doesn't make a diff.
>
> Others on Linux forums say do away with it as well. Of course you then
> can't hibernate - but who cares? It's a feature for laptops anyway.
>
> Marty
>
>
> "Nero" <nero@rome.it> wrote in message
> news:%23XJlvx0CHHA.4620@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> Why do away with the"swap file"?
>> Even if if you have as much ram as possible, Vista will still use virtual
>> ram on a hard drive.
>> #
>> "Marty Felker" <martinfelker********.com> wrote in message
>> news:ODDEof0CHHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>>I have 4GB of memory. I can run all Linux versions with a swap file - in
>>>fact its faster since no hard disk activity is needed.
>>>
>>> I have an AMD64 3700 processor as well. I dual boot Vista and XP Pro
>>> x64 (Linux distros are a different story - which I won't get into in
>>> this post).
>>>
>>> I find that I cannot change the swap file size (or for that matter the
>>> location of the swap file) in Vista 64 bit RC2. Is there any way to
>>> eliminate the swap file - I don't think I need it and it will save wear
>>> on my hard drives. If there is no way in RC2 to get around the 4GB swap
>>> file (Windows set size) will that be an option in Vista RTM in January?
>>> This will have a great deal as to whether I shell out.
>>>
>>> Is it because of the Ultimate Edition? Obviously I won't be getting
>>> that. In fact messing with Media Center was the only time I blue/black
>>> screened.
>>>
>>> Marty Felker
>>>[/color]
>>
>>[/color]
>[/color]

ReadyBoost I meant uses USB flashdrives/"thumb drives"
"Nero" <nero@rome.it> wrote in message
news:ukghbY2CHHA.4680@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Maybe IF I had 4 Gig of ram I would do it.
> "Marty Felker" <martinfelker********.com> wrote in message
> news:uXZCQF2CHHA.3228@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> See my reply to Tom above. The reason to do away with a swapfile if you
>> can is not only to save 4GB of diskspace but by putting all the apps in
>> memory rather than the HD you improve performance considerablely AND
>> reduce wear and tear on your HD. This works well - Linux warns about not
>> using a swap file as well but it doesn't make a diff.
>>
>> Others on Linux forums say do away with it as well. Of course you then
>> can't hibernate - but who cares? It's a feature for laptops anyway.
>>
>> Marty
>>
>>
>> "Nero" <nero@rome.it> wrote in message
>> news:%23XJlvx0CHHA.4620@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>> Why do away with the"swap file"?
>>> Even if if you have as much ram as possible, Vista will still use
>>> virtual ram on a hard drive.
>>> #
>>> "Marty Felker" <martinfelker********.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ODDEof0CHHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>I have 4GB of memory. I can run all Linux versions with a swap file -
>>>>in fact its faster since no hard disk activity is needed.
>>>>
>>>> I have an AMD64 3700 processor as well. I dual boot Vista and XP Pro
>>>> x64 (Linux distros are a different story - which I won't get into in
>>>> this post).
>>>>
>>>> I find that I cannot change the swap file size (or for that matter the
>>>> location of the swap file) in Vista 64 bit RC2. Is there any way to
>>>> eliminate the swap file - I don't think I need it and it will save wear
>>>> on my hard drives. If there is no way in RC2 to get around the 4GB
>>>> swap file (Windows set size) will that be an option in Vista RTM in
>>>> January? This will have a great deal as to whether I shell out.
>>>>
>>>> Is it because of the Ultimate Edition? Obviously I won't be getting
>>>> that. In fact messing with Media Center was the only time I blue/black
>>>> screened.
>>>>
>>>> Marty Felker
>>>>
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>[/color]
>
>
>[/color]

I just did do it - and lived without nary an error message. Actually I'm
not surprised. Any system will be faster if it doesn't swap to disk. Of
course if you have many applications open at the same time it wouldn't be
advisable - even 4GB of memory could not run memory hogs at the same time.
But for now I'm quite happy and will boot to XP x64 (and of course reboot
because of a new "device" - then I can use PerfectDisk to defrag X64 (but
NOT Vista - they are waiting for release - only experimental version for 32
bit). I could download a trial of diskeeper but I've been with PerfectDisk
for many years because Raxco has some of the best support I've ever
encountered.

Cheers,

Marty
"Nero" <nero@rome.it> wrote in message
news:ukghbY2CHHA.4680@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Maybe IF I had 4 Gig of ram I would do it.
> "Marty Felker" <martinfelker********.com> wrote in message
> news:uXZCQF2CHHA.3228@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>> See my reply to Tom above. The reason to do away with a swapfile if you
>> can is not only to save 4GB of diskspace but by putting all the apps in
>> memory rather than the HD you improve performance considerablely AND
>> reduce wear and tear on your HD. This works well - Linux warns about not
>> using a swap file as well but it doesn't make a diff.
>>
>> Others on Linux forums say do away with it as well. Of course you then
>> can't hibernate - but who cares? It's a feature for laptops anyway.
>>
>> Marty
>>
>>
>> "Nero" <nero@rome.it> wrote in message
>> news:%23XJlvx0CHHA.4620@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=darkred]
>>> Why do away with the"swap file"?
>>> Even if if you have as much ram as possible, Vista will still use
>>> virtual ram on a hard drive.
>>> #
>>> "Marty Felker" <martinfelker********.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ODDEof0CHHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>>I have 4GB of memory. I can run all Linux versions with a swap file -
>>>>in fact its faster since no hard disk activity is needed.
>>>>
>>>> I have an AMD64 3700 processor as well. I dual boot Vista and XP Pro
>>>> x64 (Linux distros are a different story - which I won't get into in
>>>> this post).
>>>>
>>>> I find that I cannot change the swap file size (or for that matter the
>>>> location of the swap file) in Vista 64 bit RC2. Is there any way to
>>>> eliminate the swap file - I don't think I need it and it will save wear
>>>> on my hard drives. If there is no way in RC2 to get around the 4GB
>>>> swap file (Windows set size) will that be an option in Vista RTM in
>>>> January? This will have a great deal as to whether I shell out.
>>>>
>>>> Is it because of the Ultimate Edition? Obviously I won't be getting
>>>> that. In fact messing with Media Center was the only time I blue/black
>>>> screened.
>>>>
>>>> Marty Felker
>>>>
>>>
>>>[/color]
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

Even if you disable the Pagefile, XP/Vista at boot will create a
temporary one TempPF.Sys in the \Windows\System32 folder.
On my primary desktop with 2.0 Gigabytes of RAM XP will
maintain around 30-60 Megabytes of Pagefile content regardless
of system loading.

"Marty Felker" <martinfelker********.com> wrote in message
news:ODDEof0CHHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>I have 4GB of memory. I can run all Linux versions with a swap file - in
>fact its faster since no hard disk activity is needed.
>
> I have an AMD64 3700 processor as well. I dual boot Vista and XP Pro x64
> (Linux distros are a different story - which I won't get into in this
> post).
>
> I find that I cannot change the swap file size (or for that matter the
> location of the swap file) in Vista 64 bit RC2. Is there any way to
> eliminate the swap file - I don't think I need it and it will save wear on
> my hard drives. If there is no way in RC2 to get around the 4GB swap file
> (Windows set size) will that be an option in Vista RTM in January? This
> will have a great deal as to whether I shell out.
>
> Is it because of the Ultimate Edition? Obviously I won't be getting that.
> In fact messing with Media Center was the only time I blue/black screened.
>
> Marty Felker[/color]

That's because regardless of it being XP or Vista, the OS still will uses a
"swap"file if needed and even Vista uses a swap file.
Imagine bunging the ram up with programs and whatever...........you soon run
out.
I have never had a problem in disk wear and tear because of a swap file.
I have a 3Gb partition(for pagefile) on a different drive to the OS and it
never gets all used.
IF the "swapfile"is on the same drive as the OS then it can slow things down
some.
If on a seperate drive then there is no problem.

"R. McCarty" <PcEngWork-NoSpam_@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:eAXkvD3CHHA.1224@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Even if you disable the Pagefile, XP/Vista at boot will create a
> temporary one TempPF.Sys in the \Windows\System32 folder.
> On my primary desktop with 2.0 Gigabytes of RAM XP will
> maintain around 30-60 Megabytes of Pagefile content regardless
> of system loading.
>
> "Marty Felker" <martinfelker********.com> wrote in message
> news:ODDEof0CHHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...[color=green]
>>I have 4GB of memory. I can run all Linux versions with a swap file - in
>>fact its faster since no hard disk activity is needed.
>>
>> I have an AMD64 3700 processor as well. I dual boot Vista and XP Pro x64
>> (Linux distros are a different story - which I won't get into in this
>> post).
>>
>> I find that I cannot change the swap file size (or for that matter the
>> location of the swap file) in Vista 64 bit RC2. Is there any way to
>> eliminate the swap file - I don't think I need it and it will save wear
>> on my hard drives. If there is no way in RC2 to get around the 4GB swap
>> file (Windows set size) will that be an option in Vista RTM in January?
>> This will have a great deal as to whether I shell out.
>>
>> Is it because of the Ultimate Edition? Obviously I won't be getting
>> that. In fact messing with Media Center was the only time I blue/black
>> screened.
>>
>> Marty Felker[/color]
>
>
>[/color]