GT <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote

>>> Let me summarise:
>>> It is a fact that reading a page from virtual memory will be slower than reading a page from
>>> physical RAM.

>> Not when you have enough physical ram to be able
>> to do without a swap file and have one anyway.

>>> It is a fact that Windows will use a swapfile if one is present,
>>> regardless of the amount of physical RAM in the system.

>> That's the only bit you did manage to get right and is no news.

> Right then we are talking here about a system with 2GB of RAM, which can operate without a
> swapfile. You agree with the second point here - that windows will use a swapfile whether it needs
> to or not, so pages will be swapped out from RAM to hard disk.

But not returned from the swap file to physical ram, so no effect on performance.

> But in your first argument here, you say that reading pages in from that swapfile will be just as
> fast as reading them from RAM.

I never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.

> Please explain to the group how your hard disk can read pages at the same speed as RAM?

Pity I never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.

> Please don't tell me you are trying to suggest that windows swaps
> pages out to virtual memory, then stores that virtual memory in
> physical RAM in the form of a cache? That is plain ludicrous!

Having fun thrashing that straw man are you child ?

>>> It is a fact that swapping out to virtual memory while the user is working will have an impact
>>> on performance

>> Win doesnt do that when you have enough physical ram
>> to be able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.

> Windows will swap pages out to a swap file if one is present regardless of the amount of RAM in a
> system.

But what ends up in the swap file is quite different when you have
enough physical ram to not need a swap file and have one anyway.

> If this happens while the user is working, there will be an impact on performance.

You havent established that that does happen and that it
doesnt happen in the background when you have enough
physical ram to not need a swap file and have one anyway.

>>> It is a fact that swapping out to virtual memory in the background
>>> will NOT affect the performance from the user's point of view

>> What I said.

> So you agree again that windows will swap pages out to a swap file if one is present regardless of
> the amount of RAM in a system.

But I do NOT agree that the SAME stuff will end up in the swap
file when you have enough physical ram to not need a swap file and
have one anyway and its completely trivial to prove that it doesnt.

>>> It is a fact that if any page required by the OS or an application
>>> is in virtual memory, then the performance of that particular
>>> operation will be slowed than if the page had been in physical RAM.

>> Not when you have enough physical ram to be able
>> to do without a swap file and have one anyway.

> You contradict yourself again

Nope.

> you agree that pages will be swapped out to virtual memory,

But I do NOT agree that the SAME stuff will end up in the swap
file when you have enough physical ram to not need a swap file and
have one anyway and its completely trivial to prove that it doesnt.

> but you think they will be loaded again at RAM speed?

You aint established that it is loaded into physical ram again.

>>> With no swap file, everything loaded will always be in physical RAM and accessed at maximum
>>> speed.

>> Just as true when you have enough physical ram to be
>> able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.

>>> With a swap file, not everything loaded will always be in physical
>>> RAM so there will be an innevitable performance reduction,

>> Wrong.

> Actually it is a fact,

No it isnt with the pig ignorant performance claim.

> so replying with a single word just makes you look silly!

Nope.

>>> which will be measurable when pages are swapped back into physical RAM

>> Win doesnt do that when you have enough physical ram
>> to be able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.

> Yes it does - we have told you that.

You can say whatever you like, you havent established that it
is ever swapped back into physical ram, just CLAIMED that.

>>> and measurable when pages are swapped into virtual memory concurrently with other user activity.

>> Win doesnt do that when you have enough physical ram
>> to be able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.

> Yes it does - we have told you that.

You can say whatever you like, you havent established that it
is ever swapped back into physical ram, just CLAIMED that.

>>> So with the swapfile turned on, windows will use it

>> Yes.

> Ah, that same self-contradiction again.

NOpe.

> You agree that windows uses the swapfile,

But I do NOT agree that the SAME stuff will end up in the swap
file when you have enough physical ram to not need a swap file and
have one anyway and its completely trivial to prove that it doesnt.

> but can somehow load pages back from it without performance degradation!!!

You aint even established that anything does ever get
swapped back in again when you have enough physical ram
to be able to do without a swap file and have one anyway.

Using your mindlessly silly line, there would be no point in having
more physical ram, because Win will still use the swap file in the
same way as it does without that extra physical ram, and that is
clearly not so and completely trivial to prove that it is not so
because the use of the swap file CHANGES when you add more
physical ram when you dont have enough in the first place.

>>> and the performance of the PC will be slightly reduced.

>> Nope.

>>> With the swapfile turned off, windows cannot use it,

>> You quite sure you arent one of those rocket scientist pig ignorant children ?

> Ah he has been reduced to insults

Not a single insult, just fact, child.

> - the sign of a lost argument!

Pathetic, really. You're the one that's so stupid
that you cant even understand the argument.

You can run up the white flag now.