kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>>>> AND I have proven that its just plain pig ignorant drivel with
>>>> the last ram upgrade. The system uses the swap file MUCH
>>>> less it did with the smaller amount of physical ram, as it should.

>>> Yes, you concede "MUCH less" is a good thing, but
>>> then stumble on the concept that NONE is even better

>> Not if what use of the page file is done in the background.

> ... so all we need now is an icon the user can click that
> tell's the system "ok, I'm done doing anything important so
> OS, you're now free to piddle away with unnecessary paging".

Nope, because Win does it that way automatically when you have enough
physical ram to be able to do without a page file and you have one anyway.

>> Doing without a page file risks the system going flat on its
>> face when something does something stupid like request a
>> lot more physical ram than you have, and some apps do that.

> If you were paying attention you'd have recognized
> that disabling the pagefile requires the slightest bit
> of attention to whether you have enough physical
> memory that you don't have "some apps do that",

You can never be completely sure that something you
are going to try in the future wont do that, fuckwit child.

> it's not suggestion someone should randomly follow, they have
> to know their particular use won't allocate more than they have.

Not even possible to know that with something you have never run before.

> If you don't know that, don't do it... it's just that simple.

Which is why I keep the page file, even when I have
enough physical ram to be able to do without one.

Rule of Holes : When you are in one STOP DIGGING.