GT <ContactGT_remove_@hotmail.com> wrote
> CBFalconer <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote
>> GT wrote

>>> If a swapfile exists, windows will use it in an attempt to keep as
>>> much physical RAM available at any one time. In other words, if you
>>> have 2GB of RAM and are using only 400MB, then windows will still
>>> insist on swapping pages out to the pagefile, to keep the available
>>> RAM as high as possible. If something that has been swapped out is
>>> then required it is reloaded from the swapfile, introducing a
>>> performance degredation which we have been trying to tell you about.
>>> If you choose to run without a swapfile, then there would be no
>>> performance drop - simple as that.

>> Are you saying that MS is so stupid that they swap pages out, and then swap them back in even if
>> they haven't been disturbed?

Nope, he's actually stupid enough to claim that, even tho
its completely trivial to prove that that doesnt happen.

> Interesting! I don't know what windows does about a paged out page if the RAM hasn't been
> disturbed.

It doesnt bother to load it back from the swap file, stupid.

> I presume in most cases the RAM will have been used by something else,

Nope, NOT WHEN YOU HAVE ENOUGH PHYSICAL RAM
TO NOT NEED A SWAP FILE AND HAVE ONE ANYWAY.

> but I expect that the algorithm marks the pages out RAM area as blank,

Your pig ignorant expectations are your problem, as always.

> so it won't even know where the page was originally anyway!

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never
ever had a clue about how the swapfile is used when you have
enough physical ram to not need a swapfile and have one anyway.

And you are actually so stupid that you cant even manage to do the test
I spelt out and prove that its nothing like what you pig ignorantly claim.