View Full Version : Swap File/Memory Question...Who can answer...Rags???

6th June 2001, 14:01
Question #1:

At what point does a gamer/multimedia computer user have too much RAM? For Win9x/Me? For Win2k?

I have my own theories, but I'm curious what other people think.

Question #2:

Slightly more complex, but someone should be able to asnwer. In Win9x/Me there is a flag you can put in the system.ini, in the [i386] section. The flag is ConservativeSwapFileUsage=1. This will completely disable swap file usage until your physical RAM is completely used. Is there a way to do this is Win2k, or do you believe that Win2k's file manager is smart enough to do it?

Those are my questions...

Thank you,


Athlon 650
256 MB PC133 CAS3 from Crucial
87 GB storage from WD & IBM
Matrox G400 (it's not dead yet!)
SB Live! the original full retail, still going strong
Klipsch ProMedia v.2-400, the PC speakers that goes BOOM!
Please email me if you would like to contribute to the "Jammrock needs new toys" fund.

6th June 2001, 14:14
Question #1 was answered here http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/wink.gif http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/Forum3/HTML/003992.html

Question #2.....errr donno..... =)
I believe it can be done the same as is Win9X....i remember reading about stuff like this when researching NT/Win2K ramdrives =)


6th June 2001, 15:23
Go check out O&O Software's Clever Cache Pro while you're checking out their defrag. I just downloaded them both but I haven't tried them.

6th June 2001, 15:49
640Kb should be enough for everyone! http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/rolleyes.gif

6th June 2001, 17:57
640K is major overkill...

64K worked great on my commodore and there was no lag and FPS games just ran awesome (Bubble Bobble, Zaxxon.. etc) They all kicked PC's A$$


6th June 2001, 18:08
Oooh, Zaxxon! http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif I vaguely remember that. I must have really liked it because seeing the name brought a smile on my face.

7th June 2001, 06:17
When my Dad was a programmer for the Stratigic Air Command in the late 50's
they thought 16k was plenty for the entire US Nuclear War Plan.
Odd to think that you would be hard pressed to find a wristwatch now that didn't contain a more powerful computer than the undground command post in Omaha had back then.

[This message has been edited by cjolley (edited 07 June 2001).]

7th June 2001, 06:35
Looks like we are going about it the wrong way then...

We should be looking at ways of needing less for more... not needing more to run bloatware... http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/smile.gif

I say impose a limit of 640K again and force programmers to work around that. http://forums.murc.ws/ubb/biggrin.gif

7th June 2001, 11:28
As usual, we're veering off topic here, but ...
As long as there has been digital computers, there has been a war between HW capability and SW's resource requirements growing beyond that capability. Similar to this war is the war between the OS and those pesky apps that insist on running under it. I remember reading a Genesis analogy in the late '70s about the IBM mainframe and the OS versus app war. The story unfold until ultimately it was said, "And the OS consumed 100% of the CPU, and all was good."