Its not that clever actually. Messages about shortage of virtual memory are quite common and are normally cured by removing that tick and setting the virtual memory size to at least 50% above actual memory size.
In article , Mike Tomlinson scribeth thus
Are these more reliable now or was it a problem with the number of read write cycles they had a problem with?..
The 'standard' nLited version runs well; the -IE version was just out of interest but I suspect that a lot of things like context menus and so on might not work. I didn't mind MS including IE bit I object to it being part of the OS. Opera is all in its own folder, FF does have the profiles (CBA to use the portable version- and I use Pale Moon's version anyway) so IE is blocked by the firewall from accessing the web. I really must lash up the -IE box and see what happens.
In article , Tinkerer writes
If the system is hitting the pagefile to any great extent, the best thing to do is to add more memory, not fart about with the pagefile settings.
IIRC he said his MB was crammed to the gills anyway - 1GB.
I wouldn't run any kind of any windows on that frankly. Is dog slow with more than a single GUI app running on even Linux.
You might get away with Win2000. I'd doggedly stuck with WinXP on my work laptop (never intended to install the Vista it was supplied with) and didn't really expect to like Windows7, turns out that 64bit edition flies with 8GB of ram and a sandforce SSD, OK there's one or two things I wish it didn't do, but overall I'm impressed, only had to track down one or two device drivers for the more obscure devices, everything else worked out of the box.
Each flash cell has a finite number of write cycles, but the firmware has wear-levelling to spread the writes out across all cells over time, and to detect failed writes and re-map failed "sectors" to spare ones, also operating systems now know how to indicate to the drive which sectors are no longer storing any data, and they know to disable de-fragmentation on SSDs ... so overall the problem is reduced to the level where even if you're constantly writing to the drive, you'll be chucking it away and buying the multi-terabyte version before it wears out anyway :-)
Certainly sparked up performance on my machine, it's now quicker to boot windows from scratch, rather than suspend and resume it.
An interesting implication of this that many are not aware of is that you can't secure erase anything from flash based storage devices with any reliability. Even military grade multiple overwrits of a whole disk has been found to leave as much as 25% of the data recoverable later.
In article , tony sayer writes
Yes. Early ones were a bit dodgy.
No longer an issue due to a feature called wear levelling, which distributes data around the flash chips so no one chip gets an excessive number of writes.
The firmware also allocates about 7% of the capacity as spare sectors (hard drives do the same thing), so as flash cells fail they can be replaced on-the-fly.
All this is transparent to the OS and the user.
One thing I noticed about windows is no matter how much memory you give it, it still uses the ****ing swap file.
Doesn't work in systems that are already at max memory. Resetting is much cheaper than a new machine for someone whose present machine does all they need.
Reasonable enough. It probably preloads commonly used stuff (e.g. DLLs) into it on startup, because it'll ultimately be quicker to load them from there, than from the original files. Standard enough.
2Gig of RAM and no swapfile on this here netbook works fine for most things, with FF and TB open at the same time as Libre office 3.3, except that when you shut down, it thrashes the SSD for ages. But that's possibly the Kasperski AV program being stupid. I may fiddle about and try using the 32Gig SD card as a boot drive sometime.
Windows maps large sections of DLLs into memory, then demand-pages them into RAM. Unless they have fixups applied (loaded at non-default address) or the files are compressed, when it can't.
Andy
Indeed...
It's not that bad actually; at least for my purposes, which is mainly web stuff and M$-Office. It's certainly improved no end for having been reformatted (and having introduced just a new physical drive C: and a new dedicated swapfile partition, maybe).
I know it's on borrowed time, but I reckon this will happily stave off the purchase of a new machine for another year or so! Interestingly, as part of the reinstall, I logged on to Dell's website to check drivers; they have a system where you enter a service tag and it pops up with your machine and its exact spec at the time you bought it. Turns out I bought mine as long ago as 2002(!) which I find hard to believe, and it had a whopping 128Mb of RAM, with which it ran Windows XP (equally hard to believe).
Still none the wiser about optimum swapfile settings though! Seems to be a mystery AFAICS.
David
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.