Hello,I got a Pentium 4, 1.8mhz, 60go HD, 768mb ram, TI4400 geo force 4 and am operating under XP; Can some one tell me if it is worth to change my virtual memory settings manually v.s leaving the system manage them in order to obtain better FPS. If yes, which amound should I enter in the settings, same as my memory (768/768), or less ?Would appreciate your commentsPatrick Geneva

Pat,with that amount of ram you really don't need to worry about it that much. If you want to have control over your swap size you can manually set it's size. The reccomended settings are 1.5 times your memory available. In your case 1 gig is what your after. Set your min and max at the same number. If you have more than one partition on your hard drive try setting it up on another partition than the one XP is on. If not where it is by default is fine.Bobby

"The recommended settings are 1.5 times your memory available"I may be a couple of days late, but I wanted to chime in on this one, as I am surprised it still circulates. The recommendation of 1.5XRAM originated in the days of 16-64 meg systems (although I suggest it even on 128 meg systems when running MSFS). It was never a rule taught or officially sanctioned by Microsoft--something I am intimate with as I manage a WAN and the training of my staff. It actually developed into somewhat of an urban legend, as some old school techs were still holding onto the formula long after it was proven obsolete as RAM became more available. I think your first statement is right on--with that amount of RAM, don't worry about it. The generally accepted rule among most admins and techs in my peer group is to leave virtual memory management alone if the RAM is 256 megs or greater, OR the OS is newer than WinME.I still have 98SE on my gaming system, in part to support some legacy programming I do on the side. With 256 megs, I have zero space taken by the swap file, even while running FS. I have tracked this over the course of several marathon FS sessions. It's a waste of HD space and time to fix it. But going back to what I said above, if I chopped 128 megs off of my RAM, I would have entered what I like to call "swap file deficit". In that situation, there is a real benefit by fixing it. But it is rare today....-John

John, Your partly right. I never said it was a microsoft rule. It has become the excepted practice for those that don't want windows to start running up a huge swap file on their HD's. I too help manage a fairly large Wan for the FAA( 1847 machines as of this past monday ). Your right that w todays equipment it may be an urban legend who has lived it's time. But don't forget that a lot of people don't have the machines that some of us do. Have a good one Bobby

Bobby...Thanks for your reply.... Sounds like we manage comparable WAN's..... It's also good to see we generally agree--it's funny how what was all the rage passes so quickly. A few years ago, I was at the forefront of those recommending fixed swap files, in spite of the people who'd come in saying it would cause HD meltdown or some odd misfortune. I geared my response in this thread towards today's community--I think it's a rare simmmer these days who has less than 256 megs of RAM.... For those simmers that do, the old formula still applies--I had a measurable improvement when my swap file was fixed. What can change all of this is some "mega" software title that carries a large RAM footprint beyond that of today's sims or software. Should that happen, one could see systems with 512 Megs of RAM obsoleted. Then the fixed swapfile formula and solution may again come into use. My reasoning--if my swap file is going to be used, I'd rather have it fixed and defragged.-John

John,LoL..Two thumbs up..We see eye to eye :)Bobby