WinXP without Swap file. Can this be done to my specs?

Lighthammer · 13th February 2008

I am building a new computer. Here are a few of the specs.

Quad Core Intel Processor

4 x 2048 DDR2 PC6400 memory = 8192 MB of ram

Windows XP 64-Bit

Here is what I want to do. I want to do away with the paging file/virtual file/swap file (Whatever you want to call it) and keep everything in the ram. I'm installing the 64-bit version of XP so it can read the high amount of memory that will be on the system.

Can this be done efficiently? Some say that programs require a swap file to run (like Adobe Photoshop) and some say that because I won't be involving the disk at all, then everything will run much faster because it will write to memory and memory only.

I am aware that the Asus EEE does not have a swap file on due to it's limited disk size and the fact that it is a SSD. Those people don't seem to have any problems with their programs with not using a swap file.

Your thoughts?

**Steve R Jones** · 13th February 2008

Just happend to run across this today:

Vista Workshop – Performance Boost with 8GB of RAM
Does no Swap File Equal better Performance?
http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/Micros...w-30272-6.html

Therefore, we would recommend never deactivating the swapping file with small memory sizes installed. (2gigs or less)

Same thing would apply to XP.

**broni** · 13th February 2008

Quote:

Some say that programs require a swap file to run (like Adobe Photoshop)

This is true. Some games won't run, either.

**Dennis L** · 13th February 2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lighthammer

I am building a new computer. Here are a few of the specs.

Quad Core Intel Processor

4 x 2048 DDR2 PC6400 memory = 8192 MB of ram

Windows XP 64-Bit

Here is what I want to do. I want to do away with the paging file/virtual file/swap file ......

This will be a challenge for XP, primarily finding drivers and software for XP / 64-bit. The industry has not / will not / gave up supporting this version of XP. I would recommend going to Vista.

See the following two articles ...
Paul Thurrot's Vista version reviews.
Go to bottom for chart views of features / memory / cpu ...

3GB-not-4GB RAM problem
This discussed windows OS (32-bit / 64-bit -- XP or Vista). You need to be selective in OS and hardware.

mflynn · 13th February 2008

If you are hard core and price is no object get a SolidState HD and set your pagefile to it.

http://www.tweaktown.com/articles/10...ive/index.html

Still can't do away with page/swap file but should have the same effect.

Mike

Lighthammer · 13th February 2008

I was going to use a Western Digital 10,000 RPM Drive as my main OS/programs drive.

Before I buy the hardware (video card, sound card, etc), I would make sure that the 64-bit drivers are available.

My main concern is the no swap file. I figured the 8 GB of RAM would be the sweet spot. I did read the articles and they say that it is possible.

I do not want to go to Vista, not yet.

**PeteC** · 14th February 2008

Quote:

Some say that programs require a swap file to run (like Adobe Photoshop)

Not strictly true - Photoshop uses it's own 'swap file' called a scratch disk which is configured in PS and is better set up on a separate drive so that it does not get fragmented and tangled up with the Windows swap (page) file.

Another point to consider is no page file = no memory dumps on bsod. Even if you move the page file to another drive MS state you must have, say 50 (500?) Mb of swap on the root drive.

WhitPhil · 14th February 2008

An observation:

Unless you are running absolutely gigantic applications, or a lot (as in many, many) of applications simultaneously, odds are miniscule that you will be actively using the pagefile to begin with.