paging file set to 0 but disk space is not freed

Hi all

I have set the paging file to None and rebooted. Now the paging file is
set to 0 but the disk space has not been freed.

Why?


thanks

Hi,

Because maybe the pagefile.sys still exists? Or perhaps that was not the
problem?

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

"tomcat" <> wrote in message news:fj72mi$7dt$...
> Hi all
>
> I have set the paging file to None and rebooted. Now the paging file is
> set to 0 but the disk space has not been freed.
>
> Why?
>
>
> thanks

"tomcat" <> wrote in message news:fj72mi$7dt$...
> Hi all
>
> I have set the paging file to None and rebooted. Now the paging file is
> set to 0 but the disk space has not been freed.
>
> Why?
>
>
> thanks

Pagefile.sys is most likely still sitting on your drive using the space.

I would like to note though: turning off the page file has no benefit and
will sometimes cause some problems with some types of software.

It hurts nothing to have a page file available, and often is beneficial
regardless of how much 'real' RAM you have since little, or never used
portions of loaded software (operating system included) will be dumped to
the page file, freeing up 'real' RAM' for use by other
operations/software/etc.

I ran into a problem with a recording program once, years ago and I can't
remember the name of the software, but at the time having 1 gig of RAM was
HUGE (this was back when 256 megs was a lot) so I turned off the page file
thinking I was doing a good thing, forcing everything to run in 'real' RAM.

Every time I tried to record something with this software it would stutter
badly. I attempted time and time again to fix the problem (or find a cause)
to no avail, until on a whim, I reactivated the page file and "low and
behold!" the program worked exactly as it should have.

To this day I don't know why it needed to have the page file active, it just
did, so I've never turned off the page file since, on any operating system
I've installed/used. And now that I know the benefits of having one, I'm
glad to keep it there, doing its job, quietly in the background.

Mic

"Michael Palumbo" <> wrote in message
news:u40x%...
>
>
> "tomcat" <> wrote in message news:fj72mi$7dt$...
>> Hi all
>> I have set the paging file to None and rebooted. Now the paging file is
>> set to 0 but the disk space has not been freed.
>> Why?
>> thanks

> Pagefile.sys is most likely still sitting on your drive using the space.
> I would like to note though: turning off the page file has no benefit and
> will sometimes cause some problems with some types of software.
> It hurts nothing to have a page file available, and often is beneficial
> regardless of how much 'real' RAM you have since little, or never used
> portions of loaded software (operating system included) will be dumped to
> the page file, freeing up 'real' RAM' for use by other
> operations/software/etc.
> I ran into a problem with a recording program once, years ago and I can't
> remember the name of the software, but at the time having 1 gig of RAM was
> HUGE (this was back when 256 megs was a lot) so I turned off the page file
> thinking I was doing a good thing, forcing everything to run in 'real'
> RAM.
>
> Every time I tried to record something with this software it would stutter
> badly. I attempted time and time again to fix the problem (or find a
> cause) to no avail, until on a whim, I reactivated the page file and "low
> and behold!" the program worked exactly as it should have.
>
> To this day I don't know why it needed to have the page file active, it
> just did, so I've never turned off the page file since, on any operating
> system I've installed/used. And now that I know the benefits of having
> one, I'm glad to keep it there, doing its job, quietly in the background.
> Mic

your program probably used more than the amount of physical ram you had
installed.
that is what the pagefile is for.
I usually install a small drive just for the pagefile (and one for my data
files), that way swapfile useage doesn't affect the performance of my main
drive.

"Not Me" <> wrote in message
news:#daFNJ$...
> "Michael Palumbo" <> wrote in message
> news:u40x%...
>>
>>
>> "tomcat" <> wrote in message news:fj72mi$7dt$...
>>> Hi all
>>> I have set the paging file to None and rebooted. Now the paging file is
>>> set to 0 but the disk space has not been freed.
>>> Why?
>>> thanks
>
>> Pagefile.sys is most likely still sitting on your drive using the space.
>> I would like to note though: turning off the page file has no benefit
>> and will sometimes cause some problems with some types of software.
>> It hurts nothing to have a page file available, and often is beneficial
>> regardless of how much 'real' RAM you have since little, or never used
>> portions of loaded software (operating system included) will be dumped to
>> the page file, freeing up 'real' RAM' for use by other
>> operations/software/etc.
>> I ran into a problem with a recording program once, years ago and I can't
>> remember the name of the software, but at the time having 1 gig of RAM
>> was HUGE (this was back when 256 megs was a lot) so I turned off the page
>> file thinking I was doing a good thing, forcing everything to run in
>> 'real' RAM.
>>
>> Every time I tried to record something with this software it would
>> stutter badly. I attempted time and time again to fix the problem (or
>> find a cause) to no avail, until on a whim, I reactivated the page file
>> and "low and behold!" the program worked exactly as it should have.
>>
>> To this day I don't know why it needed to have the page file active, it
>> just did, so I've never turned off the page file since, on any operating
>> system I've installed/used. And now that I know the benefits of having
>> one, I'm glad to keep it there, doing its job, quietly in the background.
>> Mic
>
> your program probably used more than the amount of physical ram you had
> installed.
> that is what the pagefile is for.
> I usually install a small drive just for the pagefile (and one for my data
> files), that way swapfile useage doesn't affect the performance of my main
> drive.
>

That's what was confusing though, the RAM used when the program was
recording/playing the tracks was less than 20% of the total system RAM.

I had 1 gigabyte of RAM with a Windows 98SE machine. At the time this was
an obscene amount of RAM. :-)

Mic

"Michael Palumbo" <> wrote in message
news:...


> I had 1 gigabyte of RAM with a Windows 98SE machine. At the time this was
> an obscene amount of RAM. :-)

Also pointless for most users as win98se slowed down if you had too much
RAM.

Michael Palumbo;536233 Wrote:
> I had 1 gigabyte of RAM with a Windows 98SE machine. At the time this
> was an obscene amount of RAM. :-)

And at the time would have cost a flippin' fortune. I doubt that an
average user would have plugged that amount of ram into a mobo and still
run Windows 98. It was just too unstable to deal with it.


--
dzomlija

____________________________________
Peter Alexander Dzomlija
Do you hear, huh? The Alpha and The Omega? Death and Rebirth? -And as
you die, so shall I be Reborn-...

- ASUS A8N32-SLI-Deluxe
- AMD Athlon 64 Dual-Core 4800+
- 4GB DDR400
- 128MB ASUS nVidia 6600 PCI-Express
- Thermaltake Tai-Chi Watercooled Chassis
- 1207GB Total Formatted Storage
- Vista Ultimate x64
- CodeGear Delphi 2007See my rig at:
http://s229.photobucket.com/albums/e...zomlija/Venus/

My Weblog:
'http://dzomlija.spaces.live.com/' (http://dzomlija.spaces.live.com/)

"dennis@home" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
>
> "Michael Palumbo" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>
>
>> I had 1 gigabyte of RAM with a Windows 98SE machine. At the time this
>> was an obscene amount of RAM. :-)
>
> Also pointless for most users as win98se slowed down if you had too much
> RAM.

The post was about page files, not the merits or perils of having too much
RAM using Windows 98SE.

Besides, I noticed no slowdown (and I could have many apps running at once)
with that configuration.

Mic

"dzomlija" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> Michael Palumbo;536233 Wrote:
>> I had 1 gigabyte of RAM with a Windows 98SE machine. At the time this
>> was an obscene amount of RAM. :-)
>
> And at the time would have cost a flippin' fortune. I doubt that an
> average user would have plugged that amount of ram into a mobo and still
> run Windows 98. It was just too unstable to deal with it.
>
>
> --
> dzomlija
>
> ____________________________________
> Peter Alexander Dzomlija
> Do you hear, huh? The Alpha and The Omega? Death and Rebirth? -And as
> you die, so shall I be Reborn-...
>
> - ASUS A8N32-SLI-Deluxe
> - AMD Athlon 64 Dual-Core 4800+
> - 4GB DDR400
> - 128MB ASUS nVidia 6600 PCI-Express
> - Thermaltake Tai-Chi Watercooled Chassis
> - 1207GB Total Formatted Storage
> - Vista Ultimate x64
> - CodeGear Delphi 2007See my rig at:
> http://s229.photobucket.com/albums/e...zomlija/Venus/
>
> My Weblog:
> 'http://dzomlija.spaces.live.com/' (http://dzomlija.spaces.live.com/)

I never said it was cheap, nor did I say I was an average user . . .

Mic

"Michael Palumbo" <> wrote in message
news:eaZz#...
>
>
> "dzomlija" <> wrote in message
> news:...
>>
>> Michael Palumbo;536233 Wrote:
>>> I had 1 gigabyte of RAM with a Windows 98SE machine. At the time this
>>> was an obscene amount of RAM. :-)
>>
>> And at the time would have cost a flippin' fortune. I doubt that an
>> average user would have plugged that amount of ram into a mobo and still
>> run Windows 98. It was just too unstable to deal with it.
>>
>>
>> --
>> dzomlija
>>
>> ____________________________________
>> Peter Alexander Dzomlija
>> Do you hear, huh? The Alpha and The Omega? Death and Rebirth? -And as
>> you die, so shall I be Reborn-...
>>
>> - ASUS A8N32-SLI-Deluxe
>> - AMD Athlon 64 Dual-Core 4800+
>> - 4GB DDR400
>> - 128MB ASUS nVidia 6600 PCI-Express
>> - Thermaltake Tai-Chi Watercooled Chassis
>> - 1207GB Total Formatted Storage
>> - Vista Ultimate x64
>> - CodeGear Delphi 2007See my rig at:
>> http://s229.photobucket.com/albums/e...zomlija/Venus/
>>
>> My Weblog:
>> 'http://dzomlija.spaces.live.com/' (http://dzomlija.spaces.live.com/)
>
> I never said it was cheap, nor did I say I was an average user . . .
>
> Mic

Oops, my mistake . . .

Upon further reflection it was 512 megs of RAM, not a gig, I was thinking of
when I built my first Windows XP machine . . .

Sorry for the confusion. I'm not old, but my memory is such that I may as
well be 90.

But still, a large amount of RAM and the audio recorder I was using still
needed to have the swap file present, even though it didn't appear to
actually be causing its use when recording or playing back.

This thread has turned away from the original point . . . so I'm going to
ignore it now. :-)

Mic