Patitioning & Vitual Memmory

i cannot tell you how an extreamly bad idea this is for the mainstream user!

if you like it that way do it yourself..

other people dual-triple or even quadruple boot their computers, having 3
partitions made by vista is a nightmare

vista is bad as it is


"Bodidleysquat" <> wrote in message
news:56AC331D-B68E-440F-A429-...
> Dear Powers that Be at Microsoft,
> A "day and night tweak" that if were possible from OEM's or straight out
> of the box for Vista should be partitionioning with at least 2 or 3
> partitions w/ at least 1partition near the center of the drive. Then
> placement of the virtual memory in that center partitioning. This is basic
> performance tweaking 101, but probably far beyond the average computer
> user
> expertise. That's why I'm making the suggestion to Microsoft and any OEM's
> out there. This should be the default setup instead of just having a C
> drive
> and D recovery drive.
> I had multiple partitions on my old Systemax XP w/ said VM moved to
> center drive and just did the same thing w/ my new HP Pavilion and the
> diference is spectacular! Awsome sound and video improvement.
> My point is, is that VM doesn't coexist very well on the same partiton
> as
> any OS. And if you were to have OS setup automatically this way or add it
> to
> a fixpack in the future, you could probably run circles around those other
> guys! I'm mean you've already got partitoning and the ability to move the
> VM
> built into the OS.
>
> ----------------
> This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
> suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
> Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow
> this
> link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
> click "I Agree" in the message pane.
>
> http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/com....vista.general

Dear Powers that Be at Microsoft,
A "day and night tweak" that if were possible from OEM's or straight out
of the box for Vista should be partitionioning with at least 2 or 3
partitions w/ at least 1partition near the center of the drive. Then
placement of the virtual memory in that center partitioning. This is basic
performance tweaking 101, but probably far beyond the average computer user
expertise. That's why I'm making the suggestion to Microsoft and any OEM's
out there. This should be the default setup instead of just having a C drive
and D recovery drive.
I had multiple partitions on my old Systemax XP w/ said VM moved to
center drive and just did the same thing w/ my new HP Pavilion and the
diference is spectacular! Awsome sound and video improvement.
My point is, is that VM doesn't coexist very well on the same partiton as
any OS. And if you were to have OS setup automatically this way or add it to
a fixpack in the future, you could probably run circles around those other
guys! I'm mean you've already got partitoning and the ability to move the VM
built into the OS.

----------------
This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
click "I Agree" in the message pane.

http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/com....vista.general

T-eye-bare-eye-us wrote:
> i cannot tell you how an extreamly bad idea this is for the mainstream user!
>
> if you like it that way do it yourself..
>
> other people dual-triple or even quadruple boot their computers, having 3
> partitions made by vista is a nightmare
>
> vista is bad as it is

---------------------------------------------------------

And just how would a incompetent fool like you know? Hell, you don't
even have or use Vista.
Get lost and give up the change-the-name-game. It's stupid...just like
you are.
Frank

Just to clarify myself. I'm not talking about mutiboot partitions and
multiple operating systems. I'm talking about logical partittions, which are
extended partitions of Vista. I knew this post was going to go right over
some folks head.
One other advantage I forgot to mention is the default startup physical
memory useage dropped from 50% to 33%.

"Bodidleysquat" wrote:

> Dear Powers that Be at Microsoft,
> A "day and night tweak" that if were possible from OEM's or straight out
> of the box for Vista should be partitionioning with at least 2 or 3
> partitions w/ at least 1partition near the center of the drive. Then
> placement of the virtual memory in that center partitioning. This is basic
> performance tweaking 101, but probably far beyond the average computer user
> expertise. That's why I'm making the suggestion to Microsoft and any OEM's
> out there. This should be the default setup instead of just having a C drive
> and D recovery drive.
> I had multiple partitions on my old Systemax XP w/ said VM moved to
> center drive and just did the same thing w/ my new HP Pavilion and the
> diference is spectacular! Awsome sound and video improvement.
> My point is, is that VM doesn't coexist very well on the same partiton as
> any OS. And if you were to have OS setup automatically this way or add it to
> a fixpack in the future, you could probably run circles around those other
> guys! I'm mean you've already got partitoning and the ability to move the VM
> built into the OS.
>
> ----------------
> This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
> suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
> Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow this
> link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
> click "I Agree" in the message pane.
>
> http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/com....vista.general

The MS stance on where the page file should be is not the same as yours. It
has been long accepted that it should be either in the same partition as the
OS, or on a second physical hard drive, but never in a second partition on
the boot drive.

I would imagine that this is why OEMs do not set the computers up as per
your suggestion.

--
Mike Hall - MVP
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx




"Bodidleysquat" <> wrote in message
news:56AC331D-B68E-440F-A429-...
> Dear Powers that Be at Microsoft,
> A "day and night tweak" that if were possible from OEM's or straight out
> of the box for Vista should be partitionioning with at least 2 or 3
> partitions w/ at least 1partition near the center of the drive. Then
> placement of the virtual memory in that center partitioning. This is basic
> performance tweaking 101, but probably far beyond the average computer
> user
> expertise. That's why I'm making the suggestion to Microsoft and any OEM's
> out there. This should be the default setup instead of just having a C
> drive
> and D recovery drive.
> I had multiple partitions on my old Systemax XP w/ said VM moved to
> center drive and just did the same thing w/ my new HP Pavilion and the
> diference is spectacular! Awsome sound and video improvement.
> My point is, is that VM doesn't coexist very well on the same partiton
> as
> any OS. And if you were to have OS setup automatically this way or add it
> to
> a fixpack in the future, you could probably run circles around those other
> guys! I'm mean you've already got partitoning and the ability to move the
> VM
> built into the OS.
>
> ----------------
> This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
> suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
> Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow
> this
> link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
> click "I Agree" in the message pane.
>
> http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/com....vista.general

Mike, I got that tip out of an old OS/2 book. Anyway it didn't fail me with
OS/2, ME, XP, and now Vista. Anyway, what I'd like to hear, is Microsoft
tested this setup and decided it doesn't work or something to that effect. I
saw your blog and figured maybe you could verify it yourself?

"Mike Hall - MVP" wrote:

> The MS stance on where the page file should be is not the same as yours. It
> has been long accepted that it should be either in the same partition as the
> OS, or on a second physical hard drive, but never in a second partition on
> the boot drive.
>
> I would imagine that this is why OEMs do not set the computers up as per
> your suggestion.
>
> --
> Mike Hall - MVP
> http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
>
>
>
>
> "Bodidleysquat" <> wrote in message
> news:56AC331D-B68E-440F-A429-...
> > Dear Powers that Be at Microsoft,
> > A "day and night tweak" that if were possible from OEM's or straight out
> > of the box for Vista should be partitionioning with at least 2 or 3
> > partitions w/ at least 1partition near the center of the drive. Then
> > placement of the virtual memory in that center partitioning. This is basic
> > performance tweaking 101, but probably far beyond the average computer
> > user
> > expertise. That's why I'm making the suggestion to Microsoft and any OEM's
> > out there. This should be the default setup instead of just having a C
> > drive
> > and D recovery drive.
> > I had multiple partitions on my old Systemax XP w/ said VM moved to
> > center drive and just did the same thing w/ my new HP Pavilion and the
> > diference is spectacular! Awsome sound and video improvement.
> > My point is, is that VM doesn't coexist very well on the same partiton
> > as
> > any OS. And if you were to have OS setup automatically this way or add it
> > to
> > a fixpack in the future, you could probably run circles around those other
> > guys! I'm mean you've already got partitoning and the ability to move the
> > VM
> > built into the OS.
> >
> > ----------------
> > This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
> > suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the "I
> > Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow
> > this
> > link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and then
> > click "I Agree" in the message pane.
> >
> > http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/com....vista.general
>
>

"Bodidleysquat" <> wrote...
> of the box for Vista should be partitionioning with at least 2 or 3
> partitions w/ at least 1partition near the center of the drive. Then
> placement of the virtual memory in that center partitioning. This is basic
> performance tweaking 101, but probably far beyond the average computer
> user
> expertise. That's why I'm making the suggestion to Microsoft and any OEM's

You need to have a page file on the system volume, to create a crash dump
when you hit a blue screen. If the page file is located on another volume
(whether separate spindle, or partition on same drive) then no dump can be
created. A dump is very useful for post mortem analysis. It wouldn't be
possible to do crash dump analysis, if you don't have a page file on the
system drive.

Vista uses very sophisticated virtual memory algorithms, and many machines
theses days have plenty of physical RAM anyway (1G, 2G are common). So
optimising the page file by placing it on a separate spindle is not likely
to be a priority for most users.

--
Andrew McLaren
amclar (at) optusnet dot com dot au

What you are doing is making the assumption that if the page file resides in
the middle of the disk, the heads will not have to move so far and seek
times will be reduced.

The above assumes that your working area is on both sides of the page file,
but in practice this would not be so. Most of the action will be within the
C partition. In effect, you are making the hard drive work more than it
otherwise would, because the drive heads now have to move to the middle of
the drive to access the page file.

This is very different to where there is a page file on a separate hard
drive where only the page file and data is stored. In this instance, C will
be able to work at maximum speed, and the page file access will be made by
different heads with essentially nothing else to do other than maybe
retrieve the occasional file from the data store. The likelihood is that the
heads will stay over the page file area 99% of the time, thereby reducing
seek times dramatically for both drives.

For more on the page file and VM, read this article written the the late
(and great) Alex Nichol..

http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php

--
Mike Hall - MVP
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx




"Bodidleysquat" <> wrote in message
news:92057224-1010-4EC5-A8E3-...
> Mike, I got that tip out of an old OS/2 book. Anyway it didn't fail me
> with
> OS/2, ME, XP, and now Vista. Anyway, what I'd like to hear, is Microsoft
> tested this setup and decided it doesn't work or something to that effect.
> I
> saw your blog and figured maybe you could verify it yourself?
>
> "Mike Hall - MVP" wrote:
>
>> The MS stance on where the page file should be is not the same as yours.
>> It
>> has been long accepted that it should be either in the same partition as
>> the
>> OS, or on a second physical hard drive, but never in a second partition
>> on
>> the boot drive.
>>
>> I would imagine that this is why OEMs do not set the computers up as per
>> your suggestion.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Hall - MVP
>> http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Bodidleysquat" <> wrote in
>> message
>> news:56AC331D-B68E-440F-A429-...
>> > Dear Powers that Be at Microsoft,
>> > A "day and night tweak" that if were possible from OEM's or straight
>> > out
>> > of the box for Vista should be partitionioning with at least 2 or 3
>> > partitions w/ at least 1partition near the center of the drive. Then
>> > placement of the virtual memory in that center partitioning. This is
>> > basic
>> > performance tweaking 101, but probably far beyond the average computer
>> > user
>> > expertise. That's why I'm making the suggestion to Microsoft and any
>> > OEM's
>> > out there. This should be the default setup instead of just having a C
>> > drive
>> > and D recovery drive.
>> > I had multiple partitions on my old Systemax XP w/ said VM moved to
>> > center drive and just did the same thing w/ my new HP Pavilion and the
>> > diference is spectacular! Awsome sound and video improvement.
>> > My point is, is that VM doesn't coexist very well on the same
>> > partiton
>> > as
>> > any OS. And if you were to have OS setup automatically this way or add
>> > it
>> > to
>> > a fixpack in the future, you could probably run circles around those
>> > other
>> > guys! I'm mean you've already got partitoning and the ability to move
>> > the
>> > VM
>> > built into the OS.
>> >
>> > ----------------
>> > This post is a suggestion for Microsoft, and Microsoft responds to the
>> > suggestions with the most votes. To vote for this suggestion, click the
>> > "I
>> > Agree" button in the message pane. If you do not see the button, follow
>> > this
>> > link to open the suggestion in the Microsoft Web-based Newsreader and
>> > then
>> > click "I Agree" in the message pane.
>> >
>> > http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/com....vista.general
>>
>>

hey pickled brain...

put a foot in it... you talk (type) too much

vista has taken its toll on your small brain.. now its pickled!


"Frank" <> wrote in message
news:...
> T-eye-bare-eye-us wrote:
>> i cannot tell you how an extreamly bad idea this is for the mainstream
>> user!
>>
>> if you like it that way do it yourself..
>>
>> other people dual-triple or even quadruple boot their computers, having 3
>> partitions made by vista is a nightmare
>>
>> vista is bad as it is
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
> And just how would a incompetent fool like you know? Hell, you don't even
> have or use Vista.
> Get lost and give up the change-the-name-game. It's stupid...just like you
> are.
> Frank

T-eye-bare-eye-us wrote:

----nothing of importance...as usual-------
Frank