|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 | |
|
Member (7 bit)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tranquility
Posts: 112
|
XP Pagefile
Well, I have had this error before, but could never solve it. I think it happens when I install an old piece of CD burning software which is probably not "XP Compliant". I usually just reinstall XP and then do not install the software. Anyway, the error is:
Quote:
System restore fails to complete its thing and I even resorted to doing a repair install of XP which just goofed things a little worse. It works fine otherwise, it just creates a temp pagefile everytime, but for now, I have reverted back to my backup partiition. Any suggestions? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Telcom Tech
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Western, Pa.
Posts: 5,409
|
What size are U using for minimum and maximum???
__________________
If it ain't broke, "TWEAK IT" |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Member (9 bit)
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 298
|
make sure you ahve the latest Windows updates as well, as the fresh install of XP is not the friendliest with CD Burning software.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Member (14 bit)
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Christmas, Florida
Posts: 10,654
|
page file should be the same amount as your ram plus 12 mb,
the inital size and the maxum size should be the same. how much ram do you have installed, 128 is the min for xp and at least 5 mb free on o/s partation, xp works best with at lease 512 mb of ram |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Member (14 bit)
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Kelowna, B.C., Canada
Posts: 9,138
|
Wait...I have 1.5 gig of RAM, so my pagefile should be 1.62 gig?
I think not! Please folks, do NOT generalize like this. The "1.5x RAM" rule doesn't work either, or I would have a pagefile that is 2.25 gig in size. The more RAM one has, the smaller the pagefile can be, with the "break point" at about 512 meg. With 512, a pagefile of 768 meg works, and XP will probably set it about there anyhow. With a gig of RAM, you do NOT need to increase the pagefile...if anything, shrink it a bit. Beyond that, a pagefile becomes almost redundant. Your mileage may vary. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Professional gadfly
|
The best way to set your pagefile size is to see how much you actually need by monitoring pagefile use. I have 512MB of memory an a 400MB page file, and it works just fine for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Member (14 bit)
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Christmas, Florida
Posts: 10,654
|
I was quoteing out of the book,
sorry and thanks for the correction |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Member (7 bit)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tranquility
Posts: 112
|
Sadly, it does not matter what I set it to. Big pagefile, small pagefile, no pagefile, system managed pagefile, ranged pagefile, single value pagefile, nothing works. The settings are there and are saved, but they are not changing anything.
Could it be that the old software somehow changed the location of the actual pagefile, since those kinds of programs probably make extensive use of it? It was designed for 9x, so maybe it expected the pagefile to be somewhere it was not and so created another one or did something to throw off XP. I have no idea, just throwing stuff out there. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Telcom Tech
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Western, Pa.
Posts: 5,409
|
I have 256Meg RAM winXP pro and use 384 min and max pagefile size seems to do well. In fact when I loaded this machine XP set itsef to 384 min but had some riduculous amount for max so I just set max to equal min amount. I don't do major multitasking, so this works for me..Maybe surfing the net, email and listening to radio station over the net is about the most apps I get to runnin at once...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Member (12 bit)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: essex
Posts: 2,252
|
try right clicking the shortcut for the program you wish to use
select properties compatability and chose windows98 hit apply and reboot and see if this fixes the problam
__________________
Join the PcMech.com Folding@Home Team and Help Save Lives! Click Here! Life only looks greener on the other side of the fence |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Professional gadfly
|
Could you post a screenshot of what your pagefile settings are currently at? That might help diagnose the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Member (11 bit)
|
My PC used to do that too I just upped the page file lil by lil until it stopped
Vary time consuming but it worked Plus make sure your all updated from M$ site
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: in harms way
Posts: 2,768
|
You are hitting the "set" button when setting pagefiles, right?
Pageing is best left to windows, save for setting the minimum to something that will never be used, like 500. That way it will never be fragmented. If you do editing, you may be better off with a pagefile maximum set to let windows take care of it. If not, say you have set the max, and you need more swap, you will crash.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Telcom Tech
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Western, Pa.
Posts: 5,409
|
I've read that keeping min and max setting plenty big enough but equal will keep windows from resizing it thus reducing the possibility of fragmenting and less harddrive activity...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 | |
|
Member (11 bit)
|
Quote:
Hmm I wouldnt mind hearing more on this if it really works
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Telcom Tech
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Western, Pa.
Posts: 5,409
|
Actually, I believe I read that here on the MECH, over on the PC optimization tips...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: in harms way
Posts: 2,768
|
Windows will not increase the swap if you never use anything that calls for more swap than the min. It is app driven.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Member (7 bit)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tranquility
Posts: 112
|
Hehe, yes, I am hitting the "set" button.
It is a system problem, so I cannot use compatibility mode, unless of course I could run the XP kernel in 98 mode, which would be entertaining. Here is a screenshot. Like I said, I have tried most all settings, but I will do requests. It might be changing some pagefile, but xp might be trying to find something completely different if that is possible. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: in harms way
Posts: 2,768
|
Maybe you need to think about new burning software...
And is that one physical drive parted up or are they all separate physical drives? |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Member (7 bit)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Tranquility
Posts: 112
|
I do not use that burning software anymore because of this very problem. It is old and came with my old burner and it works great in 98, but kills xp. I forgot about this minor detail when I installed it, but I thoroughly marked the CD so I do not make the same mistake twice.
It is a partitioned drive. I will probably reformat and reinstall. I think I will also put some money into norton ghost so I do not have to go through this crap again. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Professional gadfly
|
Ah, I think I see a problem. It looks like you have an 800MB swapfile set up on every drive. However, near the bottom of that dialog, under "Total for all drives," the number for "currently allocated" is zero. Obviously, Windows isn't getting something.
This thread is about something similar. Last edited by doctorgonzo; 06-26-2003 at 09:40 AM. |
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Member (12 bit)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Illinois
Posts: 3,557
|
I have 512MB ram and my paging is set to 768. Min and Max.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|