rec.autos.simulators

> > W/o a reason why, it smells kinda like hearsay, huh?

> I said I can't remember the reason why. I never said there is no reason
why!
> Lot's of these tweaks are parroted from site to site and are out of date
and
> do more harm than good. Fixed swap file is ok, but the other one is not
> unless using Win95. Are you still using Win95?
> Probably not.

> > W/o a reason why, it smells kinda like hearsay, huh?

> OK, did a bit of research and have your reason why. All those sites
telling
> you to do this don't have a clue. Using that setting actually hinders
> performance on Win98. Read the below.

> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q223294

> Windows 98 added a new feature, PageFile_Call_Async_Manager, that allows
the
> Memory Manager to asynchronously write out page file (swap file) buffers
> during periods of time when VFAT file system activity is not busy.

> This feature can affect the behavior of VxDs that monitor and/or otherwise
> intercept PageFile VxD functions. This article is applicable to you if
your
> VxD hooks PageFile_Read_Or_Write, and you discover that you are not seeing
> all the page file traffic when using Windows 98.

> MORE INFORMATION
> You can disable this feature, causing the system to behave as Windows 95
> does, at some cost in overall system performance. Add the following entry
to
> the System.ini file, in its [386Enh] section:

> [386Enh]
> ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1

message

> > W/o a reason why, it smells kinda like hearsay,
huh?

> OK, did a bit of research and have your reason why.

> message

> > > W/o a reason why, it smells kinda like hearsay,
> huh?

> > OK, did a bit of research and have your reason why.
> All those sites telling
> > you to do this don't have a clue. Using that setting
> actually hinders
> > performance on Win98. Read the below.

> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US
> ;q223294

> > Windows 98 added a new feature,
> PageFile_Call_Async_Manager, that allows the
> > Memory Manager to asynchronously write out page file
> (swap file) buffers
> > during periods of time when VFAT file system activity
> is not busy.

> > This feature can affect the behavior of VxDs that
> monitor and/or otherwise
> > intercept PageFile VxD functions. This article is
> applicable to you if your
> > VxD hooks PageFile_Read_Or_Write, and you discover
> that you are not seeing
> > all the page file traffic when using Windows 98.

> > MORE INFORMATION
> > You can disable this feature, causing the system to
> behave as Windows 95
> > does, at some cost in overall system performance. Add
> the following entry to
> > the System.ini file, in its [386Enh] section:

> > [386Enh]
> > ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1

> > I read the webpage but could not quite decipher the
> > meaning
> > could you explain it a bit here ???

> What Biz said basically. I'm not an MSCE so it's hard for me to understand
> the technical jargon too. But, my interpretation is that Win98 and up swap
> data buffers in/out at the same time, Win95 can only do either in or out at
> once. Therefore, making Win98 behave like Win95 with that line added to the
> system.ini is detrimental to performance. Of course you won't be able to
> benchmark this with  3dMark because it affects the behavoir of virtual
> memory and not video card performance.

> The original poster was asking Qs, not making statements.  How is his Q
> "correct"?

> --Confused 2

> > Negligible - /adjective/ - Not significant or important enough to be
worth
> > considering; trifling.

> > If a difference is "negligible," which means it's not significant or
> > important enough to be *worth considering*, then saying a "negligible"
> > difference DOES "make a difference" (i.e., should be considered
> significant
> > or noticeable) can be considered, as we say in the vernacular, a
steaming
> > pile of convoluted contradictory crapola!   Much like my last sentence
> here.
> > :0)

> > I believe the original poster is correct and you are correct as well.
In
> > this case, however, two rights have in fact made one wrong.  You
disagreed
> > while at the same time corroborated his position.  What did I just say?
> Now
> > I'm confused.

> > I am NOT seriously flaming you here, I'm just having fun with your
<cough>
> > questionable <cough> choice of words. :0)

> > Regards,

> > Joe Marques

> > > > Honestly, I haven't been able to witness any performance differences
> by
> > > setting it manually or
> > > > leaving it to let Windows manage.....so I think its a bunch of
baloney
> > on
> > > a well-tuned system...

> > > Define the performance difference one is supposed to notice. Maybe you
> > were
> > > expecting too much, but logic dictates that letting windows manage it
> will
> > > result in a fragmented swap file. That impacts disk access performance
> > when
> > > it needs to access the swap file. Unless you defragment all the time
it
> > > should make some difference if you have a permannet swap file of a
fixed
> > > size opposed to a dynamic one. No one said you would notice a big
> > > performance increase, but it does make a difference no matter how
> > negligible
> > > it actually is.