Marty Felker

See my reply to Tom above. The reason to do away with a swapfile if you can
is not only to save 4GB of diskspace but by putting all the apps in memory
rather than the HD you improve performance considerablely AND reduce wear
and tear on your HD. This works well - Linux warns about not using a swap
file as well but it doesn't make a diff.

Others on Linux forums say do away with it as well. Of course you then
can't hibernate - but who cares? It's a feature for laptops anyway.

Marty


"Nero" <nero@rome.it> wrote in message
news:%23XJlvx0CHHA.4620@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> Why do away with the"swap file"?
> Even if if you have as much ram as possible, Vista will still use virtual
> ram on a hard drive.
> #
> "Marty Felker" <martinfelker@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ODDEof0CHHA.4832@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>I have 4GB of memory. I can run all Linux versions with a swap file - in
>>fact its faster since no hard disk activity is needed.
>>
>> I have an AMD64 3700 processor as well. I dual boot Vista and XP Pro x64
>> (Linux distros are a different story - which I won't get into in this
>> post).
>>
>> I find that I cannot change the swap file size (or for that matter the
>> location of the swap file) in Vista 64 bit RC2. Is there any way to
>> eliminate the swap file - I don't think I need it and it will save wear
>> on my hard drives. If there is no way in RC2 to get around the 4GB swap
>> file (Windows set size) will that be an option in Vista RTM in January?
>> This will have a great deal as to whether I shell out.
>>
>> Is it because of the Ultimate Edition? Obviously I won't be getting
>> that. In fact messing with Media Center was the only time I blue/black
>> screened.
>>
>> Marty Felker
>>
>
>