Does makeing the minimum and maximum virtual memory the same size (I.e. 512 megs for 256 ram) improve preformance in the way that it doesn't take windows to resize the swap file? Please tell if this is true or not. Thx

there must be a million posts on this but if you have 256 megs of RAM do not set the max at 512. It would be better to just leave it open. than too low http://www.thegorx.net/Windows/Help/Virtual.htm if your have problems with being low on RAM use sysmon "system monitor" and set a vcache "disk cache size" http://www.thegorx.net/Windows/Help/Vcache.htm with 256 meg of RAM you shouldn't be running low on it unless you're doing audio/video editing. TheGorx

The resizing issue is related to Windows 95. Unfortunately, it keeps being recommended for the rest of the O/S's. With 256 you will probably be making little use of the swapfile to begin with (sysmon will tell you. In Use, not Size), so let windows manage it. But if you want to set your own parameters, never set a MAX and set a MIN larger than that seen in Sysmon (now you monitor Size). As for vcache, I disagree with thegorx. There is nothing wrong with running with low available ram. Memory is there to be used, so use it. Limiting vcache "can" be a performance inhibitor. Let windows manage the cache also(non win95).

I agree! NEVER set a maximum!

Hi Vlad, as already mentionned, never set a maximum as it could cause a Windows crash and sometimes, if you are unlucky, you need to reformat and/or reinstall Windows. I agree with WhitPhil when he says that the swapfile *usage* is the point, not the *size*. I've already seen a swapfile size of 120 Mb but 0 byte usage and a swapfile of 10 Mb and a 1 Mb usage. If you want to know about memory usage under Win9x, Click here This site is maintained by a MVP, James Eshelman and you will find accurate information about Windows. If the swapfile *usage* is always zero for hours, then you don't need swapfile resizing and you can use a tweak created by MS for such situations. I paste here an excerpt of the James' site : A WIn98/ME recommendation floating around various magazines and newsgroups is to add the following line to the [386Enh] section of the SYSTEM.INI file: ConservativeSwapfileUsage=1 Those who have used it, and reported favorably on it, say that it keeps their swap file usage lower, does not impede performance in any situation they have noticed, and seems to improve it in other situations. I have seen this reported on systems with 128 MB to 256 MB of RAM. I have seen it on my own 128 MB system. Is there anything to this? What does it do? Sometimes appearances can be deceiving. Sometimes not. 8< If your machine has sufficient RAM that, for your particular use of your computer, there is relatively little swap file usage, then this tweak will probably improve system performance by reducing the overhead in swap file maintenance activities that you do not really need. 8< Microsoft advises that this change may be "at some cost in overall system performance." Furthermore, in theory it would seem that this would make the computer seem slower. But only experimentation on a given system (and by a particular user on that system) can determine what the subjective performance difference (pro or con) would be. Based on experience to date, I would say it is probable that this tweak will have a positive effect on systems with an unusually large amount of RAM, and very little swap file activity. It is unlikely that it would have a positive effect on other systems, and might have a negative impact on their performance. Since the tweak is so easy to undo - just remove, or comment out the line added to SYSTEM.INI - "power users" will likely want to experiment with this and give more feedback to the general community. End of excerpt. Only *you* can tell how you use your computer. That's the reason why some general "advices" are wrong. Of course, some recommendations are always valid (i.e : no maximum) but you don't have to pay attention to people saying "change this, remove this" if they don't know which programs you are using. As for CSU=1, I'm a very happy user of this tweak. I run Win98 with 192 Mb Ram. With this tweak and the option "let Windows manage virtual memory", my swapfile is 0 (zero) byte ! However, I use my PC heavily and Sysmon (which always runs on my PC) tells me that I'm between 120 and 180 Mb "Physical Memory in use". Sometimes, the swapfile grows from 0 to 10 Mb but always with usage = 0. My particular use makes this tweak useful. YMMV. And with a swapfile of 0 byte, its "best" place for performance or the fragmentation of the swapfile is the least of my worries. :) Finally, I've noticed some strange behaviour when I *close* any .chm file (compiled html help file), it acts like a trigger and my swapfile grows from 0 to 50 or 80 Mb, even if I have plenty of Ram free, according to Sysmon. After a short while, the swap file shrinks from 50 Mb to 0 byte, swap file usage is always 0. It's very weird and I don't know why, never found any reason for this. Sorry for the basic English. Pierre.