Can I get rid of the paging "no paging file" message on windows?

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 08:12:37 -0500, UnTruth
wrote:

I have 2GB on my laptop and do not need a paging file. Is there a way to kill the no paging file message when CS starts?

It doesn’t matter if you had twice as much memory – you need a paging file.

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 08:12:37 -0500, UnTruth
wrote:

I have 2GB on my laptop and do not need a paging file. Is there a way to kill the no paging file message when CS starts?

It doesn’t matter if you had twice as much memory – you need a paging file.

I am so tempted to make a RAM disc using all the cheap memory that’s available – but by wiring the RAM chip set to a disc controller so that the system sees it as a fixed drive. Would that not be hot or what?

In article ,
says…

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 08:12:37 -0500, UnTruth
wrote:

I have 2GB on my laptop and do not need a paging file. Is there a way to kill the no paging file message when CS starts?

It doesn’t matter if you had twice as much memory – you need a paging file.

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

Nope, Don’t need and don’t want. Laptop hard disks are slower than their desktop counterparts. I have been running for years without one and have few if any issues. Did my own benchmarks and without a paging file my laptop is almost 30% faster over the course of a day. Unscientific maybe, but faster defiantly.

"bugman" wrote in message

It doesn’t matter if you had twice as much memory – you need a paging file.

Nope, Don’t need and don’t want. Laptop hard disks are slower than their desktop counterparts. I have been running for years without one and have few if any issues. Did my own benchmarks and without a paging file my laptop is almost 30% faster over the course of a day.

Then I guess you had better find a product other than Photoshop.

"jjs" wrote in news::

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 08:12:37 -0500, UnTruth
wrote:

I have 2GB on my laptop and do not need a paging file. Is there a way to kill the no paging file message when CS starts?

It doesn’t matter if you had twice as much memory – you need a paging file.

I am so tempted to make a RAM disc using all the cheap memory that’s available – but by wiring the RAM chip set to a disc controller so that the system sees it as a fixed drive. Would that not be hot or what?

Like this?

http://www.silentpcreview.com/article49-page1.html

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

Like this?
http://www.silentpcreview.com/article49-page1.html

Yes! Okay, I have to find out just how large the work files are for 2gb image files, with 1.8gb RAM, 70% devoted to PS.

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:50:36 -0500, bugman
wrote:

In article ,
says…

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 08:12:37 -0500, UnTruth
wrote:

I have 2GB on my laptop and do not need a paging file. Is there a way to kill the no paging file message when CS starts?

It doesn’t matter if you had twice as much memory – you need a paging file.

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

Nope, Don’t need and don’t want. Laptop hard disks are slower than their desktop counterparts. I have been running for years without one and have few if any issues. Did my own benchmarks and without a paging file my laptop is almost 30% faster over the course of a day. Unscientific maybe, but faster defiantly.

And when Photoshop requires the paging file, which it will every time you run it…

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 06:46:33 -0600, "jjs" wrote:

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 08:12:37 -0500, UnTruth
wrote:

I have 2GB on my laptop and do not need a paging file. Is there a way to kill the no paging file message when CS starts?

It doesn’t matter if you had twice as much memory – you need a paging file.

I am so tempted to make a RAM disc using all the cheap memory that’s available – but by wiring the RAM chip set to a disc controller so that the system sees it as a fixed drive. Would that not be hot or what?

LOL!

Too much hassle. Of course, when we have 64 bit Win and 16 Gb of memory will you be better off with solid state RAM disks? <g>

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

"jjs" wrote in news::

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

Like this?
http://www.silentpcreview.com/article49-page1.html

Yes! Okay, I have to find out just how large the work files are for 2gb image files, with 1.8gb RAM, 70% devoted to PS.

….and come up with a crapload of money.

But you’d first need to max your box to 4GB and devote the 1.8 or so GB to PS it can use.

Or run WinXP 64 on a MB that can mount a crapload of RAM, and use a soft RAMdisk. Probably more cost effective and faster than the Rocket PCI-based white elephant anyways.

Hecate wrote in
news::

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 13:50:36 -0500, bugman
wrote:

In article ,
says…

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 08:12:37 -0500, UnTruth
wrote:

I have 2GB on my laptop and do not need a paging file. Is there a way to kill the no paging file message when CS starts?

It doesn’t matter if you had twice as much memory – you need a paging file.

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

Nope, Don’t need and don’t want. Laptop hard disks are slower than their desktop counterparts. I have been running for years without one and have few if any issues. Did my own benchmarks and without a paging file my laptop is almost 30% faster over the course of a day. Unscientific maybe, but faster defiantly.

And when Photoshop requires the paging file, which it will every time you run it…

To be fair, PSCS seems to no longer simply refuse to run without a page file, unlike it’s predecessors.

It runs like hell, but it runs. Mr. Cox is determined that we not do that.

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 06:46:33 -0600, "jjs" wrote:

I am so tempted to make a RAM disc using all the cheap memory that’s available – but by wiring the RAM chip set to a disc controller so that the
system sees it as a fixed drive. Would that not be hot or what?

LOL!

Too much hassle. Of course, when we have 64 bit Win and 16 Gb of memory will you be better off with solid state RAM disks? <g>

I don’t know how RAM discs work, but if they emulate a hard drive, then it seems unlikely it’s as fast as the above. Dunno. But I did have such a setup on my XT in 86. I could put the whole C compiling directory tree on it. I forget how big it was. Very cool.

Besides, PS will probably bloat like a beached whale shortly after the 64bit word OS is up.

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

…and come up with a crapload of money.

It’s likely you will pay for it. 🙂 I work under government grants.

But you’d first need to max your box to 4GB and devote the 1.8 or so GB to PS it can use.

Okay, we are drifting off-platform but I have 4GB on a G5 and it was my understanding that PS does not benefit that much from allocating 100% RAM. Frankly, I don’t see any difference. Could it be because PS allocates yet more disc when you allocate more RAM?

"jjs" wrote in news::

"Eric Gill" wrote in message

…and come up with a crapload of money.

It’s likely you will pay for it. 🙂 I work under government grants.

But you’d first need to max your box to 4GB and devote the 1.8 or so GB to PS it can use.

Okay, we are drifting off-platform but I have 4GB on a G5

Then your max is either 8 or 16 GB, depending on your motherboard.

and it was
my understanding that PS does not benefit that much from allocating 100% RAM.

You won’t get any. Photoshop will only use about 1.8 GB – the max any 32- bit process can use under any current mainstream OS.

Frankly, I don’t see any difference.

Why don’t you set up a RAMDisc for your first scratch disc and see what happens?

The 1GB or so you can probably spare probably won’t do much, but you at least have the option of adding RAM up to one of those maximums, which I’m assuming could be allocated to a RAMdisc (or more than one RAMDisc). four or 12 gig would probably show a nice boost.

Could it be because PS
allocates yet more disc when you allocate more RAM?

It does, but it doesn’t make much difference once the file is open. PS writes a big file initially but then doesn’t access it much until it runs short of RAM.

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 02:24:20 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

And when Photoshop requires the paging file, which it will every time you run it…

To be fair, PSCS seems to no longer simply refuse to run without a page file, unlike it’s predecessors.

It runs like hell, but it runs. Mr. Cox is determined that we not do that.

I wonder if they’ll change their minds when we’re all running 64 bit systems with 16Gb of RAM ? 😉

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

Hecate wrote in
news::

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 02:24:20 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

And when Photoshop requires the paging file, which it will every time you run it…

To be fair, PSCS seems to no longer simply refuse to run without a page file, unlike it’s predecessors.

It runs like hell, but it runs. Mr. Cox is determined that we not do that.

I wonder if they’ll change their minds when we’re all running 64 bit systems with 16Gb of RAM ? 😉

Four to one we won’t have the option in the OS by then. Apple has already done away with it.

D’ommage.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 02:52:25 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

Hecate wrote in
news::

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 02:24:20 GMT, Eric Gill
wrote:

And when Photoshop requires the paging file, which it will every time you run it…

To be fair, PSCS seems to no longer simply refuse to run without a page file, unlike it’s predecessors.

It runs like hell, but it runs. Mr. Cox is determined that we not do that.

I wonder if they’ll change their minds when we’re all running 64 bit systems with 16Gb of RAM ? 😉

Four to one we won’t have the option in the OS by then. Apple has already done away with it.

D’ommage.

Ah. Removing features to make it "easier".

Yeah, right.

—

Hecate – The Real One

veni, vidi, reliqui

"jjs" wrote in news::

"Hecate" wrote in message

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 06:46:33 -0600, "jjs" wrote:

I am so tempted to make a RAM disc using all the cheap memory that’s available – but by wiring the RAM chip set to a disc controller so that the
system sees it as a fixed drive. Would that not be hot or what?

LOL!

Too much hassle. Of course, when we have 64 bit Win and 16 Gb of memory will you be better off with solid state RAM disks? <g>

I don’t know how RAM discs work, but if they emulate a hard drive, then it seems unlikely it’s as fast as the above.

I can’t see why not. RAMDisc with main system memory eliminates the bus and controller you’d need for the Rocket-drive style system you mention.

<snip>