was just wondering if there is any way of switching off the dialog that comes up when i run Photoshop CS say i dont have a page file. i have 2gig of ram, so i switch of the page file under windows xp, as i dont really think i need it.
Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.
ok.. may i ask what the problems are with running without a page file. this is the first time i have heard this.. on alot of forums and tweaking pages throughout the net, it points out that if you have plenty of ram, and i would say 2gig is plenty, there is no real need for a page file. another reason for switching it off, is that windows wants to set it to use nearly 3gig of hard drive space, althought i do have 400gig, i just see it a waste.
and doesn’t setting the maximum amount of ram used by photoshop, in photoshop i have set amount of ram to use at %25, wouldn’t that stop it from using all the 2 gig
was just wondering if there is any way of switching off the dialog that comes up when i run Photoshop CS say i dont have a page file. i have 2gig of ram, so i switch of the page file under windows xp, as i dont really think i need it.
You don’t – unless you are running Adobe software. Then you need at least enough to make it happy.
Under both Photoshop and InDesign you’ll notice severe problems, from performance issues to crashing, without at least 256MB of Swap File, no matter how much RAM you’ve got.
I won’t claim to understand virtual memory as much as Chris Cox, but I can say definitively say this:
I have been running WITHOUT a page file for OVER A YEAR now in XP with a dual Xeon system and 4GB RAM, and my system has yet to explode, crash, or lose anything. as I write this email without the sacrosanct page file, my terminal has yet to burst into flames.
and somehow, CS seems to run as fast as anything I’ve ever used. is someone going to claim that all these terrible things have somehow been happenening, and I just cant notice them? works for me is all i know.
the only difference I notice is that I dont have a 2GB paging file clogging my C drive, and that I like.
As I write this I have a 515Mb (pixel dimension) document open is CS (where it becomes 1.45G in size). It consumes 3.55G of ps scratch as soon as I open it and it only grows larger as I work. I also have InDesign, FreeHand and the Character Map running, as well as all the normal stuff that lurks under the hood of Windows 2000. I don’t always run these apps simultaneously, but sometimes I have no option.
My windows swap file is set to a maximum of 3072Mb (4 times my RAM) and it has grown to 1.5G less than 30 minutes into my evening work session. It’s quite possible that our adventurous fellow with 2G of RAM and no swapfile would soon be feeling a pinch if he were doing my work. I suppose if I had 4G of RAM and only worked on tiny files I might be willing to try the no swap route, but I seriously doubt that I would feel much confidence in doing so. I’m glad that what you’re doing hasn’t caused you any grief, but if it ever does you have no one but yourself to blame for failing heed the advice of some pretty wise folks.
and the benifit of letting windows manage the swap file is when you run out of swap space in the file, xp will automatically allocate more. if you runout withOUT a scratch disk, you’re SOL. Up that well known tributary without any means of locomotion.
I have been running WITHOUT a page file for OVER A YEAR now in XP with a dual Xeon system and 4GB RAM, and my system has yet to explode, crash, or lose anything. as I write this email without the sacrosanct page file, my terminal has yet to burst into flames.
You’re just wasting more RAM than necessary by running without a page file but that doesn’t matter that much in your case, when you have 4 GB of it. Your programs can’t use more than 2 GB of them anyway so it’s okay to waste the rest on page operations I guess. 🙂
<http://www.adobe.com/support/techdocs/c1c6.htm> | Photoshop uses the virtual memory swap file to swap parts of | the application in and out of memory, but it doesn’t use | virtual memory for image editing operations. When virtual | memory is insufficient, Windows retains large portions of | Photoshop in RAM, which reduces the amount of RAM available | for image editing. Increasing virtual memory frees up RAM for | image editing.
<http://aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.php?> | Can the Virtual Memory be turned off on a really large | machine? | | Strictly speaking Virtual Memory is always in operation and | cannot be turned off. What is meant by such wording is set | the system to use no page file space at all. | | Doing this would waste a lot of the RAM. The reason is that | when programs ask for an allocation of Virtual memory space, | they may ask for a great deal more than they ever actually | bring into use the total may easily run to hundreds of | megabytes. These addresses have to be assigned to somewhere by | the system. If there is a page file available, the system can | assign them to it if there is not, they have to be assigned to | RAM, locking it out from any actual use.
These addresses have to be assigned to somewhere by | the system. If there is a page file available, the system can | assign them to it if there is not, they have to be assigned to | RAM, locking it out from any actual use.
the only difference I notice is that I dont have a 2GB paging file clogging my C drive,
right so it’s clogging your ram instead. ram=more expensive than hard drive space. sounds like a great move to me.
Help ! It seems to me that there is some confusion here – Swap – Page – Scratch. Well, I’m confused anyway. With HD space so cheap, why on earth run XP without a PAGE file, you wouldn’t run CS without a SCRATCH file, would you? If the XP page file is given its own little volume (2 GB perhaps) nothing else gets fragmented, and the RAM is probably never used. Roger
Well, if you finally decide to run with a swapfile, you can always get it out of your system disk (C) if that bothers you. In that case, define a different disk with, say, 2 to 3 Gb according to your RAM, but tell XP to allocate a small amount (4-8k) in C also. I dont’ remember the exact reason for this, but it was discussed in specialized forums quite a while ago and it certainly worked for me. Then you can tell XP not to allocate swapfile space in your other disks.
