You cannot lash out, insult and slap someone in the face, then tell them not to respond and expect them not to. To me,
that's arrogance! I provided supporting evidence to support what I said. You just expect others to accept your comments. Again, to me
that's arrogance!
I say again, this is a technical forum for technical facts. When writing technical papers, there's no place for personal emotions. It is all about the technical facts. Yet your concern is all about your feelings being bruised rather than ensuring you are providing accurate information to YOUR readers. That is sad, IMO.
Technical writing should be concise and to the point, leaving no room for personal feelings or interpretation to get in the way. That requires a "matter of fact" approach that can be interpreted as arrogance,
IF the reader reads-in emotions that are not present.
IF you could "see" the writer's facial expressions and body language, and
IF you could "hear" the speaker's tone of voice, then you might be able to
accurately "read between the lines". But you cannot do that in technical writings and therefore you must not interject emotions that are not there. If you let your emotions get in the way, and you insert things that are not there, it may sound like arrogance, but it is certainly not intended that way. And more importantly, you then miss the real message.
"Pride of authorship" is one thing - but there's no place for emotion in technical writing - especially when incorrect information is presented.
Successful communications is a two-way process. The sender must say what he meant to say, not leave it up to interpretation or conjuncture. That is, "literally". The sender MUST know his audience. And the recipient must not read into the message emotions or points that are not there.
I am sorry if I hurt your feelings (and I mean that sincerely), but I do not apologize for ensuring our readers have the
true facts. I see that as my job here.
You can store a pagefile on the HDD. Yes, you finally admit there is no problem doing it.
:censored2: See? This is the BS I am talking about and will not tolerate, or stand by and ignore. Finally admit? I NEVER said anything to suggest PFs cannot or should not be on a HDD. I said repeatedly for
"best PF performance", put it on the SSD. Why? Because, as noted in the supporting evidence I provided, SSDs (as hardware devices) are ideally suited for the type of data used by PFs.
And then you have to use this comment about being in the military for 24 years to defend my ability to have an opinion but not so I can express it? And if I did not quote that word for word from your previous message, you come back and accuse me of misquoting.
WRONG!!! It is not about misquoting or word for word. It is about you
twisting the meaning and
fabricating what was said. That is what you have repeatedly done multiple times. It is wrong, childish, and totally unprofessional!
You cannot post false information
as a technical fact, then claim it is your opinion and that you have the right to express it. Nor can you claim someone said something after you twisted their words around into something they did not say.
So why do you think that it is best kept on the SSD boot drive? Well, you can say it is best to do so but I say no it is not. But only in MY situation.
I don't "think" it is best, I know it is best! And I know because I do my homework and research and verify and learn! Those are the facts, as spelled out in the supporting FAQ link I provided. It is not my opinion, just a technical fact that for the best page file performance, put it on an SSD.
Could there be exceptions? Sure! There are exceptions to every rule (except maybe that one). But exceptions do NOT make the rule. Nor do they apply to the vast majority of users.
I am sorry tteksystems, but YOU ARE NOT EVEN USING COMMON SENSE!!!!
Think about it for just a second and PLEASE consider the following
facts (not my opinions, but facts):
Fact: Overall Page file performance is virtually 100% dependent on (and limited by) the performance capability of the drive the PF is stored on.
Fact: Hard drives have consistently (for decades!!!) been the major bottleneck in data transfer bandwidth within the computer. Why? Because they are mechanical devices and mechanics move slower than electrons flow through circuits (note: I said "within the computer" because network bandwidth may be worse).
Fact: The slowest SSD is many times faster than the fastest HD.
OF COURSE, if your SSD is small to begin with and running out of room, moving the PF to a HD is a viable solution. I have never said otherwise. But note your typical PF is only a few gigabytes in size. If you are that low on disk space, that freeing up a few Gb of disk space matters, you have other, more serious issues, and - here we go again - you will either need to free up space, or buy more.
That said, if you don't care about maximizing your computer's performance, why buy an SSD in the first place?
Now, if you want to discuss the technical facts as they apply to the
vast majority of users and not an issue that applies "
only in MY situation", then let's discuss. If you want to discuss your unique "only in YOUR situation", then I recommend you open your own thread instead of hijacking someone else's.
Otherwise, I am done dealing with your puerile crying about feelings being hurt. If you are going to present a technical post in a technical forum frequented by highly technical and highly regarded (and globally recognized) professionals, you better be prepared for a critical technical "peer review" of your posts, and check your emotions at the sign-in page. And if you want to avoid another situation like this in the future, do your homework first to ensure you know the true facts before posting.
*******
@Techno Venus - probably way too late now since this issue was dredged up from over 5 months ago, but in reference to Indexing and bogging down systems, as I noted before, Indexing on a new system can take a long time. And on modern operating systems and in particular, W8, the Indexing service has been greatly improved to minimize impacting performance while the user is not idle. But, the process is not perfect. And with potentially several 100 thousand files in 10s of thousands of folders, it can take a long time - especially as a background process.
But once complete, indexing only has to deal with changed or new files and that is simple, and quick.
The problem is, getting the initial indexing to finish - but depending on what your computer does when you step away from it can greatly impact indexing. What I and others have done is change our sleep settings so the computer does not go sleep when we walk away so Indexing keeps crunching through the night. In a day or too, even full monster size disks can be fully indexed. Once indexing is complete, sleep mode settings can be restored.
Like most of the extra tools integrated into Windows 8, they have been greatly improved from previous versions of Windows, though they are still "basic" tools with no flair or fancy features or enhancements. But the reality is a "basic" tool is all most users need. This includes the Search feature in Windows. But some users want more and fortunately, Windows allows us to add 3rd party apps that are more than basic tools. So if a user has a need for frequent searching of their hard drives, adding a 3rd party drive search tool may be desirable and in that case, Indexing probably should be disabled.
BUT - if disk space is a problem, I see no reason to download and install a 3rd party app that takes up more space.
*******
satrow said:
Even Mark Russinovich has changed his tune on page file sizing some 3 times, maybe more, and that's just where he was trying to generalise - for the majority of users.
Right! But Mark also says to just let Windows manage it if you are not going to take the time to properly analyze AND UNDERSTAND your virtual memory requirements.
I've changed the page file sizes some 4 times on my main PC since #5 here, simply because my workload is frequently changing
Which is exactly why I recommend users let Windows manage it - especially with modern versions of Windows - even among experts. For one, Microsoft has had more than 20 years to tweak the process. But more importantly to my (and your) point is things change. You can analyze your virtual memory and set a "fixed" page file size and that may be perfect - today. But tomorrow, you may install or uninstall a program, update Windows, or otherwise change your computer or your computing habits, changing the optimal settings for your PF. But unless you
regularly go back in and re-analyze your requirements, you can easily, and users often do end up with a PF setting that is not optimum.
Modern Windows takes care of that for us and does a darn good job of it too.
*******
Personal comment: When it comes to buying or building a new computer, or upgrading an old computer with a new motherboard, I see SSDs in the same light as Windows 8.
Windows 7 is already nearly 5 years old! W8 is inherently more secure, and offers better performance - ESPECIALLY when connected to today's hardware, which includes SSDs. So why bottleneck your hardware with a 5 year old OS? Sure the W8 UI can be a roadblock for some (I don't like, or use it!) but with programs like Start8, it is extremely simple and inexpensive to make W8 look, feel and behave like W7, only a little quicker.
Hard Drive technologies are more than
60 years old!. There are many moving parts inside an HD with two motors, 2 or 3 or more actuator arms (depending on the number of stacked platters) and supporting infrastructure. There are no moving parts in a SSD. SSDs today many time faster than HDs. SSDs today are even 3 or 4 times faster than SSDs of just a couple years ago and no longer suffer from a limiting number of writes.
If you are looking for the most budget oriented computer, then go HD and understand you are bottlenecking performance. But if you want a modern computer, one that you can expect will last you many years into the future without any mechanical breakdowns, then common sense says if you want to take full advantage of all your hardware's capabilities, go SSD and W8.
***
240Gb SATA III SSD for $90 after $20 Rebate!I paid 4 times that for my first 20Mb (yes, Mb) HD!
). 