>I was under the misapprehension that the Windows swap file had to be on
>the same drive as the OS. This is definitely NOT true for NT generation
>OS's (NT 3.51, NT4.x, Win2K).
Neither for W98 !
In facts I have 2 x U-160 IBM and 1 x U-3 IBM ... and I didn't pay 2 times
IDE price (the time I bought them) but still having 2 times the speed of an
You can put 1GB of RAM , but Windoze , Photoshop etc. will EVER go to disk
... and there you pay ! ... you waste minutes ... if you don't have fast
disks supported by fast channels.
A system is like a body of a man ... it is meaningless to have a huge head
over a 20 inches long body. :-)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Geraghty" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 1:46 AM
Subject: filmscanners: memory for film scanning
> The subject has been raised several times recently of how to get faster
> access to files and better performance when scanning huge files. This is
> for Windoze folks, so Mac users can delete this message now. ;)
> Have a look at the Microsoft Knowledge Base article Q123747 titled "Moving
> the Windows NT Default Paging and Spool File". It explains how to move
> the virtual memory files and printer spool files in NT4 and Win2K to a
> drive. What this allows you to do is arrange your computer so that
> physical drives are performing different functions. If data is being read
> from and written to different drives rather than the same drive, access
> should be faster. For instance, you could set up your computer with three
> ATA drives - one for the OS and applications, and the other two connected
> to an ATA RAID controller to store all the working files - data, virtual
> memory, PS scratch space, printer spool space etc. It would probably take
> some experimentation to work out the best arrangement of what is where.
> Anyhow, food for thought for those of you who are getting bored waiting
> for 50MB scans to load or save, or those who want to scan larger format
> I was under the misapprehension that the Windows swap file had to be on
> the same drive as the OS. This is definitely NOT true for NT generation
> OS's (NT 3.51, NT4.x, Win2K).
> PS Yes, you could do the same thing with SCSI and get better performance,
> but I am talking best bang for the buck.
> Rob Geraghty email@example.com