And in the situation where you have >4GB ram installed in a machine - why the heck aren't you running a 64bit OS then? :-)I
Using a RAMdisk for swap has one acceptable use case: a system with >4GB RAM running a 32bit version of windows, where windows itself cannot access the >4GB ram. Otherwise, it's plain idiotic - the RAM you're swapping to would have been better spent serving memory requests instead of swap. Better get enough RAM and disable the pagefile altogether.
. Well, presumptive.
I know a bunch of folk still on 32-bit systems, several still on Win98
, one (1) old geezer still running Win3.1
. (They did upgrade hardware, to some extent, just not software.) For these folk, the RAMdisk question can be important. They don't want to upgrade the OS - they're comfortable with what they have and have no desire to lean a new OS - but they do want to maximize wherever possible. These are not the cognoscenti
, just average folk who have other things to do than live in our hardware/software world, and they have other priorities than getting the latest, greatest hardware/software. But they do want performance when they're here.
Hence, the RAMdisk question.
On another note, the machine I'm on right now has 6G RAM. Running Win7-64. Intel i7. I use a desktop gadget to watch memory and core usages. Seldom see RAM usage above 60%, never above 75%. So, isn't that 1.5G RAM wasted? It's not being used by system or software. So why not make that a RAMdisk as mentioned previously, thus decreasing writes to HDD or
SSD, thus decreasing wear & tear? Prolly not a perceived speed increase, considering the machine in use. And, since temporary files, for the most part, don't matter, nor does the pagefile system, once you reboot, there's no harm, no foul, for a RAMdisk, is there? Am I wrong here? If so, show me.