Why Use Virtual Memory In Modern Systems?

Cyberhwk writes "I have a system with Windows Vista Ultimate (64-bit) installed on it, and it has 4GB of RAM. However when I've been watching system performance, my system seems to divide the work between the physical RAM and the virtual memory, so I have 2GB of data in the virtual memory and another 2GB in the physical memory. Is there a reason why my system should even be using the virtual memory anymore? I would think the computer would run better if it based everything off of RAM instead of virtual memory. Any thoughts on this matter or could you explain why the system is acting this way?"

Comments

First

[Anonymous Coward]

First!

Obviously.

[castorvx]

http://java.sun.com/

Re:You mean physical memory right :-)

[Gibsnag]

Thanks for the tip. I shall have a fiddle around on my Server 2k8 system, as I've got 8GB of RAM so I really do not need a page file.

Re:You mean physical memory right :-)

[Sj0]

Oh, great swami, please enlighten us fools.

You install windows, then the drivers. Next, you time the boot. After that, you time the boot with swap disabled. Why, oh sawmi, is it slower?

Re:You mean physical memory right :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe your opinions is colored because you were surrounded by the assholes working tech support? If I hear one more Indian accent pretending to be from somewhere near me, asking about the weather, and ignoring the complete diagnostics I've already run verifying that, in fact, the problem is on their end and they need to get this information to the engineers now because I've already checked everything and the problem is *THEIRS*, well... then I'd be dealing with the ISP that has the no-compete contract for my hometown's broadband services.

Re:You mean physical memory right :-)

[TapeCutter]

Support-101, Training your customer: If your customer says something like "I WANT THIS FIXED NOW YOU GOD DAMN MOTHERFUCKING...", hang-up without explaination - rinse and repeat until customer gets a clue.

Re:You mean physical memory right :-)

[Jonboy X]

As computers get more intuitive and easier to use there will be less need for tech support. Until then, all users have is experience to guide them.

However, dumb and/or timid people *do* tend to shy away from computers in general, which only compounds the problem. Making fun of them sure can be fun though.

Re:You mean physical memory right :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

You are wrong. There are many, potentially a majority of people that have no usable skills, have little intelligence, and even less knowledge. If all people were good at something, then we would live in a much more productive society, than the lazy, entertainment, obese, and culturally decaying population we live in now. (Im in America, so excuse me if you are referring to non-American people- I have no frame of reference)

Just visit average American colleges. There are a sizable percentage, if not a majority, or students that are getting throw away degrees, don't care about learning or the world around them, and contribute to the annual alcohol related death statistic. Not to say there aren't smart people as well.

Compare this experience to many European countries. By most metrics, we are becoming dumber.

There is no reason to be cordial- dumb people that don't care about education and contributing the betterment of society and the human race (aren't even trying) should be shipped to a different planet.

Thankfully, when the machines take over, they will sort all of this out. :-)

Re:You mean physical memory right :-)

[holophrastic]

There's a big difference though. Most people are not incredibly knowledgeable about computers, but most people do use them daily.

I'm not knowledgeable about my tax returns, but I don't need to care for 51 weeks of the year, and I can pay someone else to take care of it, review it myself for as long as it takes, get my father to look it over, and then not care about +/- 10% or a few dollars.

But if I were doing taxes on a weekly, or even daily basis, you'd bet I'd spend some time learning.

A lot of computer "users" see themselves as "users" are described as "users" and treat their computers the way they drive their cars. Which would be fine, except that they don't plan to have a mechanic available as needed. Oh yeah, and computers aren't quite as reliable as cars just yet. Well, my kiosks are, but they are hardly consumer devices.

Re:You mean physical memory right :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you need to quantify your comment.

From: "Pretty much everyone is very good at something."

To: "Pretty much everyone is very good at something if they can keep a job in private sector."

Having worked in public sector in the UK, which employs a massive portion of the UK's working population I can assure you a sizeable percentage are completely and utterly useless. Whilst they may have areas where they're better at something than other things, it's still impossible to call them "Good". One example that springs to mind is that of advisory teachers. These people are responsible for advising schools on better ways to teach their students particular subjects which sounds all well and good but here's the problem- all too often they don't have a clue about their subjects.

I encountered some pretty horrific IT technicians there too, I mean we're talking completely useless as in couldn't figure out why they couldn't map a drive to a PC because the folder wasn't shared on the PC they were trying to map to despite having this idea explain to them multiple times before.

These type of people are the norm, not the exception in public sector. The proportion of people working in public sector sits between 20% and 30% of the working population depending on location. The only thing I can imagine you could describe they're good at is either being useless or pulling month long sickies.