I'm planning to build a new system (Intel 860 CPU). I was sort of looking
for a reason to go with the 64-bit version of Windows7, since "they" say,
64-bit computing is where the future is. To me, it seems like it's going to
be a long time in coming. I mean, if MS Office-2010 is being sold as a
32-bit app, then what does that say about 64-bit computing at this point....
I recall 4 years ago when I last built a system, Vista (64-bit) was going to
be "the thing"....I steered clear of that bandwagon and never switched from
XP. I think the problem is most (consumer) software development companies
don't have much incentive to build for both 32 and 64 bit platforms( why
should they if people will still buy their 32 bit product if that's all
there is).

So that's why the road to owning a 64 bit system appears a bit rocky to me.
Any folks out there running 64-bit Windows7 systems that really like them
(besides ones that run programs like Photoshop), that would care to share
their experience? I would be curious to know the ratio of the number of
systems running 32-bit versus 64-bit versions of Windows7 (in case anyone
has one). At this point, I've never come very close to using all 2GB of the
RAM that's on my current XP system.

Bill

 

Sure, I am using 64-bit Windows 7. I have 4 GiB total memory and and all
that would not even be usable if it was the 32-bit version. I use my
computer for many things (at the same time, too) and need a lot of
memory. I don't use the pagefile and instead have the whole OS and all
other apps I use load into memory so that they can be accessed faster.
Sure, I have a lot of memory left though. I often have Visual Studio and
Firefox up at the same time. This can take quite some memory. If you
play new games, they can take quite some memory (2-3 GiB should be
plenty for games though if you use the pagefile - which I don't). Video
editing and even music production can really take a lot of memory. I
sometimes need to restart programs because I am running out of memory. I
can't see that 64+ bits is *not* the future. 32 is a bit too limited
today if you need to use the computer for many heavy things, while 64 is
still ahead in the future. It really depends though. If you don't use
the computer like I do, it *may* not be needed (but I would suggest
going 64 bit anyways).

 

Also, one single program like Office 2010 will never use up the max
amount of memory, so it may not really matter if it's 32 or 64 bits. 64
bit apps may run *slightly* faster though (barely noticable if noticable
at all?) because there will not be a 32-bit emulation layer between the
OS and native 64-bit apps.

 

Jackie wrote:

> I am using 64-bit Windows 7. I have 4 GiB total memory and and all
> that would not even be usable if it was the 32-bit version.

Yes 64bit allows you to access all your 4GiB, because it has the larger
address space, but aren't 64bit programs larger due to pointers being
twice the size (and probably looser structure packing too) so that the
extra 500MiB you can access is (partly) eaten up

Is 4GiB really the point at which you benefit from 64bit, or is it
really 6 or 8GiB?

 

"Bill" <Bill_NOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hsb502018k6@news7.newsguy.com...
>
> I'm planning to build a new system (Intel 860 CPU). I was sort of looking
> for a reason to go with the 64-bit version of Windows7, since "they" say,
> 64-bit computing is where the future is. To me, it seems like it's going
> to be a long time in coming. I mean, if MS Office-2010 is being sold as a
> 32-bit app, then what does that say about 64-bit computing at this
> point.... I recall 4 years ago when I last built a system, Vista (64-bit)
> was going to be "the thing"....I steered clear of that bandwagon and never
> switched from XP. I think the problem is most (consumer) software
> development companies don't have much incentive to build for both 32 and
> 64 bit platforms( why should they if people will still buy their 32 bit
> product if that's all there is).

The main practical reason for going with 64 bit is if you want more than 4GB
of RAM. So if you want to put say 8GB of RAM in your new system then you
need to go 64bit. With Vista many people appreciated that to get reasonable
performance you needed as much RAM as possible. I have 4GB in my Vista box
and would love to double that - but I'm stuck on 32bit so its a no-can-do. I
think Windows 7 is probably much less demanding and yet more responsive than
Vista, but I'd still think lots of RAM.

Most 32bit software will run quite happily on a 64bit Windows. Where you may
encounter problems are with drivers - particularly for older hardware where
there just won't be 64bit drivers.

> So that's why the road to owning a 64 bit system appears a bit rocky to
> me. Any folks out there running 64-bit Windows7 systems that really like
> them (besides ones that run programs like Photoshop), that would care to
> share their experience? I would be curious to know the ratio of the
> number of systems running 32-bit versus 64-bit versions of Windows7 (in
> case anyone has one). At this point, I've never come very close to using
> all 2GB of the RAM that's on my current XP system.

XP wasn't so demanding as Vista (can't speak for Windows 7), but given my
experience with Vista I'd be inclined to go for 4 or 8GB of RAM.
--
Brian Cryer
http://www.cryer.co.uk/brian

 

"Bill" <Bill_NOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hsb502018k6@news7.newsguy.com...
>
> I'm planning to build a new system (Intel 860 CPU). I was sort of looking
> for a reason to go with the 64-bit version of Windows7, since "they" say,
> 64-bit computing is where the future is. To me, it seems like it's going
> to be a long time in coming. I mean, if MS Office-2010 is being sold as a
> 32-bit app, then what does that say about 64-bit computing at this
> point....

Office 2010 is available in both 32 and 64bit flavors.

 

"Jackie" <Jackie@an.on> wrote in message
news:4be922db$0$3143$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> Sure, I am using 64-bit Windows 7. I have 4 GiB total memory and and all
> that would not even be usable if it was the 32-bit version. I use my
> computer for many things (at the same time, too) and need a lot of memory.
> I don't use the pagefile and instead have the whole OS and all other apps
> I use load into memory so that they can be accessed faster.

But you should still have a pagefile - Windows (and other apps) need a
pagefile.
See here:
http://lifehacker.com/5426041/understanding-the-windows-pagefile-and-why-you-shouldnt-disable-it


> Sure, I have a lot of memory left though.

Then you are wasting what you have.

 

On 05/11/2010 11:51 AM, Sunny Bard wrote:
> Jackie wrote:
>
>> I am using 64-bit Windows 7. I have 4 GiB total memory and and all
>> that would not even be usable if it was the 32-bit version.
>
> Yes 64bit allows you to access all your 4GiB, because it has the larger
> address space, but aren't 64bit programs larger due to pointers being
> twice the size (and probably looser structure packing too) so that the
> extra 500MiB you can access is (partly) eaten up
>
> Is 4GiB really the point at which you benefit from 64bit, or is it
> really 6 or 8GiB?
>
Pointers will be twice the size, and will consume more memory, yes. And
please see my last post about 64 bit apps being slightly faster. I think
more than 4 GiB would be good. Less caching to the file system if you
have that turned on (I guess it would not matter much if you use a fast
SSD though). New/Semi-new hardware should have good 64 bit drivers by
now while old hardware may not ever be updated.

 

On 5/11/2010 167, Bill wrote:
> I'm planning to build a new system (Intel 860 CPU). I was sort of looking
> for a reason to go with the 64-bit version of Windows7, since "they" say,
> 64-bit computing is where the future is. To me, it seems like it's going to
> be a long time in coming. I mean, if MS Office-2010 is being sold as a
> 32-bit app, then what does that say about 64-bit computing at this point....
> I recall 4 years ago when I last built a system, Vista (64-bit) was going to
> be "the thing"....I steered clear of that bandwagon and never switched from
> XP. I think the problem is most (consumer) software development companies
> don't have much incentive to build for both 32 and 64 bit platforms( why
> should they if people will still buy their 32 bit product if that's all
> there is).
>
> So that's why the road to owning a 64 bit system appears a bit rocky to me.
> Any folks out there running 64-bit Windows7 systems that really like them
> (besides ones that run programs like Photoshop), that would care to share
> their experience? I would be curious to know the ratio of the number of

1. If you bought the box version of Win 7, you would get both the 32-bit
and the 64-bit DVD

2. If you could find *64-bit drivers for ALL* your hardware, go 64-bit
as 32-bit M$ Office & DirectX 9 games continue to work under 64-bit

--
@~@ Might, Courage, Vision, SINCERITY.
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty! May the Force and Farce be with you!
/( _ )\ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.33.3
^ ^ 187:01 up 6 days 2:19 2 users load average: 1.11 1.05 1.09
ä¸å€Ÿè²¸! ä¸è©é¨™! ä¸æ´äº¤! ä¸æ‰“交! ä¸æ‰“劫! ä¸è‡ªæ®º! è«‹è€ƒæ…®ç¶œæ´ (CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_pubsvc/page_socsecu/sub_addressesa

 

On 05/11/2010 123 PM, Gordon wrote:
> But you should still have a pagefile - Windows (and other apps) need a
> pagefile.
> See here:
> http://lifehacker.com/5426041/understanding-the-windows-pagefile-and-why-you-shouldnt-disable-it
>
Well, at least in my case, I am on a laptop so it is useful for me. I
never have issues with crashing apps. I don't only have it disabled
because it should make the OS and apps access data faster (they won't
start faster because of this), but to lower disk activity as well since
I don't have an SSD but a HDD. I don't have room for another HDD either.
HDDs consumes more power as well to keep the disk spinning. It also
hurts to hear the arm in the HDD going back and forth like crazy in
there. Haha.

>
> Then you are wasting what you have.
I would not be so sure about wasting though. Windows is reserving as
much memory as much as it can gives it away to apps needing it, and lets
me know when I am running out of memory so that I can restart the ones
consuming a lot (leaks?).

 

On 05/11/2010 11:51 AM, Sunny Bard wrote:
> Jackie wrote:
>
>> I am using 64-bit Windows 7. I have 4 GiB total memory and and all
>> that would not even be usable if it was the 32-bit version.
>
> Yes 64bit allows you to access all your 4GiB, because it has the larger
> address space, but aren't 64bit programs larger due to pointers being
> twice the size (and probably looser structure packing too) so that the
> extra 500MiB you can access is (partly) eaten up
>
> Is 4GiB really the point at which you benefit from 64bit, or is it
> really 6 or 8GiB?
>

I replied to this but I don't see my own reply. Trying again by pasting
my old reply here:

Pointers will be twice the size, and will consume more memory, yes. And
please see my last post about 64 bit apps being slightly faster. I think
more than 4 GiB would be good. Less caching to the file system if you
have that turned on (I guess it would not matter much if you use a fast
SSD though). Like other have mentioned, new/Semi-new hardware should
have good 64 bit drivers by now while old hardware may not ever be updated.

 

"Bill" <Bill_NOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hsb502018k6@news7.newsguy.com...
>
> I'm planning to build a new system (Intel 860 CPU). I was sort of looking
> for a reason to go with the 64-bit version of Windows7, since "they" say,
> 64-bit computing is where the future is. To me, it seems like it's going
> to be a long time in coming. I mean, if MS Office-2010 is being sold as a
> 32-bit app, then what does that say about 64-bit computing at this
> point.... I recall 4 years ago when I last built a system, Vista (64-bit)
> was going to be "the thing"....I steered clear of that bandwagon and never
> switched from XP. I think the problem is most (consumer) software
> development companies don't have much incentive to build for both 32 and
> 64 bit platforms( why should they if people will still buy their 32 bit
> product if that's all there is).
>
> So that's why the road to owning a 64 bit system appears a bit rocky to
> me. Any folks out there running 64-bit Windows7 systems that really like
> them (besides ones that run programs like Photoshop), that would care to
> share their experience? I would be curious to know the ratio of the
> number of systems running 32-bit versus 64-bit versions of Windows7 (in
> case anyone has one). At this point, I've never come very close to using
> all 2GB of the RAM that's on my current XP system.
>
> Bill
>

It's all about memory. If you can afford more than 4GB of memory, go for
64-bit, it'll run faster. If you can't afford more than 64GB of memory,
32-bit will probably run a tad faster, overall.

Putting more than 4GB of RAM, or upgrading later to more than 4GB, into a
32-bit machine, will not really improve performance.

-Frank

 

I just realized that my previous replies were a bit mixed up when I
brought up emulation and such. Somehow I was thinking about 32 bit
emulation in a 64 bit OS, and in that case 64 bit apps would be faster.
It is irrelevant to this thread, however. I am sorry about that.

 

On Tue, 11 May 2010 047:17 -0400, "Bill" <Bill_NOSPAM@comcast.net>
wrote:

>
>I'm planning to build a new system (Intel 860 CPU). I was sort of looking
>for a reason to go with the 64-bit version of Windows7, since "they" say,
>64-bit computing is where the future is. To me, it seems like it's going to
>be a long time in coming. I mean, if MS Office-2010 is being sold as a
>32-bit app, then what does that say about 64-bit computing at this point....
>I recall 4 years ago when I last built a system, Vista (64-bit) was going to
>be "the thing"....I steered clear of that bandwagon and never switched from
>XP. I think the problem is most (consumer) software development companies
>don't have much incentive to build for both 32 and 64 bit platforms( why
>should they if people will still buy their 32 bit product if that's all
>there is).
>
>So that's why the road to owning a 64 bit system appears a bit rocky to me.
>Any folks out there running 64-bit Windows7 systems that really like them
>(besides ones that run programs like Photoshop), that would care to share
>their experience? I would be curious to know the ratio of the number of
>systems running 32-bit versus 64-bit versions of Windows7 (in case anyone
>has one). At this point, I've never come very close to using all 2GB of the
>RAM that's on my current XP system.
>
>Bill
>

I wonder whether 64 bit systems aren't a bit over the top at the
moment. I just read an interesting report from some people that supply
an operating system as source code and you compile your own. They
recently compiled both the 32 and 64 bit versions of their software
and the 64 bit system was 9% larger then the 32 bit and ran 4% faster.
Hardly a great difference. In addition, if the system is a pure 64 bit
system it will only run 64 bit applications.

As for memory usage the machine I'm typing on has 4 G installed and at
the moment I have Firefox, Thunderbird, Forte Agent running in an
emulated Windows, Chromium and a utility to report system loads all
running in memory and am using about 15% of available memory and none
of swap space.

John B. Slocomb
(johnbslocombatgmaildotcom)

 

On 5/11/2010 17 AM, Bill wrote:
> I'm planning to build a new system (Intel 860 CPU). I was sort of looking
> for a reason to go with the 64-bit version of Windows7, since "they" say,
> 64-bit computing is where the future is. To me, it seems like it's going to
> be a long time in coming. I mean, if MS Office-2010 is being sold as a
> 32-bit app, then what does that say about 64-bit computing at this point....
> I recall 4 years ago when I last built a system, Vista (64-bit) was going to
> be "the thing"....I steered clear of that bandwagon and never switched from
> XP. I think the problem is most (consumer) software development companies
> don't have much incentive to build for both 32 and 64 bit platforms( why
> should they if people will still buy their 32 bit product if that's all
> there is).
>
> So that's why the road to owning a 64 bit system appears a bit rocky to me.
> Any folks out there running 64-bit Windows7 systems that really like them
> (besides ones that run programs like Photoshop), that would care to share
> their experience? I would be curious to know the ratio of the number of
> systems running 32-bit versus 64-bit versions of Windows7 (in case anyone
> has one). At this point, I've never come very close to using all 2GB of the
> RAM that's on my current XP system.
>
> Bill
>
>

Go with the 64 bit, that way when 64 bit applications become available
you'll have the OS to run them. Also, go with the Pro version and
install the virtual machine and XP mode.

I went from XP 32 bit to Win 7 Pro 64 bit and only found a couple of
applications that wouldn't run, and I'm running a "lot" of hardware and
software applications on my system. At this point I have 8 GB of RAM.

--
"Never argue with an idiot, they will knock you
down to their level and beat you with experience."
Unknown

http://www.bobhatch.com
http://www.tdsrvresort.com

 

On Tue, 11 May 2010 047:17 -0400, "Bill" <Bill_NOSPAM@comcast.net>
wrote:


> I'm planning to build a new system (Intel 860 CPU). I was sort of looking
> for a reason to go with the 64-bit version of Windows7,


My thoughts on that subject follow at the bottom of this message.


> since "they" say,
> 64-bit computing is where the future is.


No question about it; that's true.


> To me, it seems like it's going to
> be a long time in coming.


I think it's beginning right now. It hasn't really started before
because there were few 64-computers available. Today, most computers
are 64-bit.



> I mean, if MS Office-2010 is being sold as a
> 32-bit app,


No! Both 32-bit *and* 64-bit version of it are available.


> then what does that say about 64-bit computing at this point....


A lot! It shows how it's really starting.


> I recall 4 years ago when I last built a system, Vista (64-bit) was going to
> be "the thing"....I steered clear of that bandwagon and never switched from
> XP.


Good! Four years ago, there were few 64-bit computers and there was
almost no 64-bit software; it made hardly any difference.


> I think the problem is most (consumer) software development companies
> don't have much incentive to build for both 32 and 64 bit platforms( why
> should they if people will still buy their 32 bit product if that's all
> there is).
>
> So that's why the road to owning a 64 bit system appears a bit rocky to me.
> Any folks out there running 64-bit Windows7 systems that really like them
> (besides ones that run programs like Photoshop), that would care to share
> their experience? I would be curious to know the ratio of the number of
> systems running 32-bit versus 64-bit versions of Windows7 (in case anyone
> has one). At this point, I've never come very close to using all 2GB of the
> RAM that's on my current XP system.


I'm running 64-bit Windows 7 right now. I don't think there's a big
advantage to it today, but I do it because it puts me in a better
position for the future. As more and more 64-bit apps get released, I
will be in a position to get and use them.

Here are my general thoughts on the subject:

The advantage of running a 64-bit version of Windows mostly exists
only if you also run 64-bit applications under it. Bear in mind that
there are very few such applications available yet. If you are
presently running 32-bit Windows, you don't have any 64-bit
applications, so to achieve any significant advantage, you not only
have to replace Windows, but also your applications, *if* (and that's
a big "if") 64-bit versions exist.

Also note that you will need 64-bit drivers for all your hardware.
Those drivers may not all be available, especially if some of your
hardware is a few years old. So it's possible that you might also have
to replace things like your printer, scanner, etc.

So the answer to your question is that it may not be a great idea
right now. That will undoubtedly change in the near future, as 64-bit
applications become more available, but for now, 64-bit Windows often
means some extra trouble and expense for little or no benefit.

On the other hand, installing 64-bit Windows instead of 32-bit Windows
makes you able to buy 64-bit software as it becomes available, instead
of the older 32-bit versions. That means that installing 64-bit
Windows--even though it may do very little for you at present--puts
you into a better position for the future.

One additional point: the 64-bit version lets you use more than the
approximately 3.1GB of RAM that the 32-bit version can use. Very few
people need or can make effective use of more than 3.1GB, but if you
are one of those who can, that's something else to consider.



Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003

 

Jackie <Jackie@an.on> écrivait
news:4be9358c$0$21130$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com:

> On 05/11/2010 123 PM, Gordon wrote:
>> But you should still have a pagefile - Windows (and other apps) need
>> a pagefile.
>> See here:
>> http://lifehacker.com/5426041/understanding-the-windows-pagefile-and-w
>> hy-you-shouldnt-disable-it
>>
> Well, at least in my case, I am on a laptop so it is useful for me. I
> never have issues with crashing apps. I don't only have it disabled
> because it should make the OS and apps access data faster (they won't
> start faster because of this), but to lower disk activity as well
> since I don't have an SSD but a HDD. I don't have room for another HDD
> either. HDDs consumes more power as well to keep the disk spinning. It
> also hurts to hear the arm in the HDD going back and forth like crazy
> in there. Haha.
>
>>
>> Then you are wasting what you have.
> I would not be so sure about wasting though. Windows is reserving as
> much memory as much as it can gives it away to apps needing it, and
> lets me know when I am running out of memory so that I can restart the
> ones consuming a lot (leaks?).

I cannot tell you what to do but I don't think it is a good idea to disable
the pagefile, Windows uses it as needed and if there is enough RAM, it
won't use it much.

You say in another post that sometimes you need to restart some programs
because they run out of memory, maybe that wouldn't happen if virtual
memory was enabled.

I don't think 2,5" hard disks add much strain to a laptop battery, the
heads movements are normal, those things are built to do that and I'm not
sure it's the pagefile that causes all this activities.

Let me add the technology is quite old and has proven its reliability.

 

"Bill" <Bill_NOSPAM@comcast.net> écrivait
news:hsb502018k6@news7.newsguy.com:

>
> I'm planning to build a new system (Intel 860 CPU). I was sort of
> looking for a reason to go with the 64-bit version of Windows7, since
> "they" say, 64-bit computing is where the future is. To me, it seems
> like it's going to be a long time in coming. I mean, if MS
> Office-2010 is being sold as a 32-bit app, then what does that say
> about 64-bit computing at this point.... I recall 4 years ago when I
> last built a system, Vista (64-bit) was going to be "the thing"....I
> steered clear of that bandwagon and never switched from XP. I think
> the problem is most (consumer) software development companies don't
> have much incentive to build for both 32 and 64 bit platforms( why
> should they if people will still buy their 32 bit product if that's
> all there is).
>
> So that's why the road to owning a 64 bit system appears a bit rocky
> to me. Any folks out there running 64-bit Windows7 systems that really
> like them (besides ones that run programs like Photoshop), that would
> care to share their experience? I would be curious to know the ratio
> of the number of systems running 32-bit versus 64-bit versions of
> Windows7 (in case anyone has one). At this point, I've never come
> very close to using all 2GB of the RAM that's on my current XP system.
>
> Bill
>
>

Since you're building a new machine I would say there's no question about
it, go 64, it's the same price. Just make sure you get hardware that have
64 bits drivers (most recent hardware have).

As far as software is concerned, when you buy or already have softwares,
the companies usually make 64 bits version available for free to their
registered customers when those versions are being released, it's my
experience anyway with music production softwares from Sony, Roland,
Yamaha, etc. and few others utility softwares.

I would be surprised if you encountered any problems with a brand new 64
bits system. My preferred small computer store always put Win7 64bits
(OEM)on new systems they build unless the customer requests something
else.

HTH

 

On 05/11/2010 05:53 PM, Dominique wrote:
> I cannot tell you what to do but I don't think it is a good idea to disable
> the pagefile, Windows uses it as needed and if there is enough RAM, it
> won't use it much.
>
Oh yes, it can't be said to be a "good idea" to do this if you get what
I mean. (But I do it anyways)

> You say in another post that sometimes you need to restart some programs
> because they run out of memory, maybe that wouldn't happen if virtual
> memory was enabled.
>
You are right. It probably would not happen even when apps like Firefox
doesn't seem to free memory that is not used any longer. It seems to
keep stuff I don't intend to use any more in memory for a long time. And
Adobe CS apps.. Phew.. (I don't really have real trouble though)

> I don't think 2,5" hard disks add much strain to a laptop battery, the
> heads movements are normal, those things are built to do that and I'm not
> sure it's the pagefile that causes all this activities.
>
> Let me add the technology is quite old and has proven its reliability.
Actually, there's still quite some disk activity even when I have
disabled it. Usually caused by certain system processes.
But it's doing something all the time at least at 7200 +/- RPM. I know
at least earlier SSDs weren't really that much less energy efficient
than regular HHDs but if they are not now, I wonder what "they" (the
ones making them) are doing (or not doing).
So since there's really disk activity all the time already, and taking
into considering that Windows 7 may do a good job at caching data, it
may not matter much whether virtual memory is turned on or off. I am
just hitting two flies in one hit (or how it goes. so brutal, by the
way). Anyways, I'm trying to get as much battery power out of this thing
as I can (undervolting the CPU and underclocking the GPU as well) and it
makes overall performance slightly better at the same time. Even if it
is not a "good idea". Haha

 

Starting to wonder if there's something wrong with my newsgroup client
(Thunderbird) as sometimes when I post replies, I don't actually get to
download it (no new messages).
Could someone please let me know if you actually see my message a few
minutes ago?

If not, here it is again...

On 05/11/2010 05:53 PM, Dominique wrote:
> I cannot tell you what to do but I don't think it is a good idea to
disable
> the pagefile, Windows uses it as needed and if there is enough RAM, it
> won't use it much.
>
Oh yes, it can't be said to be a "good idea" to do this if you get what
I mean. (But I do it anyways)

> You say in another post that sometimes you need to restart some programs
> because they run out of memory, maybe that wouldn't happen if virtual
> memory was enabled.
>
You are right. It probably would not happen even when apps like Firefox
doesn't seem to free memory that is not used any longer. It seems to
keep stuff I don't intend to use any more in memory for a long time. And
Adobe CS apps.. Phew.. (I don't really have real trouble though)

> I don't think 2,5" hard disks add much strain to a laptop battery, the
> heads movements are normal, those things are built to do that and I'm not
> sure it's the pagefile that causes all this activities.
>
> Let me add the technology is quite old and has proven its reliability.
Actually, there's still quite some disk activity even when I have
disabled it. Usually caused by certain system processes.
But it's doing something all the time at least at 7200 ± RPM. I know at
least earlier SSDs weren't really that much less energy efficient than
regular HHDs but if they are not now, I wonder what "they" (the ones
making them) are doing (or not doing).
So since there's really disk activity all the time already, and taking
into considering that Windows 7 may do a good job at caching data, it
may not matter much whether virtual memory is turned on or off. I am
just hitting two flies in one hit (or how it goes. so brutal, by the
way). Anyways, I'm trying to get as much battery power out of this thing
as I can (undervolting the CPU and underclocking the GPU as well) and it
makes overall performance slightly better at the same time. Even if it
is not a "good idea". Haha