Windows 95 Paging File \ VOGONS

Windows 95 Paging File

Topic actions

Post a reply

First post, by PKFreeZZy

Posted on 2018-01-21, 13:56

PKFreeZZy Offline

Rank Newbie

Rank: Newbie
Posts: 91
Joined: 2017-12-08, 20:45

I installed Windows 95 OSR2 on my retro PC not too long ago. Usually when I do fresh installs and finish installing all the drivers I look at information about the system's specs in System Properties and DxDiag.

Upon checking out DxDiag, I noticed it wasn't using any of the 1856MBs of page file it always sets up on its own. My PC has 192MB of RAM and nVidia's Detonator 12 display drivers report the OS to be using only about 30MB after starting up and when idling. Even after running a very cache heavy game (Atomic Bomberman) it stays at 0. I'm actually not sure what the page file is. I always see people fight over whether it's temporary data storage or emergency memory to back up the lack of memory when necessary.

I should also mention Windows 98SE on the same PC uses almost twice as much memory and usually consumes 56MB of the page file when idling. Is my config just simply overkill for Win95 to the point that it can rely on the RAM alone or is it an error?

Last edited by PKFreeZZy on 2018-01-21, 21:40. Edited 1 time in total.

Reply 1 of 8, by mrau

Posted on 2018-01-21, 14:40

mrau Offline

Rank Oldbie

Rank: Oldbie
Posts: 1145
Joined: 2015-11-28, 12:43

you should run a program known for requiring the page file to see if its ok;
also: this amount is pretty weird and pro'ly too much to not cause issues, but i' m just guessing here;

Reply 2 of 8, by Jo22

Posted on 2018-01-21, 17:54

Jo22 Offline

Rank l33t++

Rank: l33t++
Posts: 9621
Joined: 2009-12-13, 07:06
Location: Europe

Hi, I remember that Win95 and Win98 had a slightly different caching mechanism.
Windows 98(SE) was even able to execute programs directly from virtual memory (if they were aligned to 4KiB boundaries).
Have a look at the link in Windows 95 OSR 2.5 and 128-256mb ram

"Time, it seems, doesn't flow. For some it's fast, for some it's slow.
In what to one race is no time at all, another race can rise and fall..." - The Minstrel

//My video channel//

Reply 3 of 8, by idspispopd

Posted on 2018-01-22, 12:55

idspispopd Offline

Rank Oldbie

Rank: Oldbie
Posts: 1212
Joined: 2012-02-15, 21:08
Location: Hamburg / Germany

I'd say 192MB RAM is very generous for Windows 95, most people probably didn't have more than 32MB was current. Your system doesn't touch the paging file at the moment because it doesn't need it yet.
512MB is the standard limit for Windows 98 to give a comparison.
If you are talking about the system in your sig I would probably just stay with 98SE unless a game requires 95.

Reply 4 of 8, by F2bnp

Posted on 2018-01-22, 12:59

F2bnp Offline

Rank l33t

Rank: l33t
Posts: 3499
Joined: 2007-09-23, 10:19

Consider running Cacheman, a neat little utility that allows you to tweak RAM and pagefile usage through a simple interface. I use it all the time in my rigs and I've noticed that it does help performance a little bit 😀.

Reply 5 of 8, by chinny22

Posted on 2018-01-22, 16:11

chinny22 Offline

Rank l33t++

Rank: l33t++
Posts: 5098
Joined: 2011-08-26, 12:02
Location: Australian but living in the UK for now

I used to run my PC's with loads of RAM and no page file. without any problems.
Retro gamming PC isn't that demanding really. It's not like back then when you had various software installed like Adobe fast start, scanner software, etc.
Plus its not doing various things like a few hrs gaming, then few hours on the net, then few more in Office.

Now its probably more like turn it on, few hrs playing a single game, turning it off again. with maybe graphics, sound and not much else running in the background.
Now I just leave it at system managed as I have plenty of HDD space and too lazy to change it

Reply 6 of 8, by Zup

Posted on 2018-01-22, 16:36

Zup Offline

Rank Oldbie

Rank: Oldbie
Posts: 1637
Joined: 2003-10-04, 12:16

chinny22 wrote:
I used to run my PC's with loads of RAM and no page file. without any problems.

Although 192Mb are more than enough for Windows 95, I wouldn't run Windows 9x/Me without page file. Every time I've tried to disable page file on those systems it gave me BSODs. IMHO it's better to put a small, fixed size page file or leave Windows manage it.

(I don't remember when Windows became stable without page file... it was either with Windows XP or 7, but I don't remember for sure)

I have traveled across the universe and through the years to find Her.
Sometimes going all the way is just a start...

I'm selling some stuff!

Reply 7 of 8, by .legaCy

Posted on 2018-01-22, 17:42

.legaCy Offline

Rank Oldbie

Rank: Oldbie
Posts: 610
Joined: 2016-04-08, 23:11
Location: Brazil

Zup wrote:
chinny22 wrote:
I used to run my PC's with loads of RAM and no page file. without any problems.

Although 192Mb are more than enough for Windows 95, I wouldn't run Windows 9x/Me without page file. Every time I've tried to disable page file on those systems it gave me BSODs. IMHO it's better to put a small, fixed size page file or leave Windows manage it.

(I don't remember when Windows became stable without page file... it was either with Windows XP or 7, but I don't remember for sure)

I've been there too, with 512MB of RAM and no pagefile i got some issues.

Reply 8 of 8, by Azarien

Posted on 2018-01-26, 23:03

Azarien Offline

Rank Oldbie

Rank: Oldbie
Posts: 878
Joined: 2015-05-14, 07:14

Zup wrote:
I don't remember when Windows became stable without page file... it was either with Windows XP or 7, but I don't remember for sure

I don't want to start a flame war on this, but I don't think there is a point in disabling page file no matter whether you have 32 MB or 32 GB of RAM. It's just asking for trouble.

Go to top of page Go to top of page

Back to Software

Main menu

Common searches