Quote Originally Posted by alfaunits View Post
Speed-wise it's bunk [to have a pagefile on the OS drive], on the same physical drive.
My suggestion was and still is: ditch the b***h and I won't snitch
One question: Why?

Again, assuming that your OS drive holds your OS and perhaps a few small programs that don't require disc access because you've followed best practices and put disc-intensive applications on their own discs (or on discs which hold programs which will not be in action at the same time), one of the only things your OS disc will do is point to shortcuts and start Windows. After that, it's just a sitting waste of cash. I can't think of a reason for the vast majority of people not to use it for this task, which will save you from having to buy another separate disc and absolutely will speed up some programs.


I think (hope) MS had speed in mind here, similar to NTFS's MFT zone placement, although, I still don't see how it would benefit a PF on a separate partition (mid-place on a single partition ye, but separate one..)
I think the MFT zone placement was the result of an engineering decision to allow the OS access to the outer portions of the disc to provide fastest boot-up and program access times (which would also be assuming that best disc practices were followed, naturally). It's generally placed just far enough outside that the core OS and a few programs can fit in front of it, and I'm not sure MS has really given it a second thought since its original implementation. I could be wrong about all that, but it's my strong theory.

The benefit to a PF on a separate partition is that your PF will only fragment on your system partition. Use a second partition (or drive) for your PF and you'll see it will never fragment. One does have to be careful when partitioning though to ensure that aside from, say, bootup one will not make extensive use of their system partition at the same time the PF partition would be necessary (if that were the case, it does belong elsewhere).