And then remember to enable the PF again.
Do I need to upgrade RAM and I want to know if my PC runs Dual Channel or Tripple Channel RAM (Model -- HP Envy M6 1102tx)
That shows in the upper right you have 6Gb of DDR3 installed. That is plenty.
But it also shows you only have 272Mb available. That is bad. It is also showing your CPU is nearly maxed out. That is bad.
And it is showing your disk utilization is 100% - also bad when it sticks up there.
Clearly, some program is running amok and consuming all your resources and you need to determine what it is.
Scan for malware with your regular scanner and verify with Malwarebytes's Anti-Malware (MBAM).
Note JHough's comment above. Look under the Processes and Details tabs and see if you can tell what is using up your resources.
There is no reason to manually mess with your PF settings with a modern version of Windows like W7 or W8. They are not XP and should not be treated as such. In fact, what was common with XP is probably not good with W7 or W8 and that includes the PF. Windows knows how to manage it quite well and will adjust the size as needed. The only reason to set a small PF size is when you are critically low on disk space - but the fact is, reducing the PF size is the wrong answer. What should happen is unused programs need to be uninstalled to free up space, and/or more disk space needs to be purchased.Yes of course but depending on amount of memory it may be lowered to GB or two.
The thought used to be if you reduce the PF size, Windows will be forced to use faster RAM instead of the slow HD. Again, that might have been with XP but W7 and W8 are smarter than that and will use the faster RAM for the highest priority data.
The problem with manually setting the PF, even if you do it right by properly analyzing how you use your resources, is you must re-analyze regularly to ensure it is still set right. Just let Windows do it unless you truly are smarter than the PhDs and engineers at Microsoft using MS supercomputers to analyze decades of experience and empirical data - AND you are disciplined enough to regularly adjust them as needed.
There's difference with PF size on disk and size used. With 8GB RAM windows suggested and took/reserved 16 GB of the disk and that one being 120GB SSD really did not have to be there. I used to turn PF completely but finally settled at 1 BG "just in case". That's how it was with W7, 8, 8.1 and W10TP.
If you have 8Gb of RAM and only 1Gb PF, the PF will not even hold a full dump file. If not low on disk space, it makes no difference if the PF is bigger than what you think you need.
But I don't want to drive this OT. I am just going to say again that W7, W8 and W10 are not XP and should not be treated as XP was. And unless you are true Windows expert, best to leave resource management settings alone.
I can't tell you how many times I have heard that and, frankly, it amazes me. Especially when the settings are changed almost automatically when they get a new system without even giving the defaults a chance. Since it is highly likely the hardware itself is much more capable than their previous systems, no doubt performance was still good.but settings like this serve me well
But the question is, do settings like that serve them "better"? The answer is typically, no.
Same with Indexing. People disable it because it dragged XP down instead of giving it a chance to get caught up. They mess with defragging instead of letting it work with Windows fetch routines to optimize performance. But because their CPUs and graphics and gobs of RAM are much faster, they still see performance gains over their old systems, but could see better if they just let Windows manage it. Windows 7/8/10 are excellent operating systems. And managing hardware resources is what operating systems are all about.
Typically (whatever it may mean in this context) maybe but I tune my windows up and check consequences all the time. As I said 1GB PF works just fine for me, saving 15 GB is more important. Indexing and superfetch I do not change, they are useful, my main computer (this one) runs 24/7 with not much to do during the night so indexing has a lot of time to do it's job and even with SSD it helps somewhat. Defraging is always exempted from autoranning. In XP I used third party programs to occasionally defrag but only when it hits 15 - 20%, below that it didn't help any. Ever since W7 I never had to defrag any drives even with large traffic thru them. Out of 3HDDs only one is somewhere about 2% fragmented so even automatic defrag has no meaning.
As I said before, this exact computer have seen all the windows and it's iterations since Vista, I overclock and measure performance all the time (saving all results) so I can tell if something is running at top performance or not. Every time I change drivers for instance I check performance. Program "Meminfo" is running all the time and can give me memory loads, Free RAM as well as PF and each process at a glance. With a lot of programs running at this time for instance, used RAM is sitting at only 2.4 GB anyway so emploing PF too seems unnecessary and doesn't help at all.
And that's fine. But by far, you are the exception as most people would know how to check, nor would they understand what they saw if they did check. So those who don't tweak and check consequences all the time, regardless the amount of RAM they have, they should just let Windows manage it. Because for sure, that will work just fine for them too. And if it doesn't then that is just a signal to them to free up, or buy more disk space.but I tune my windows up and check consequences all the time
As I said 1GB PF works just fine for me