Currently, my page file is set at 2-ish GB, as I think that Microsoft sets the page x1.5 more than the RAM in your comp(?). Now, essentially, my question, would it be a waste of my hard-drive to set the page file higher? I mean, 1GB with Vista isn't exactly "speedy", although it does run quite well. I only ask because, as of now, most of my HD-space is being wasted (out of 289GB, I have 41.1 GB used, and that's only because of auto-back-ups.

From what I have read its best to let the operating system handle the page file unless you are running Win9x/ME where sometimes tweaking the page file helps performance.

This is a good reference:
http://www.theeldergeek.com/sizing_the_page_file.htm

Leave it alone.
http://tweakhound.com/vista/tweakguide/page_6.htm
davey

True, however people always want to tweak something even if it has no noticable difference. As for using a larger one on Win9x that can cause problems down the road such as programs that worked flawless all of a sudden result into out-of-memory errors.

I was like that back in the day. Always finding and trying all kinds of tweaks. What it comes to pagefile, i have disabled it completely (atleast from the settings). It has been disabled quite a while and haven't noticed any problems with it. I have 1536Mb's of RAM.

I have some TweakingCompanion PDF document, which says this about the pagefile tweaking:

...i provide a simple general recommendation which is safe both to use on all systems, regardless of how much RAM you have, and provides good performance.

Set the Initial and Maximum pagefile sizes to 2560MB each - i.e. allocate 2.5GB for the pagefile.

I have mine disabled too, and only have 512Mb still. Soon to be upgraded.

Age old arguments abound in regards to the pagefile and I can only suggest that set it at whatever suits your needs.

Here on XP I have paging turned off but Vista does seem happier with paging turned on so I set a min/max of 512/2048.