|
StupidOS Strikes Again
The August issue of Australian PC User magazine has an unbelievable winner
of its "Letter of the Month" prize. The writer suggests you can "Speed up Vista" by buying more RAM, setting part of it up as a RAM disk, and putting your page file in it! A more pointless idea, it is hard to imagine. Is the magazine completely barmy? Or does this really work with Dimdows? Is the Microsoft OS really so brain-damaged that paging to RAM can improve performance, compared to not paging at all? |
Re: StupidOS Strikes Again
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in
message news:h4bl12$8to$3@lust.ihug.co.nz... > The August issue of Australian PC User magazine has an unbelievable > winner > of its "Letter of the Month" prize. The writer suggests you can > "Speed up > Vista" by buying more RAM, setting part of it up as a RAM disk, and > putting > your page file in it! > > A more pointless idea, it is hard to imagine. Is the magazine > completely > barmy? Or does this really work with Dimdows? Is the Microsoft OS > really so > brain-damaged that paging to RAM can improve performance, compared > to not > paging at all? > LOL! -- The views expressed are my own, not those of my employer or others. My unmunged email is: 1bupdvc02@sneakemail.com (valid for 30 days min probably much longer). |
Re: StupidOS Strikes Again
In article <h4bl44$a76$1@news.albasani.net>, alan@alan.invalid says...
> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in > message news:h4bl12$8to$3@lust.ihug.co.nz... > > The August issue of Australian PC User magazine has an unbelievable > > winner > > of its "Letter of the Month" prize. The writer suggests you can > > "Speed up > > Vista" by buying more RAM, setting part of it up as a RAM disk, and > > putting > > your page file in it! > > > > A more pointless idea, it is hard to imagine. Is the magazine > > completely > > barmy? Or does this really work with Dimdows? Is the Microsoft OS > > really so > > brain-damaged that paging to RAM can improve performance, compared > > to not > > paging at all? > > > > LOL! LOL not - although there is little need to do as the writer suggests - as Vista (and Windows 7) already supports and utilizes such improvements... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readyboost In my own experience, across many PC's running Vista, I've found you'll only get decent speed improvement if you use quality (qv fast) memory sticks. I'd dare say (though I've not tested it) that using Readyboost would provide much greater overall performance gain than just putting the swap file to RAM disk - which, on face value, sounds pretty pointless and a waste of RAM (it's the swapfile after all!) - isn't it better to *use* RAM? :) vs having it full of swapped out, unused "stuff". Thanks for replying though, I'd not have spotted the OP's (another stupid) post otherwise. -- Duncan |
Re: StupidOS Strikes Again
"Dave Doe" <hard@work.ok> wrote in message
news:MPG.24d430ad5ccf5fce989800@news.eternal-september.org... > In article <h4bl44$a76$1@news.albasani.net>, alan@alan.invalid > says... >> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in >> message news:h4bl12$8to$3@lust.ihug.co.nz... >> > The August issue of Australian PC User magazine has an >> > unbelievable >> > winner >> > of its "Letter of the Month" prize. The writer suggests you can >> > "Speed up >> > Vista" by buying more RAM, setting part of it up as a RAM disk, >> > and >> > putting >> > your page file in it! >> > >> > A more pointless idea, it is hard to imagine. Is the magazine >> > completely >> > barmy? Or does this really work with Dimdows? Is the Microsoft OS >> > really so >> > brain-damaged that paging to RAM can improve performance, >> > compared >> > to not >> > paging at all? >> > >> >> LOL! > > LOL not - although there is little need to do as the writer > suggests - > as Vista (and Windows 7) already supports and utilizes such > improvements... > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readyboost > > In my own experience, across many PC's running Vista, I've found > you'll > only get decent speed improvement if you use quality (qv fast) > memory > sticks. > > I'd dare say (though I've not tested it) that using Readyboost would > provide much greater overall performance gain than just putting the > swap > file to RAM disk - which, on face value, sounds pretty pointless and > a > waste of RAM (it's the swapfile after all!) - isn't it better to > *use* > RAM? :) vs having it full of swapped out, unused "stuff". > > Thanks for replying though, I'd not have spotted the OP's (another > stupid) post otherwise. > ReadBoost != On Board RAM Are you saying that something accessing memory across the USB interface will be comparable to accessing it from RAM? Your speed of access to RAM will depend on your bus and memory types, but USB2.0 is less than 500 Mb/s I believe? Even writing and reading from a modern HDD is faster than USB2.0. Alan. -- The views expressed are my own, not those of my employer or others. My unmunged email is: 1bupdvc02@sneakemail.com (valid for 30 days min probably much longer). |
Re: Larry D'Loser Strikes Again
"Alan" <alan@alan.invalid> wrote in message news:h4ehf1$6in$1@news.albasani.net... > "Dave Doe" <hard@work.ok> wrote in message > news:MPG.24d430ad5ccf5fce989800@news.eternal-september.org... >> In article <h4bl44$a76$1@news.albasani.net>, alan@alan.invalid says... >>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in >>> message news:h4bl12$8to$3@lust.ihug.co.nz... >>> > The August issue of Australian PC User magazine has an unbelievable >>> > winner >>> > of its "Letter of the Month" prize. The writer suggests you can >>> > "Speed up >>> > Vista" by buying more RAM, setting part of it up as a RAM disk, and >>> > putting >>> > your page file in it! >>> > >>> > A more pointless idea, it is hard to imagine. Is the magazine >>> > completely >>> > barmy? Or does this really work with Dimdows? Is the Microsoft OS >>> > really so >>> > brain-damaged that paging to RAM can improve performance, compared >>> > to not >>> > paging at all? >>> > >>> >>> LOL! >> >> LOL not - although there is little need to do as the writer suggests - >> as Vista (and Windows 7) already supports and utilizes such >> improvements... >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readyboost >> >> In my own experience, across many PC's running Vista, I've found you'll >> only get decent speed improvement if you use quality (qv fast) memory >> sticks. >> >> I'd dare say (though I've not tested it) that using Readyboost would >> provide much greater overall performance gain than just putting the swap >> file to RAM disk - which, on face value, sounds pretty pointless and a >> waste of RAM (it's the swapfile after all!) - isn't it better to *use* >> RAM? :) vs having it full of swapped out, unused "stuff". >> >> Thanks for replying though, I'd not have spotted the OP's (another >> stupid) post otherwise. >> > > ReadBoost != On Board RAM > That was Larry D'Loser's troll-spin. No sense wasting your time with that. ReadyBoost is a flash memeory disk cache specifically intended to faciliate Vista's SuperFetch function. SuperFetch pre-fetches frequenetly used system and application libraries at boot time to speed application loading, and on its own it works brilliantly. But with a ReadyBoost disk cache available, applications can often load those same pre-fetched libraries much faster than they otherwise would from a standard hard disk. I wouldn't want to do without SuperFetch -- it's much smarter than the XP prefetcher. But I'm none too fussed myself about the difference a ReadyBoost cache makes, at least on a desktop machione -- with a quick hard drive, you're down to differences in load times that you'd have to measure in milliseconds, and I'd sooner take that kind of performance hit than give up a spare USB port. With a 5400-rpm laptop hard drive, on the other hand, ReadyBoost is likely to make a mych more noticeable improvement in load times. > Are you saying that something accessing memory across the USB interface > will be comparable to accessing it from RAM? > No. > Your speed of access to RAM will depend on your bus and memory types, but > USB2.0 is less than 500 Mb/s I believe? > Yes. > Even writing and reading from a modern HDD is faster than USB2.0. > Only for sequential i/o. Random access to a hard drive is slower than from a flash drive, and that's what you're typically doing when you fetch system and application libraries. |
Re: Larry D'Loser Strikes Again
impossible wrote:
> > "Alan" <alan@alan.invalid> wrote in message > news:h4ehf1$6in$1@news.albasani.net... >> "Dave Doe" <hard@work.ok> wrote in message >> news:MPG.24d430ad5ccf5fce989800@news.eternal-september.org... >>> In article <h4bl44$a76$1@news.albasani.net>, alan@alan.invalid says... >>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in >>>> message news:h4bl12$8to$3@lust.ihug.co.nz... >>>> > The August issue of Australian PC User magazine has an unbelievable >>>> > winner >>>> > of its "Letter of the Month" prize. The writer suggests you can >>>> > "Speed up >>>> > Vista" by buying more RAM, setting part of it up as a RAM disk, and >>>> > putting >>>> > your page file in it! >>>> > >>>> > A more pointless idea, it is hard to imagine. Is the magazine >>>> > completely >>>> > barmy? Or does this really work with Dimdows? Is the Microsoft OS >>>> > really so >>>> > brain-damaged that paging to RAM can improve performance, compared >>>> > to not >>>> > paging at all? >>>> > >>>> >>>> LOL! >>> >>> LOL not - although there is little need to do as the writer suggests - >>> as Vista (and Windows 7) already supports and utilizes such >>> improvements... >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readyboost >>> >>> In my own experience, across many PC's running Vista, I've found you'll >>> only get decent speed improvement if you use quality (qv fast) memory >>> sticks. >>> >>> I'd dare say (though I've not tested it) that using Readyboost would >>> provide much greater overall performance gain than just putting the swap >>> file to RAM disk - which, on face value, sounds pretty pointless and a >>> waste of RAM (it's the swapfile after all!) - isn't it better to *use* >>> RAM? :) vs having it full of swapped out, unused "stuff". >>> >>> Thanks for replying though, I'd not have spotted the OP's (another >>> stupid) post otherwise. >>> >> >> ReadBoost != On Board RAM >> > > That was Larry D'Loser's troll-spin. No sense wasting your time with that. > > ReadyBoost is a flash memeory disk cache specifically intended to > faciliate Vista's SuperFetch function. SuperFetch pre-fetches > frequenetly used system and application libraries at boot time to speed > application loading, and on its own it works brilliantly. > Why not just buy more RAM? Cheers, Cliff -- The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change, the same old personalities show through. |
Re: Larry D'Loser Strikes Again
"Enkidu" <enkidu.com@com.cliffp.com> wrote in message news:4a6c05a2@news2.actrix.gen.nz... > impossible wrote: >> >> "Alan" <alan@alan.invalid> wrote in message >> news:h4ehf1$6in$1@news.albasani.net... >>> "Dave Doe" <hard@work.ok> wrote in message >>> news:MPG.24d430ad5ccf5fce989800@news.eternal-september.org... >>>> In article <h4bl44$a76$1@news.albasani.net>, alan@alan.invalid says... >>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in >>>>> message news:h4bl12$8to$3@lust.ihug.co.nz... >>>>> > The August issue of Australian PC User magazine has an unbelievable >>>>> > winner >>>>> > of its "Letter of the Month" prize. The writer suggests you can >>>>> > "Speed up >>>>> > Vista" by buying more RAM, setting part of it up as a RAM disk, and >>>>> > putting >>>>> > your page file in it! >>>>> > >>>>> > A more pointless idea, it is hard to imagine. Is the magazine >>>>> > completely >>>>> > barmy? Or does this really work with Dimdows? Is the Microsoft OS >>>>> > really so >>>>> > brain-damaged that paging to RAM can improve performance, compared >>>>> > to not >>>>> > paging at all? >>>>> > >>>>> >>>>> LOL! >>>> >>>> LOL not - although there is little need to do as the writer suggests - >>>> as Vista (and Windows 7) already supports and utilizes such >>>> improvements... >>>> >>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readyboost >>>> >>>> In my own experience, across many PC's running Vista, I've found you'll >>>> only get decent speed improvement if you use quality (qv fast) memory >>>> sticks. >>>> >>>> I'd dare say (though I've not tested it) that using Readyboost would >>>> provide much greater overall performance gain than just putting the >>>> swap >>>> file to RAM disk - which, on face value, sounds pretty pointless and a >>>> waste of RAM (it's the swapfile after all!) - isn't it better to *use* >>>> RAM? :) vs having it full of swapped out, unused "stuff". >>>> >>>> Thanks for replying though, I'd not have spotted the OP's (another >>>> stupid) post otherwise. >>>> >>> >>> ReadBoost != On Board RAM >>> >> >> That was Larry D'Loser's troll-spin. No sense wasting your time with >> that. >> >> ReadyBoost is a flash memeory disk cache specifically intended to >> faciliate Vista's SuperFetch function. SuperFetch pre-fetches frequenetly >> used system and application libraries at boot time to speed application >> loading, and on its own it works brilliantly. > Why not just buy more RAM? > Why not just leave my original post intact rather than deleting the information you need to get answer. <shakes head> >> I wouldn't want to do without SuperFetch -- it's much smarter than the XP >> prefetcher. But I'm none too fussed myself about the difference a >> ReadyBoost cache makes, at least on a desktop machione -- with a quick >> hard drive, you're down to differences in load times that you'd have to >> measure in milliseconds, and I'd sooner take that kind of performance hit >> than give up a spare USB port. With a 5400-rpm laptop hard drive, on the >> other hand, ReadyBoost is likely to make a mych more noticeable >> improvement in load times. >> >>> Are you saying that something accessing memory across the USB interface >>> will be comparable to accessing it from RAM? >>> >> >> No. >> >>> Your speed of access to RAM will depend on your bus and memory types, >>> but USB2.0 is less than 500 Mb/s I believe? >>> >> >> Yes. >> >>> Even writing and reading from a modern HDD is faster than USB2.0. >>> >> >> Only for sequential i/o. Random access to a hard drive is slower than >> from a flash drive, and that's what you're typically doing when you fetch >> system and application libraries. |
Re: StupidOS Strikes Again
In article <h4ehf1$6in$1@news.albasani.net>, alan@alan.invalid says...
> "Dave Doe" <hard@work.ok> wrote in message > news:MPG.24d430ad5ccf5fce989800@news.eternal-september.org... > > In article <h4bl44$a76$1@news.albasani.net>, alan@alan.invalid > > says... > >> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in > >> message news:h4bl12$8to$3@lust.ihug.co.nz... > >> > The August issue of Australian PC User magazine has an > >> > unbelievable > >> > winner > >> > of its "Letter of the Month" prize. The writer suggests you can > >> > "Speed up > >> > Vista" by buying more RAM, setting part of it up as a RAM disk, > >> > and > >> > putting > >> > your page file in it! > >> > > >> > A more pointless idea, it is hard to imagine. Is the magazine > >> > completely > >> > barmy? Or does this really work with Dimdows? Is the Microsoft OS > >> > really so > >> > brain-damaged that paging to RAM can improve performance, > >> > compared > >> > to not > >> > paging at all? > >> > > >> > >> LOL! > > > > LOL not - although there is little need to do as the writer > > suggests - > > as Vista (and Windows 7) already supports and utilizes such > > improvements... > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readyboost > > > > In my own experience, across many PC's running Vista, I've found > > you'll > > only get decent speed improvement if you use quality (qv fast) > > memory > > sticks. > > > > I'd dare say (though I've not tested it) that using Readyboost would > > provide much greater overall performance gain than just putting the > > swap > > file to RAM disk - which, on face value, sounds pretty pointless and > > a > > waste of RAM (it's the swapfile after all!) - isn't it better to > > *use* > > RAM? :) vs having it full of swapped out, unused "stuff". > > > > Thanks for replying though, I'd not have spotted the OP's (another > > stupid) post otherwise. > > > > ReadBoost != On Board RAM Didn't say it was. > > Are you saying that something accessing memory across the USB > interface will be comparable to accessing it from RAM? Yes. Better even, given OP article's use of RAM. > > Your speed of access to RAM will depend on your bus and memory types, > but USB2.0 is less than 500 Mb/s I believe? > > Even writing and reading from a modern HDD is faster than USB2.0. For sustained read/write operations. Please find out what you're talking about before putting foot in mouth. Access time for quality USB memory is very low, much quicker than HDD access. -- Duncan |
Re: Larry D'Loser Strikes Again
impossible wrote:
> > "Enkidu" <enkidu.com@com.cliffp.com> wrote in message > news:4a6c05a2@news2.actrix.gen.nz... >> impossible wrote: >>> >>> "Alan" <alan@alan.invalid> wrote in message >>> news:h4ehf1$6in$1@news.albasani.net... >>>> "Dave Doe" <hard@work.ok> wrote in message >>>> news:MPG.24d430ad5ccf5fce989800@news.eternal-september.org... >>>>> In article <h4bl44$a76$1@news.albasani.net>, alan@alan.invalid says... >>>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in >>>>>> message news:h4bl12$8to$3@lust.ihug.co.nz... >>>>>> > The August issue of Australian PC User magazine has an unbelievable >>>>>> > winner >>>>>> > of its "Letter of the Month" prize. The writer suggests you can >>>>>> > "Speed up >>>>>> > Vista" by buying more RAM, setting part of it up as a RAM disk, and >>>>>> > putting >>>>>> > your page file in it! >>>>>> > >>>>>> > A more pointless idea, it is hard to imagine. Is the magazine >>>>>> > completely >>>>>> > barmy? Or does this really work with Dimdows? Is the Microsoft OS >>>>>> > really so >>>>>> > brain-damaged that paging to RAM can improve performance, compared >>>>>> > to not >>>>>> > paging at all? >>>>>> > >>>>>> >>>>>> LOL! >>>>> >>>>> LOL not - although there is little need to do as the writer suggests - >>>>> as Vista (and Windows 7) already supports and utilizes such >>>>> improvements... >>>>> >>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readyboost >>>>> >>>>> In my own experience, across many PC's running Vista, I've found >>>>> you'll >>>>> only get decent speed improvement if you use quality (qv fast) memory >>>>> sticks. >>>>> >>>>> I'd dare say (though I've not tested it) that using Readyboost would >>>>> provide much greater overall performance gain than just putting the >>>>> swap >>>>> file to RAM disk - which, on face value, sounds pretty pointless and a >>>>> waste of RAM (it's the swapfile after all!) - isn't it better to *use* >>>>> RAM? :) vs having it full of swapped out, unused "stuff". >>>>> >>>>> Thanks for replying though, I'd not have spotted the OP's (another >>>>> stupid) post otherwise. >>>>> >>>> >>>> ReadBoost != On Board RAM >>>> >>> >>> That was Larry D'Loser's troll-spin. No sense wasting your time with >>> that. >>> >>> ReadyBoost is a flash memeory disk cache specifically intended to >>> faciliate Vista's SuperFetch function. SuperFetch pre-fetches >>> frequenetly used system and application libraries at boot time to >>> speed application loading, and on its own it works brilliantly. >> Why not just buy more RAM? >> > > Why not just leave my original post intact rather than deleting the > information you need to get answer. > > <shakes head> > In what way does that answer the question? > >>> I wouldn't want to do without SuperFetch -- it's much smarter than >>> the XP prefetcher. But I'm none too fussed myself about the >>> difference a ReadyBoost cache makes, at least on a desktop machione >>> -- with a quick hard drive, you're down to differences in load times >>> that you'd have to measure in milliseconds, and I'd sooner take that >>> kind of performance hit than give up a spare USB port. With a >>> 5400-rpm laptop hard drive, on the other hand, ReadyBoost is likely >>> to make a mych more noticeable improvement in load times. >>> >>>> Are you saying that something accessing memory across the USB >>>> interface will be comparable to accessing it from RAM? >>>> >>> >>> No. >>> >>>> Your speed of access to RAM will depend on your bus and memory >>>> types, but USB2.0 is less than 500 Mb/s I believe? >>>> >>> >>> Yes. >>> >>>> Even writing and reading from a modern HDD is faster than USB2.0. >>>> >>> >>> Only for sequential i/o. Random access to a hard drive is slower than >>> from a flash drive, and that's what you're typically doing when you >>> fetch system and application libraries. > Cheers, Cliff -- The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change, the same old personalities show through. |
Re: Larry D'Loser Strikes Again
Enkidu wrote:
> impossible wrote: >> >> "Enkidu" <enkidu.com@com.cliffp.com> wrote in message >> news:4a6c05a2@news2.actrix.gen.nz... >>> impossible wrote: >>>> >>>> "Alan" <alan@alan.invalid> wrote in message >>>> news:h4ehf1$6in$1@news.albasani.net... >>>>> "Dave Doe" <hard@work.ok> wrote in message >>>>> news:MPG.24d430ad5ccf5fce989800@news.eternal-september.org... >>>>>> In article <h4bl44$a76$1@news.albasani.net>, alan@alan.invalid >>>>>> says... >>>>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <ldo@geek-central.gen.new_zealand> wrote in >>>>>>> message news:h4bl12$8to$3@lust.ihug.co.nz... >>>>>>> > The August issue of Australian PC User magazine has an >>>>>>> unbelievable >>>>>>> > winner >>>>>>> > of its "Letter of the Month" prize. The writer suggests you can >>>>>>> > "Speed up >>>>>>> > Vista" by buying more RAM, setting part of it up as a RAM disk, >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> > putting >>>>>>> > your page file in it! >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > A more pointless idea, it is hard to imagine. Is the magazine >>>>>>> > completely >>>>>>> > barmy? Or does this really work with Dimdows? Is the Microsoft OS >>>>>>> > really so >>>>>>> > brain-damaged that paging to RAM can improve performance, compared >>>>>>> > to not >>>>>>> > paging at all? >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> >>>>>>> LOL! >>>>>> >>>>>> LOL not - although there is little need to do as the writer >>>>>> suggests - >>>>>> as Vista (and Windows 7) already supports and utilizes such >>>>>> improvements... >>>>>> >>>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readyboost >>>>>> >>>>>> In my own experience, across many PC's running Vista, I've found >>>>>> you'll >>>>>> only get decent speed improvement if you use quality (qv fast) memory >>>>>> sticks. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd dare say (though I've not tested it) that using Readyboost would >>>>>> provide much greater overall performance gain than just putting >>>>>> the swap >>>>>> file to RAM disk - which, on face value, sounds pretty pointless >>>>>> and a >>>>>> waste of RAM (it's the swapfile after all!) - isn't it better to >>>>>> *use* >>>>>> RAM? :) vs having it full of swapped out, unused "stuff". >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for replying though, I'd not have spotted the OP's (another >>>>>> stupid) post otherwise. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ReadBoost != On Board RAM >>>>> >>>> >>>> That was Larry D'Loser's troll-spin. No sense wasting your time with >>>> that. >>>> >>>> ReadyBoost is a flash memeory disk cache specifically intended to >>>> faciliate Vista's SuperFetch function. SuperFetch pre-fetches >>>> frequenetly used system and application libraries at boot time to >>>> speed application loading, and on its own it works brilliantly. >>> Why not just buy more RAM? >>> >> >> Why not just leave my original post intact rather than deleting the >> information you need to get answer. >> >> <shakes head> >> > In what way does that answer the question? > Specifically, if you buy more RAM it will use SuperFetch in RAM, and you won't need ReadyBoost. Wikipedia says this on the subject "A system with 512 MB of RAM (the bare minimum for Windows Vista) can see significant gains from ReadyBoost.[7] In one test case, ReadyBoost sped up an operation from 11.7 seconds to 2 seconds (increasing physical memory from 512 MB to 1 GB reduced it to 0.8 seconds)[8]." Notice the bit in brackets. Doubling the memory meant that ReadyBoost was not used, and SuperFetch (which is simply prefetch on steroids) sped up the unidentified operation from 11.7 seconds to 2 seconds. Incidentally prefetch or superfetch has been around a long time - back to Windows 98 I believe, but I'd have to check. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readyboost Prefetch can slow things down. One thing that is sometimes recommended is that you clear your prefetch cache periodically. http://www.windowsnetworking.com/art...efetch-XP.html So I ask, once again, why not just buy more RAM? > > > >>>> I wouldn't want to do without SuperFetch -- it's much smarter than >>>> the XP prefetcher. But I'm none too fussed myself about the >>>> difference a ReadyBoost cache makes, at least on a desktop machione >>>> -- with a quick hard drive, you're down to differences in load times >>>> that you'd have to measure in milliseconds, and I'd sooner take that >>>> kind of performance hit than give up a spare USB port. With a >>>> 5400-rpm laptop hard drive, on the other hand, ReadyBoost is likely >>>> to make a mych more noticeable improvement in load times. >>>> >>>>> Are you saying that something accessing memory across the USB >>>>> interface will be comparable to accessing it from RAM? >>>>> >>>> >>>> No. >>>> >>>>> Your speed of access to RAM will depend on your bus and memory >>>>> types, but USB2.0 is less than 500 Mb/s I believe? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes. >>>> >>>>> Even writing and reading from a modern HDD is faster than USB2.0. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Only for sequential i/o. Random access to a hard drive is slower >>>> than from a flash drive, and that's what you're typically doing when >>>> you fetch system and application libraries. >> > Cheers, > > Cliff > -- The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change, the same old personalities show through. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:57 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.