Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > StupidOS Strikes Again

Reply
Thread Tools

StupidOS Strikes Again

 
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2009
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?

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Alan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2009
"Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in
message news:h4bl12$8to$(E-Mail Removed)...
> 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: http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) (valid for 30 days
min probably much longer).

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dave Doe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2009
In article <h4bl44$a76$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)lid says...
> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in
> message news:h4bl12$8to$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-24-2009
"Dave Doe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
> In article <h4bl44$a76$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)lid
> says...
>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in
>> message news:h4bl12$8to$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> > 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: (E-Mail Removed) (valid for 30 days
min probably much longer).

 
Reply With Quote
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-25-2009

"Alan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:h4ehf1$6in$(E-Mail Removed)...
> "Dave Doe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
>> In article <h4bl44$a76$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)lid says...
>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in
>>> message news:h4bl12$8to$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> > 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.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2009
impossible wrote:
>
> "Alan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:h4ehf1$6in$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> "Dave Doe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
>>> In article <h4bl44$a76$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)lid says...
>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in
>>>> message news:h4bl12$8to$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> > 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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
impossible
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2009

"Enkidu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> impossible wrote:
>>
>> "Alan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:h4ehf1$6in$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> "Dave Doe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
>>>> In article <h4bl44$a76$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)lid says...
>>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in
>>>>> message news:h4bl12$8to$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> > 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.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Dave Doe
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2009
In article <h4ehf1$6in$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)lid says...
> "Dave Doe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
> > In article <h4bl44$a76$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)lid
> > says...
> >> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in
> >> message news:h4bl12$8to$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >> > 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
 
Reply With Quote
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2009
impossible wrote:
>
> "Enkidu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>> "Alan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:h4ehf1$6in$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> "Dave Doe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
>>>>> In article <h4bl44$a76$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)lid says...
>>>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in
>>>>>> message news:h4bl12$8to$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>> > 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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Enkidu
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-26-2009
Enkidu wrote:
> impossible wrote:
>>
>> "Enkidu" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Alan" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:h4ehf1$6in$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> "Dave Doe" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)-september.org...
>>>>>> In article <h4bl44$a76$(E-Mail Removed)>, (E-Mail Removed)lid
>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <(E-Mail Removed)_zealand> wrote in
>>>>>>> message news:h4bl12$8to$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>>>> > 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.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nufone strikes again... Kyler Laird VOIP 1 07-24-2006 10:52 PM
TSA strikes again Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) Digital Photography 227 12-19-2005 07:18 AM
Dell strikes again. joevan Computer Support 27 08-22-2005 09:21 PM
FORGOTTEN 400 STRIKES AGAIN !!! Annika1980 Digital Photography 0 09-02-2004 01:35 AM
Heisenberg strikes again! neeson Python 5 09-11-2003 08:46 AM



Advertisments