StupidOS Strikes Again

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 24, 2009.

  1. 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?
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jul 24, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Alan Guest

    "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    message news:h4bl12$8to$...
    > 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: (valid for 30 days
    min probably much longer).
    Alan, Jul 24, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Dave Doe Guest

    In article <h4bl44$a76$>, lid says...
    > "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    > message news:h4bl12$8to$...
    > > 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
    Dave Doe, Jul 24, 2009
    #3
  4. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Alan Guest

    "Dave Doe" <> wrote in message
    news:-september.org...
    > In article <h4bl44$a76$>, lid
    > says...
    >> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    >> message news:h4bl12$8to$...
    >> > 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: (valid for 30 days
    min probably much longer).
    Alan, Jul 25, 2009
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    impossible Guest

    Re: Larry D'Loser Strikes Again

    "Alan" <> wrote in message
    news:h4ehf1$6in$...
    > "Dave Doe" <> wrote in message
    > news:-september.org...
    >> In article <h4bl44$a76$>, lid says...
    >>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    >>> message news:h4bl12$8to$...
    >>> > 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.
    impossible, Jul 25, 2009
    #5
  6. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    Re: Larry D'Loser Strikes Again

    impossible wrote:
    >
    > "Alan" <> wrote in message
    > news:h4ehf1$6in$...
    >> "Dave Doe" <> wrote in message
    >> news:-september.org...
    >>> In article <h4bl44$a76$>, lid says...
    >>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    >>>> message news:h4bl12$8to$...
    >>>> > 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.
    Enkidu, Jul 26, 2009
    #6
  7. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    impossible Guest

    Re: Larry D'Loser Strikes Again

    "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > impossible wrote:
    >>
    >> "Alan" <> wrote in message
    >> news:h4ehf1$6in$...
    >>> "Dave Doe" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:-september.org...
    >>>> In article <h4bl44$a76$>, lid says...
    >>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    >>>>> message news:h4bl12$8to$...
    >>>>> > 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.
    impossible, Jul 26, 2009
    #7
  8. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Dave Doe Guest

    In article <h4ehf1$6in$>, lid says...
    > "Dave Doe" <> wrote in message
    > news:-september.org...
    > > In article <h4bl44$a76$>, lid
    > > says...
    > >> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    > >> message news:h4bl12$8to$...
    > >> > 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
    Dave Doe, Jul 26, 2009
    #8
  9. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    Re: Larry D'Loser Strikes Again

    impossible wrote:
    >
    > "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "Alan" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:h4ehf1$6in$...
    >>>> "Dave Doe" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:-september.org...
    >>>>> In article <h4bl44$a76$>, lid says...
    >>>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    >>>>>> message news:h4bl12$8to$...
    >>>>>> > 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.
    Enkidu, Jul 26, 2009
    #9
  10. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    Re: Larry D'Loser Strikes Again

    Enkidu wrote:
    > impossible wrote:
    >>
    >> "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> "Alan" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:h4ehf1$6in$...
    >>>>> "Dave Doe" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:-september.org...
    >>>>>> In article <h4bl44$a76$>, lid
    >>>>>> says...
    >>>>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    >>>>>>> message news:h4bl12$8to$...
    >>>>>>> > 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/articles_tutorials/Gaining-Speed-Empty-Prefetch-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.
    Enkidu, Jul 26, 2009
    #10
  11. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    impossible Guest

    Re: Larry D'Loser Strikes Again

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


    As you say, "notice the bit in brackets". I don't suppose you bothered to
    follow up and actually check the source data for the "one test" you're using
    to dispute my comments? No, of course you didn't. So let's see now....

    http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=2917&p=6

    As it turns out, AnandTech never once benchmarked load times for system and
    application libraries using ReadyBoost as a pre-load storage medium for
    Superfetch. That wasn't its goal. AnandTech benchmarked render times
    (Windows Movie Maker), the time to do a Word document compare, the time to
    open Adobe Photoshop with 14 images, the time to close Photoshop, and the
    time to close four other applications. None of these tests have a single
    thing to do with what we're discussing.

    Any more bogus "evidence" you'd like to share.

    > Incidentally prefetch or superfetch has been around a long time - back to
    > Windows 98 I believe, but I'd have to check.
    >


    Incidentally, you have never used Vista and have absolutely zero knowledge
    about the relative merits of SuperFetch.

    > 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/articles_tutorials/Gaining-Speed-Empty-Prefetch-XP.html


    Just how ignorant are you trying to portary yourself here? XP != Vista.
    While you're at it, perhaps you'd also like to pass along some Win3.x tips
    for managing virtual memory -- that's always good for a laugh.

    > 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.
    >>>
    impossible, Jul 26, 2009
    #11
  12. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    Re: Larry D'Loser Strikes Again

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

    >
    > As you say, "notice the bit in brackets". I don't suppose you bothered
    > to follow up and actually check the source data for the "one test"
    > you're using to dispute my comments? No, of course you didn't. So let's
    > see now....
    >
    > http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=2917&p=6
    >
    > As it turns out, AnandTech never once benchmarked load times for system
    > and application libraries using ReadyBoost as a pre-load storage medium
    > for Superfetch. That wasn't its goal. AnandTech benchmarked render times
    > (Windows Movie Maker), the time to do a Word document compare, the time
    > to open Adobe Photoshop with 14 images, the time to close Photoshop, and
    > the time to close four other applications. None of these tests have a
    > single thing to do with what we're discussing.
    >
    > Any more bogus "evidence" you'd like to share.
    >

    From the reference you are so fond of:

    "There's a pretty sizable performance impact due to ReadyBoost, but once
    again, you can't beat simply having more system memory".

    Windows with 1GB RAM goes more than twice as fast as Windows with 512MB
    and 1GB Readyboost (Closing apps that is, open apps is about one third
    faster). Who would be so silly as to run Windows with only 512MB on anyway.
    >
    >> Incidentally prefetch or superfetch has been around a long time - back
    >> to Windows 98 I believe, but I'd have to check.
    >>

    >
    > Incidentally, you have never used Vista and have absolutely zero
    > knowledge about the relative merits of SuperFetch.
    >

    Yeah right. Readyboost is what I was asking about.
    >
    >> 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/articles_tutorials/Gaining-Speed-Empty-Prefetch-XP.html
    >>

    >
    > Just how ignorant are you trying to portary yourself here? XP != Vista.
    > While you're at it, perhaps you'd also like to pass along some Win3.x
    > tips for managing virtual memory -- that's always good for a laugh.
    >
    >> 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.
    >>>>

    >



    --

    The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
    the same old personalities show through.
    Enkidu, Jul 26, 2009
    #12
  13. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Max Burke Guest

    Re: Larry D'Loser Strikes Again

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


    I cant believe anyone still believes that myth!

    Clearing Out Windows Prefetch for Faster Startup
    The Prefetch feature in Windows XP caches parts of applications that you
    frequently use and tries to optimize the loading process to speed up
    application start time, so when a number of sites started suggesting
    that you clean it out regularly to speed up boot time it seemed like
    good advice... but sadly that's not the case, as pointed out by many
    Lifehacker commenters.

    The Prefetch feature is actually used as a sort of index, to tell
    Windows which parts of an application should be loaded into memory in
    which order to speed up application load time, but Windows doesn't use
    the information unless it's actually starting an application.

    There's also a limit of 128 files that can be stored in the prefetch
    folder at any point, and Windows cleans out the folder automatically,
    removing information for applications that haven't been run as
    frequently. Not only that, but a well-written defrag utility will use
    the prefetch information to optimize the position of the files on the
    disk, speeding up access even further. Windows expert Ed Bott explains it:
    The .pf files don’t get used at all until you run a program. What
    actually happens when you click an icon is that Windows uses the
    information in the Prefetch folder to decide which program segments to
    load and in what order to load those pages.
    http://lifehacker.com/5033518/debunking-common-windows-performance-tweaking-myths

    Yet another Web site posted yet another “tip” today recommending that
    you clean out your Prefetch folder to improve performance of Windows.
    Arrrggghhh! I’ve written about this repeatedly (here and here and here,
    for instance), but the message doesn’t seem to be spreading very fast.
    Maybe this quote from “Misinformation and the Prefetch Flag” by Ryan
    Myers, a developer on Microsoft’s Windows Client Performance Team, will
    help:

    XP systems have a Prefetch directory underneath the windows root
    directory, full of .pf files — these are lists of pages to load. The
    file names are generated from hashing the EXE to load — whenever you
    load the EXE, we hash, see if there’s a matching (exename)-(hash).pf
    file in the prefetch directory, and if so we load those pages. (If it
    doesn’t exist, we track what pages it loads, create that file, and pick
    a handful of them to save to it.) So, first off, it is a bad idea to
    periodically clean out that folder as some tech sites suggest. For one
    thing, XP will just re-create that data anyways; secondly, it trims the
    files anyways if there’s ever more than 128 of them so that it doesn’t
    needlessly consume space. So not only is deleting the directory totally
    unnecessary, but you’re also putting a temporary dent in your PC’s
    performance. [emphasis in original]

    Bottom line: You will not improve Windows performance by cleaning out
    the Prefetch folder. You will, in fact, degrade Windows performance by
    cleaning out the Prefetch folder. I’ve done performance testing that
    establishes this definitively. In all the many sites that offer this
    bogus tip, I have yet to see a single piece of actual performance testing.
    http://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000743.html

    > http://www.windowsnetworking.com/articles_tutorials/Gaining-Speed-Empty-Prefetch-XP.html


    Google "clear prefetch data/folder to improve performance." [myth]

    > So I ask, once again, why not just buy more RAM?


    Why not save your money and use what you've already got?



    --

    Replace the obvious with paradise.net to email me
    Found Images
    http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
    Max Burke, Jul 26, 2009
    #13
  14. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    impossible Guest

    Re: Larry D'Loser Strikes Again

    "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    news:4a6cc912$...
    > impossible wrote:
    >>
    >> "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Enkidu wrote:
    >>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:...
    >>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "Alan" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:h4ehf1$6in$...
    >>>>>>>> "Dave Doe" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>> news:-september.org...
    >>>>>>>>> In article <h4bl44$a76$>, lid
    >>>>>>>>> says...
    >>>>>>>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro" <_zealand> wrote in
    >>>>>>>>>> message news:h4bl12$8to$...
    >>>>>>>>>> > 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.

    >>
    >> As you say, "notice the bit in brackets". I don't suppose you bothered to
    >> follow up and actually check the source data for the "one test" you're
    >> using to dispute my comments? No, of course you didn't. So let's see
    >> now....
    >>
    >> http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=2917&p=6
    >>
    >> As it turns out, AnandTech never once benchmarked load times for system
    >> and application libraries using ReadyBoost as a pre-load storage medium
    >> for Superfetch. That wasn't its goal. AnandTech benchmarked render times
    >> (Windows Movie Maker), the time to do a Word document compare, the time
    >> to open Adobe Photoshop with 14 images, the time to close Photoshop, and
    >> the time to close four other applications. None of these tests have a
    >> single thing to do with what we're discussing.
    >>
    >> Any more bogus "evidence" you'd like to share.
    >>

    > From the reference you are so fond of:
    >


    It's your bogus reference, not mine.

    > "There's a pretty sizable performance impact due to ReadyBoost, but once
    > again, you can't beat simply having more system memory".
    >


    Quoting out of context is fun for you, isn't it?

    > Windows with 1GB RAM goes more than twice as fast as Windows with 512MB
    > and 1GB Readyboost (Closing apps that is, open apps is about one third
    > faster).


    Blah, blah. All completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is whether
    or not ReadyBoost can improve load times for system and application
    libraries. Yes, it can, because random access to flash memory is mnany times
    quicker than random access to a disk drive.

    >> Who would be so silly as to run Windows with only 512MB on anyway.
    > >


    Indeed. Which begs the question: What are you on about?

    >>> Incidentally prefetch or superfetch has been around a long time - back
    >>> to Windows 98 I believe, but I'd have to check.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Incidentally, you have never used Vista and have absolutely zero
    >> knowledge about the relative merits of SuperFetch.
    >>

    > Yeah right. Readyboost is what I was asking about.
    > >


    Asked and answered.

    >>> 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/articles_tutorials/Gaining-Speed-Empty-Prefetch-XP.html

    >>
    >> Just how ignorant are you trying to portary yourself here? XP != Vista.
    >> While you're at it, perhaps you'd also like to pass along some Win3.x
    >> tips for managing virtual memory -- that's always good for a laugh.
    > >
    >>> 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
    >>>>>>> achione -- 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.
    >>>>>

    >>
    impossible, Jul 27, 2009
    #14
  15. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    Re: Larry D'Loser Strikes Again

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

    >
    > I cant believe anyone still believes that myth!
    >
    > Clearing Out Windows Prefetch for Faster Startup
    > The Prefetch feature in Windows XP caches parts of applications that you
    > frequently use and tries to optimize the loading process to speed up
    > application start time, so when a number of sites started suggesting
    > that you clean it out regularly to speed up boot time it seemed like
    > good advice... but sadly that's not the case, as pointed out by many
    > Lifehacker commenters.
    >
    > The Prefetch feature is actually used as a sort of index, to tell
    > Windows which parts of an application should be loaded into memory in
    > which order to speed up application load time, but Windows doesn't use
    > the information unless it's actually starting an application.
    >
    > There's also a limit of 128 files that can be stored in the prefetch
    > folder at any point, and Windows cleans out the folder automatically,
    > removing information for applications that haven't been run as
    > frequently. Not only that, but a well-written defrag utility will use
    > the prefetch information to optimize the position of the files on the
    > disk, speeding up access even further. Windows expert Ed Bott explains it:
    > The .pf files don’t get used at all until you run a program. What
    > actually happens when you click an icon is that Windows uses the
    > information in the Prefetch folder to decide which program segments to
    > load and in what order to load those pages.
    > http://lifehacker.com/5033518/debunking-common-windows-performance-tweaking-myths
    >
    >
    > Yet another Web site posted yet another “tip” today recommending that
    > you clean out your Prefetch folder to improve performance of Windows.
    > Arrrggghhh! I’ve written about this repeatedly (here and here and here,
    > for instance), but the message doesn’t seem to be spreading very fast.
    > Maybe this quote from “Misinformation and the Prefetch Flag” by Ryan
    > Myers, a developer on Microsoft’s Windows Client Performance Team, will
    > help:
    >
    > XP systems have a Prefetch directory underneath the windows root
    > directory, full of .pf files — these are lists of pages to load. The
    > file names are generated from hashing the EXE to load — whenever you
    > load the EXE, we hash, see if there’s a matching (exename)-(hash).pf
    > file in the prefetch directory, and if so we load those pages. (If it
    > doesn’t exist, we track what pages it loads, create that file, and pick
    > a handful of them to save to it.) So, first off, it is a bad idea to
    > periodically clean out that folder as some tech sites suggest. For one
    > thing, XP will just re-create that data anyways; secondly, it trims the
    > files anyways if there’s ever more than 128 of them so that it doesn’t
    > needlessly consume space. So not only is deleting the directory totally
    > unnecessary, but you’re also putting a temporary dent in your PC’s
    > performance. [emphasis in original]
    >
    > Bottom line: You will not improve Windows performance by cleaning out
    > the Prefetch folder. You will, in fact, degrade Windows performance by
    > cleaning out the Prefetch folder. I’ve done performance testing that
    > establishes this definitively. In all the many sites that offer this
    > bogus tip, I have yet to see a single piece of actual performance testing.
    > http://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000743.html
    >
    >> http://www.windowsnetworking.com/articles_tutorials/Gaining-Speed-Empty-Prefetch-XP.html

    >
    >
    > Google "clear prefetch data/folder to improve performance." [myth]
    >
    >> So I ask, once again, why not just buy more RAM?

    >
    > Why not save your money and use what you've already got?
    >

    If you have only 512MB of RAM and you run Vista you are already using
    what you have and need more. If you run XP in 512MB you are already
    using what you have and need more. If you have a Flash Memory stick, by
    all means try it but you'll never approach the extra speed you'd get
    from an extra 1/2 GB of RAM.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
    the same old personalities show through.
    Enkidu, Jul 27, 2009
    #15
  16. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    Re: Larry D'Loser Strikes Again

    impossible wrote:
    >
    > "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    > news:4a6cc912$...
    >> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> Enkidu wrote:
    >>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> "Alan" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>> news:h4ehf1$6in$...
    >>>>>>>>> "Dave Doe" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>> news:-september.org...
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> In article <h4bl44$a76$>,
    >>>>>>>>>> lid says...
    >>>>>>>>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro"
    >>>>>>>>>>> <_zealand> wrote in
    >>>>>>>>>>> message news:h4bl12$8to$...
    >>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
    >>>
    >>> As you say, "notice the bit in brackets". I don't suppose you
    >>> bothered to follow up and actually check the source data for the
    >>> "one test" you're using to dispute my comments? No, of course you
    >>> didn't. So let's see now....
    >>>
    >>> http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=2917&p=6
    >>>
    >>> As it turns out, AnandTech never once benchmarked load times for
    >>> system and application libraries using ReadyBoost as a pre-load
    >>> storage medium for Superfetch. That wasn't its goal. AnandTech
    >>> benchmarked render times (Windows Movie Maker), the time to do a
    >>> Word document compare, the time to open Adobe Photoshop with 14
    >>> images, the time to close Photoshop, and the time to close four
    >>> other applications. None of these tests have a single thing to do
    >>> with what we're discussing.
    >>>
    >>> Any more bogus "evidence" you'd like to share.
    >>>

    >> From the reference you are so fond of:
    >>

    >
    > It's your bogus reference, not mine.
    >

    Eh? I never referenced the AnandTech reference - you did.
    >
    >> "There's a pretty sizable performance impact due to ReadyBoost, but
    >> once again, you can't beat simply having more system memory".
    >>

    >
    > Quoting out of context is fun for you, isn't it?
    >

    In any context that statement is true. The best way of speeding up a
    Windows system is to add memory,
    >
    >> Windows with 1GB RAM goes more than twice as fast as Windows with
    >> 512MB and 1GB Readyboost (Closing apps that is, open apps is about
    >> one third faster).

    >
    > Blah, blah. All completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is
    > whether or not ReadyBoost can improve load times for system and
    > application libraries. Yes, it can, because random access to flash
    > memory is mnany times quicker than random access to a disk drive.
    >

    That Anandtech article which you mentioned shows that it a low memory
    system it can. It also shows that increasing memory increases it a lot
    more than using ReadyBoost and Superfetch.
    >
    >>> Who would be so silly as to run Windows with only 512MB on
    >>> anyway.
    >>>

    >
    > Indeed. Which begs the question: What are you on about?
    >

    Your Anandtech reference. They used a severely memory constrained system
    and got *some* improvement.
    >
    >>>> Incidentally prefetch or superfetch has been around a long time
    >>>> - back to Windows 98 I believe, but I'd have to check.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Incidentally, you have never used Vista and have absolutely zero
    >>> knowledge about the relative merits of SuperFetch.
    >>>

    >> Yeah right. Readyboost is what I was asking about.
    >>>

    >
    > Asked and answered.
    >
    >>>> 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/articles_tutorials/Gaining-Speed-Empty-Prefetch-XP.html
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> Just how ignorant are you trying to portary yourself here? XP !=
    >>> Vista. While you're at it, perhaps you'd also like to pass along
    >>> some Win3.x tips for managing virtual memory -- that's always
    >>> good for a laugh.
    >>>
    >>>> 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 achione -- 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?


    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
    the same old personalities show through.
    Enkidu, Jul 27, 2009
    #16
  17. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Max Burke Guest

    Re: Larry D'Loser Strikes Again

    Enkidu wrote:
    >> Max Burke wrote:
    >> Google "clear prefetch data/folder to improve performance." [myth]


    > So I ask, once again, why not just buy more RAM?


    >> Why not save your money and use what you've already got?


    > If you have only 512MB of RAM and you run Vista you are already using
    > what you have and need more. If you run XP in 512MB you are already
    > using what you have and need more. If you have a Flash Memory stick, by
    > all means try it but you'll never approach the extra speed you'd get
    > from an extra 1/2 GB of RAM.


    I'm planning to upgrade my hardware in October (when Win 7 is available)
    I've been previewing the possibilities...

    Most/all computers I've looked at so far (brand name, generic, assemble
    your own kits, tiny form factor, laptops, notebooks, etc) have anything
    from 1 - 4 GB ram. The most common is 2 GB.

    I haven't seen any that have only 512MB ram, especially ones with Vista
    installed.

    --

    Replace the obvious with paradise.net to email me
    Found Images
    http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
    Max Burke, Jul 27, 2009
    #17
  18. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    impossible Guest

    Re: Larry D'Loser Strikes Again

    "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    news:4a6d5ef2$...
    > impossible wrote:
    >>
    >> "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    >> news:4a6cc912$...
    >>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>> "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> Enkidu wrote:
    >>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> "Alan" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>> news:h4ehf1$6in$...
    >>>>>>>>>> "Dave Doe" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>> news:-september.org...
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> In article <h4bl44$a76$>,
    >>>>>>>>>>> lid says...
    >>>>>>>>>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro"
    >>>>>>>>>>>> <_zealand> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>>>> news:h4bl12$8to$...
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
    >>>>
    >>>> As you say, "notice the bit in brackets". I don't suppose you bothered
    >>>> to follow up and actually check the source data for the
    >>>> "one test" you're using to dispute my comments? No, of course you
    >>>> didn't. So let's see now....
    >>>>
    >>>> http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=2917&p=6
    >>>>
    >>>> As it turns out, AnandTech never once benchmarked load times for
    >>>> system and application libraries using ReadyBoost as a pre-load
    >>>> storage medium for Superfetch. That wasn't its goal. AnandTech
    >>>> benchmarked render times (Windows Movie Maker), the time to do a
    >>>> Word document compare, the time to open Adobe Photoshop with 14
    >>>> images, the time to close Photoshop, and the time to close four
    >>>> other applications. None of these tests have a single thing to do
    >>>> with what we're discussing.
    >>>>
    >>>> Any more bogus "evidence" you'd like to share.
    >>>>
    >>> From the reference you are so fond of:
    >>>

    >>
    >> It's your bogus reference, not mine.
    >>

    > Eh? I never referenced the AnandTech reference - you did.
    >>


    No, you just blindly quoted Wikopedia, which based the remarks you quoted on
    a test by AnadTech that was completely irrelevant but which you never
    bothered to investigate. Do you beleive everythign you read in Wikopedia? Or
    just the stuff that jives with your preconceived notions, true or falso as
    the case may be?
    impossible, Jul 28, 2009
    #18
  19. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    Re: Larry D'Loser Strikes Again

    Max Burke wrote:
    > Enkidu wrote:
    >>> Max Burke wrote:
    >>> Google "clear prefetch data/folder to improve performance." [myth]

    >
    >> So I ask, once again, why not just buy more RAM?

    >
    >>> Why not save your money and use what you've already got?

    >
    >> If you have only 512MB of RAM and you run Vista you are already using
    >> what you have and need more. If you run XP in 512MB you are already
    >> using what you have and need more. If you have a Flash Memory stick,
    >> by all means try it but you'll never approach the extra speed you'd
    >> get from an extra 1/2 GB of RAM.

    >
    > I'm planning to upgrade my hardware in October (when Win 7 is available)
    > I've been previewing the possibilities...
    >
    > Most/all computers I've looked at so far (brand name, generic, assemble
    > your own kits, tiny form factor, laptops, notebooks, etc) have anything
    > from 1 - 4 GB ram. The most common is 2 GB.
    >
    > I haven't seen any that have only 512MB ram, especially ones with Vista
    > installed.
    >

    Yes, but the tests that 'impossible' posted were done on a machine with
    512MB. On such a machine you'd need all the help you could get. On a
    machine with 1GB or more the benefits of ReadyBoost and Superfetch are
    negligable, as shown by the results in the link posted by 'impossible'.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
    the same old personalities show through.
    Enkidu, Jul 28, 2009
    #19
  20. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Enkidu Guest

    Re: Larry D'Loser Strikes Again

    impossible wrote:
    >
    > "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    > news:4a6d5ef2$...
    >> impossible wrote:
    >>>
    >>> "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:4a6cc912$...
    >>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:...
    >>>>>> Enkidu wrote:
    >>>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> "Enkidu" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>>>> impossible wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> "Alan" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>> news:h4ehf1$6in$...
    >>>>>>>>>>> "Dave Doe" <> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>>> news:-september.org...
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> In article <h4bl44$a76$>,
    >>>>>>>>>>>> lid says...
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Lawrence D'Oliveiro"
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> <_zealand> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:h4bl12$8to$...
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> As you say, "notice the bit in brackets". I don't suppose you
    >>>>> bothered to follow up and actually check the source data for the
    >>>>> "one test" you're using to dispute my comments? No, of course you
    >>>>> didn't. So let's see now....
    >>>>>
    >>>>> http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=2917&p=6
    >>>>>
    >>>>> As it turns out, AnandTech never once benchmarked load times for
    >>>>> system and application libraries using ReadyBoost as a pre-load
    >>>>> storage medium for Superfetch. That wasn't its goal. AnandTech
    >>>>> benchmarked render times (Windows Movie Maker), the time to do a
    >>>>> Word document compare, the time to open Adobe Photoshop with 14
    >>>>> images, the time to close Photoshop, and the time to close four
    >>>>> other applications. None of these tests have a single thing to do
    >>>>> with what we're discussing.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Any more bogus "evidence" you'd like to share.
    >>>>>
    >>>> From the reference you are so fond of:
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> It's your bogus reference, not mine.
    >>>

    >> Eh? I never referenced the AnandTech reference - you did.
    >>>

    >
    > No, you just blindly quoted Wikopedia, which based the remarks you
    > quoted on a test by AnadTech that was completely irrelevant but which
    > you never bothered to investigate. Do you beleive everythign you read in
    > Wikopedia? Or just the stuff that jives with your preconceived notions,
    > true or falso as the case may be?
    >

    Go read the report by AnandTech.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    --

    The Internet is interesting in that although the nicknames may change,
    the same old personalities show through.
    Enkidu, Jul 28, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. joevan

    Dell strikes again.

    joevan, Aug 20, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    1,042
    beachman
    Aug 22, 2005
  2. Kyler Laird

    Nufone strikes again...

    Kyler Laird, Jul 24, 2006, in forum: VOIP
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    472
    Jonathan Roberts
    Jul 24, 2006
  3. Annika1980

    FORGOTTEN 400 STRIKES AGAIN !!!

    Annika1980, Sep 2, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    404
    Annika1980
    Sep 2, 2004
  4. Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)

    TSA strikes again

    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Dec 9, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    227
    Views:
    3,404
    Nikon User
    Dec 19, 2005
  5. Mike_P

    The Empire Strikes Again !

    Mike_P, Oct 29, 2004, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    773
    Bruce Sinclair
    Nov 2, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page