[QUOTE="Enkidu"]\n[QUOTE="impossible"]\n[QUOTE="Enkidu"]\nimpossible wrote:\n\nimpossible wrote:\n\nEnkidu wrote:\nimpossible wrote:\n\nimpossible wrote:\n\n\n"Lawrence D'Oliveiro"\nThe August issue of Australian PC User magazine\nhas an\nunbelievable\nwinner of its "Letter of the Month" prize. The\nwriter suggests you\ncan\n"Speed up Vista" by buying more RAM, setting\npart of it up as a RAM\ndisk, and\nputting your page file in it!\n\nA more pointless idea, it is hard to imagine.\nIs the magazine completely barmy? Or does this\nreally work with Dimdows? Is the\nMicrosoft OS\nreally so brain-damaged that paging to RAM can\nimprove performance, >\ncompared\nto not paging at all?\n\n\nLOL!\n\nLOL not - although there is little need to do as\nthe writer suggests - as Vista (and Windows 7)\nalready supports and utilizes such improvements...\n\n[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Readyboost[/URL]\n\nIn my own experience, across many PC's running\nVista, I've found you'll only get decent speed\nimprovement if you use quality (qv fast) memory sticks.\n\nI'd dare say (though I've not tested it) that using\nReadyboost would provide much greater overall\nperformance gain than just putting the swap file to\nRAM disk - which, on face value, sounds pretty pointless and a \nwaste of RAM (it's the swapfile\nafter all!) - isn't it better to *use* RAM? :) vs\nhaving it full of swapped out, unused "stuff".\n\nThanks for replying though, I'd not have spotted\nthe OP's (another stupid) post otherwise.\n\n\nReadBoost != On Board RAM\n\n\nThat was Larry D'Loser's troll-spin. No sense wasting\nyour time with that.\n\nReadyBoost is a flash memeory disk cache specifically\nintended to faciliate Vista's SuperFetch function.\nSuperFetch pre-fetches frequenetly used system and\napplication libraries at boot time to speed application\nloading, and on its own it works brilliantly.\nWhy not just buy more RAM?\n\n\nWhy not just leave my original post intact rather than\ndeleting the information you need to get answer.\n\n<shakes head>\n\nIn what way does that answer the question?\n\nSpecifically, if you buy more RAM it will use SuperFetch in\nRAM, and you won't need ReadyBoost. Wikipedia says this on the\nsubject "A system with 512 MB of RAM (the bare minimum for\nWindows Vista) can see significant gains from ReadyBoost. In\none test case, ReadyBoost sped up an operation from 11.7\nseconds to 2 seconds (increasing physical memory from 512 MB to\n1 GB reduced it to 0.8 seconds)." Notice the bit in\nbrackets. Doubling the memory meant that ReadyBoost was not\nused, and SuperFetch (which is simply prefetch on steroids)\nsped up the unidentified operation from 11.7 seconds to 2\nseconds.\n\nAs you say, "notice the bit in brackets". I don't suppose you \nbothered to follow up and actually check the source data for the\n"one test" you're using to dispute my comments? No, of course you\ndidn't. So let's see now....\n\n[URL]http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.aspx?i=2917&p=6[/URL]\n\nAs it turns out, AnandTech never once benchmarked load times for\nsystem and application libraries using ReadyBoost as a pre-load\nstorage medium for Superfetch. That wasn't its goal. AnandTech \nbenchmarked render times (Windows Movie Maker), the time to do a\nWord document compare, the time to open Adobe Photoshop with 14\nimages, the time to close Photoshop, and the time to close four\nother applications. None of these tests have a single thing to do\nwith what we're discussing.\n\nAny more bogus "evidence" you'd like to share.\n\nFrom the reference you are so fond of:\n\n\nIt's your bogus reference, not mine.\n\nEh? I never referenced the AnandTech reference - you did.\n[/QUOTE]\n\nNo, you just blindly quoted Wikopedia, which based the remarks you quoted \non a test by AnadTech that was completely irrelevant but which you never \nbothered to investigate. Do you beleive everythign you read in Wikopedia? \nOr just the stuff that jives with your preconceived notions, true or \nfalso as the case may be?\n[/QUOTE]\nGo read the report by AnandTech.\n[/QUOTE]\n\nBeen there, done that. You're wrong -\- get over it.