Speed up my Windows XP Pro. SP3 with Flash USB drives/drives?
Ant
I read that Vista and Windows 7 can be sped up faster by using Flash USB
sticks/drives (have 256 MB to 1 GB sizes). Can this be done with an
updated Windows XP Pro. SP3 too?
Thank you in advance. :)
--
"The general, unable to control his irritation, will launch his men to
the assault like swarming ants, with the result that one-third of his
men are slain, while the town still remains untaken. Such are the
disastrous effects of a siege." --Chapter 3 in Sun Tzu's The Ancient Art
of War (Translated by Lionel Giles)
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address: phi...@earthlink.netANT
( ) or ANT...@zimage.com
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.
Hank J.
>Hello.
>
>I read that Vista and Windows 7 can be sped up faster by using Flash USB
>sticks/drives (have 256 MB to 1 GB sizes). Can this be done with an
>updated Windows XP Pro. SP3 too?
>
>Thank you in advance. :)
If you are referring to Vista's Readyboost, no.
Ant
>> I read that Vista and Windows 7 can be sped up faster by using Flash USB
>> sticks/drives (have 256 MB to 1 GB sizes). Can this be done with an
>> updated Windows XP Pro. SP3 too?
>
> If you are referring to Vista's Readyboost, no.
Yeah, that and thanks. Aww, someone should make one for XP. :)
--
"Busy as ants hurrying orcs were digging, digging lines of deep trenches
in a huge ring, just out of bowshot from the walls;" --The Return of the
King (book)
Unknown
However if you want to see a significant performance
boost you can and a second hard drive. Partition the
new (2nd) drive so that the first partition (Logical drive)
is no more than 10% to 20% of the total drive size.
Now use the first partition to relocated your pagefile
and also as a location for temporary files.
"Ant" <phi...@earthlink.netANT> wrote in message
news:%23dLc8dp...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Bennett Marco
>On 8/16/2009 11:04 AM PT, Hank J. typed:
>
>>> I read that Vista and Windows 7 can be sped up faster by using Flash USB
>>> sticks/drives (have 256 MB to 1 GB sizes). Can this be done with an
>>> updated Windows XP Pro. SP3 too?
>>
>> If you are referring to Vista's Readyboost, no.
>
>Yeah, that and thanks. Aww, someone should make one for XP. :)
How much RAM does your system have?
Ant
> No, "Ready Boost" is not part of Windows XP.
Darn. I was hoping someone made a software addon to be something like
this for XP.
> However if you want to see a significant performance
> boost you can and a second hard drive. Partition the
> new (2nd) drive so that the first partition (Logical drive)
> is no more than 10% to 20% of the total drive size.
>
> Now use the first partition to relocated your pagefile
> and also as a location for temporary files.
I have something like that already. Just curious if USB Flash
drives/sticks could be used for a little more speed up since I have
unused ones. :)
--
"It's kind of an insane case ... 6,000 ants dressed up as rice and
robbed a Chinese restaurant." --Steven Wright
Ant
>>>> I read that Vista and Windows 7 can be sped up faster by using Flash USB
>>>> sticks/drives (have 256 MB to 1 GB sizes). Can this be done with an
>>>> updated Windows XP Pro. SP3 too?
>>>
>>> If you are referring to Vista's Readyboost, no.
>> Yeah, that and thanks. Aww, someone should make one for XP. :)
>
> How much RAM does your system have?
2 GB of RAM. Having some minor speed improvements with those USB Flash
drives would be nice. ;)
--
"The ants are my friends, they're blowin' in the wind. The ant, sir, is
blowin' in the wind." --the misheard lyrics to Bob Dylan's "Blowin' in
the Wind"
Bennett Marco
>On 8/16/2009 11:42 AM PT, Bennett Marco typed:
>
>>>>> I read that Vista and Windows 7 can be sped up faster by using Flash USB
>>>>> sticks/drives (have 256 MB to 1 GB sizes). Can this be done with an
>>>>> updated Windows XP Pro. SP3 too?
> >>>
>>>> If you are referring to Vista's Readyboost, no.
>>> Yeah, that and thanks. Aww, someone should make one for XP. :)
>>
>> How much RAM does your system have?
>
>2 GB of RAM. Having some minor speed improvements with those USB Flash
>drives would be nice. ;)
With that much RAM, even Vista wouldn't benefit from Readyboost.
You either need faster hard drives, or an upgrade of your mobo and
CPU.
Jose
> On 8/16/2009 11:42 AM PT, Bennett Marco typed:
>
>
>
> >>>> I read that Vista and Windows 7 can be sped up faster by using Flash USB
> >>>> sticks/drives (have 256 MB to 1 GB sizes). Can this be done with an
> >>>> updated Windows XP Pro. SP3 too?
>
> >>> If you are referring to Vista's Readyboost, no.
> >> Yeah, that and thanks. Aww, someone should make one for XP. :)
>
> > How much RAM does your system have?
>
> 2 GB of RAM. Having some minor speed improvements with those USB Flash
> drives would be nice. ;)
> --
> "The ants are my friends, they're blowin' in the wind. The ant, sir, is
> blowin' in the wind." --the misheard lyrics to Bob Dylan's "Blowin' in
> the Wind"
> /\___/\
> | |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL):http://aqfl.net
> \ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address: phi...@earthlink.netANT
> ( ) or ANT...@zimage.com
> Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.
I found some 3rd party "solutions" to give at least a ReadyBoost
appearance to XP and a flash drive. Free to download and try.
Some people seem to be perturbed with even the real ReadyBoost -
perhaps their expectations are too high.
"ReadyBoost is a great technology when you’re low on RAM."
I think for XP, I would just add more RAM.
I wonder which would be faster and more reliable - a flash drive or on
board RAM?
Anybody multi OS people have experience with this in the real world?
Ant
Oh OK. My quad-core PC is fast enough. Just looking for more speed ups
(always room for them!). I was hoping using USB Flash sticks/drives
would even make it faster. I guess not then! Thanks. :)
--
"This isn't a war. It never was a war, any more than there's war between
man and ants." --artilleryman from H.G. Wells' The War of the Worlds
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address: phi...@earthlink.netANT
( ) or ANT...@zimage.com
Ant is/was listening to a song on his home computer: Freemasons feat.
Sophie Ellis-Bextor - Heartbreak Make Me A Dancer (Freemasons & DJ's
P.A.D Re-Edit Extended Remix 2009) [5.14]
Bennett Marco
>
>I wonder which would be faster and more reliable - a flash drive or on
>board RAM?
More RAM... but in this case, the OP has enough.
db
maker that makes
a ready boost version
for xp.
it's about 50 bucks.
-------------
they really act like
the hibernation feature
and you require usb
flash drives that are
twice the size of your
ram to provide the
full benefit.
also, flash drives come
in two flavors:
those that are ready
boost ready
and those that are
not.
-------------
one day microsoft
will hire the smart guy
who develops a rom
level hibernation.
but it will be a long
time til then.
--
db���`�...�><)))�>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- Microsoft Partner
- @hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~"share the nirvana" - dbZen
>
>
"Ant" <phi...@earthlink.netANT> wrote in message news:#dLc8dpH...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
Ant
Yeah, I thought I could speed up XP's boot up like Vista's ReadyBoast
with one of those USB Flash sticks/drives. ;)
--
"Even an ant can hurt an elephant." --Proverb
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
Ant
On 8/16/2009 2:58 PM PT, db typed:
"Though your enemy is the size of an ant, look upon him as an elephant."
--Danish
Gerry
JS
"and also as a location for temporary files". That's a variant I have
not seen suggested before!
--
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
JS wrote:
> No, "Ready Boost" is not part of Windows XP.
>
> However if you want to see a significant performance
> boost you can and a second hard drive. Partition the
> new (2nd) drive so that the first partition (Logical drive)
> is no more than 10% to 20% of the total drive size.
>
> Now use the first partition to relocated your pagefile
> and also as a location for temporary files.
>
>
Jon
Would the paging file get used much when you have 2Gbytes of RAM? I'm assuming that the user isn't
using lots of very big programmes.
"JS" <@> wrote in message news:O%23ZAE7pH...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
db
"Ant" <phi...@earthlink.netANT> wrote in message
news:ugiq51rH...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Gerry
The pagefile is always used regardless of the amount of RAM. However,
the more the RAM the less the use made of the pagefile.
You can get more accurate information on pagefile usage using
pagefilemon, a small freeware utility.
Use page file monitor to observe what is the peak usage. Start it to run
immediately after start-up and look at the log. Pagefilemon takes
snapshots. You need to run it at the beginning of the session at then
run it again at intervals throughout the sessions. The log is Pagefile
log.txt. If you right click on the file in Windows Explorer and select
Send to, Desktop (Create Shortcut). The same applies to
XP_PageFileMon.exe.
A small utility to monitor pagefile usage:
http://www.dougknox.com/xp/utils/xp_pagefilemon.htm
Note that programs using undo features, particularly those associated
with graphics and photo editing, require large amounts of memory so if
you use this type of programme check these first observing how the page
usage increases when they start and whether the usage decreases when you
close the programme.
You can get clues as to what is generating peak memory demands but this
is not a precise science, more a matter of judgement.
--
Hope this helps.
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jon wrote:
> "use the first partition to relocated your pagefile"
>
> Would the paging file get used much when you have 2Gbytes of RAM? I'm
> assuming that the user isn't using lots of very big programmes.
>
>
> "JS" <@> wrote in message
> news:O%23ZAE7pH...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> No, "Ready Boost" is not part of Windows XP.
>
> However if you want to see a significant performance
> boost you can and a second hard drive. Partition the
> new (2nd) drive so that the first partition (Logical drive)
> is no more than 10% to 20% of the total drive size.
>
> Now use the first partition to relocated your pagefile
> and also as a location for temporary files.
>
>
Unknown
"Gerry" <ge...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:eXbmMtyH...@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> JS
>
> "and also as a location for temporary files". That's a variant I have not
> seen suggested before!
>
> --
>
>
> Gerry
> ~~~~
> FCA
> Stourport, England
> Enquire, plan and execute
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
Yes, but some applications and Windows are
constantly creating temp files, some are left behind
and other are automatically deleted.
Since these file create a lot of disk activity locating
them to the fastest part of a second hard drive can
speed things up.
On the PC I'm currently using I have the pagefile
on my third internal hard drive and temp files go
to the 2nd partition on my second drive.
I'm in the process of putting together an article on
this subject and more on my web site in the near
future. I think you will find it interesting and useful.
Unknown
"Jon" <-> wrote in message news:uSfpfvzH...@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> "use the first partition to relocated your pagefile"
>
> Would the paging file get used much when you have 2Gbytes of RAM? I'm
> assuming that the user isn't
> using lots of very big programmes.
>
>
<Snipped>
Windows is not like UNIX and the user has
no control over what gets paged/swapped
out to this file, so it is always in use.
Make matters worse is the fact that the
pagefile can end up being heavily fragmented
and stays that way unless you install a utility
like "PageDefrag" from SysInternals:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897426.aspx
However with the pagefile located on it's own partition
it never gets fragmented.
Ant
On 8/17/2009 4:10 AM PT, Gerry typed:
> "and also as a location for temporary files". That's a variant I have
> not seen suggested before!
Yep, I already moved %temp% to a different drive. :)
--
"When I am at my lowest, that is when I see things the clearest. It's
hard to care about ants when you're soaring with eagles." --unknown
Ant
Windows' Task Manager shows this already as "Commite Charge" (bottom
task bar) and "VM Size" column for process list.
On 8/17/2009 6:25 AM PT, Gerry typed:
--
"The greatest enemies of ants are other ants, just as the greatest
enemies of men are other men." --Auguste Forel
Gerry
Fragmentation of the pagefile of itself does not matter. The problem is
that a pagefile fragmenting cause other files being written to fragment.
Placing the pagefile in a separate partition or setting a minimum =
maximum pagefile helps reduce fragmentation of the other files. Many
users feel that defragmenting a pagefile is a waste of time as it is
continually being rewritten.
--
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gerry
Your statement is incorrect. Task Manager does not record actual usage.
It records movements in allocations not usage.
Quote: "Note that these aspects of Windows XP have changed significantly
from earlier Windows NT versions, and practices that have been common
there may no longer be appropriate. Also, the 'PF Usage' (Page File in
Use) measurement in Task Manager | Performance for 'Page File in Use'
include those potential uses by pages that have not been taken up. It
makes a good indicator of the adequacy of the 'Maximum' size setting,
but not for the 'Initial' one, let alone for any need for more RAM."
Source: http://www.aumha.org/win5/a/xpvm.htm
--
Hope this helps.
Gerry
~~~~
FCA
Stourport, England
Enquire, plan and execute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jose
I wasn't really wondering... more like hinting!
The concept of implementing something similar to ReadyBoost in XP is
not new, there are third party apps that attempt to replicate it and
results and opinions vary.
If somebody comes across empirical, measurable and reprodcueable data
using methods to simulate ReadyBoost with XP, that would be most
interesting.
Twayne
> JS
>
> Fragmentation of the pagefile of itself does not matter. The problem
> is that a pagefile fragmenting cause other files being written to
> fragment. Placing the pagefile in a separate partition or setting a
> minimum = maximum pagefile helps reduce fragmentation of the other
> files. Many users feel that defragmenting a pagefile is a waste of
> time as it is continually being rewritten.
I don't know why you'd say that. Fragmentation of the pf is no
different in impact than any other file and often results in extended
pauses when it becomes too fragmented. What is fortunate is that XP
makes some mediocre attempts to keep it from fragmenting but it's far
from perfect, especially as a drive reaches close to capacity settings.
I've only seen a couple of badly fragmented pfs, but one in particular
had thousands of fragments to it. User must have turned it off & back
on with a nearly full drive was all I could figure. Just defragging the
drive took around 4 hours IIRC and it was only a 360 Gig drive.
Twayne
1stknight
There are a few things to consider about attempting to speed up your
computer boot time. Everything that affects your system can be considered at
a couple of levels. First is your computer hard ware.
A) Have you looked into updating your computer bios?
Why? If your computer manufactor updated the microcode into the bios, will
reduce boot up time. And more efficient initialization of hardware will also
reduce your boot time. In addition any USB errors in your current bios may be
fixed. Also reducing startup/boot time. Is your bios set to quick boot? Plug
and play enabled?
1) Each motherboard is different. But have you disable any devices you are
not using? Anything that is initialized requires time. Extra Serial ports?
Usually not used. IEEE 1394, you do not have any devices like a hard drive
connected?
2) How old is your computer? Replaced any of the thermal interface material?
Some processors have thermal throttling which reduces the processor speed.
Have you turned this off? Cleaned up cable management ?
3) Memory speeds. A great resource for memory specifications is cpuz. Is
your memory speed the quickest available for your processor? DDR 3200 is
faster then 2700. Search for more information here. Not to open up a can of
worms bur ddr2 is better then DDR1. Lower memory latencys also help out here.
As mentioned above, a bios update may reconize more memory DIMMs.
B) Hard drive If you are using an "green" drive. This will spin slower and
slow down your computer system. Most drives are slower then say a Western
digital hard drive. And this is outclassed by a S.S.D. another alternative.
C) Since you have not mentioned if you are using a desktop or lap top.
SSD is better for the laptop. A cache IDE/SATA(depending which you are
using for harddrive) with at least 64 Megs of memory will always help out
your boot times.
Is your hard drive set to use DMA? Some motherboard chipsets do not allow
this to work because of designed in cost reductions.
D) Processor. Are you using the latest processor with a larger cache
appropriate to the programs you wish to run? Photo shop will load up a single
core computer. Dual core is better. Any anti-virus programs running? Tri-core
is better. Also consider buying a can of air and blowing out the fans and the
botherboard
E) Video card. Which card are you using? searching for a better card would
help out. And this brings up drivers. Manufactors generally improve both
performance and reliability of drivers.
Soft ware improvement
Defragmentation; I have used various types of programs to restore order to
files on my hard drives through out the years. IOBit.com defrag, is my
current defragger.
Here is some things to look at at the soft ware level
First the Operating System
Is your chipset driver up to date? Intel, Nvidia, and Via usually update
there chipset drivers.
Are you using windows installer 4.5?
Windows scripting host 5.6?
Using dot net 1.1 up to version 3.5?
Looked at using bootvis to optimize start up.
Using direct x and the latest version?
Running Software
Cleaned out your startup folder? Anything like microsoft office slow down
boot up.
technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb963902.aspx
Link to look for programs that are being run on startup. If you are
comfortable using regedit. Always back this up before editing.
http://www.anvir.com/windows-startup-programs-xp.htm
Multiple anti-virus programs? Another slow down. Which also brings up
insecure software. Secunia.com will tell you if you have multiple installs of
programs with different versions. Duplicates can cause problems. Each program
is different. Seaching for help will give you the most appropriate fix.
Delay startup of programs in the startup folder links
http://www.r2.com.au/software.php?
http://www.joejoesoft.com/sr.php
http://uk.geocities.com/personel44/maintenance.html
Search for someting called tweak, and clean memory and connectors of your
memory. Reduces contanimates and improves connection speed. Usefull in a lot
of ways. Improving the connection from a lap top battery to computer. Diry
USB connections. Even a pencil eraser will help out in a pinch.
Hopefully this helps you out.
1stknight
"Ant" wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I read that Vista and Windows 7 can be sped up faster by using Flash USB
> sticks/drives (have 256 MB to 1 GB sizes). Can this be done with an
> updated Windows XP Pro. SP3 too?
>
> Thank you in advance. :)
> --
> "The general, unable to control his irritation, will launch his men to
> the assault like swarming ants, with the result that one-third of his
> men are slain, while the town still remains untaken. Such are the
> disastrous effects of a siege." --Chapter 3 in Sun Tzu's The Ancient Art
> of War (Translated by Lionel Giles)
HeyBub
> On 8/16/2009 11:42 AM PT, Bennett Marco typed:
>
>>>>> I read that Vista and Windows 7 can be sped up faster by using
>>>>> Flash USB sticks/drives (have 256 MB to 1 GB sizes). Can this be
>>>>> done with an updated Windows XP Pro. SP3 too?
>>>>
>>>> If you are referring to Vista's Readyboost, no.
>>> Yeah, that and thanks. Aww, someone should make one for XP. :)
>>
>> How much RAM does your system have?
>
> 2 GB of RAM. Having some minor speed improvements with those USB Flash
> drives would be nice. ;)
USB drives are SLOW. About 10 times slower than a hard drive.* Then, too,
they fail after a relatively small number of read-write cycles.
--------
USB2.0 = ~25Mbytes/s (200Mb/s)
SATA drive = max 3Gb/sec
Swifty
> Yeah, I thought I could speed up XP's boot up like Vista's ReadyBoast
> with one of those USB Flash sticks/drives. ;)
It is conceivable that you could add a solid-state drive to your system,
and use that for your page file. I have no idea if such a drive would
work well in that configuration, but I've seen systems with nothing but
a solid-state drive, so it must be OK. The ones I've seen are 80Gb. You
could probably put other stuff on there as well as your page file - you
are not going to cause seek problems.
My system has an 80Gb C: drive, and I'm tempted to change that to a
solid-state drive if my employer fails to update my PC next January, as
was scheduled.
--
Steve Swift
http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html
http://www.ringers.org.uk
Bill Yanaire
> Hello.
>
> I read that Vista and Windows 7 can be sped up faster by using Flash USB
> sticks/drives (have 256 MB to 1 GB sizes). Can this be done with an
> updated Windows XP Pro. SP3 too?
>
What are you doing where you think your system needs to go faster? If you keep installing and
uninstalling programs, moving data around, it would be good to defrag your system.
If your system has been in place for a few years and you install lots of programs, uninstall
programs, it would be an improvement to reinstall Windows from scratch. That is a lot of work
but it will speed up your system quite a bit.
Every year I reinstall from scratch and only install the programs that I need. I then copy my
data back and everything is cool to go.
I have it down to a science and can re-do a system in a couple of hours.
Ant
>> Yeah, I thought I could speed up XP's boot up like Vista's ReadyBoast
>> with one of those USB Flash sticks/drives. ;)
>
> It is conceivable that you could add a solid-state drive to your system,
> and use that for your page file. I have no idea if such a drive would
> work well in that configuration, but I've seen systems with nothing but
> a solid-state drive, so it must be OK. The ones I've seen are 80Gb. You
> could probably put other stuff on there as well as your page file - you
> are not going to cause seek problems.
Thanks. That could be an interesting idea and faster than USB 2.0.
> My system has an 80Gb C: drive, and I'm tempted to change that to a
> solid-state drive if my employer fails to update my PC next January, as
> was scheduled.
Haha, I remember I used to have 10 GB for C: drive and I only had like
900 MB free. I had to replace the HDD due to that.
Bummer on upgrading office computers. I know that feeling since mine are
very old (Prescott and HyperThreading/HT P4s, single core Athlon 64
3200+, etc.). :(
--
"I have to sit up with a sick ant." --unknown
Ant
> > sticks/drives (have 256 MB to 1 GB sizes). Can this be done with an
> > updated Windows XP Pro. SP3 too?
>
> uninstalling programs, moving data around, it would be good to defrag your system.
Just gaming. I was only interested to see what else I can do to
improve speed on my quad core system. Yes, it's fast enough but it
never hurts to have more speed. [grin]
> If your system has been in place for a few years and you install lots of programs, uninstall
> programs, it would be an improvement to reinstall Windows from scratch. That is a lot of work
> but it will speed up your system quite a bit.
>
> Every year I reinstall from scratch and only install the programs that I need. I then copy my
> data back and everything is cool to go.
>
> I have it down to a science and can re-do a system in a couple of hours.
Yeah, but a pain to reinstall and reconfigure 100+ softwares which I
don't have time for. I do back up my HDDs once in a while and back up
my datas weekly though. :)
msnews.microsoft.com
"Ant" <ant...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:60bee6a7-04bf-4a0f...@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Since you install lots of programs and have lot installed you should
consider a disk imaging program such as Acronis True Image.
Ant
>> Yeah, but a pain to reinstall and reconfigure 100+ softwares which I
>> don't have time for. I do back up my HDDs once in a while and back up
>> my datas weekly though. :)
>
> Since you install lots of programs and have lot installed you should
> consider a disk imaging program such as Acronis True Image.
I already do use a disk image program (Symantec/Norton Ghost; not in my
installed Windows XP Pro. SP3 -- use a bootable CD/disk).
--
"Look not to the windmill's turning while the ant still burrows." --unknown
WMB
drive, install a SSD HD, re-install the image. "Chris Prillo" did and says
its a slam bam for performance. I would sure like to hear from an average
joe who tried it.
"Ant" <phi...@earthlink.netANT> wrote in message
news:ugiq51rH...@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
Ken Blake, MVP
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 00:23:40 -0500, "WMB" <brown.2005@.comcast.net>
wrote:
> If speed is your objective, and cost is not a deterrent, image your current
> drive, install a SSD HD, re-install the image. "Chris Prillo" did and says
> its a slam bam for performance. I would sure like to hear from an average
> joe who tried it.
SSD drives tend to be on the small side and expensive. I have three
drives on my personal machine here. The C: drive is an
OCZSSD2-1VTX120G Vertex Series 120GB SATA II SSD ($370), and is the
place where Windows and applications are stored. The other two drives
are hard drives.
Yes, it seems very fast, but I don't have a previous experience on
this system to compare it with directly.
--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup
Twayne
WMB <brown.2005@.comcast.net> typed:
An SSD drive would be about the same speed as RAM and would easily run rings
around a mechanical hard drive. It's pretty much a given.
However if the reason for the slowdown isn't known, an expensive SSD drive
might simply cover up a problem if an inexperienced user tries it because he
has nothing to reference the performance to. It might still be a slow, half
borked system, but the user won't know that because of the speed increase.
A new install would be much better than an image containing all the
collected problems and speed killers of the last xx months.
HTH,
Twayne`
Bill in Co.
Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 00:23:40 -0500, "WMB" <brown.2005@.comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> If speed is your objective, and cost is not a deterrent, image your
>> current
>> drive, install a SSD HD, re-install the image. "Chris Prillo" did and
>> says
>> its a slam bam for performance. I would sure like to hear from an
>> average
>> joe who tried it.
>
>
> SSD drives tend to be on the small side and expensive. I have three
> drives on my personal machine here. The C: drive is an
> OCZSSD2-1VTX120G Vertex Series 120GB SATA II SSD ($370), and
> is the place where Windows and applications are stored. The other
> two drives are hard drives.
>
> Yes, it seems very fast, but I don't have a previous experience on
> this system to compare it with directly.
Ken, I had thought there was an issue with the fairly limited number of max
write cycles with any SSDs, making them NOT very suitable for windows (like
the regular C: drive, where there is always a LOT of constant write
activity).
(yes, I'm aware SSDs have some built-in "wear leveling" techniques to spread
this activity out over different arrays of storage locations, but even at
that...)
Ken Blake, MVP
There may eventually be such an issue, but I haven't experienced it so
far. Perhaps I'm taking my chances with it, but I've been very happy
with the performance.
BillW50
Ken Blake, MVP typed on Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:11:50 -0700:
Nor all SSD are equal for one. For example:
1) SLC type lasts 100,000 or more complete writes
2) MLC type lasts 5,000 to 10,000 complete writes
Secondly if you want to limit the number of writes, this is easy to do.
Just turning off System Restore and a swapfile is a very big help right
there.
Thirdly, you can totally stop all writes if you want to by merging MS
EWF files into your Windows XP.
I have seen heavy use of MLC SSD die in a year or two. They usually have
a warrantee of one year. SLC SSD should last 10 years plus without
problems. Although if you limit writing, you will be long dead before
you ever wear one of them out.
--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) - Windows XP SP2
BillW50
db typed on Sun, 16 Aug 2009 16:58:23 -0500:
It already exists and has for years! It is called HORM and is available
under MS EWF's hibernation.
BillW50
Twayne typed on Sun, 8 Nov 2009 10:05:55 -0500:
> An SSD drive would be about the same speed as RAM and would easily
> run rings around a mechanical hard drive. It's pretty much a given.
Actually it may not be. The controller used for one limits the
bandwidth.
> However if the reason for the slowdown isn't known, an expensive SSD
> drive might simply cover up a problem if an inexperienced user tries
> it because he has nothing to reference the performance to. It might
> still be a slow, half borked system, but the user won't know that
> because of the speed increase. A new install would be much better
> than an image containing all the collected problems and speed killers
> of the last xx months.
Writing under SSD changes a lot. They have wear leveling and all. So
there maybe lots of house keeping that needs to be done. And so some
designs has to do a lot just to write one byte. Worse case I have heard
so far was 20 seconds before it could write one byte. Although it is
almost never that bad. And to get around this problem, load Windows in
RAM and run it there like with MS EWF. Although SLC type of SSD usually
writes far faster than the cheaper MLC types and lasts much longer.
Ken Blake, MVP
> In news:md9ef5pnra7d7b7ud...@4ax.com,
> Ken Blake, MVP typed on Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:11:50 -0700:
> > On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:59:40 -0700, "Bill in Co."
> > <not_rea...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >> Ken, I had thought there was an issue with the fairly limited number
> >> of max write cycles with any SSDs, making them NOT very suitable for
> >> windows (like the regular C: drive, where there is always a LOT of
> >> constant write activity).
> >>
> >> (yes, I'm aware SSDs have some built-in "wear leveling" techniques
> >> to spread this activity out over different arrays of storage
> >> locations, but even at that...)
> >
> > There may eventually be such an issue, but I haven't experienced it so
> > far. Perhaps I'm taking my chances with it, but I've been very happy
> > with the performance.
>
> Nor all SSD are equal for one. For example:
>
> 1) SLC type lasts 100,000 or more complete writes
>
> 2) MLC type lasts 5,000 to 10,000 complete writes
>
> Secondly if you want to limit the number of writes, this is easy to do.
> Just turning off System Restore and a swapfile is a very big help right
> there.
>
> Thirdly, you can totally stop all writes if you want to by merging MS
> EWF files into your Windows XP.
Thanks for the info. Do you know whether my OCZSSD2-1VTX120G Vertex
Series 120GB SATA II SSD is SLC or MLC?
> I have seen heavy use of MLC SSD die in a year or two. They usually have
> a warrantee of one year. SLC SSD should last 10 years plus without
> problems. Although if you limit writing, you will be long dead before
> you ever wear one of them out.
Assuming that mine is SLC, and noting that I'm 72 years old, I *may*
be long dead before I wear it out.
BillW50
In news:3ftef5tn12u4nj3et...@4ax.com,
Ken Blake, MVP typed on Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:55:10 -0700:
A Google search seems to suggest it is a MLC type. But I don't know for
sure. At first, SLC type was used for SSDs, but they were really
expensive. Since then MLC type has been improving in technology and half
the price to manufacture. Plus SLC types are disappearing from the
marketplace recently.
>> I have seen heavy use of MLC SSD die in a year or two. They usually
>> have a warrantee of one year. SLC SSD should last 10 years plus
>> without problems. Although if you limit writing, you will be long
>> dead before you ever wear one of them out.
>
> Assuming that mine is SLC, and noting that I'm 72 years old, I *may*
> be long dead before I wear it out.
Yes and I am about 20 years behind you. And I think the computer with
SSD will most likely be so outdated that you wouldn't use it anyway
before it fails. Unless it is a really cheap MLC type. Although yours
seems to be one of the better ones. ;-)
Twayne
In news:md9ef5pnra7d7b7ud...@4ax.com,
Ken Blake, MVP <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> typed:
From what I've read it'll happen over a relatively short period of time
compared to mechanicals but you also get some extra time out of it because
it quits using the bad "sectors" and moves over to other good ones. That
goes on until there's no space left unless you're watching it. I know of
some SSD drives in a CT business (UTC) where my son works, where they're
being used but not on the system drives; so far not a problem anywhere.
They're surprisingly cheap bought in quantity which tells us, I think, prime
time isn't too far off. They're using 64 Gig drives right now; really tiny
in size!
Twayne`
BillW50
Twayne typed on Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:31:23 -0500:
Actually if you can believe the specs of SSDs, a manufacture claims the
MTBF is 227 years. And HDD are only less than 37 years.
Endurance:
SSD: MTBF > 2 Million Hours
HDD: MTBF < 300,000 Hours
http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-11408-0.html?forumID=1&threadID=39451&messageID=725468&start=0
I figured that I would have to overwrite a whole SSD, 24 times a day
(which would be hard to do without trying too). And it would take 11
years to wear one out.
Ken Blake, MVP
I typically get 4-5 years usage out of a computer before I replace it.
This one is brand new, so I'll probably be 76-77 when I want to
replace it.
> Unless it is a really cheap MLC type. Although yours
> seems to be one of the better ones. ;-)
>
> --
> Bill
> Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) - Windows XP SP2
>
--
Ken Blake, MVP
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:22:34 -0600, "BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote:
> Actually if you can believe the specs of SSDs, a manufacture claims the
> MTBF is 227 years. And HDD are only less than 37 years.
I'm always reluctant to believe MTBF claims. They may be correct, but
with numbers as high as 227 years, I have no confidence in them.
BillW50
Ken Blake, MVP typed on Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:28:51 -0700:
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:22:34 -0600, "BillW50" <Bil...@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>
>> Actually if you can believe the specs of SSDs, a manufacture claims
>> the MTBF is 227 years. And HDD are only less than 37 years.
>
>
> I'm always reluctant to believe MTBF claims. They may be correct, but
> with numbers as high as 227 years, I have no confidence in them.
Same here, but I have done the math. If every cell of a SSD can be
written to 100,000 times, it would take a person overwriting the whole
SSD 24 times a day for 11 years before you would wear one out. That is a
lot of writing. So I can see the average user might get 227 years out of
one.
Bill in Co.
So I guess the bottom line is it sounds like there's really no issue with
using the SSDs to replace conventional HDs except for the price (no matter
which type, but skipping the DRAM ones, which don't seem useful for the
general consumer).
IOW, they will outlast any conventional HD (no matter what type of SSD), and
are certainly a lot faster. I'm still not sure about the permanence of of
the data stored in flash memory in terms of its shelf life (or maybe that
was expressed in its MTBF stats), but I'm guessing that's not an real issue,
either, in comparison to the mechanical drives.
BillW50
Bill in Co. typed on Mon, 9 Nov 2009 13:23:07 -0700:
Yes that is about it. Except I wouldn't call the real cheap MLC SSD (vs.
more expensive MLC SSD and better yet SLC SSD), as fast. As they do make
some really slow MLC types. For example Super Talent has one called
FPM16GHAE PATA PCIe SSD with a read speed of 45M and a write of 15MB.
My personal experience is that HDD has an early failure rate of 3 out of
21. And they lasted a month or less. SSDs are hitting the same ratio, 1
out of 7. And they usually fail in a few months. And this one will work
if you let it sit with power for 90 minutes. So remember this trick if
you ever have one fail. And there might have been a recall on that lot.
And I believe it was a failed controller on the SSD board and not any of
the SSD chips themselves.
Twayne
Ken Blake, MVP <kbl...@this.is.an.invalid.domain> typed:
>
>
>> Actually if you can believe the specs of SSDs, a manufacture claims
>> the MTBF is 227 years. And HDD are only less than 37 years.
>
>
> I'm always reluctant to believe MTBF claims. They may be correct, but
> with numbers as high as 227 years, I have no confidence in them.
MTBFs are a little like statistics; you can make them say different things
at different times. Folks should remember the calcs for MTBFs are usually
for laboratory conditions of a controlled environment, etc. etc.. I
wouldn't expect to see an SSD drive last 200 years in use any more than I
would a HDD last 37 years in use. Whether it's alpha migration or physical
parts wear, neither comes out very "real" in MTBF calcs. Grease dries,
irradiation degrades and all that good stuff. I've never seen a single
instance of a product making its MTBF numbers, have you? MTBF is really
only useful (sometimes) as a comparison factor, not real numbers.
Like in the G's tests, you have no idea how the products were dropped if
they don't say so and there are many different ways of speccing how to
calculate (not measure) them.
I used to have to do a lot of MTBF on my designs and I hated it; it felt
like lying to the customers because marketing always hyped it as how long
the product would last, which it definitely is not. You CAN do actual-use
calcs for MTBFs, but it's expensive and time consuming so all most engineers
do is use the means of the various parts within a product. It has its uses,
but not in advertising, marketing or anything for the public, in reality.
Cheers,
Twayne`
Bob I
Actually, HD MTBF numbers are PURE statistics!
BillW50
> Actually, HD MTBF numbers are PURE statistics!
Actually if less than 37 years holds true, I have some HDD that still
have half of their life to go. And they are still working just fine the
last time I checked. ;-)
--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)
BillW50
> From what I've read it'll happen over a relatively short period of time
> compared to mechanicals but you also get some extra time out of it because
> it quits using the bad "sectors" and moves over to other good ones. That
> goes on until there's no space left unless you're watching it. I know of
> some SSD drives in a CT business (UTC) where my son works, where they're
> being used but not on the system drives; so far not a problem anywhere.
> They're surprisingly cheap bought in quantity which tells us, I think, prime
> time isn't too far off. They're using 64 Gig drives right now; really tiny
> in size!
>
> Twayne`
Actually all SSD that I know of uses wear leveling. This increases the
number of writes, but the whole mass storage is written to evenly. Thus
at the end of its life, the whole thing just dies. Too bad they don't
add a counter or something to let you know how far you are in its life
cycle. ;-)
Twayne
Bob I <bir...@yahoo.com> typed:
> Actually, HD MTBF numbers are PURE statistics!
I was trying to remember that very name! lol, thanks!
Twayne`
jamessens
Hi friends on the site there.
This is James.
My Windows XP SP3 is not getting as faster as I want and sometimes it
loses the USB or not recognize the USB device. Other if it finds and
when I try to remove by remove safely the drive then it denies for
that. How does it happen? Give me reply.
Thanks.
--
jamessens
J. P. Gilliver (John)
<Bil...@aol.kom> writes:
[]
>Actually all SSD that I know of uses wear leveling. This increases the
>number of writes, but the whole mass storage is written to evenly. Thus
>at the end of its life, the whole thing just dies. Too bad they don't
>add a counter or something to let you know how far you are in its life
>cycle. ;-)
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **
Britain is still a class-ridden society. As soon as a man opens his mouth, we
can tell in what sort of school he missed his education. (George Mikes, "How to
be Decadent" [1977].)
BillW50
J. P. Gilliver (John) typed on Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:27:08 +0000:
> In message <#it5ojiY...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl>, BillW50
> <Bil...@aol.kom> writes:
>
>> Actually all SSD that I know of uses wear leveling. This increases
>> the number of writes, but the whole mass storage is written to
>> evenly. Thus at the end of its life, the whole thing just dies. Too
>> bad they don't add a counter or something to let you know how far
>> you are in its life cycle. ;-)
>>
> Do they not have the equivalent of SMART?
Actually they do use SMART. Although SMART doesn't have SSD useful
information as a standard yet. Programs like Hard Disk Sentinel does
help in this regard though. As it keeps a running tally on how much is
written to the SSD.
--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2
shawn
I'd be very interested in going SSD as my main drive, but the lifespan is
always what scares me. I want my data to be relatively safe. Being that the
technology is newer than a hard drive is what worries me since I have no
experience with it.
SMART attributes aren't always a good measure of a drive I'm told. Different
programs read differently. I'm monitoring my drives at work and they list
33% health left. I still had a Windows 98 machine running here up until a
few months ago with the original hard drive.
"WMB" <brown.2005@.comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eqAfiODY...@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
BillW50
In news:OJ$hTcYiK...@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl,
shawn typed on Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:34:14 -0500:
> I'd be very interested in going SSD as my main drive, but the
> lifespan is always what scares me. I want my data to be relatively
> safe. Being that the technology is newer than a hard drive is what
> worries me since I have no experience with it.
Hi Shawn! MTBF for SSD is 227 years. While hard drives MTBF is 37 years.
> SMART attributes aren't always a good measure of a drive I'm told.
> Different programs read differently. I'm monitoring my drives at work
> and they list 33% health left. I still had a Windows 98 machine
> running here up until a few months ago with the original hard drive.
Google research showed that SMART is unreliable. I take it as a small
gauge. But not something you should depend on 100%. As 40% of failures
are not detected by SMART.
--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) 1 of 3 - Windows XP SP2