OT? Windows 7: Faster than XP?

[Kernel]

| In | Patok typed:
| > BillW50 wrote:
| >> In | >> Patok typed:
| >>> Kernel wrote:
| >>>> Oh no, not at all. The computer is completely off, and it boots
| >>>> from the full off status.
| >>>> It's truly amazing, boot Win XP in 5 seconds. I'd suggest you
| >>>> Google Asrock Instant
| >>>> Boot, or just click on this url:
| >>>>
| >>>> http://www.asrock.com/feature/InstantBoot/index.asp
| >>> No, it does not boot from off. it resumes from suspend, where it
| >>> was placed after a previous clean boot. *You* read the url again,
| >>> since you didn't get it (apparently).
| >>> And since it is from suspend, one needs to have the computer
| >>> connected to a UPS too, it seems.
| >>
| >> I didn't get that impression when I read that URL. Although perhaps
| >> you are saying it stores a fresh boot and will use that copy to boot
| >> from now on? If so, that is a lot like embedded Windows, Windows
| >> SteadyState, a system sandbox, etc.
| >
| > No, not exactly. From what I understood from that page and comments
| > elsewhere, what it does is:
| >
| > When you turn off / shut down, the installed software (it must be
| > installed) does a shutdown followed by a reboot, and /then/ stores the
| > fresh booted state into either suspend or hibernate. When you come
| > back to the computer next day, it resumes from there. So it is not
| > the same boot copy every time, but the most recent one.
| >
| > And if this is a tower PC (not a laptop with batteries, if I
| > understand), then one needs constant power / UPS to be able to not
| > have lost power and state from suspend. Hibernate OTOH would be OK,
| > it seems.
|
| Oh I see. So it isn't really saving you any time. Just rebooting while
| being unintended and waiting for you to wake it up later. Fascinating
| and clever, but doesn't really offer anybody anything who are happy with
| standby and/or hibernation. Which in my case can last weeks or months at
| a time without a reboot.
|
| --
| Bill
| Asus EeePC 701 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
| Windows 2000 SP4 - OE5.5 - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2

Not even close Bill. The computer is not in hibernation, no UPS is
needed no matter how long the computer is turned off, and it is
completely off, not in suspension or sleep or anything even remotely
similar to those modes. It's off, pure and simple. Unplug the computer,
wait a week, or a month, or whatever, plug it back in and boot in
5 seconds. That's it, plain and simple. It's a lot like some versions
of XP being BIOS locked, simple be hard to explain. Have a good one.
|
|

 

[Patok]

| In | Patok typed:
| > BillW50 wrote:
| >> In | >> Patok typed:
| >>> Kernel wrote:
| >>>> Oh no, not at all. The computer is completely off, and it boots
| >>>> from the full off status.
| >>>> It's truly amazing, boot Win XP in 5 seconds. I'd suggest you
| >>>> Google Asrock Instant
| >>>> Boot, or just click on this url:
| >>>>
| >>>> http://www.asrock.com/feature/InstantBoot/index.asp
| >>> No, it does not boot from off. it resumes from suspend, where it
| >>> was placed after a previous clean boot. *You* read the url again,
| >>> since you didn't get it (apparently).
| >>> And since it is from suspend, one needs to have the computer
| >>> connected to a UPS too, it seems.
| >>
| >> I didn't get that impression when I read that URL. Although perhaps
| >> you are saying it stores a fresh boot and will use that copy to boot
| >> from now on? If so, that is a lot like embedded Windows, Windows
| >> SteadyState, a system sandbox, etc.
| >
| > No, not exactly. From what I understood from that page and comments
| > elsewhere, what it does is:
| >
| > When you turn off / shut down, the installed software (it must be
| > installed) does a shutdown followed by a reboot, and /then/ stores the
| > fresh booted state into either suspend or hibernate. When you come
| > back to the computer next day, it resumes from there. So it is not
| > the same boot copy every time, but the most recent one.
| >
| > And if this is a tower PC (not a laptop with batteries, if I
| > understand), then one needs constant power / UPS to be able to not
| > have lost power and state from suspend. Hibernate OTOH would be OK,
| > it seems.
|
| Oh I see. So it isn't really saving you any time. Just rebooting while
| being unintended and waiting for you to wake it up later. Fascinating
| and clever, but doesn't really offer anybody anything who are happy with
| standby and/or hibernation. Which in my case can last weeks or months at
| a time without a reboot.

Not even close Bill. The computer is not in hibernation, no UPS is
needed no matter how long the computer is turned off, and it is
completely off, not in suspension or sleep or anything even remotely
similar to those modes. It's off, pure and simple. Unplug the computer,
wait a week, or a month, or whatever, plug it back in and boot in
5 seconds. That's it, plain and simple. It's a lot like some versions
of XP being BIOS locked, simple be hard to explain. Have a good one.

It *is* hard to explain, because it is impossible. I'm not calling
you a liar, but what you write just can't happen. Unless there is some
hidden storage on the mobo - static RAM, flash, ssd, whatever, and the
state is saved there. Otherwise, it *is* suspend or hibernate - look at
the diagrams, for f***sake! It even says "hibernate" on one of them (but
maybe you haven't used the slow mode). Have you tried disconnecting the
computer from the mains for a week, and then it boots? Really?

 

[Yousuf Khan]

Per Char Jackson:

When I was shopping mine, I got the impressing that SSDs come in
different flavors - with different reliabilities. I have no clue
as to the specifics.

I went for the Intel, which everybody seemed to agree was the
most reliable.

I'm just sort of right now opening my eyes to the possibility of getting
an SSD, so I haven't really looked at them in any great detail. I wonder
if there is a site that compares SSD's yet?

Yousuf Khan

 

[Yousuf Khan]

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/asrock-4-second-instant-boot-for-windows/3012

Sounds like what Microsoft are going to be doing themselves with Windows
8, they are going to be using variations of hibernate and sleep mode to
speed up shutdown and restart. The Asrock implementation, doesn't work
with Windows that have multiple user accounts or password protection.
I'm guessing that Microsoft's own version will have full support for
multiple user accounts and passwords.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Kernel]

| Kernel wrote:
| > | > | In | > | Patok typed:
| > | > BillW50 wrote:
| > | >> In | > | >> Patok typed:
| > | >>> Kernel wrote:
| > | >>>> Oh no, not at all. The computer is completely off, and it boots
| > | >>>> from the full off status.
| > | >>>> It's truly amazing, boot Win XP in 5 seconds. I'd suggest you
| > | >>>> Google Asrock Instant
| > | >>>> Boot, or just click on this url:
| > | >>>>
| > | >>>> http://www.asrock.com/feature/InstantBoot/index.asp
| > | >>> No, it does not boot from off. it resumes from suspend, where
it
| > | >>> was placed after a previous clean boot. *You* read the url again,
| > | >>> since you didn't get it (apparently).
| > | >>> And since it is from suspend, one needs to have the computer
| > | >>> connected to a UPS too, it seems.
| > | >>
| > | >> I didn't get that impression when I read that URL. Although perhaps
| > | >> you are saying it stores a fresh boot and will use that copy to
boot
| > | >> from now on? If so, that is a lot like embedded Windows, Windows
| > | >> SteadyState, a system sandbox, etc.
| > | >
| > | > No, not exactly. From what I understood from that page and
comments
| > | > elsewhere, what it does is:
| > | >
| > | > When you turn off / shut down, the installed software (it must be
| > | > installed) does a shutdown followed by a reboot, and /then/ stores
the
| > | > fresh booted state into either suspend or hibernate. When you come
| > | > back to the computer next day, it resumes from there. So it is not
| > | > the same boot copy every time, but the most recent one.
| > | >
| > | > And if this is a tower PC (not a laptop with batteries, if I
| > | > understand), then one needs constant power / UPS to be able to not
| > | > have lost power and state from suspend. Hibernate OTOH would be OK,
| > | > it seems.
| > |
| > | Oh I see. So it isn't really saving you any time. Just rebooting while
| > | being unintended and waiting for you to wake it up later. Fascinating
| > | and clever, but doesn't really offer anybody anything who are happy
with
| > | standby and/or hibernation. Which in my case can last weeks or months
at
| > | a time without a reboot.
| >
| > Not even close Bill. The computer is not in hibernation, no UPS is
| > needed no matter how long the computer is turned off, and it is
| > completely off, not in suspension or sleep or anything even remotely
| > similar to those modes. It's off, pure and simple. Unplug the
computer,
| > wait a week, or a month, or whatever, plug it back in and boot in
| > 5 seconds. That's it, plain and simple. It's a lot like some versions
| > of XP being BIOS locked, simple be hard to explain. Have a good one.
|
| It *is* hard to explain, because it is impossible. I'm not calling
| you a liar, but what you write just can't happen. Unless there is some
| hidden storage on the mobo - static RAM, flash, ssd, whatever, and the
| state is saved there. Otherwise, it *is* suspend or hibernate - look at
| the diagrams, for f***sake! It even says "hibernate" on one of them (but
| maybe you haven't used the slow mode). Have you tried disconnecting the
| computer from the mains for a week, and then it boots? Really?
|

I told you it's BIOS locked, what is there about that you don't understand?

 

[Yousuf Khan]

It *is* hard to explain, because it is impossible. I'm not calling you a
liar, but what you write just can't happen. Unless there is some hidden
storage on the mobo - static RAM, flash, ssd, whatever, and the state is
saved there. Otherwise, it *is* suspend or hibernate - look at the
diagrams, for f***sake! It even says "hibernate" on one of them (but
maybe you haven't used the slow mode). Have you tried disconnecting the
computer from the mains for a week, and then it boots? Really?

Currently in Windows 7, there is something called "Hybrid Sleep" mode,
which is basically the combination of Hibernate and Standby in the same
action. When going into sleep, the machine's state is saved to both ram
and to disk. As long as the machine is plugged into the wall outlet and
there's no power failure, then the machine will reawake from ram, in a
few seconds, exactly the same as Standby. If the power does fail or the
machine's power cord is pulled, then the machine will simply reawake
from the saved image on disk, which means it's exactly the same as
Hibernate, but it'll take a few seconds longer since disk is so much
slower than ram. So hibernate simply acts as a backup for standby in
hybrid sleep mode.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Yousuf Khan]

I have read reports of those who had done their homework and claims
there is no payoff doing it that way. I also use RAM instead of a drive
for a page file because it is over 20 times faster.

The point of a paging file is to add additional memory for not having
enough ram in the first place. When you're putting a ramdisk in, then
you're using up even more of your ram that could go to programs.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Patok]

| Kernel wrote:
| >
| > Not even close Bill. The computer is not in hibernation, no UPS is
| > needed no matter how long the computer is turned off, and it is
| > completely off, not in suspension or sleep or anything even remotely
| > similar to those modes. It's off, pure and simple. Unplug the
| > computer,
| > wait a week, or a month, or whatever, plug it back in and boot in
| > 5 seconds. That's it, plain and simple. It's a lot like some versions
| > of XP being BIOS locked, simple be hard to explain. Have a good one.
|
| It *is* hard to explain, because it is impossible. I'm not calling
| you a liar, but what you write just can't happen. Unless there is some
| hidden storage on the mobo - static RAM, flash, ssd, whatever, and the
| state is saved there. Otherwise, it *is* suspend or hibernate - look at
| the diagrams, for f***sake! It even says "hibernate" on one of them (but
| maybe you haven't used the slow mode). Have you tried disconnecting the
| computer from the mains for a week, and then it boots? Really?

I told you it's BIOS locked, what is there about that you don't understand?

You wrote such indeed. Now if you can explain what it means too...
(Hint: it's not what you think. What you wrote makes no sense.
Therefore, it's impossible to understand.)

 

[Char Jackson]

I'm just sort of right now opening my eyes to the possibility of getting
an SSD, so I haven't really looked at them in any great detail. I wonder
if there is a site that compares SSD's yet?

There are lots of sites with reviews and comparisons. I accidentally
ran into this one over the weekend and it seemed interesting.

<http://forums.hexus.net/storage/>

The first thread is a sticky and is all about SSD comparisons.

<http://forums.hexus.net/storage/206818-ssd-reviews-thread.html>

 

[Paul]

The point of a paging file is to add additional memory for not having
enough ram in the first place. When you're putting a ramdisk in, then
you're using up even more of your ram that could go to programs.

Yousuf Khan

Except when the RAMdisk is located in an area of memory, which the
OS itself cannot use for programs. Then, adding the RAMDisk is a win.

On a 32 bit OS, this RAMDisk can use up to 60GB of memory, above the
"4GB barrier". It works, because the RAMDisk can use the entire PAE
space for access, something the memory license prevents, for ordinary
programs. And thus, the 60GB RAMDisk, can serve as a paging file
for the 4GB sized OS, extending the practical number of programs
that can remain open.

http://memory.dataram.com/products-and-services/software/ramdisk

Benchmark, on my crappy DDR2 based computer. Good for paging.
Smooth as glass.

http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/8694/hdtunedataram2gbabove.gif

The first time I tested that RAMDisk, I tried HDTune to run
that benchmark, and WinXP crashed I reported the bug,
and while they didn't acknowledge my email, they did fix the
bug. It survived the HDTune test this time. The program is
free, for up to a 4GB sized RAMDisk (meaning someone with WinXP x32
and 8GB of installed memory, could have a 4GB paging space in the
"normally inaccessible" RAM).

Paul

 

[Paul]

There are lots of sites with reviews and comparisons. I accidentally
ran into this one over the weekend and it seemed interesting.

<http://forums.hexus.net/storage/>

The first thread is a sticky and is all about SSD comparisons.

<http://forums.hexus.net/storage/206818-ssd-reviews-thread.html>

If you get an SSD, increase your backup frequency.
They're just as likely to "drop dead", as to fade away.
Some have had firmware bugs. Other than that, I think
people like them.

And when they release a firmware fix for your SSD, most
of those updates are "destructive". Which is another
time you want that backup, in advance of the happy event.

Paul

 

[Char Jackson]

If you get an SSD, increase your backup frequency.

Backups are always important, but from what I've read so far, SSD's
are at least as reliable, overall, and by some reports much more
reliable, than spinning media.

They're just as likely to "drop dead", as to fade away.

That deserves a bit of clarification. Neither scenario is common. In
fact, both scenarios are extremely rare, according to what I've read.

Some have had firmware bugs. Other than that, I think
people like them.

One type (brand/model line) has had a firmware bug that reduced the
apparent size of the SSD to a very small (relative) value, but that's
just one type. It hasn't been a widespread problem, and a firmware
update is available.

And when they release a firmware fix for your SSD, most
of those updates are "destructive". Which is another
time you want that backup, in advance of the happy event.

I don't think the firmware update is necessarily destructive, but in
at least one case the issue it resolves was destructive, so I agree on
the importance of having a current backup, for this and many other
reasons.

 

[Yousuf Khan]

Except when the RAMdisk is located in an area of memory, which the
OS itself cannot use for programs. Then, adding the RAMDisk is a win.

On a 32 bit OS, this RAMDisk can use up to 60GB of memory, above the
"4GB barrier". It works, because the RAMDisk can use the entire PAE
space for access, something the memory license prevents, for ordinary
programs. And thus, the 60GB RAMDisk, can serve as a paging file
for the 4GB sized OS, extending the practical number of programs
that can remain open.

That's true for 32-bit OS'es, but for those of us with 64-bit OS'es,
we're going to be letting the memory get used up on its own.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Paul]

That's true for 32-bit OS'es, but for those of us with 64-bit OS'es,
we're going to be letting the memory get used up on its own.

Yousuf Khan

Quite true. But we're in the windowsxp group right now,
and x64 WinXP isn't all that popular (it has rough edges).

I've never tried that RAMDisk on Windows 7, and I don't know
if there are additional issues with it or not. Considering how
poor a lot of other RAMDisk software implementations are, it's
actually a pretty impressive effort. For once, a RAMDisk not
based purely on the old Microsoft "sample code". A lot of the
other RAMDisks, you can't make a very big disk.

Paul

 

[BillW50]

In

The point of a paging file is to add additional memory for not having
enough ram in the first place. When you're putting a ramdisk in, then
you're using up even more of your ram that could go to programs.

I never have a problem of not having enough RAM (since around 2006
anyway). The machine that uses a RAMDisk for a swapfile is running
Windows 2000. And while Windows 2000 runs fine with enough RAM and no
swapfile, it complains constantly. And having 2GB of RAM and 1.5GB of it
goes unused all of the time. So why not use it for a swapfile? Yes
exactly!

I turn off swapfiles on my machines that uses SSD. Most and even
Microsoft recommends this. As this reduces the amount of writes to a SSD
since the swapfile gets written to a lot. And my XP machines, I don't
need a RAMDisk for a swapfile. Since XP doesn't complain if I turn it
off. And those machines have 2GB too and I never use all of the 2GB even
without a swapfile. So no problems there either.

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Yousuf Khan:

I'm just sort of right now opening my eyes to the possibility of getting
an SSD, so I haven't really looked at them in any great detail. I wonder
if there is a site that compares SSD's yet?

When I was shopping I found quite a few.

At the time, there were not that many makers and the big
distinction was reliability of different types.

 

[Mayayana]

| >They're just as likely to "drop dead", as to fade away.
|
| That deserves a bit of clarification. Neither scenario is common. In
| fact, both scenarios are extremely rare, according to what I've read.

I think what Paul was getting at is that, while
SSDs may be generally stable, when they go there
will probably be no warning. With hard disks there
often is some warning ahead of time.

 

[Char Jackson]

Now THAT is scary.

I don't see why. Conventional hard drives are mechanical devices, and
just like any other mechanical device in our lives they are subject to
many kinds of failure. The same is true for cars, kitchen appliances,
you name it.

That's why we have backups.

 

[BillW50]

I just don't know how successul SMART is at predicting impending failures.
But I thought you might generally, at least, hear some warning sounds, or
windows might detect some errors as it boots up - or by running chkdsk.

I knew from the get-go that SMART wouldn't predict all drive failures.
But it will warn you for about half of the failures. And yes, about half
will give you warning signs and sounds too. It is nice to get such
warning signs. And you usually don't need SMART to tell you that you are
having a problem in most of those cases though.

Now THAT is scary.

Yes, but it can happen to SSDs, power supplies, CPU, memory, etc. too.

But if you are using a SSD as your boot/system drive, that in itself could
prevent you from even booting up on it, right, since some writes are
necessary then? I guess you would get as far as the BIOS screen, and
that's about it.

Embedded Windows, Windows with the EWF (write filter), BartPE, WinPE,
etc. doesn't need to write anything on the drive. Most people doesn't
have any of these. But putting the SSD in another computer you can read,
copy, archive, clone, or anything else you want to do with it. So no
problems there. Can't do any of this with a dead hard drive though.

So have you generally replaced your main hard drives now with SSDs, then?
I haven't checked the prices yet (especially for the longer reliability
types), but I'm guessing a 250 GB one, or even a 40 GB one, would still be
pretty pricey in comparison to a hard drive. (?)

No I still use hard drives mostly. Although hard drives has one real
weakness that SSDs are so superior. That is hard drives don't hold up or
last well on the go. Meaning in a portable device. Sure they have hard
drives that can survive shocks better and all. But even the best pauses
until the threat is gone. While SSDs just keeps trucking along.

So I use them in any device that I will pick up and move somewhere else.
This is really handy for netbooks for example. As they are so easy to
carry and move around.

There is a youtube video that shows two identical laptops. But one with
a hard drive and one with a SSD. And they showed boot times and the SSD
one was far faster. Then they played a video. But this time they were
mounted on a paint shaker. lol Who would run a laptop on a paint shaker?
Anyway the one with a hard drive would stall playing of the video while
the SSD one played flawlessly. That hard drive had to be toast after
that test. lol

 

[BillW50]

In

I am not sure about the often part in regards with hard drives. Remember
that Google did their own study about hard drive longevity? And they
found that even SMART often reports no problems for almost half of their
failed drives. And I too have had drives that was working perfectly fine
one day and then the next day dead as a doornail.

If you mean that kind of warning, then you may well be right - and
someone like Google with rooms (buildings, I presume, if not small
villages) full of the things, yes. But _in my experience_, across
several drives on systems across several decades, in basically "home"
type use, hard drives more often than not _do_ give advance warning -
erratic operation, funny noises, whatever. I'm not saying they _never_
die suddenly - only that _I_ have only had it happen either once or zero
times, I can't remember. I have no experience with SSDs at all, but
experience with other non-volatile memory devices (mainly USB thumb
drives) _has_ been that they die suddenly without warning (in fact I've
not had _any_ that went "gradually").

(None of which of course means you shouldn't keep backups whatever
technology your "drive"s are!)
[]

As for hard drives, I had both that makes it clear that something is
really wrong and some was working just fine and the next, dead as a
doornail. I dunno, about 40% without warning would be pretty close IMHO.

No SSD experience but having flash drive failure experience counts in my
book. As the interface is different but the memory is the same. Well the
cheap flash drives use the cheapest of all of the cheapest. So they fail
more often. But what happened in your cases?

One guy told me he goes through cheap flash drives like candy. The
shortest was 2 weeks and the longest was like two months. Although he
writes to them all of the time. I don't use mine like this. I don't
think a single one of mine has 1000 writes yet. Nor have a had a flash
drive fail yet. But if the memory can't hold a write (as too many writes
have occurred), it should stay as a read only device. Is that true for you?