XP install/usage requirements

[LVTravel]

Nothing intelligent from you, John? I thought much more from you.

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu

Now that the flaming has died down, I know that XP CAN be installed on a
much smaller partition than what I specified for the OP.

Personally I don't want to carry a small laptop with not enough storage
space inside to do the job I am currently doing. I don't want to have to
carry a portable hard drive to do what the internal drive can't do. I have
a 320 GB HDD inside the laptop that this is being typed on (granted it is a
Vista machine upgraded from XP with 4 GB of RAM which would require a 3-5 GB
virtual drive which really blows the hell out of a 8 GB SSD drive. Some of
my graphic files are larger than 8 GB in size by themselves and the video I
render on this system (in the field away from my desktop systems) are as
large as 10-15 GB. Until SSD gets cheaper and much larger, HDDs are still
the way to go FOR MOST PEOPLE.

While we know that Wikipedia is not the end all of data knowledge this
portion is significant to all the discussion of the SSD wearing out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive

"Flash-memory cells will often wear out after 1,000 to 10,000 write cycles
for MLC, and up to 100,000 write cycles for SLC[9], while high endurance
cells may have an endurance of 1-5 million write cycles (many log files,
file allocation tables, and other commonly used parts of the file system
exceed this over the lifetime of a computer).[24] Special file systems or
firmware designs can mitigate this problem by spreading writes over the
entire device (so-called wear levelling), rather than rewriting files in
place.[25] In 2008 wear levelling was just beginning to be incorporated into
consumer level devices."

 

[BillW50]

In Bill in Co. typed on Wed, 7 Jan 2009 20:57:46 -0700:

You're suggesting that there isn't a limited number of write cycles
for SSDs? That's not what I've read. (I'm not talking about just
leaving the device on, and then it can last up to 228 years).

I am not talking about just leaving them on either. If I wanted to wear one
out, it would take me over 11 years of overwriting the whole SSD 24 times a
day to do so. But most people don't operate in this way. So they are
expected to last 228 years.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=901

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu

 

[BillW50]

In LVTravel typed on Thu, 8 Jan 2009 04:22:55 -0500:

Nothing intelligent from you, John? I thought much more from you.

Now that the flaming has died down, I know that XP CAN be installed
on a much smaller partition than what I specified for the OP.

Personally I don't want to carry a small laptop with not enough
storage space inside to do the job I am currently doing. I don't want
to have to carry a portable hard drive to do what the internal drive
can't do. I have a 320 GB HDD inside the laptop that this is being
typed on (granted it is a Vista machine upgraded from XP with 4 GB of
RAM which would require a 3-5 GB virtual drive which really blows the
hell out of a 8 GB SSD drive. Some of my graphic files are larger
than 8 GB in size by themselves and the video I render on this system
(in the field away from my desktop systems) are as large as 10-15 GB.
Until SSD gets cheaper and much larger, HDDs are still the way to go
FOR MOST PEOPLE.
While we know that Wikipedia is not the end all of data knowledge this
portion is significant to all the discussion of the SSD wearing out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive

"Flash-memory cells will often wear out after 1,000 to 10,000 write
cycles for MLC, and up to 100,000 write cycles for SLC[9], while high
endurance cells may have an endurance of 1-5 million write cycles
(many log files, file allocation tables, and other commonly used
parts of the file system exceed this over the lifetime of a
computer).[24] Special file systems or firmware designs can mitigate
this problem by spreading writes over the entire device (so-called
wear levelling), rather than rewriting files in place.[25] In 2008
wear levelling was just beginning to be incorporated into consumer
level devices."

That is what I mean. You have no idea. As I have two 16GB SD cards and they
are the size of a postage stamp. Each one contains 80 hours worth of videos.
So that is 160 hours worth. And I am doing this with a computer that weighs
less than 2 pounds and using only 10 watts of power.

You claim sounds right for SLC, as this is what I have heard as well.
Although do you know how long 100,000 writes will take? It is expected to
take 228 years for most people. Which is about 7 times longer than your hard
drive is expected to last actually.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=901

As for MLC, I don't know about only 10,000 writes? It could be true, but I
stay away from MLC types anyway. As they have to erase first before they can
write, which slows them down. I don't recommend them for running an OS and
applications at any rate.

I don't know what you are doing with 8GB graphic files? You're definitely
not in the normal user group. As I haven't even heard of serious gamers
using files that large. So what are you doing? Mapping the galaxy? As I
could put 40 hours worth of video in your graphic file.

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu

 

[LVTravel]

In LVTravel typed on Thu, 8 Jan 2009 04:22:55 -0500:

Hi again, All.
I will soon be formatting/reinstalling XP. it's my
understanding that as part of the process, I will be able
to repartition the HDD. My question is,
how much HDD space does XP require for proper running? I
would like to install XP on its own partition so that if
I have to re-reinstall in future,
I can do so w/o having to backup/restore all my data and
programs. Thanks!
Chuck

Chuck, even if you put XP in one partition and your
programs in another, if you reinstall XP you will have to
reinstall all of your programs. The reason is that the
registry is held in the XP partition and almost all
programs install data in the registry. Your idea is good
in that you want to keep your data separate but don't try
it with the programs. Another issue with programs is that
they like to save data more and more where they like to
by default. You need to change your user defaults to the
data drive also (Documents and Settings, Temp file
settings, etc.) If you don't you will find that the
size of the XP drive will continue to grow with orphaned
temp and data files. Depending on the size of your entire
drive I would recommend at least 40 GB minimum (even though
you can get by with less
depending on what programs you have to install and the
amount of hard drive space required for the virtual
memory, 1 1/2 times size of your system memory.) I have
one system that was shipped with a 100 GB drive split
into 20 & 80 GB partitions. Have installed or moved all
data and temps to the larger partition but have also had
to enlarge the OS partition to 40 GB to allow for
installation of programs and still have a little
breathing room.

As an owner of 5 netbooks with small SSD drives... I
disagree with LVTravel. As in my experience, Windows XP
SP2 needs 2.7GB just for itself. Now you need to add pagefile
and
hibernation files. Plus you need room for applications.
This depends on you. If you only need like 12 or so
applications, this is
easy to figure out. Since I use both 4GB and 8GB SSD
netbooks, I can tell you that
4GB is a bit tight for me. Yes it can be done of course,
but 8GB is plenty of room for me. As for data, well that
can be saved and stored on something else.

As for the idea of reinstalling, I suggest making complete
backups on occations. Thus you don't have to reinstall the
OS and all of the applications either.


You don't get it. Hard drives is old technology (almost as
old as 8 inch floppies). And SSD is the future. Stick with
the old if you want too, but some of us are really for the
future. You can join now, or later. The choice is up to you.

If joining now means that we will have to run Windows on tiny
4 or 8GB drives you can rest assured that there will not be
many takers! For almost all users, especially desktop users,
a 4 or even 8GB drive for a Windows XP installation is almost
certainly absurdly too small! I wouldn't bother installing
Windows XP on anything smaller than 15GB.


That is fine John! That just tells us that people like you have
no clue how to do so. That is okay though, only the really
intelligent people know how to do so right now. And if I had to
trust my life on somebody, I would trust somebody who knows how
vs. somebody that doesn't.

Oh please, Bill! Any idiot can install Windows XP on a small
4GB drive, it can be installed on a way smaller drive than that
if you really have no other choice, don't think that we have
never seen Eee PCs! On a desktop installing Windows XP on
such a small drive will make it next to impossible to properly
service the installation, it will be a constant battle to try
to keep the installation within bounds. Any idiot can install
Windows XP on a 4GB drive but unless a person has no other
choice and if there is more available drive space than 4GB only
an idiot would chose to install on such a small drive!


Really John? No only intelligent people can keep a Windows XP
install with updates on a 4GB system and do what others are doing
with lots more. The dummies of course can't do so. Thus if you
hear of somebody who can, you know they are smarter than you.

Suit yourself, Bill. Windows XP can be installed on as little as
a 1.5GB drive if that is what you want. Being "able" or "needing"
to do it and wanting to do it are different things. I don't know
anyone in their *right* mind who would want to bother with this
kind of a setup if they can at all avoid it, but do as you please.


That is okay John! If I had a class of very smart people, this
would be a test. I understand that many would fail, but that is
okay. Because not everybody can be smart.

Obviously, you're the perfect example of that.

Nothing intelligent from you, John? I thought much more from you.

Now that the flaming has died down, I know that XP CAN be installed
on a much smaller partition than what I specified for the OP.

Personally I don't want to carry a small laptop with not enough
storage space inside to do the job I am currently doing. I don't want
to have to carry a portable hard drive to do what the internal drive
can't do. I have a 320 GB HDD inside the laptop that this is being
typed on (granted it is a Vista machine upgraded from XP with 4 GB of
RAM which would require a 3-5 GB virtual drive which really blows the
hell out of a 8 GB SSD drive. Some of my graphic files are larger
than 8 GB in size by themselves and the video I render on this system
(in the field away from my desktop systems) are as large as 10-15 GB.
Until SSD gets cheaper and much larger, HDDs are still the way to go
FOR MOST PEOPLE.
While we know that Wikipedia is not the end all of data knowledge this
portion is significant to all the discussion of the SSD wearing out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive

"Flash-memory cells will often wear out after 1,000 to 10,000 write
cycles for MLC, and up to 100,000 write cycles for SLC[9], while high
endurance cells may have an endurance of 1-5 million write cycles
(many log files, file allocation tables, and other commonly used
parts of the file system exceed this over the lifetime of a
computer).[24] Special file systems or firmware designs can mitigate
this problem by spreading writes over the entire device (so-called
wear levelling), rather than rewriting files in place.[25] In 2008
wear levelling was just beginning to be incorporated into consumer
level devices."

That is what I mean. You have no idea. As I have two 16GB SD cards and
they are the size of a postage stamp. Each one contains 80 hours worth of
videos. So that is 160 hours worth. And I am doing this with a computer
that weighs less than 2 pounds and using only 10 watts of power.

You claim sounds right for SLC, as this is what I have heard as well.
Although do you know how long 100,000 writes will take? It is expected to
take 228 years for most people. Which is about 7 times longer than your
hard drive is expected to last actually.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=901

As for MLC, I don't know about only 10,000 writes? It could be true, but I
stay away from MLC types anyway. As they have to erase first before they
can write, which slows them down. I don't recommend them for running an OS
and applications at any rate.

I don't know what you are doing with 8GB graphic files? You're definitely
not in the normal user group. As I haven't even heard of serious gamers
using files that large. So what are you doing? Mapping the galaxy? As I
could put 40 hours worth of video in your graphic file.

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu

I am converting hours of raw uncompressed video from cameras into movies
that run from 15 minutes to three hours. As I said, video that is of high
quality uncompressed will take more storage space than super compressed .wmv
or divx or MPG4 video. I don't compress until I have the final product
being written to DVD. That way I have the cleanest video for my clients.
When I convert to HD video, the file sizes will be larger yet.

Same with the still pictures that are taken. Even though they are .jpg from
the camera the file sizes are 2-5 MB each. I then convert them to a
uncompressed file format to ensure that I don't have any image loss in
subsequent editing of the photos. When you take 150-300 pictures that also
fills up hard drive space quickly also.

Who said anything about gaming. There are other uses for computers than
gaming. I don't have time for gaming and haven't played a computer game in
at least the last 10 years (since I put to rest my old Kaypro 16 bit
processor system.)

I would also like to know what file format those 80 hours of video are in
that is held in 16 GB of data space.

 

[BillW50]

In LVTravel typed on Thu, 8 Jan 2009 13:20:55 -0500:

In LVTravel typed on Thu, 8 Jan 2009 04:22:55 -0500:

Hi again, All.
I will soon be formatting/reinstalling XP. it's my
understanding that as part of the process, I will be
able to repartition the HDD. My question is,
how much HDD space does XP require for proper running?
I would like to install XP on its own partition so
that if I have to re-reinstall in future,
I can do so w/o having to backup/restore all my data
and programs. Thanks!
Chuck

Chuck, even if you put XP in one partition and your
programs in another, if you reinstall XP you will have
to reinstall all of your programs. The reason is that
the registry is held in the XP partition and almost all
programs install data in the registry. Your idea is good
in that you want to keep your data separate but don't
try it with the programs. Another issue with programs
is that they like to save data more and more where they
like to by default. You need to change your user
defaults to
the data drive also (Documents and Settings, Temp file
settings, etc.) If you don't you will find that the
size of the XP drive will continue to grow with orphaned
temp and data files. Depending on the size of your
entire drive I would recommend at least 40 GB minimum
(even though you can get by with less
depending on what programs you have to install and the
amount of hard drive space required for the virtual
memory, 1 1/2 times size of your system memory.) I have
one system that was shipped with a 100 GB drive split
into 20 & 80 GB partitions. Have installed or moved all
data and temps to the larger partition but have also had
to enlarge the OS partition to 40 GB to allow for
installation of programs and still have a little
breathing room.

As an owner of 5 netbooks with small SSD drives... I
disagree with LVTravel. As in my experience, Windows XP
SP2 needs 2.7GB just for itself. Now you need to add
pagefile and
hibernation files. Plus you need room for applications.
This depends on you. If you only need like 12 or so
applications, this is
easy to figure out. Since I use both 4GB and 8GB SSD
netbooks, I can tell you that
4GB is a bit tight for me. Yes it can be done of course,
but 8GB is plenty of room for me. As for data, well that
can be saved and stored on something else.

As for the idea of reinstalling, I suggest making
complete backups on occations. Thus you don't have to
reinstall the OS and all of the applications either.


You don't get it. Hard drives is old technology (almost as
old as 8 inch floppies). And SSD is the future. Stick with
the old if you want too, but some of us are really for the
future. You can join now, or later. The choice is up to
you.

If joining now means that we will have to run Windows on
tiny 4 or 8GB drives you can rest assured that there will
not be many takers! For almost all users, especially
desktop users, a 4 or even 8GB drive for a Windows XP
installation is almost certainly absurdly too small! I
wouldn't bother installing Windows XP on anything smaller
than 15GB.


That is fine John! That just tells us that people like you
have no clue how to do so. That is okay though, only the
really intelligent people know how to do so right now. And
if I had to trust my life on somebody, I would trust
somebody who knows how vs. somebody that doesn't.

Oh please, Bill! Any idiot can install Windows XP on a small
4GB drive, it can be installed on a way smaller drive than
that if you really have no other choice, don't think that we
have never seen Eee PCs! On a desktop installing Windows XP
on such a small drive will make it next to impossible to
properly service the installation, it will be a constant
battle to try to keep the installation within bounds. Any
idiot can install Windows XP on a 4GB drive but unless a
person has no other choice and if there is more available
drive space than 4GB only an idiot would chose to install on
such a small drive!


Really John? No only intelligent people can keep a Windows XP
install with updates on a 4GB system and do what others are
doing with lots more. The dummies of course can't do so. Thus
if you hear of somebody who can, you know they are smarter
than you.

Suit yourself, Bill. Windows XP can be installed on as little
as a 1.5GB drive if that is what you want. Being "able" or
"needing" to do it and wanting to do it are different things. I
don't know anyone in their *right* mind who would want to
bother with this kind of a setup if they can at all avoid it,
but do as you please.


That is okay John! If I had a class of very smart people, this
would be a test. I understand that many would fail, but that is
okay. Because not everybody can be smart.

Obviously, you're the perfect example of that.

Nothing intelligent from you, John? I thought much more from you.

Now that the flaming has died down, I know that XP CAN be installed
on a much smaller partition than what I specified for the OP.

Personally I don't want to carry a small laptop with not enough
storage space inside to do the job I am currently doing. I don't
want to have to carry a portable hard drive to do what the internal
drive can't do. I have a 320 GB HDD inside the laptop that this is
being typed on (granted it is a Vista machine upgraded from XP with
4 GB of RAM which would require a 3-5 GB virtual drive which really
blows the hell out of a 8 GB SSD drive. Some of my graphic files
are larger than 8 GB in size by themselves and the video I render
on this system (in the field away from my desktop systems) are as
large as 10-15 GB. Until SSD gets cheaper and much larger, HDDs are
still the way to go FOR MOST PEOPLE.
While we know that Wikipedia is not the end all of data knowledge
this portion is significant to all the discussion of the SSD
wearing out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-state_drive

"Flash-memory cells will often wear out after 1,000 to 10,000 write
cycles for MLC, and up to 100,000 write cycles for SLC[9], while
high endurance cells may have an endurance of 1-5 million write
cycles (many log files, file allocation tables, and other commonly
used parts of the file system exceed this over the lifetime of a
computer).[24] Special file systems or firmware designs can mitigate
this problem by spreading writes over the entire device (so-called
wear levelling), rather than rewriting files in place.[25] In 2008
wear levelling was just beginning to be incorporated into consumer
level devices."

That is what I mean. You have no idea. As I have two 16GB SD cards
and they are the size of a postage stamp. Each one contains 80 hours
worth of videos. So that is 160 hours worth. And I am doing this
with a computer that weighs less than 2 pounds and using only 10
watts of power. You claim sounds right for SLC, as this is what I
have heard as well.
Although do you know how long 100,000 writes will take? It is
expected to take 228 years for most people. Which is about 7 times
longer than your hard drive is expected to last actually.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=901

As for MLC, I don't know about only 10,000 writes? It could be true,
but I stay away from MLC types anyway. As they have to erase first
before they can write, which slows them down. I don't recommend them
for running an OS and applications at any rate.

I don't know what you are doing with 8GB graphic files? You're
definitely not in the normal user group. As I haven't even heard of
serious gamers using files that large. So what are you doing?
Mapping the galaxy? As I could put 40 hours worth of video in your
graphic file. Bill

I am converting hours of raw uncompressed video from cameras into
movies that run from 15 minutes to three hours. As I said, video
that is of high quality uncompressed will take more storage space
than super compressed .wmv or divx or MPG4 video. I don't compress
until I have the final product being written to DVD. That way I have
the cleanest video for my clients. When I convert to HD video, the
file sizes will be larger yet.
Same with the still pictures that are taken. Even though they are
.jpg from the camera the file sizes are 2-5 MB each. I then convert
them to a uncompressed file format to ensure that I don't have any
image loss in subsequent editing of the photos. When you take
150-300 pictures that also fills up hard drive space quickly also.

Who said anything about gaming. There are other uses for computers
than gaming. I don't have time for gaming and haven't played a
computer game in at least the last 10 years (since I put to rest my
old Kaypro 16 bit processor system.)

I would also like to know what file format those 80 hours of video
are in that is held in 16 GB of data space.

Well that is very unusual use of a computer and I don't believe you fall
in the majority category. I only mentioned gaming as this technology is
pushed for the gamers who always wants more power. Which makes slightly
older technology cheaper for the rest of us.

As for my compressed video format, I use either WMV or FLV. And if seen
on a large screen, it isn't so good. But on smaller screens like
netbooks, it looks pretty good.

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu

 

[Ardent]

I have one system that was
shipped with a 100 GB drive split into 20 & 80 GB partitions. Have
installed or moved all data and temps to the larger partition but have also
had to enlarge the OS partition to 40 GB to allow for installation of
programs and still have a little breathing room.

My XP partition is just 6gb and all data is saved on another
partition.

I cleanup crap weekly and have plenty of space in the XP partition.

And I have never used pagefile right from the Win98 days with no
deterioration in performance - editing video and audio files.

Hope this helps

 

[Ardent]

1. It's a lot of work to back up your data, reinstall Windows, reload
all your drivers, restore your data, reload all your programs,
reconfigure Windows and all your programs the way you like to have
them, etc.

I do not do it that way at all. Install Windows, tweak it as best as
possible and create an image. No need to save data as all data are on
another partition (being saved to CD periodically).

Whenever occasion arises for reinstall I just use the saved image and
have the new XP install in two or three minutes.

The programs I normally use are conveniently store in a folder in
another partition/CD and in a matter of 10 minutes all the programs
are installed and I just have to copy the saved links that point to
the data in the other partitions.

Easy does it

Hope this helps

 

[John John (MVP)]

And I have never used pagefile right from the Win98 days with no
deterioration in performance - editing video and audio files.

Tell us, other than saving disk space, what are the benefits of running
without a pagefile?

John

 

[BillW50]

In John John (MVP) typed on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:03:17 -0400:

Tell us, other than saving disk space, what are the benefits of
running without a pagefile?

Hi John! Some machines I use a pagefile and some I don't. I started not
to since using SSD instead of hard drives. As too much writing to a SSD
slows them down and shortens their lifespan.

And I have noticed no difference at all if you have enough RAM. Although
Windows isn't even using the pagefile even if you have it turned on in
this case, so it really doesn't matter. I have noticed 1GB or more
though is the trip point for me.

Having not enough memory (RAM), what happens without a pagefile is you
will see delays (pauses) in the OS and applications. And it will get
worse if you don't start closing down applications you are not using or
simply rebooting. If you ignore the freezing, Windows will suddenly just
stop. And you will barely have a chance to even shutdown if it will even
allow you to do this.

But the whole purpose of VM (aka pagefile) is to use the mass storage
device as more physical RAM anyway. And if you have enough, you actually
don't need it at all. As I never had seen a single problem yet.

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu

 

[John John (MVP)]

In John John (MVP) typed on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 12:03:17 -0400:



Hi John! Some machines I use a pagefile and some I don't. I started not
to since using SSD instead of hard drives. As too much writing to a SSD
slows them down and shortens their lifespan.

A few days ago you told us that your SSD drives had a very long life
expectancy. Do you intend on living longer than 228 years?

And I have noticed no difference at all if you have enough RAM. Although
Windows isn't even using the pagefile even if you have it turned on in
this case, so it really doesn't matter. I have noticed 1GB or more
though is the trip point for me.

Having not enough memory (RAM), what happens without a pagefile is you
will see delays (pauses) in the OS and applications. And it will get
worse if you don't start closing down applications you are not using or
simply rebooting. If you ignore the freezing, Windows will suddenly just
stop. And you will barely have a chance to even shutdown if it will even
allow you to do this.

But the whole purpose of VM (aka pagefile) is to use the mass storage
device as more physical RAM anyway. And if you have enough, you actually
don't need it at all. As I never had seen a single problem yet.

You don't really understand how process address space works.

John

 

[BillW50]

In John John (MVP) typed on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:37:28 -0400:

A few days ago you told us that your SSD drives had a very long life
expectancy. Do you intend on living longer than 228 years?

Yes true and since I limit my writing to the SSD to about 100MB per day,
my 8GB SSD should last over 22,000 years. But writing a lot unnecessary
can reduce one to a short 11 years.

But even so, SSD can read as fast as most hard drives, they are much
slower at writing than most hard drives are. So even if you are not
worried about the lifespan (and I was in the beginning until I figured
out how long it would take), reducing unnecessary writes speeds up
performance on SSD.

You don't really understand how process address space works.

Sure I do John, very well. Back before ramdrives and VM, we used to
write software that used overlays to swap parts of an application in and
out of memory. Back in those days, ram was very expensive. Nowadays it
is cheaper than ever and most people could afford 2GB or more of ram.
Thus the days of not being able to afford enough ram and having to use
software tricks to make up for the lack of it are being numbered.

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu

 

[Terry R.]

The date and time was Friday, January 09, 2009 10:37:28 AM, and on a
whim, John John (MVP) pounded out on the keyboard:

A few days ago you told us that your SSD drives had a very long life
expectancy. Do you intend on living longer than 228 years?



You don't really understand how process address space works.

John

Hi John,

I don't think someone needs to know how it works in order to test it out
in real workday situations. I ran Windows for years without a pagefile,
and it clearly ran MUCH faster, as long as the programs I ran didn't
require more RAM than was installed. I use pagefiles now as my computer
usage changed and I run three hard drives; OS's on one drive and paging
files on the other two.


--
Terry R.

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

 

[BillW50]

In Richie Hardwick typed on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 13:43:52 -0600:

Given the read/write/life span/cost issues, I can see no good reason
to even THINK about moving towards SSD technology at this point.

Hi Richie! Well that is you. And you probably think you need as much GB
as your hard drive is, or close. Well this isn't so at all for most of
us. Plus 8GB SLC SSD are the same price as say 2.5 inch 160GB hard
drives. So the price is competitive.

Plus the big plus for SSD is the durability. As while laptops with hard
drives are said to be portable. You shouldn't move them too much while
they are on do to head crashes. Which will ruin one in no time flat.

This isn't so with SSD. As you can accidentally drop them, bang them,
hand them to somebody else (like they do on Star Trek), etc. without
worries. Very useful for true portability IMHO. Much like the
portability of PDA, but with the power of a laptop.

As for the space issue of smaller GB in SSD... well I thought this would
be an issue too. And I do find it so on my 4GB SSD machines. As they are
a bit tight for my tastes. But 8GB is plenty of space for the OS and
applications for Windows XP.

Data is another issue. For most people, you don't need data to be on a
speedy mass storage device. And I have found tiny 16GB SD cards to be
the answer there. You could carry like 100 of these things just to equal
the size of one 2.5 inch hard drive. Need more space? You could plug in
an USB hard drive, but you have to be careful about bumping it like you
do with other hard drive devices. But I rarely need that much storage
anyway and most of the time (over 99.99%) I don't.

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu

 

[BillW50]

In Terry R. typed on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 11:57:11 -0800:

The date and time was Friday, January 09, 2009 10:37:28 AM, and on a
whim, John John (MVP) pounded out on the keyboard:


Hi John,

I don't think someone needs to know how it works in order to test it
out in real workday situations. I ran Windows for years without a
pagefile, and it clearly ran MUCH faster, as long as the programs I
ran didn't require more RAM than was installed. I use pagefiles now
as my computer usage changed and I run three hard drives; OS's on one
drive and paging files on the other two.

Hi Terry! While I completely agree with you that you don't need to
understand the inner workings to know what the end results are. But what
John fails to understand that I am also a retired electronic engineer.
Now if he wants to claim I don't know how the process address space
works. I beg to differ. As I am sure I know far better than he does
about this subject just by his reply. And if he actually knew what he
was talking about, he wouldn't have made that claim in the first place.

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu

 

[Bill in Co.]

In John John (MVP) typed on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 14:37:28 -0400:

Yes true and since I limit my writing to the SSD to about 100MB per day,
my 8GB SSD should last over 22,000 years. But writing a lot unnecessary
can reduce one to a short 11 years.

But the point I made before (given a typical SSD 100,000 maximum disk
writing cycles, and with most of those going on continously behind the
scenes by the operating system) comes out to about 3 years, not 11 years.

 

[BillW50]

In Bill in Co. typed on Fri, 9 Jan 2009 14:48:01 -0700:

But the point I made before (given a typical SSD 100,000 maximum disk
writing cycles, and with most of those going on continously behind the
scenes by the operating system) comes out to about 3 years, not 11
years.

How do you figure Bill? I figured that you have to rewrite the whole SSD
24 times a day and it would only last 11 years. I am not including wear
leveling which I guess could make it ½ as bad (but doesn't matter with
whole SSD writes anyway). But with me on the computer all day browsing,
email, and newgrouping I only average about 100MB writes a day. I know
this because I buffer all writes to RAM with MS EWF before commiting.
That would take like 22,000 years to wear out one of my 8GB SSD @
100,000 complete writes. Or the worst case with wear leveling acting
with every write (which is very unlikely), 11,000 years.

One manufacture figured out that that the average SSD will last 228
years. Obviously they plan on more writing than I am doing. I do turn
off the pagefile as this greatly decreases my writes and improves
performance. Although I must have enough RAM to make this possible.

There are times that I do write a lot like converting video files which
can be GB worth. Here I throw on an USB hard drive (or network to one)
for these big writes. But I don't do this a lot and it isn't a big deal
to do so.

So while you believe you can wear out a SSD in 3 years, I seriously
doubt that unless you used all of your time to actually try too. Then
and only then, maybe. But most users I don't believe they can wear one
out in 100 years using it normally.

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu

 

[John John (MVP)]

In Terry R. typed on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 11:57:11 -0800:



Hi Terry! While I completely agree with you that you don't need to
understand the inner workings to know what the end results are. But what
John fails to understand that I am also a retired electronic engineer.
Now if he wants to claim I don't know how the process address space
works. I beg to differ. As I am sure I know far better than he does
about this subject just by his reply. And if he actually knew what he
was talking about, he wouldn't have made that claim in the first place.

You fail to realize that without a pagefile all the Virtual Address
Space for processes is mapped to the RAM instead of the pagefile and
that even if the committed RAM is not really needed or actually even
used it will not be available to other processes. It isn't uncommon for
applications to demand much more address space than what they really
need, by mapping these superfluous unneeded demands to the pagefile
rather than the RAM other processes will have accesss to the RAM for
productive use instead of having it being used up for nothing else but
unused address space! Each 32-bit process has access to a 4GB address
space, (but on 32-bit Windows it can only use 2GB, or 3GB with the /3G
switch), without a pagefile when processes run out of available address
space things will come to a screeching halt, heaven forbid that you
should ever have to deal with a leaky application or driver! Running
without a pagefile is akin to having all the processes run on memory
mapped files, except that without the pagefile they can share none of
the memory areas!

Can Windows run without a pagefile? Yes, of course it can, many do run
without a pagefile! Is this a good idea? For most users no! With
large amounts of RAM it sounds like a good idea but in reality on 32-bit
Windows this is usually just another one of those bad "tweaks" given by
well intended persons who unfortunately give the advice based on bad
sources of information. If your operating system has more than enough
RAM available then it won't use the pagefile for much of anything other
than virtual address commitment and the RAM will be available for oher
more useful purposes.

John

 

[Bill in Co.]

In Bill in Co. typed on Fri, 9 Jan 2009 14:48:01 -0700:

How do you figure Bill? I figured that you have to rewrite the whole SSD
24 times a day and it would only last 11 years. I am not including wear
leveling which I guess could make it ½ as bad (but doesn't matter with
whole SSD writes anyway). But with me on the computer all day browsing,
email, and newgrouping I only average about 100MB writes a day. I know
this because I buffer all writes to RAM with MS EWF before commiting.
That would take like 22,000 years to wear out one of my 8GB SSD @
100,000 complete writes. Or the worst case with wear leveling acting
with every write (which is very unlikely), 11,000 years.

It's not the actual number of MB (megabytes) written a day to the HD that's
spec'd. It's the number of actual disk writes to the HD that counts (not
the file sizes in MB, (IIRC). And I don't think it has to be rewriting the
whole SSD for that figure of 100,000 maximum writes, but I don't recall all
the details.

So, if we assume there are nominally say 100 writing cycles to the HD each
day, with many going on behind the scenes (this may be a low number), then
given the 100,000 maximum write spec of a SSD, we get: 100,000 / 100 per
day = 1000 days, or 3 years, more or less.

One manufacture figured out that that the average SSD will last 228
years.

But as I mentioned in a previous post, that may be just sitting there, not
taking into account the actual number of disk writes going on in RL.

Obviously they plan on more writing than I am doing.

I just don't know that for a fact. Who knows. But if you look at my
calculations above, obviously something is wrong somewhere in some
assumptions.

 

[BillW50]

In John John (MVP) typed on Fri, 09 Jan 2009 19:18:00 -0400:

You fail to realize that without a pagefile all the Virtual Address
Space for processes is mapped to the RAM instead of the pagefile and
that even if the committed RAM is not really needed or actually even
used it will not be available to other processes.

No I understand this. Thus why I add you need more RAM. Or in this case,
enough RAM.

It isn't uncommon
for applications to demand much more address space than what they
really need, by mapping these superfluous unneeded demands to the
pagefile rather than the RAM other processes will have accesss to the
RAM for productive use instead of having it being used up for nothing
else but unused address space! Each 32-bit process has access to a
4GB address space, (but on 32-bit Windows it can only use 2GB, or 3GB
with the /3G switch), without a pagefile when processes run out of
available address space things will come to a screeching halt, heaven
forbid that you should ever have to deal with a leaky application or
driver! Running without a pagefile is akin to having all the
processes run on memory mapped files, except that without the
pagefile they can share none of the memory areas!

Yes I know. And Firefox is a big memory leaker and I rarely use it for
this reason. But all of the other applications I use, they are well
behaved if I have 1GB or more.

Can Windows run without a pagefile? Yes, of course it can, many do
run without a pagefile! Is this a good idea? For most users no! With
large amounts of RAM it sounds like a good idea but in reality
on 32-bit Windows this is usually just another one of those bad
"tweaks" given by well intended persons who unfortunately give the
advice based on bad sources of information. If your operating system
has more than enough RAM available then it won't use the pagefile for
much of anything other than virtual address commitment and the RAM
will be available for oher more useful purposes.

Well we fall back on what Terry has said. Those with experience with and
without a pagefile is the best people to ask. I also have many computers
here and I experiment a lot. Thus if I make a big mistake
experiementing, it is no big deal. As I have other computers here to
continue on with my work.

The only problem I have ever seen without a pagefile and you not having
enough RAM is that the OS and some applications will start pausing
breifly. This isn't good for performance and turning on the pagefile
this goes away. If you push it further the whole system can lock up.
Although if I have enough RAM, I never see this problem at all. Nor do I
see any performance difference if I do turn it on.

I dunno John... if you see pauses that shouldn't be there, turn on the
pagefile and if it goes away you are fine. But if you toggle the
pagefile on and off and can't see any difference. Then you obviously
don't need it, now do you?

I check the amount of ram being used with the Task Manager. If I have
hundreds of MB available, turning on the pagefile isn't going to help at
all. I don't know what the magic number is, but somewhere about 150MB
free seems like the trip point to me.

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu

 

[BillW50]

In Bill in Co. typed on Fri, 9 Jan 2009 16:24:25 -0700:

It's not the actual number of MB (megabytes) written a day to the HD
that's spec'd. It's the number of actual disk writes to the HD that
counts (not the file sizes in MB, (IIRC). And I don't think it has
to be rewriting the whole SSD for that figure of 100,000 maximum
writes, but I don't recall all the details.

So, if we assume there are nominally say 100 writing cycles to the HD
each day, with many going on behind the scenes (this may be a low
number), then given the 100,000 maximum write spec of a SSD, we get:
100,000 / 100 per day = 1000 days, or 3 years, more or less.

No it doesn't work that way. As one small area can be written 100,000
times. Then the next small area can be written 100,000 times and so on.
So the SSD itself can be written zillions of times. Every area has to be
written 100,000 times. The worst case is writing everything in one pass.
This would take 11 years writing 24 times a day. Which is normally
impossible unless you are trying to do so.

But as I mentioned in a previous post, that may be just sitting
there, not taking into account the actual number of disk writes going
on in RL.

No the number of writes only effect a very small part of the SSD. Only
if you write to the whole SSD every time it would be only 100,000
writes. But who overwrites the whole SSD 24 times a day? Writing smaller
blocks, writing becomes many times more than 100,000 times. We are
talking about billions or more writes.

I just don't know that for a fact. Who knows. But if you look at
my calculations above, obviously something is wrong somewhere in some
assumptions.

<snipped for brevity>

Not really! The 100,000 writes means every small segment has to be
written that many times. If you are only writing 100MB per day with a
8GB SSD, that won't happen for like 22,000 years.

I didn't mention wear leveling. As this makes sure that one area isn't
written too much more than the other areas. Kind of like defrag except
to equal out all of the writes evenly. And the worst case is it has to
move everything during every write (which is like impossible, but let's
just say it has too). Then my 22,000 year example would only last 11,000
years. The truth is that it would last somewhere between 11,000 to
22,000 years.

--
Bill
2 Gateway MX6124 - Windows XP SP2
3 Asus EEE PC 701G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
2 Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 1GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2 ~ Xandros Linux - Puppy - Ubuntu