I have it installed. It would get destroyed by the time a good time came if
it wasn't. A while it's overkill for capacity I have installed for the
interleaving. Think it may make the odd memory access a picosecond or two
quicker.
But 2 GB is not needed except to make superfetch really annoy me with disk
chatter because I wait for it to finish before I use the computer.
I've been up for two and a half days (the safety switch blew the other
morning) and have a disk cache of 1.3 GB. I have 1.2 GB of swap file being
used. I'd imagine that is speculatively paged out stuff, and unused stuff,
and if measuring the same as previous versions - the code segments from
open executables.
But I've been starting and exiting from total war game (it hangs on the
second next New Game command if focus has switched to another app. Go figure
the "second next" part. Anywar I exit then restart the game. And the USB
drive goes spastic for a while (my USB stick has a flashing access LED) on
exit and startup. I'm not at all sure it makes thing quicker though it did
shave 100s of msec off some driver initialisations during startup. One day
I'll pull it out.
My 2.4 GHZ dual core is the slowest (according to the WEI) part of my
system. 5.9 for both graphics (with free blue screen and user mode crashes)
and hard drive, 5.4 memory, and 5.3 processor.
In my experiences with older windows with far smaller caches a fast hard
drive is the most efficient thing that can make a difference. The reason is
latency. Hard drives impose latency on nearly everything whereas adaquate
memory only sometimes impose latency. Plus a fast hard drive speeds up
virtual memory anyway. I bought a 10,000 RPM hard drive.
