B
Bert
Is there a certain size or speed that my flash drive needs to be to take
advantage of ReadyBoost?
advantage of ReadyBoost?
J
Just.some.guy
I thought a flash drive was storage? If it isn't, then what is it? If it is,
then what does *that* have to do with ram? I thought ram was memory?
then what does *that* have to do with ram? I thought ram was memory?
C
Charlie42
Bert said:
ReadyBoost requires a minimum 256MB of storage, and 2.5MB/sec read and
1.75MB/sec write throughput. Most manufacturers put some kind of ReadyBoost
logo on RB-capable devices.
Charlie42
D
DutchJohn
Bert said:
As far as I found out, ReadyBoost is used partially to replace your swapfile,
and partially the I-O buffer. It only works if you use the fastes type of flas
(i.e. a USB stick), and at least the size of your RAM. Nevertheless it's not
sure if you ever will experience the boost.
Succes.
(sorry for the quality of my English, I am Dutch.)
J
Just.some.guy
Hey thanks. It's true...you *do* learn something new everyday
A
AJR
Once again - ReadyBoost is not an adjunct ro RAM. It works in concert with
"Superfetch", Vista's replacement for XP's "Prefetch". No matter how much
RAM is installed, Windows will always use "virtual emeory". ReadyBoost
performance depends on the type of HD read/writes - non-sequentail
read/writes are sent to the ReadyBoost device - sequential to the HD.
Subsequently ReadyBoost performance is greatly dependent on the
"specifications" (read/write, rotational speed) of the installed HD - and is
why one device may be checked as ok on one computer but not another. If the
HD expereince rating of the HD is "4" or higher (5.9) ReadyBoost is unlikely
to be utilized. Because of low performing HDs on laptops, ReadyBoost is an
excellent candidate.
"Superfetch", Vista's replacement for XP's "Prefetch". No matter how much
RAM is installed, Windows will always use "virtual emeory". ReadyBoost
performance depends on the type of HD read/writes - non-sequentail
read/writes are sent to the ReadyBoost device - sequential to the HD.
Subsequently ReadyBoost performance is greatly dependent on the
"specifications" (read/write, rotational speed) of the installed HD - and is
why one device may be checked as ok on one computer but not another. If the
HD expereince rating of the HD is "4" or higher (5.9) ReadyBoost is unlikely
to be utilized. Because of low performing HDs on laptops, ReadyBoost is an
excellent candidate.
K
Ken Blake, MVP
I recommend *against* using ReadyBoost.
If you have 2GB or more of RAM, the little it might do for you is so
slight as to be almost unnoticeable.
And if you have less than 2GB of RAM, you would do much better to
spend your money on upgrading your RAM to 2GB than on buying a card
for ReadyBoost use.
F
flaming-o
I have yet to see any objective study that shows Readyboost does anything
beneficial and under some circumstances can slow your computer.
Having now seen Vista on a variety of processors and memory configurations
my biased opinion is that if you want to run Vista smoothly you need an
Intel Dual or Quad Core because of the onboard cache. The memory on the CPU
can make a bigger difference than going even from 1gb to 2gb of system RAM.
I have not seen the new AMD Phenoms but they have considerably less cache
than comparable Intel processors.
It is also my biased opinion that Intel chipset drivers are better tuned for
Vista than their Nvidia counterparts. This would make sense as Intel and
Microsoft are really two heads of the same beast.
My final biased opinion is: so what.
I use both Vista and XP. I honestly cannot see any rational reason for a
user with a stable XP configuration, which is essentially everyone who runs
XP, to change to Vista, unless their idea of enhanced security is an idiot
UAC warning box that tells you nothing, does nothing and slows Vista even
further. Unfortunately for Microsoft and Vista, depending on your
peripherals and essential program needs, Vista may be a total no go.
beneficial and under some circumstances can slow your computer.
Having now seen Vista on a variety of processors and memory configurations
my biased opinion is that if you want to run Vista smoothly you need an
Intel Dual or Quad Core because of the onboard cache. The memory on the CPU
can make a bigger difference than going even from 1gb to 2gb of system RAM.
I have not seen the new AMD Phenoms but they have considerably less cache
than comparable Intel processors.
It is also my biased opinion that Intel chipset drivers are better tuned for
Vista than their Nvidia counterparts. This would make sense as Intel and
Microsoft are really two heads of the same beast.
My final biased opinion is: so what.
I use both Vista and XP. I honestly cannot see any rational reason for a
user with a stable XP configuration, which is essentially everyone who runs
XP, to change to Vista, unless their idea of enhanced security is an idiot
UAC warning box that tells you nothing, does nothing and slows Vista even
further. Unfortunately for Microsoft and Vista, depending on your
peripherals and essential program needs, Vista may be a total no go.