Readyboost? Anyone?

[Andy]

Readyboost? Anyone?

I somehow can't imagine it presenting any noticeable speed benefit.

Who's tried it?

Anything pro/con to report?

Best,

Curious Andy

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Readyboost? Anyone?

I somehow can't imagine it presenting any noticeable speed benefit.

Who's tried it?

Anything pro/con to report?

In my view, Readyboost has value only to those people who have
insufficient RAM. And those people would do much better to spend their
money buying more RAM.

 

[R. C. White]

Hi, Andy.

I have ReadyBoost - and I use it - with 4 GB RAM. I can't tell any
difference with our without it.

As Ken said, if you don't have enough RAM, get some more while it's cheap.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP
Windows Live Mail 2009 (14.0.8089.0726) in Win7 Ultimate x64

 

[Andy]

Thanks Ken and RC!

The USB flash drives are dirt cheap. 16Gb for $28!?! I suppose they're
better used for other purposes.

My new 'puter also has 4Gb RAM. I think that's sufficient!

When I think about my first 'puter with only 128k back in 1985 and today's
4Gb RAM, it really boggles the mind. My mind, anyway.

Best,

Andy

 

[Christian Barmala]

Readyboost? Anyone?
Anything pro/con to report?

Same question for ReadyDrive, another performance technology introduced
since Windows Vista (see
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/accelerator.mspx )

Christian

 

[R. C. White]

Hi, Christian.

I suppose you saw the top lines on that page:
"Windows PC Accelerators: Performance Technology for Windows Vista
"Updated: December 5, 2006"

How does that relate to this Windows 7 newsgroup? Is ReadyDrive even
available in Windows 7?

Note also: "Windows ReadyDrive and Hybrid Hard Disk Drives are standard
hard drives that include both rotating media and an integrated cache of
non-volatile flash memory (also known as NVRAM)." I doubt that this
describes most Windows 7 computers. This technique is intended mainly, "to
increase battery life and the overall reliability of the drives in mobile
systems." So it would seem to apply mostly to laptops, not desktops. Since
I've never had a laptop, I haven't paid much attention to this feature.

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP
Windows Live Mail 2009 (14.0.8089.0726) in Win7 Ultimate x64

 

[Christian Barmala]

Is ReadyDrive available in Windows 7?

To my understanding, ReadyBoost and ReadyDrive were both introduced with
Vista and are still available with Windows 7

"Windows ReadyDrive and Hybrid Hard Disk Drives are standard hard drives
that ..."

I understood that an extended command set is used to control this cache. Is
it reasonable to assume that this extended set has meanwhile bacome a
standard or should I assume incompatibilities and only very few supported
configurations?

Several colleagues consider to equip their laptops with solid state disks,
which provide a significant performance boost, but are still a bit expensive
and limited in capacity. ReadyDrive sounds as if it would give me the best
of both worlds, i. e. cheap, high performance and high capacity, but is it
really the case? That's why I ask for experiences, and since the thread
started with ReadyBoost I found it reasonable to extend the question to the
related technology.

Christian

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Thanks Ken and RC!

You're welcome. Glad to help.

The USB flash drives are dirt cheap. 16Gb for $28!?! I suppose they're
better used for other purposes.

Yes, I think so.

My new 'puter also has 4Gb RAM. I think that's sufficient!

Whether it's sufficient depends on what apps you run. It's more than
sufficient for most people, but if you do things like edit video files
or large graphic images, you might be able to improve performance by
installing more (*if* you are running 64-bit Windows; if you're
running 32-bit, you won't be able to use more than about 3.2GB of the
4GB you have).

When I think about my first 'puter with only 128k back in 1985

The first computer I used was in 1972. It had 4K of RAM. The first
computer I owned was in 1987. It had 640KB.

 

[SC Tom]

You're welcome. Glad to help.





Yes, I think so.




Whether it's sufficient depends on what apps you run. It's more than
sufficient for most people, but if you do things like edit video files
or large graphic images, you might be able to improve performance by
installing more (*if* you are running 64-bit Windows; if you're
running 32-bit, you won't be able to use more than about 3.2GB of the
4GB you have).




The first computer I used was in 1972. It had 4K of RAM. The first
computer I owned was in 1987. It had 640KB.

This was my first home computer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Instruments_TI-99/4A
I was working for K-mart at the time TI stopped production, and we were
blowing them out for $35! I figured that was cheap enough to find out if I
really wanted to learn about computers. No drives of any kind (I couldn't
afford the PEB and add-ons); programs that I wrote could be saved to and
loaded from a portable cassette tape player.

SC Tom

 

[MICHAEL]

Readyboost? Anyone?

I somehow can't imagine it presenting any noticeable speed benefit.

Who's tried it?

Anything pro/con to report?

Best,

Curious Andy

As Ken said, it's really useless on systems with enough RAM.
The same it was with Vista. In my opinion, if you have over
1.5 GB of RAM, you will not notice any difference.


-Michael