Ok you're forgivenOriginally posted by: thegreypilgrim
BTW I have to appologize for the YELLING thing... Sorry, I'm just a french guy...
Thorin
Edit: Fixed Smiley.......
Ok you're forgivenOriginally posted by: thegreypilgrim
BTW I have to appologize for the YELLING thing... Sorry, I'm just a french guy...
Originally posted by: thorin
OMG I can't believe how poor education is around the globe these days, I swear 75% of the population would fail basic reading comprehension tests. Not to mention the fact that people start YELLING even when they have to facts to back up what they're attempting to comprehend.Originally posted by: thegreypilgrim
Try it cause IT IS NOT A CACHE PROGRAM ! I can't believe it is at least. Cause this thing decrease the time of transfert on a 687Mb DivX file from one HDD to another.
Am I wrong or this file doesn't fit in 2Mo (in my old but still usefull 10G drive)
Here's a quote right off the page linked originally.
ThorinThe MaxBoost driver intelligently caches data in the host system RAM before it is written to and read from the Maxtor disk drive, optimizing the effective storage speed of your system in a variety of applications.
What are the minimum system requirements to use MaxBoost?
Maxtor or Quantum ATA or SATA hard drive (RAID not supported)
No yer not coming out like an ass at all, I know I'm mean sometimes. It just pisses me off when people try to speak authoritatively on things they don't know about. And if you've read alot of my replies (as you seem to have) then you know I'm the first to admit it when proven wrong (and likely even thank the person for pointing me to new info and/or adding to what I know).Originally posted by: mooojojojo
I'm sure thegreypiligrim is better in some areas which are not related to reading a language that is not native for him. You though, are the king of elitist posts. I'm sorry for coming out like an ass but you always reply with a tone like if you are somehow smarter than everyone around you.
Originally posted by: MonkeyDriveExpress
From the download confirmation page
Thank you for downloading the MaxBoost Beta. You should receive your 10% off MaxStore.com coupon* via e-mail within the next 72 hours. Please note that the MaxBoost Beta software will expire and automatically disable itself 60 days after installation.
Looks like they expect this to generate a little cash for them.
Originally posted by: BD2003
Originally posted by: MonkeyDriveExpress
From the download confirmation page
Thank you for downloading the MaxBoost Beta. You should receive your 10% off MaxStore.com coupon* via e-mail within the next 72 hours. Please note that the MaxBoost Beta software will expire and automatically disable itself 60 days after installation.
Looks like they expect this to generate a little cash for them.
Youre making a major jump in logic there. It says nowhere that youre going to have to pay for it, only that youll get 10% off stuff in their store. Perhaps thats their way of saying thanks for beta testing? They dont want you using it more than 60 days cause its a freaking beta.
Of course I'm not saying theres a possibility theyll charge, but it doesnt imply that at all.
Originally posted by: MonkeyDriveExpress
My point is that they want you to pay for it. IMO, they should release it as a free goodie (kinda like MS does with the PowerToys for Windows) to thank people for buying their drives.
Joining is easy: Just click on the Download Now link below, provide your user name and e-mail address, agree to the MaxBoost License Agreement, and download the MaxBoost software. As a thank you for joining the beta test, we'll send an e-mail to you with a 10% off coupon* good at MaxStore.com.
Originally posted by: thegreypilgrim
No dual CPU ? No HyperThreading ?
I have an TBird so if anyone want to try it on a P4....
Originally posted by: Boonesmi
seems like you would run a much higher risk of data loss and corruption with a sudden power failure when using this
Why won't MaxBoost work on my older computer with less RAM and a slower processor?
MaxBoost requires a minimum set of memory and processor resources to effectively boost disk performance. The minimum specifications necessary to ensure a consistent performance boost are a 700 MHz processor and 256MB of RAM.
windows may do something like this, but it would have to be on a *much* smaller (Kb maybe?) scale. I know that windows does prefetches from the drive and has a bit of a buffer to store such data in, but I'm not sure about implimenting what seems like a full writeback cache in ram. One of the things that strikes me as fishy about this is that windows uses pagefiles for virutal memory on the disk to handle situations where memory beyond the capacity of physical ram is needed (or in certain other application specific kinds of things). It seems counter intuitive to think that these very writes to a disk would be cached in the ram that windows is trying to extend onto the disk... But, I don't have any cold hard facts that say whether or not (and to what extent) windows does hd cacheing in ram, so if anyone knows of a definitive source on this, I would really appreciate linkage.Originally posted by: Pariah
Windows already does the exact same thing this Maxtor driver does. If you have windows memory management setup properly it shouldn't make much of a difference unless Maxtor has done a much better job of writing the algorithm. Using Winbench as a barometer of performance is not a good idea. It is an excellent lowlevel benchmark, but the highlevel parts (WB Business, WB Highend) are completely inaccurate and should not be used for any sort of performance analysis.
This driver appears to be free. The 10% coupon is a gift for joining the beta test team.
You definitly do run these risks with such a system in place. With those 8MB buffers on some drives there is similar potential for loss, though sticking a writeback cache in system ram is much more risky in all regaurds.Originally posted by: Boonesmi
seems like you would run a much higher risk of data loss and corruption with a sudden power failure when using this
Windows definitely has a write back disk cache. It's huge, not small. Windows disk cache is called VCache because it is integrated into the virtual memory system. It will use all available ram for it's disk cache. In the windows 3.1 day, the windows disk cache was proven to be king among x86 disk caches. But that was before VCache.windows may do something like this, but it would have to be on a *much* smaller (Kb maybe?) scale. I know that windows does prefetches from the drive and has a bit of a buffer to store such data in, but I'm not sure about implimenting what seems like a full writeback cache in ram.
All windows disk caches ever made have been smart enough to avoid this problem so there's no need to worry.One of the things that strikes me as fishy about this is that windows uses pagefiles for virutal memory on the disk to handle situations where memory beyond the capacity of physical ram is needed (or in certain other application specific kinds of things). It seems counter intuitive to think that these very writes to a disk would be cached in the ram that windows is trying to extend onto the disk.
The windows XP write back cache is like 40MB which is bigger than the entire cache used by this program. The size of the write back cache will become unlimited if the system is set to Optimize for Services.Agreed. Windows does its own disk caching, but it takes steps in case power goes out or the system crashes to minimize damage. If this program does not take those steps that would explain the performance increase, but is it worth the risk of corrupting the system or one's data?