Readyboost is a new, optional feature, that can only help, and never hurt.
Why would I ever say no to a cheap performance boost?
There's really no need to defrag every night. Since I've had XP I really never defrag at all. I'm not saying it hurts, but the few times I have done it I saw no noticeable gains of any kind. And in XP, system restore points are created automatically once a day without anything being scheduled for them in Task Scheduler. If this has simply been moved to a "default" task in Task Scheduler, well then nothing's changed really. My only point was, not much, if anything, needs to be scheduled for a lot of users, but for someone like you who wants to, the new features are really nice. Because if I ever do want to schedule something in XP, it really is a pain to make sure 1) tasks don't overlap, 2) it won't bother me if I get on early in the morning, and 3) if I'm on late at night it won't start while I'm still there.Well, I do it cause I can. Why not defrag every night? The SR points ARE done automatically - through task scheduler.
I think his point was that the pagefile is accessed more than it should be during typical usage with 1 or 2 GB of memory. Yes, if the pagefile needs accessed, might as well delay it as long as possible, by using extra cache in the form of a flash drive, but the flash drive method is a "band-aid" because in a more perfect world, it wouldn't be getting to that point anyway so early.But thats the thing - it doesn't always come to that. Pagefile usage IS rare with 1gb of ram or so, unless you game a lot, or run big apps. And I suppose it IS your own fault - but not everyone is made of money, or even KNOWS it's their fault.
Originally posted by: archcommus
I agree with Nothinman, the problem here is that the pagefile is being accessed at all with systems with 2 GB of memory. This should not be happening unless a LOT of stuff is being run or a game is being launched. I understand that plugging in the flash drive does help, but I only have a 512 stick and am not about to spend the money on a 2 GB or something stick to use as, essentially, extra external memory. I realize it helps but flash drives of that size aren't THAT cheap and I'd rather just accept the performance 2 GB of memory and a fast HDD delivers (which, as has been said, isn't that bad anyway).
Except you are both misunderstanding the primary benefit of ready boost. It's not to 'mask' page file read/writes, it's primary benefit is to cache often accessed pages which are primarily from binary executables. You run Windword and as needed it can page portions of the binary in from the cache faster (since the seek time is gone) than going back to the HD.
Originally posted by: Nothinman
Except you are both misunderstanding the primary benefit of ready boost. It's not to 'mask' page file read/writes, it's primary benefit is to cache often accessed pages which are primarily from binary executables. You run Windword and as needed it can page portions of the binary in from the cache faster (since the seek time is gone) than going back to the HD.
That makes less sense then since the appropriate place to cache binaries and shared libraries is main memory.
Originally posted by: Nothinman
Readyboost is a new, optional feature, that can only help, and never hurt.
It hurts in that it gives MS an excuse to not fix their VMM, why should they go to the extra work of making it run better if you're all happy plugging new $20 flash drives into the machine every 6 months to paper over the problem?
Originally posted by: Nothinman
Except you are both misunderstanding the primary benefit of ready boost. It's not to 'mask' page file read/writes, it's primary benefit is to cache often accessed pages which are primarily from binary executables. You run Windword and as needed it can page portions of the binary in from the cache faster (since the seek time is gone) than going back to the HD.
That makes less sense then since the appropriate place to cache binaries and shared libraries is main memory.
It will page off seldomly used pages to make room for pages that actually need to be in memory.
There's really no need to defrag every night. Since I've had XP I really never defrag at all. I'm not saying it hurts, but the few times I have done it I saw no noticeable gains of any kind. And in XP, system restore points are created automatically once a day without anything being scheduled for them in Task Scheduler. If this has simply been moved to a "default" task in Task Scheduler, well then nothing's changed really. My only point was, not much, if anything, needs to be scheduled for a lot of users, but for someone like you who wants to, the new features are really nice. Because if I ever do want to schedule something in XP, it really is a pain to make sure 1) tasks don't overlap, 2) it won't bother me if I get on early in the morning, and 3) if I'm on late at night it won't start while I'm still there.
As I said before, I understand that it helps, but it really is just a patch-up and the idea of it to me is silly. Nothing is external to my system except my backup hard drive - not my TV tuner, or my optical drive, or even USB ports. So why should memory have to be? The concept of it is enough to make me pass up a free performance boost, especially since performance is not bad without it and I don't want to buy a bigger flash drive just for that purpose.
Originally posted by: bsobel
It will page off seldomly used pages to make room for pages that actually need to be in memory.
Any many people like Nothinman (I agree with him on this, btw) feel that it's too aggresive in paging our 'seldom used' to leave 'free memory' that is winds up paging too much. In actuality there isn't much paging going on if you have a good chunk more memory than your commit size, but you start getting north of 60% or so (with the system cache) you see more paging than you'd think you need.
This feels to me much better on Vista, but I need to dig a bit more and see how much better it is.
Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
That ready boost feature seems more and more like a security risk to me.
Originally posted by: bsobel
Originally posted by: Quinton McLeod
That ready boost feature seems more and more like a security risk to me.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
No, seriously, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
You shown in this thread you don't understand security (btw, I'm still waiting for that resume and why your right and I, McAfee, TrueSecore, Sophos, Trend, etc are wrong about the attacker motivation. Are we doing to see it?)
The ready boost information is AES encrypted before being dropped on the drive. Its a local pc key, so without access to the local pc the drive contents are useless.
But thanks for trying to play.
Honestly, at this point, I've chosen to ignore the troll. Unless people start actually agreeing with him about the BS and lies he spouts, I'm just going to assume everyone already realizes he has no idea what he's talking about.
Originally posted by: bsobel
Honestly, at this point, I've chosen to ignore the troll. Unless people start actually agreeing with him about the BS and lies he spouts, I'm just going to assume everyone already realizes he has no idea what he's talking about.
He's absolutley a troll and I'm willing to bet he's never even booted a Vista box. That (not using Vista) is his choice, I won't let him come in here and make up information about it. It's not like I start 'why I hate Linux' threads (and, for the record, I love Linux as well). So why the anti-MS fan bois need to constantly badmouth the OS is beyond me.
However the one point he hasn't conceeded yet was the one on what systems are attacked and why. Since he's chosen to ignore the question on his qualificaitons to make that statement, I intend to ask him everytime I get the chance until he either provides them or retracts his statement (he retracted everything else, so eating crow shouldn't be too hard for him).
and as long as we keep responding, he'll keep poking in.
I just don't understand the apprehension towards adding a second layer of cache to speed things up.
I'm not quite sure what you think is broken with the VMM, but memory management has vastly improved in general (superfetch).
I've felt the same way actually, but thats the reasoning behind superfetch - keep better track of what you're actually using, and keep that in memory/RAM cache.
Because if the VMM does it's job it's not necessary.
It's like tying a wheel barrow to an 18 wheeler, sure it'll help you carry a little more but if you organize the packages in the main trailor you won't need it at all. There's you the obligatory computer->vehicle analogy, the thread can end now. =)
Because I use Linux most of the time and it handles similar workloads a lot better. I know it's not exactly apples to apples, but there's no denying that XP hits the disk a lot more and I can't figure out why.
I've felt the same way actually, but thats the reasoning behind superfetch - keep better track of what you're actually using, and keep that in memory/RAM cache.
Originally posted by: Chunkee
what AV are you guys using with vista?
jC
Nothinman, I think your wrong on this. Data has to load into main memory at some point, the cache speeds THAT process up. You're just saying it shouldn't have to load AGAIN, but we aren't really discussin that. It speeds up loading the FIRST time as well, which is good.
Originally posted by: Nothinman
Nothinman, I think your wrong on this. Data has to load into main memory at some point, the cache speeds THAT process up. You're just saying it shouldn't have to load AGAIN, but we aren't really discussin that. It speeds up loading the FIRST time as well, which is good.
So it runs around your disk looking for executables and sticks them on the flash? Interesting idea, but I still don't see the point. The only thing that takes longer than a second to start here is FF and I'd tend to blame that on that fact that it's abnormally huge and has hundreds of dependencies. =)
a) Not exactly, it's not scavenging for binaries and saying 'hmm I'll cache this one' rather it's based on what gets loaded into the VMM. So like prefetch, the first time you run say BattleField Earth it's going to load completey from the backing store. But the second time you load it parts if not all (depending on cache size etc) can come from the ready boost cache.