Speed up my Windows XP Pro. SP3 with Flash USB drives/drives?

On 8/19/2009 1:08 PM PT, Swifty typed:

Yeah, I thought I could speed up XP's boot up like Vista's ReadyBoast
with one of those USB Flash sticks/drives.

It is conceivable that you could add a solid-state drive to your system,
and use that for your page file. I have no idea if such a drive would
work well in that configuration, but I've seen systems with nothing but
a solid-state drive, so it must be OK. The ones I've seen are 80Gb. You
could probably put other stuff on there as well as your page file - you
are not going to cause seek problems.

Thanks. That could be an interesting idea and faster than USB 2.0.


My system has an 80Gb C: drive, and I'm tempted to change that to a
solid-state drive if my employer fails to update my PC next January, as
was scheduled.

Haha, I remember I used to have 10 GB for C: drive and I only had like
900 MB free. I had to replace the HDD due to that.

Bummer on upgrading office computers. I know that feeling since mine are
very old (Prescott and HyperThreading/HT P4s, single core Athlon 64
3200+, etc.).
--
"I have to sit up with a sick ant." --unknown
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address: NT
( ) or
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.

I read that Vista and Windows 7 can be sped up faster by using Flash USB
sticks/drives (have 256 MB to 1 GB sizes). Can this be done with an
updated Windows XP Pro. SP3 too?

What are you doing where you think your system needs to go faster? If you keep installing and
uninstalling programs, moving data around, it would be good to defrag your system.

Just gaming. I was only interested to see what else I can do to
improve speed on my quad core system. Yes, it's fast enough but it
never hurts to have more speed. [grin]


If your system has been in place for a few years and you install lots of programs, uninstall
programs, it would be an improvement to reinstall Windows from scratch. That is a lot of work
but it will speed up your system quite a bit.

Every year I reinstall from scratch and only install the programs that I need. I then copy my
data back and everything is cool to go.

I have it down to a science and can re-do a system in a couple of hours.

Yeah, but a pain to reinstall and reconfigure 100+ softwares which I
don't have time for. I do back up my HDDs once in a while and back up
my datas weekly though.

"Ant" wrote in message
...
I read that Vista and Windows 7 can be sped up faster by using Flash
USB
sticks/drives (have 256 MB to 1 GB sizes). Can this be done with an
updated Windows XP Pro. SP3 too?

What are you doing where you think your system needs to go faster? If
you keep installing and
uninstalling programs, moving data around, it would be good to defrag
your system.

Just gaming. I was only interested to see what else I can do to
improve speed on my quad core system. Yes, it's fast enough but it
never hurts to have more speed. [grin]


If your system has been in place for a few years and you install lots of
programs, uninstall
programs, it would be an improvement to reinstall Windows from scratch.
That is a lot of work
but it will speed up your system quite a bit.

Every year I reinstall from scratch and only install the programs that I
need. I then copy my
data back and everything is cool to go.

I have it down to a science and can re-do a system in a couple of hours.

Yeah, but a pain to reinstall and reconfigure 100+ softwares which I
don't have time for. I do back up my HDDs once in a while and back up
my datas weekly though.

Since you install lots of programs and have lot installed you should
consider a disk imaging program such as Acronis True Image.

On 8/22/2009 10:50 PM PT, msnews.microsoft.com typed:

Yeah, but a pain to reinstall and reconfigure 100+ softwares which I
don't have time for. I do back up my HDDs once in a while and back up
my datas weekly though.

Since you install lots of programs and have lot installed you should
consider a disk imaging program such as Acronis True Image.

I already do use a disk image program (Symantec/Norton Ghost; not in my
installed Windows XP Pro. SP3 -- use a bootable CD/disk).
--
"Look not to the windmill's turning while the ant still burrows." --unknown
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address: NT
( ) or
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.

If speed is your objective, and cost is not a deterrent, image your current
drive, install a SSD HD, re-install the image. "Chris Prillo" did and says
its a slam bam for performance. I would sure like to hear from an average
joe who tried it.

"Ant" wrote in message
...
Um, nice poem?


On 8/16/2009 2:58 PM PT, db typed:

there is a third party
maker that makes
a ready boost version
for xp.

it's about 50 bucks.

-------------

they really act like
the hibernation feature

and you require usb
flash drives that are
twice the size of your
ram to provide the
full benefit.

also, flash drives come
in two flavors:

those that are ready
boost ready

and those that are
not.

-------------

one day microsoft
will hire the smart guy
who develops a rom
level hibernation.

but it will be a long
time til then.
--
"Though your enemy is the size of an ant, look upon him as an
elephant." --Danish
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web Site)
| |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL): http://aqfl.net
\ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address: NT
( ) or
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home computer.

On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 00:23:40 -0500, "WMB"
wrote:

If speed is your objective, and cost is not a deterrent, image your current
drive, install a SSD HD, re-install the image. "Chris Prillo" did and says
its a slam bam for performance. I would sure like to hear from an average
joe who tried it.


SSD drives tend to be on the small side and expensive. I have three
drives on my personal machine here. The C: drive is an
OCZSSD2-1VTX120G Vertex Series 120GB SATA II SSD ($370), and is the
place where Windows and applications are stored. The other two drives
are hard drives.

Yes, it seems very fast, but I don't have a previous experience on
this system to compare it with directly.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

In ,
WMB typed:
If speed is your objective, and cost is not a deterrent, image your
current drive, install a SSD HD, re-install the image. "Chris
Prillo" did and says its a slam bam for performance. I would sure
like to hear from an average joe who tried it.

"Ant" wrote in message
...
Um, nice poem?


On 8/16/2009 2:58 PM PT, db typed:

there is a third party
maker that makes
a ready boost version
for xp.

it's about 50 bucks.

-------------

they really act like
the hibernation feature

and you require usb
flash drives that are
twice the size of your
ram to provide the
full benefit.

also, flash drives come
in two flavors:

those that are ready
boost ready

and those that are
not.

-------------

one day microsoft
will hire the smart guy
who develops a rom
level hibernation.

but it will be a long
time til then.
--
"Though your enemy is the size of an ant, look upon him as an
elephant." --Danish
/\___/\
/ /\ /\ \ Phil/Ant @ http://antfarm.ma.cx (Personal Web
Site) | |o o| | Ant's Quality Foraged Links (AQFL):
http://aqfl.net \ _ / Nuke ANT from e-mail address:
NT ( ) or
Ant is currently not listening to any songs on his home
computer.

An SSD drive would be about the same speed as RAM and would easily run rings
around a mechanical hard drive. It's pretty much a given.
However if the reason for the slowdown isn't known, an expensive SSD drive
might simply cover up a problem if an inexperienced user tries it because he
has nothing to reference the performance to. It might still be a slow, half
borked system, but the user won't know that because of the speed increase.
A new install would be much better than an image containing all the
collected problems and speed killers of the last xx months.

HTH,

Twayne`

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 00:23:40 -0500, "WMB"
wrote:

If speed is your objective, and cost is not a deterrent, image your
current
drive, install a SSD HD, re-install the image. "Chris Prillo" did and
says
its a slam bam for performance. I would sure like to hear from an
average
joe who tried it.


SSD drives tend to be on the small side and expensive. I have three
drives on my personal machine here. The C: drive is an
OCZSSD2-1VTX120G Vertex Series 120GB SATA II SSD ($370), and
is the place where Windows and applications are stored. The other
two drives are hard drives.

Yes, it seems very fast, but I don't have a previous experience on
this system to compare it with directly.

Ken, I had thought there was an issue with the fairly limited number of max
write cycles with any SSDs, making them NOT very suitable for windows (like
the regular C: drive, where there is always a LOT of constant write
activity).

(yes, I'm aware SSDs have some built-in "wear leveling" techniques to spread
this activity out over different arrays of storage locations, but even at
that...)

On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:59:40 -0700, "Bill in Co."
wrote:

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 00:23:40 -0500, "WMB"
wrote:

If speed is your objective, and cost is not a deterrent, image your
current
drive, install a SSD HD, re-install the image. "Chris Prillo" did and
says
its a slam bam for performance. I would sure like to hear from an
average
joe who tried it.


SSD drives tend to be on the small side and expensive. I have three
drives on my personal machine here. The C: drive is an
OCZSSD2-1VTX120G Vertex Series 120GB SATA II SSD ($370), and
is the place where Windows and applications are stored. The other
two drives are hard drives.

Yes, it seems very fast, but I don't have a previous experience on
this system to compare it with directly.

Ken, I had thought there was an issue with the fairly limited number of max
write cycles with any SSDs, making them NOT very suitable for windows (like
the regular C: drive, where there is always a LOT of constant write
activity).

(yes, I'm aware SSDs have some built-in "wear leveling" techniques to spread
this activity out over different arrays of storage locations, but even at
that...)


There may eventually be such an issue, but I haven't experienced it so
far. Perhaps I'm taking my chances with it, but I've been very happy
with the performance.



--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

In ,
Ken Blake, MVP typed on Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:11:50 -0700:
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:59:40 -0700, "Bill in Co."
wrote:
Ken, I had thought there was an issue with the fairly limited number
of max write cycles with any SSDs, making them NOT very suitable for
windows (like the regular C: drive, where there is always a LOT of
constant write activity).

(yes, I'm aware SSDs have some built-in "wear leveling" techniques
to spread this activity out over different arrays of storage
locations, but even at that...)

There may eventually be such an issue, but I haven't experienced it so
far. Perhaps I'm taking my chances with it, but I've been very happy
with the performance.

Nor all SSD are equal for one. For example:

1) SLC type lasts 100,000 or more complete writes

2) MLC type lasts 5,000 to 10,000 complete writes

Secondly if you want to limit the number of writes, this is easy to do.
Just turning off System Restore and a swapfile is a very big help right
there.

Thirdly, you can totally stop all writes if you want to by merging MS
EWF files into your Windows XP.

I have seen heavy use of MLC SSD die in a year or two. They usually have
a warrantee of one year. SLC SSD should last 10 years plus without
problems. Although if you limit writing, you will be long dead before
you ever wear one of them out.

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) - Windows XP SP2

In ,
db typed on Sun, 16 Aug 2009 16:58:23 -0500:
there is a third party
maker that makes
a ready boost version
for xp.

it's about 50 bucks.

-------------

they really act like
the hibernation feature

and you require usb
flash drives that are
twice the size of your
ram to provide the
full benefit.

also, flash drives come
in two flavors:

those that are ready
boost ready

and those that are
not.

-------------

one day microsoft
will hire the smart guy
who develops a rom
level hibernation.

but it will be a long
time til then.

It already exists and has for years! It is called HORM and is available
under MS EWF's hibernation.

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) - Windows XP SP2

In ,
Twayne typed on Sun, 8 Nov 2009 10:05:55 -0500:
An SSD drive would be about the same speed as RAM and would easily
run rings around a mechanical hard drive. It's pretty much a given.

Actually it may not be. The controller used for one limits the
bandwidth.

However if the reason for the slowdown isn't known, an expensive SSD
drive might simply cover up a problem if an inexperienced user tries
it because he has nothing to reference the performance to. It might
still be a slow, half borked system, but the user won't know that
because of the speed increase. A new install would be much better
than an image containing all the collected problems and speed killers
of the last xx months.

Writing under SSD changes a lot. They have wear leveling and all. So
there maybe lots of house keeping that needs to be done. And so some
designs has to do a lot just to write one byte. Worse case I have heard
so far was 20 seconds before it could write one byte. Although it is
almost never that bad. And to get around this problem, load Windows in
RAM and run it there like with MS EWF. Although SLC type of SSD usually
writes far faster than the cheaper MLC types and lasts much longer.

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) - Windows XP SP2

On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 17:03:05 -0600, "BillW50" wrote:

In ,
Ken Blake, MVP typed on Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:11:50 -0700:
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:59:40 -0700, "Bill in Co."
wrote:
Ken, I had thought there was an issue with the fairly limited number
of max write cycles with any SSDs, making them NOT very suitable for
windows (like the regular C: drive, where there is always a LOT of
constant write activity).

(yes, I'm aware SSDs have some built-in "wear leveling" techniques
to spread this activity out over different arrays of storage
locations, but even at that...)

There may eventually be such an issue, but I haven't experienced it so
far. Perhaps I'm taking my chances with it, but I've been very happy
with the performance.

Nor all SSD are equal for one. For example:

1) SLC type lasts 100,000 or more complete writes

2) MLC type lasts 5,000 to 10,000 complete writes

Secondly if you want to limit the number of writes, this is easy to do.
Just turning off System Restore and a swapfile is a very big help right
there.

Thirdly, you can totally stop all writes if you want to by merging MS
EWF files into your Windows XP.


Thanks for the info. Do you know whether my OCZSSD2-1VTX120G Vertex
Series 120GB SATA II SSD is SLC or MLC?


I have seen heavy use of MLC SSD die in a year or two. They usually have
a warrantee of one year. SLC SSD should last 10 years plus without
problems. Although if you limit writing, you will be long dead before
you ever wear one of them out.




Assuming that mine is SLC, and noting that I'm 72 years old, I *may*
be long dead before I wear it out.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP (Windows Desktop Experience) since 2003
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

In ,
Ken Blake, MVP typed on Sun, 08 Nov 2009 18:55:10 -0700:
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 17:03:05 -0600, "BillW50" wrote:

In ,
Ken Blake, MVP typed on Sun, 08 Nov 2009 13:11:50 -0700:
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:59:40 -0700, "Bill in Co."
wrote:
Ken, I had thought there was an issue with the fairly limited
number of max write cycles with any SSDs, making them NOT very
suitable for windows (like the regular C: drive, where there is
always a LOT of constant write activity).

(yes, I'm aware SSDs have some built-in "wear leveling" techniques
to spread this activity out over different arrays of storage
locations, but even at that...)

There may eventually be such an issue, but I haven't experienced it
so far. Perhaps I'm taking my chances with it, but I've been very
happy with the performance.

Nor all SSD are equal for one. For example:

1) SLC type lasts 100,000 or more complete writes

2) MLC type lasts 5,000 to 10,000 complete writes

Secondly if you want to limit the number of writes, this is easy to
do. Just turning off System Restore and a swapfile is a very big
help right there.

Thirdly, you can totally stop all writes if you want to by merging MS
EWF files into your Windows XP.

Thanks for the info. Do you know whether my OCZSSD2-1VTX120G Vertex
Series 120GB SATA II SSD is SLC or MLC?

A Google search seems to suggest it is a MLC type. But I don't know for
sure. At first, SLC type was used for SSDs, but they were really
expensive. Since then MLC type has been improving in technology and half
the price to manufacture. Plus SLC types are disappearing from the
marketplace recently.

I have seen heavy use of MLC SSD die in a year or two. They usually
have a warrantee of one year. SLC SSD should last 10 years plus
without problems. Although if you limit writing, you will be long
dead before you ever wear one of them out.

Assuming that mine is SLC, and noting that I'm 72 years old, I *may*
be long dead before I wear it out.

Yes and I am about 20 years behind you. And I think the computer with
SSD will most likely be so outdated that you wouldn't use it anyway
before it fails. Unless it is a really cheap MLC type. Although yours
seems to be one of the better ones. ;-)

--
Bill
Gateway MX6124 ('06 era) - Windows XP SP2

In ,
Ken Blake, MVP typed:
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 12:59:40 -0700, "Bill in Co."
wrote:

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 00:23:40 -0500, "WMB"
wrote:

If speed is your objective, and cost is not a deterrent, image your
current
drive, install a SSD HD, re-install the image. "Chris Prillo" did
and says
its a slam bam for performance. I would sure like to hear from an
average
joe who tried it.


SSD drives tend to be on the small side and expensive. I have three
drives on my personal machine here. The C: drive is an
OCZSSD2-1VTX120G Vertex Series 120GB SATA II SSD ($370), and
is the place where Windows and applications are stored. The other
two drives are hard drives.

Yes, it seems very fast, but I don't have a previous experience on
this system to compare it with directly.

Ken, I had thought there was an issue with the fairly limited number
of max write cycles with any SSDs, making them NOT very suitable for
windows (like the regular C: drive, where there is always a LOT of
constant write activity).

(yes, I'm aware SSDs have some built-in "wear leveling" techniques
to spread this activity out over different arrays of storage
locations, but even at that...)


There may eventually be such an issue, but I haven't experienced it so
far. Perhaps I'm taking my chances with it, but I've been very happy
with the performance.

From what I've read it'll happen over a relatively short period of time
compared to mechanicals but you also get some extra time out of it because
it quits using the bad "sectors" and moves over to other good ones. That
goes on until there's no space left unless you're watching it. I know of
some SSD drives in a CT business (UTC) where my son works, where they're
being used but not on the system drives; so far not a problem anywhere.
They're surprisingly cheap bought in quantity which tells us, I think, prime
time isn't too far off. They're using 64 Gig drives right now; really tiny
in size!

Twayne`