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

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 ,
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`

In ,
Twayne typed on Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:31:23 -0500:
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`

Actually if you can believe the specs of SSDs, a manufacture claims the
MTBF is 227 years. And HDD are only less than 37 years.

Endurance:

SSD: MTBF 2 Million Hours
HDD: MTBF 300,000 Hours

http://talkback.zdnet.com/5208-11408...5468&s tart=0

I figured that I would have to overwrite a whole SSD, 24 times a day
(which would be hard to do without trying too). And it would take 11
years to wear one out.

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

On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 20:26:05 -0600, "BillW50" wrote:

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.


I typically get 4-5 years usage out of a computer before I replace it.
This one is brand new, so I'll probably be 76-77 when I want to
replace it.



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


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

On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:22:34 -0600, "BillW50" wrote:


Actually if you can believe the specs of SSDs, a manufacture claims the
MTBF is 227 years. And HDD are only less than 37 years.


I'm always reluctant to believe MTBF claims. They may be correct, but
with numbers as high as 227 years, I have no confidence in them.

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

In ,
Ken Blake, MVP typed on Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:28:51 -0700:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:22:34 -0600, "BillW50" wrote:


Actually if you can believe the specs of SSDs, a manufacture claims
the MTBF is 227 years. And HDD are only less than 37 years.


I'm always reluctant to believe MTBF claims. They may be correct, but
with numbers as high as 227 years, I have no confidence in them.

Same here, but I have done the math. If every cell of a SSD can be
written to 100,000 times, it would take a person overwriting the whole
SSD 24 times a day for 11 years before you would wear one out. That is a
lot of writing. So I can see the average user might get 227 years out of
one.

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

BillW50 wrote:
In ,
Ken Blake, MVP typed on Mon, 09 Nov 2009 11:28:51 -0700:
On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:22:34 -0600, "BillW50" wrote:


Actually if you can believe the specs of SSDs, a manufacture claims
the MTBF is 227 years. And HDD are only less than 37 years.


I'm always reluctant to believe MTBF claims. They may be correct, but
with numbers as high as 227 years, I have no confidence in them.

Same here, but I have done the math. If every cell of a SSD can be
written to 100,000 times, it would take a person overwriting the whole
SSD 24 times a day for 11 years before you would wear one out. That is a
lot of writing. So I can see the average user might get 227 years out of
one.

So I guess the bottom line is it sounds like there's really no issue with
using the SSDs to replace conventional HDs except for the price (no matter
which type, but skipping the DRAM ones, which don't seem useful for the
general consumer).

IOW, they will outlast any conventional HD (no matter what type of SSD), and
are certainly a lot faster. I'm still not sure about the permanence of of
the data stored in flash memory in terms of its shelf life (or maybe that
was expressed in its MTBF stats), but I'm guessing that's not an real issue,
either, in comparison to the mechanical drives.