If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Speed up my Windows XP Pro. SP3 with Flash USB drives/drives?
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Speed up my Windows XP Pro. SP3 with Flash USB drives/drives?
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` |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Speed up my Windows XP Pro. SP3 with Flash USB drives/drives?
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...) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Speed up my Windows XP Pro. SP3 with Flash USB drives/drives?
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Speed up my Windows XP Pro. SP3 with Flash USB drives/drives?
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Speed up my Windows XP Pro. SP3 with Flash USB drives/drives?
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Speed up my Windows XP Pro. SP3 with Flash USB drives/drives?
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Speed up my Windows XP Pro. SP3 with Flash USB drives/drives?
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Speed up my Windows XP Pro. SP3 with Flash USB drives/drives?
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` |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Speed up my Windows XP Pro. SP3 with Flash USB drives/drives?
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Speed up my Windows XP Pro. SP3 with Flash USB drives/drives?
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Speed up my Windows XP Pro. SP3 with Flash USB drives/drives?
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Speed up my Windows XP Pro. SP3 with Flash USB drives/drives?
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 |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Speed up my Windows XP Pro. SP3 with Flash USB drives/drives?
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. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|