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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
How to increase system system performance
Tae Song wrote:
"Pegasus [MVP]" wrote in message ... "Tae Song" wrote in message ... I thought I would share this with you all, a few little tricks to boost Windows performance. Seeing that flash drives are much slower than hard disks, I wonder if your measures have the desired effect. Could we have some performance figures, complete with the test methods you applied so that anyone can perform the same tests on his machine? You have to take in to account access hard drives are mechanical and have access time of ms, where as flash drives have an access time down in to nanoseconds. The write time is much larger for a flash drive. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
How to increase system system performance
Pegasus [MVP] wrote:
"Tae Song" wrote in message ... "Pegasus [MVP]" wrote in message ... "Tae Song" wrote in message ... I thought I would share this with you all, a few little tricks to boost Windows performance. Seeing that flash drives are much slower than hard disks, I wonder if your measures have the desired effect. Could we have some performance figures, complete with the test methods you applied so that anyone can perform the same tests on his machine? You have to take in to account access hard drives are mechanical and have access time of ms, where as flash drives have an access time down in to nanoseconds. I recommend you do some reading about the difference between RAM and flash memory. It's huge! Seconded. Did you actually bother to measure the change in performance or is this just an idea you have, not backed up by any reproducible measurements? the latter - obviously. The bottom line here is that it was, and is, very bad advice. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
How to increase system system performance
Pegasus [MVP] wrote:
"Tae Song" wrote in message ... "Pegasus [MVP]" wrote in message ... "Tae Song" wrote in message ... I thought I would share this with you all, a few little tricks to boost Windows performance. Seeing that flash drives are much slower than hard disks, I wonder if your measures have the desired effect. Could we have some performance figures, complete with the test methods you applied so that anyone can perform the same tests on his machine? You have to take in to account access hard drives are mechanical and have access time of ms, where as flash drives have an access time down in to nanoseconds. I recommend you do some reading about the difference between RAM and flash memory. It's huge! Seconded. Did you actually bother to measure the change in performance or is this just an idea you have, not backed up by any reproducible measurements? the latter - obviously. The bottom line here is that it was, and is, very bad advice. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
How to increase system system performance
"Tae Song" wrote in message ... "Pegasus [MVP]" wrote in message ... "Tae Song" wrote in message ... I thought I would share this with you all, a few little tricks to boost Windows performance. Seeing that flash drives are much slower than hard disks, I wonder if your measures have the desired effect. Could we have some performance figures, complete with the test methods you applied so that anyone can perform the same tests on his machine? You have to take in to account access hard drives are mechanical and have access time of ms, where as flash drives have an access time down in to nanoseconds. Try this short paragraph for a starter: "Modern flash drives have USB 2.0 connectivity. However, they do not currently use the full 480 Mbit/s (60MB/s) the USB 2.0 Hi-Speed specification supports due to technical limitations inherent in NAND flash. The fastest drives currently available use a dual channel controller, although they still fall considerably short of the transfer rate possible from a current generation hard disk, or the maximum high speed USB throughput." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_flash_drive Or this: "A typical "desktop HDD" might store between 120 GB and 2 TB although rarely above 500GB of data (based on US market data[14]) rotate at 5,400 to 10,000 rpm and have a media transfer rate of 1 Gbit/s or higher. Some newer have 3Gbit/s." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk Now go and do some actual measurements before claiming that your idea will "increase" performance. It won't. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
How to increase system system performance
"Tae Song" wrote in message ... "Pegasus [MVP]" wrote in message ... "Tae Song" wrote in message ... I thought I would share this with you all, a few little tricks to boost Windows performance. Seeing that flash drives are much slower than hard disks, I wonder if your measures have the desired effect. Could we have some performance figures, complete with the test methods you applied so that anyone can perform the same tests on his machine? You have to take in to account access hard drives are mechanical and have access time of ms, where as flash drives have an access time down in to nanoseconds. Try this short paragraph for a starter: "Modern flash drives have USB 2.0 connectivity. However, they do not currently use the full 480 Mbit/s (60MB/s) the USB 2.0 Hi-Speed specification supports due to technical limitations inherent in NAND flash. The fastest drives currently available use a dual channel controller, although they still fall considerably short of the transfer rate possible from a current generation hard disk, or the maximum high speed USB throughput." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_flash_drive Or this: "A typical "desktop HDD" might store between 120 GB and 2 TB although rarely above 500GB of data (based on US market data[14]) rotate at 5,400 to 10,000 rpm and have a media transfer rate of 1 Gbit/s or higher. Some newer have 3Gbit/s." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk Now go and do some actual measurements before claiming that your idea will "increase" performance. It won't. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
How to increase system system performance
Outlook does not work if you don't already have Outlook Express installed.
Huh ??? What are you saying. For sure as I am typing this answer Outlook works without having to have Outlook Express. Get your answers straight Tae Song -- Peter Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
How to increase system system performance
Outlook does not work if you don't already have Outlook Express installed.
Huh ??? What are you saying. For sure as I am typing this answer Outlook works without having to have Outlook Express. Get your answers straight Tae Song -- Peter Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
How to increase system system performance
Your snake oil remedies, and advice (except when you state the same thing
that others had stated hours before) leave a lot to be desired. Bad advice is worse than no advice. Read and learn (in other words - lurk). -- Richard Urban Microsoft MVP Windows Desktop Experience "Tae Song" wrote in message news "measekite Da Monkey" wrote in message ... Good question... so I pulled out the flash drive. I started up Outlook (which today's service pack for Office XP fixed. In Office XP, Outlook does not work if you don't already have Outlook Express installed. It hadn't worked till early today after the latest update. I never installed Outlook Express on this Vista system.) I gave me an error message it couldn't create Normal.dot or something. I didn't make a note of it, sorry. It didn't display normally. Address bar/field displays outlook:today, but in the main window it's says Navigation to the webpage was canceled. Under that, it says What you can try: bullet Retype the address. I Open up Word everything seems to be working OK. Few minutes later message says, "Saving the AutoRecovery file is postponed for Normal.dot." I opened Access, Power Point, Excel, GIMP (which took much longer than normal to open). Some minor problems, but nothing catastrophic. Then I tried replying to this post... it didn't quote your message. Putting in the flash drive back now. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
How to increase system system performance
Your snake oil remedies, and advice (except when you state the same thing
that others had stated hours before) leave a lot to be desired. Bad advice is worse than no advice. Read and learn (in other words - lurk). -- Richard Urban Microsoft MVP Windows Desktop Experience "Tae Song" wrote in message news "measekite Da Monkey" wrote in message ... Good question... so I pulled out the flash drive. I started up Outlook (which today's service pack for Office XP fixed. In Office XP, Outlook does not work if you don't already have Outlook Express installed. It hadn't worked till early today after the latest update. I never installed Outlook Express on this Vista system.) I gave me an error message it couldn't create Normal.dot or something. I didn't make a note of it, sorry. It didn't display normally. Address bar/field displays outlook:today, but in the main window it's says Navigation to the webpage was canceled. Under that, it says What you can try: bullet Retype the address. I Open up Word everything seems to be working OK. Few minutes later message says, "Saving the AutoRecovery file is postponed for Normal.dot." I opened Access, Power Point, Excel, GIMP (which took much longer than normal to open). Some minor problems, but nothing catastrophic. Then I tried replying to this post... it didn't quote your message. Putting in the flash drive back now. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
How to increase system system performance
Pegasus [MVP] wrote:
"Tae Song" wrote in message ... "Pegasus [MVP]" wrote in message ... "Tae Song" wrote in message ... I thought I would share this with you all, a few little tricks to boost Windows performance. Seeing that flash drives are much slower than hard disks, I wonder if your measures have the desired effect. Could we have some performance figures, complete with the test methods you applied so that anyone can perform the same tests on his machine? You have to take in to account access hard drives are mechanical and have access time of ms, where as flash drives have an access time down in to nanoseconds. Try this short paragraph for a starter: "Modern flash drives have USB 2.0 connectivity. However, they do not currently use the full 480 Mbit/s (60MB/s) the USB 2.0 Hi-Speed specification supports due to technical limitations inherent in NAND flash. The fastest drives currently available use a dual channel controller, although they still fall considerably short of the transfer rate possible from a current generation hard disk, or the maximum high speed USB throughput." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_flash_drive Or this: "A typical "desktop HDD" might store between 120 GB and 2 TB although rarely above 500GB of data (based on US market data[14]) rotate at 5,400 to 10,000 rpm and have a media transfer rate of 1 Gbit/s or higher. Some newer have 3Gbit/s." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk Now go and do some actual measurements before claiming that your idea will "increase" performance. It won't. ......and that information address's the following quote how? quote on This will cut down on I/O traffic to the hard drive. Starting an app like Word, would cause the HD to read the program into memory while at the same time writing into the drive, temporary files. This causes an I/O queue to form and degrade Windows performance. By off loading some of the I/O traffic to another storage device, the hard drive read/write head doesn't have to move around as much either. All performance gains. quote off |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
How to increase system system performance
Pegasus [MVP] wrote:
"Tae Song" wrote in message ... "Pegasus [MVP]" wrote in message ... "Tae Song" wrote in message ... I thought I would share this with you all, a few little tricks to boost Windows performance. Seeing that flash drives are much slower than hard disks, I wonder if your measures have the desired effect. Could we have some performance figures, complete with the test methods you applied so that anyone can perform the same tests on his machine? You have to take in to account access hard drives are mechanical and have access time of ms, where as flash drives have an access time down in to nanoseconds. Try this short paragraph for a starter: "Modern flash drives have USB 2.0 connectivity. However, they do not currently use the full 480 Mbit/s (60MB/s) the USB 2.0 Hi-Speed specification supports due to technical limitations inherent in NAND flash. The fastest drives currently available use a dual channel controller, although they still fall considerably short of the transfer rate possible from a current generation hard disk, or the maximum high speed USB throughput." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_flash_drive Or this: "A typical "desktop HDD" might store between 120 GB and 2 TB although rarely above 500GB of data (based on US market data[14]) rotate at 5,400 to 10,000 rpm and have a media transfer rate of 1 Gbit/s or higher. Some newer have 3Gbit/s." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk Now go and do some actual measurements before claiming that your idea will "increase" performance. It won't. ......and that information address's the following quote how? quote on This will cut down on I/O traffic to the hard drive. Starting an app like Word, would cause the HD to read the program into memory while at the same time writing into the drive, temporary files. This causes an I/O queue to form and degrade Windows performance. By off loading some of the I/O traffic to another storage device, the hard drive read/write head doesn't have to move around as much either. All performance gains. quote off |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
How to increase system system performance
"Peter Foldes" wrote in message ... Outlook does not work if you don't already have Outlook Express installed. Huh ??? What are you saying. For sure as I am typing this answer Outlook works without having to have Outlook Express. Get your answers straight Tae Song -- Peter Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged. For certain, if you install Office XP without Outlook Express on Vista. Outlook will come back with a message saying install Outlook Express. Outlook runs on top of Outlook Express. I was using Windows Live Mail, so I didn't bother. I noticed they released a service pack for Office XP today and by accident I startup Outlook and noticed I could get in. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
How to increase system system performance
"Peter Foldes" wrote in message ... Outlook does not work if you don't already have Outlook Express installed. Huh ??? What are you saying. For sure as I am typing this answer Outlook works without having to have Outlook Express. Get your answers straight Tae Song -- Peter Please Reply to Newsgroup for the benefit of others Requests for assistance by email can not and will not be acknowledged. For certain, if you install Office XP without Outlook Express on Vista. Outlook will come back with a message saying install Outlook Express. Outlook runs on top of Outlook Express. I was using Windows Live Mail, so I didn't bother. I noticed they released a service pack for Office XP today and by accident I startup Outlook and noticed I could get in. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
How to increase system system performance
"Pegasus [MVP]" wrote in message ... "Tae Song" wrote in message ... "Pegasus [MVP]" wrote in message ... "Tae Song" wrote in message ... I thought I would share this with you all, a few little tricks to boost Windows performance. Seeing that flash drives are much slower than hard disks, I wonder if your measures have the desired effect. Could we have some performance figures, complete with the test methods you applied so that anyone can perform the same tests on his machine? You have to take in to account access hard drives are mechanical and have access time of ms, where as flash drives have an access time down in to nanoseconds. Try this short paragraph for a starter: "Modern flash drives have USB 2.0 connectivity. However, they do not currently use the full 480 Mbit/s (60MB/s) the USB 2.0 Hi-Speed specification supports due to technical limitations inherent in NAND flash. The fastest drives currently available use a dual channel controller, although they still fall considerably short of the transfer rate possible from a current generation hard disk, or the maximum high speed USB throughput." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_flash_drive It says "currently" , but it doesn't say when it was written. Microsoft offers Readyboost, so perhaps things have changed since this was written. Or this: "A typical "desktop HDD" might store between 120 GB and 2 TB although rarely above 500GB of data (based on US market data[14]) rotate at 5,400 to 10,000 rpm and have a media transfer rate of 1 Gbit/s or higher. Some newer have 3Gbit/s." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk Now go and do some actual measurements before claiming that your idea will "increase" performance. It won't. My configuration isn't going to be the same as yours. Anyways it doesn't take any kind of test to know USB mass storage is still very fast. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
How to increase system system performance
"Pegasus [MVP]" wrote in message ... "Tae Song" wrote in message ... "Pegasus [MVP]" wrote in message ... "Tae Song" wrote in message ... I thought I would share this with you all, a few little tricks to boost Windows performance. Seeing that flash drives are much slower than hard disks, I wonder if your measures have the desired effect. Could we have some performance figures, complete with the test methods you applied so that anyone can perform the same tests on his machine? You have to take in to account access hard drives are mechanical and have access time of ms, where as flash drives have an access time down in to nanoseconds. Try this short paragraph for a starter: "Modern flash drives have USB 2.0 connectivity. However, they do not currently use the full 480 Mbit/s (60MB/s) the USB 2.0 Hi-Speed specification supports due to technical limitations inherent in NAND flash. The fastest drives currently available use a dual channel controller, although they still fall considerably short of the transfer rate possible from a current generation hard disk, or the maximum high speed USB throughput." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_flash_drive It says "currently" , but it doesn't say when it was written. Microsoft offers Readyboost, so perhaps things have changed since this was written. Or this: "A typical "desktop HDD" might store between 120 GB and 2 TB although rarely above 500GB of data (based on US market data[14]) rotate at 5,400 to 10,000 rpm and have a media transfer rate of 1 Gbit/s or higher. Some newer have 3Gbit/s." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_disk Now go and do some actual measurements before claiming that your idea will "increase" performance. It won't. My configuration isn't going to be the same as yours. Anyways it doesn't take any kind of test to know USB mass storage is still very fast. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|