Vista - Readyboost

Carl,

It's not just MVPs who have stated the uselessness
of ReadyBoost on machines with RAM over 1.5 Gigs.


-Michael

* carl feredeck:
> yeah ok, MVP's are not really 100% alive.
> they are un-dead or brain dead (there are some exceptions in other
> newsgroups but no good ones in this newsgroup). Dont mention them as a good
> example!
>
>
>
> "MICHAEL" <u158627_emr2@dslr.net> wrote in message
> news:O0saYTsyHHA.3588@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>
>> * Mike Brannigan:
>>> "Jurij" <jurijvi@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:E6D45015-A73E-4650-8702-EFA8E97A26BD@microsoft.com...
>>>> Hello all,
>>>>
>>>> I was intrigued by the Readyboost feature, but I presume it's more
>>>> effective on
>>>> "resource limited" systems?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>> No - ReadyBoost helps the performance of all systems as acting as a
>>> faster
>>> write through caching area to the hard drive.
>>> So even on systems with plenty of memory where there is any writing to
>>> disk
>>> and then potentially reading that data back in (after it may have been
>>> flushed from memory) then the use of the ReadyBoost cache is faster then
>>> the
>>> access to disk.
>> Your real-world experience seems to differ from mine and *many*
>> others, including a lot of MVPs. Perhaps, you are used to quoting
>> what Readyboost is supposed to do, but most of the comments
>> in this forum- now and since the betas- ReadyBoost has *not* provided
>> any noticeable improvement on machines that have over 1.5 GB of Ram.
>> The only times I have noticed a *little* bit of help from ReadyBoost is
>> when I run virtual machines. There have also been a few sites that have
>> run
>> some tests on ReadyBoost, most of it's not very flattering. About the
>> only time ReadyBoost shows any *noticeable* improvement are in
>> system with a Gig or less of Ram.
>>
>> My findings are about the same on three different Vista machines.
>>
>>
>> -Michael
>>
>
>

carl feredeck wrote:
> I will try an experiment and see....
>
> How much faster is a USB2.0 flashdrive data transfer in comparison with a
> hard drive disk? Any numbers?
>
>
> "Peter Foldes" <okf22@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:OG$ssWtyHHA.3564@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> carl
>
> Opening a File or Application is noticeable faster from the cahe of
> ReadyBoost than the Hard Drive. This I have seen on machines with 1gig of
> Ram as well as 4 Gigs of Ram

It depends a lot on what you're doing. I have 1 gig RAM and
saw no noticeable speed increase. In fact it seemed to slow
down booting and shutting down quite a bit. The following
article/link gives a couple of examples.

http://www.anandtech.com/systems/sho...spx?i=2917&p=6

gls858

I know.. if you read my original reply to mike I say the same exact thing.


"MICHAEL" <u158627_emr2@dslr.net> wrote in message
news:uUCHcjtyHHA.1176@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Carl,
>
> It's not just MVPs who have stated the uselessness
> of ReadyBoost on machines with RAM over 1.5 Gigs.
>
>
> -Michael
>
> * carl feredeck:
>> yeah ok, MVP's are not really 100% alive.
>> they are un-dead or brain dead (there are some exceptions in other
>> newsgroups but no good ones in this newsgroup). Dont mention them as a
>> good
>> example!
>>
>>
>>
>> "MICHAEL" <u158627_emr2@dslr.net> wrote in message
>> news:O0saYTsyHHA.3588@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>> * Mike Brannigan:
>>>> "Jurij" <jurijvi@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:E6D45015-A73E-4650-8702-EFA8E97A26BD@microsoft.com...
>>>>> Hello all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I was intrigued by the Readyboost feature, but I presume it's more
>>>>> effective on
>>>>> "resource limited" systems?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>> No - ReadyBoost helps the performance of all systems as acting as a
>>>> faster
>>>> write through caching area to the hard drive.
>>>> So even on systems with plenty of memory where there is any writing to
>>>> disk
>>>> and then potentially reading that data back in (after it may have been
>>>> flushed from memory) then the use of the ReadyBoost cache is faster
>>>> then
>>>> the
>>>> access to disk.
>>> Your real-world experience seems to differ from mine and *many*
>>> others, including a lot of MVPs. Perhaps, you are used to quoting
>>> what Readyboost is supposed to do, but most of the comments
>>> in this forum- now and since the betas- ReadyBoost has *not* provided
>>> any noticeable improvement on machines that have over 1.5 GB of Ram.
>>> The only times I have noticed a *little* bit of help from ReadyBoost is
>>> when I run virtual machines. There have also been a few sites that have
>>> run
>>> some tests on ReadyBoost, most of it's not very flattering. About the
>>> only time ReadyBoost shows any *noticeable* improvement are in
>>> system with a Gig or less of Ram.
>>>
>>> My findings are about the same on three different Vista machines.
>>>
>>>
>>> -Michael
>>>
>>
>>

carl feredeck wrote:

> I know.. if you read my original reply to mike I say the same exact thing.
>
>
> "MICHAEL" <u158627_emr2@dslr.net> wrote in message
> news:uUCHcjtyHHA.1176@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
>>Carl,
>>
>>It's not just MVPs who have stated the uselessness
>>of ReadyBoost on machines with RAM over 1.5 Gigs.
>>
>>
>>-Michael
>>
>>* carl feredeck:
>>
>>>yeah ok, MVP's are not really 100% alive.
>>>they are un-dead or brain dead (there are some exceptions in other
>>>newsgroups but no good ones in this newsgroup). Dont mention them as a
>>>good
>>>example!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"MICHAEL" <u158627_emr2@dslr.net> wrote in message
>>>news:O0saYTsyHHA.3588@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>
>>>>* Mike Brannigan:
>>>>
>>>>>"Jurij" <jurijvi@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:E6D45015-A73E-4650-8702-EFA8E97A26BD@microsoft.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>Hello all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I was intrigued by the Readyboost feature, but I presume it's more
>>>>>>effective on
>>>>>>"resource limited" systems?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Regards
>>>>>
>>>>>No - ReadyBoost helps the performance of all systems as acting as a
>>>>>faster
>>>>>write through caching area to the hard drive.
>>>>>So even on systems with plenty of memory where there is any writing to
>>>>>disk
>>>>>and then potentially reading that data back in (after it may have been
>>>>>flushed from memory) then the use of the ReadyBoost cache is faster
>>>>>then
>>>>>the
>>>>>access to disk.
>>>>
>>>>Your real-world experience seems to differ from mine and *many*
>>>>others, including a lot of MVPs. Perhaps, you are used to quoting
>>>>what Readyboost is supposed to do, but most of the comments
>>>>in this forum- now and since the betas- ReadyBoost has *not* provided
>>>>any noticeable improvement on machines that have over 1.5 GB of Ram.
>>>>The only times I have noticed a *little* bit of help from ReadyBoost is
>>>>when I run virtual machines. There have also been a few sites that have
>>>>run
>>>>some tests on ReadyBoost, most of it's not very flattering. About the
>>>>only time ReadyBoost shows any *noticeable* improvement are in
>>>>system with a Gig or less of Ram.
>>>>
>>>>My findings are about the same on three different Vista machines.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>-Michael
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
Readyboost effectiveness is most apparent on machines with 512 megs of RAM.
Frank

hi
i use a compaq presario notebook 1gb ram ,vista hp . i used it for about
3months before i bought a 4gb usb stick and started using ready boost i
noticed a difference straightaway (for the better)but having looked into
readyboost i can see that a lot depends on the transfer rate of the stick ,a
4gig stick can still have a slow transfer rate rendering it useless for
readyboost even slowing higher ram systems down

--
martyb


"Frank" wrote:

> carl feredeck wrote:
>
> > I know.. if you read my original reply to mike I say the same exact thing.
> >
> >
> > "MICHAEL" <u158627_emr2@dslr.net> wrote in message
> > news:uUCHcjtyHHA.1176@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> >
> >>Carl,
> >>
> >>It's not just MVPs who have stated the uselessness
> >>of ReadyBoost on machines with RAM over 1.5 Gigs.
> >>
> >>
> >>-Michael
> >>
> >>* carl feredeck:
> >>
> >>>yeah ok, MVP's are not really 100% alive.
> >>>they are un-dead or brain dead (there are some exceptions in other
> >>>newsgroups but no good ones in this newsgroup). Dont mention them as a
> >>>good
> >>>example!
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>"MICHAEL" <u158627_emr2@dslr.net> wrote in message
> >>>news:O0saYTsyHHA.3588@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> >>>
> >>>>* Mike Brannigan:
> >>>>
> >>>>>"Jurij" <jurijvi@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>>news:E6D45015-A73E-4650-8702-EFA8E97A26BD@microsoft.com...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Hello all,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>I was intrigued by the Readyboost feature, but I presume it's more
> >>>>>>effective on
> >>>>>>"resource limited" systems?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Regards
> >>>>>
> >>>>>No - ReadyBoost helps the performance of all systems as acting as a
> >>>>>faster
> >>>>>write through caching area to the hard drive.
> >>>>>So even on systems with plenty of memory where there is any writing to
> >>>>>disk
> >>>>>and then potentially reading that data back in (after it may have been
> >>>>>flushed from memory) then the use of the ReadyBoost cache is faster
> >>>>>then
> >>>>>the
> >>>>>access to disk.
> >>>>
> >>>>Your real-world experience seems to differ from mine and *many*
> >>>>others, including a lot of MVPs. Perhaps, you are used to quoting
> >>>>what Readyboost is supposed to do, but most of the comments
> >>>>in this forum- now and since the betas- ReadyBoost has *not* provided
> >>>>any noticeable improvement on machines that have over 1.5 GB of Ram.
> >>>>The only times I have noticed a *little* bit of help from ReadyBoost is
> >>>>when I run virtual machines. There have also been a few sites that have
> >>>>run
> >>>>some tests on ReadyBoost, most of it's not very flattering. About the
> >>>>only time ReadyBoost shows any *noticeable* improvement are in
> >>>>system with a Gig or less of Ram.
> >>>>
> >>>>My findings are about the same on three different Vista machines.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>-Michael
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> Readyboost effectiveness is most apparent on machines with 512 megs of RAM.
> Frank
>

Once again: Readyboost is not associated with system RAM. ReadyBoost works
in concert with Superfetch the replacement for Prefetch (previous Windows
version).

Whether or not Vista will designate a device for ReadyBoost depends upon
comparison read/write characteristics of the HD and the external device
(there are minimum specs).
There will be no ReadyBoost gain if the Win performance index of the HD is
"5" (maximum rate is 5.9) - which is why ReadyBoost is significant for
laptops with slower HDs.

Non-sequential read/writes are "sent" to the ReadyBoost device (or cache)
and sequtntial read/writes to the page file - meaning that performance will
also depend on the type of HD activity.

An internal ReadyBoost cache is in use whether or not there is an external
device. Also of importance - ReadyBoost (via Superfetch) over a period of
time monitors application activity and adjusts performance accordingly.

"marty" <marty@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:0946E8E7-CEB1-448B-8831-7F2FEB077FA6@microsoft.com...
> hi
> i use a compaq presario notebook 1gb ram ,vista hp . i used it for about
> 3months before i bought a 4gb usb stick and started using ready boost i
> noticed a difference straightaway (for the better)but having looked into
> readyboost i can see that a lot depends on the transfer rate of the stick
> ,a
> 4gig stick can still have a slow transfer rate rendering it useless for
> readyboost even slowing higher ram systems down
>
> --
> martyb
>
>
> "Frank" wrote:
>
>> carl feredeck wrote:
>>
>> > I know.. if you read my original reply to mike I say the same exact
>> > thing.
>> >
>> >
>> > "MICHAEL" <u158627_emr2@dslr.net> wrote in message
>> > news:uUCHcjtyHHA.1176@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> >
>> >>Carl,
>> >>
>> >>It's not just MVPs who have stated the uselessness
>> >>of ReadyBoost on machines with RAM over 1.5 Gigs.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>-Michael
>> >>
>> >>* carl feredeck:
>> >>
>> >>>yeah ok, MVP's are not really 100% alive.
>> >>>they are un-dead or brain dead (there are some exceptions in other
>> >>>newsgroups but no good ones in this newsgroup). Dont mention them as a
>> >>>good
>> >>>example!
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>"MICHAEL" <u158627_emr2@dslr.net> wrote in message
>> >>>news:O0saYTsyHHA.3588@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> >>>
>> >>>>* Mike Brannigan:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>"Jurij" <jurijvi@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> >>>>>news:E6D45015-A73E-4650-8702-EFA8E97A26BD@microsoft.com...
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>Hello all,
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>I was intrigued by the Readyboost feature, but I presume it's more
>> >>>>>>effective on
>> >>>>>>"resource limited" systems?
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>Regards
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>No - ReadyBoost helps the performance of all systems as acting as a
>> >>>>>faster
>> >>>>>write through caching area to the hard drive.
>> >>>>>So even on systems with plenty of memory where there is any writing
>> >>>>>to
>> >>>>>disk
>> >>>>>and then potentially reading that data back in (after it may have
>> >>>>>been
>> >>>>>flushed from memory) then the use of the ReadyBoost cache is faster
>> >>>>>then
>> >>>>>the
>> >>>>>access to disk.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>Your real-world experience seems to differ from mine and *many*
>> >>>>others, including a lot of MVPs. Perhaps, you are used to quoting
>> >>>>what Readyboost is supposed to do, but most of the comments
>> >>>>in this forum- now and since the betas- ReadyBoost has *not* provided
>> >>>>any noticeable improvement on machines that have over 1.5 GB of Ram.
>> >>>>The only times I have noticed a *little* bit of help from ReadyBoost
>> >>>>is
>> >>>>when I run virtual machines. There have also been a few sites that
>> >>>>have
>> >>>>run
>> >>>>some tests on ReadyBoost, most of it's not very flattering. About
>> >>>>the
>> >>>>only time ReadyBoost shows any *noticeable* improvement are in
>> >>>>system with a Gig or less of Ram.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>My findings are about the same on three different Vista machines.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>-Michael
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> >
>> Readyboost effectiveness is most apparent on machines with 512 megs of
>> RAM.
>> Frank
>>

"AJR" <ajrjdr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:OGmdJYvyHHA.4824@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Once again: Readyboost is not associated with system RAM. ReadyBoost
> works in concert with Superfetch the replacement for Prefetch (previous
> Windows version).
>
> Whether or not Vista will designate a device for ReadyBoost depends upon
> comparison read/write characteristics of the HD and the external device
> (there are minimum specs).
> There will be no ReadyBoost gain if the Win performance index of the HD is
> "5" (maximum rate is 5.9) - which is why ReadyBoost is significant for
> laptops with slower HDs.

I concur ... but I didn't always.

I was not originally a fan of ReadyBoost, and even made it known here during
some early trouble with this laptop when it was fresh out of the box. But
I'm starting to think I may have been a bit premature.

I quit using RB for three + weeks during a period of intensive CAD while
designing a new kitchen. You get a real good "feel" for the responsiveness
of any system during long hours of such intense daily use for that long a
time.

Just for grins I recently decided to give ReadyBoost another shot on an SD
card.

The responsiveness of this Dell XPS 1210/2GB RAM/160 GB SATA 5400rpm HD is
_noticeably_ improved with an 1810MB RB file on this SD card.

I'm sure this is a classic YMMV, but there is NO doubt about the current and
noticeable improvement on this box.

That said, we'll see if it eventually corrupts this media like it did the
first time I tried it on a high speed USB thumb drive.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 6/1/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Swingman" wrote in message

> Just for grins I recently decided to give ReadyBoost another shot on an SD
> card.
>
> The responsiveness of this Dell XPS 1210/2GB RAM/160 GB SATA 5400rpm HD is
> _noticeably_ improved with an 1810MB RB file on this SD card.
>
> I'm sure this is a classic YMMV, but there is NO doubt about the current
> and noticeable improvement on this box.
>
> That said, we'll see if it eventually corrupts this media like it did the
> first time I tried it on a high speed USB thumb drive.

Well ... what using ReadyBoost does cause on this box is shutdown problems.

On the next three out of five shutdown attempts the machine stalls at the
shutdown screen and has to eventually be powered off.

A Google search indicates that this is not an unknown problem with
ReadyBoost as a number of folks experienced the behavior with various RC's.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 6/1/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

"Swingman" <kac@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:u8CKWj7yHHA.312@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> "Swingman" wrote in message
>
>> Just for grins I recently decided to give ReadyBoost another shot on an
>> SD card.
>>
>> The responsiveness of this Dell XPS 1210/2GB RAM/160 GB SATA 5400rpm HD
>> is _noticeably_ improved with an 1810MB RB file on this SD card.
>>
>> I'm sure this is a classic YMMV, but there is NO doubt about the current
>> and noticeable improvement on this box.
>>
>> That said, we'll see if it eventually corrupts this media like it did the
>> first time I tried it on a high speed USB thumb drive.
>
> Well ... what using ReadyBoost does cause on this box is shutdown
> problems.
>
> On the next three out of five shutdown attempts the machine stalls at the
> shutdown screen and has to eventually be powered off.
>
> A Google search indicates that this is not an unknown problem with
> ReadyBoost as a number of folks experienced the behavior with various
> RC's.
>
> --
> www.e-woodshop.net
> Last update: 6/1/07
> KarlC@ (the obvious)


I had that trouble as well as sound and other issues. Not only did I have
to stop using ReadyBoost, but I had to reformat to set things right again,
could not even go back in time to fix things.
>

On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 17:01:40 +0300, carl feredeck wrote:

> I will try an experiment and see....
>
> How much faster is a USB2.0 flashdrive data transfer in comparison with a
> hard drive disk? Any numbers?

USB2.0 High-speed Flash Drive: 10-30mb/sec
IDE Data Transfer: 133mb/sec
SATA Data Transfer: 150mb/sec
SATAII Data Transfer: 300mb/sec

--
Stephan
2003 Yamaha R6

������出�日�ん�����
����忘れ�������ら