• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

How to increase system system performance

T

Tae Song

#1
I thought I would share this with you all, a few little tricks to boost
Windows performance.

If you have a spare USB flash drive or you are willing to get a cheap say
1GB flash drive.

First we plug in the flash drive.

Go to Disk Manager and assign it a drive letter, like Z: (this is just to
get it out of the way and optional)

Go to Advanced system settings, Evironment variables.

Change the Temp variable under User to Z:\ (I didn't see any point creating
folders, but that's optional)

Change the Temp variable under System variable to Z:\

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.

Another trick I tried was moving Windows Search Index to a flash drive, but
it won't let me select even a 16GB flash drive. Even though the Index
doesn't grow beyond 1GB. It's max size seems to be just under 1GB. You can
move to it to a removable drive, though. I rebuilt the Index on an external
500GB USB drive. Again, this cuts down I/O traffic to the internal hard
drive. More performance gain.

Another idea I tried was creating a pagefile on a 16GB USB flash drive. I
found out you can only have 4095MB pagefile or just under 25% of total
capacity. I don't know what the rule of thumb is though, because on the
internal 1TB hard drive I could create up to the max free space, which was
about 700,000GB. Not that I needed that much, but just to test. I'm
actually running with 4GB RAM and no page file, at the moment. Even with
lots of 100MB picture (scanned documents/photos) open, virtual memory wasn't
required. I would like to use most of an 8GB flash drive. Possibly use it
for both temp files and virtual memory.

I don't know if pagefile is the same thing as running ReadyBoost. I don't
think it is, but I will have to look into that. I am not using Readyboost,
since I read it doesn't do much good if you have more than 2GB of RAM.

Now, if you have a 2nd or 3rd internal hard drive, you can create a pagefile
on the 2nd drive and search index on the 3rd or index on 2nd and page file
on 3rd. I highly recommended using a USB drive for temp files. 1-2GB are
pretty cheap. I don't think you need a larger one unless you are working
with full length movies, but I don't for certain.

They do something like this on big database servers, some might refer to as
"mainframes". The index and database are each on their own storage device.
The aggregated bandwidth offers even better performance then RAID and the
best part is you can implement it along side with RAID for insane amount of
storage I/O performance.

Anyways, that's it.

If you need more detailed info on setting this up, leave a little note in
the newsgroup. If I don't get to it, I'm sure someone else will help you
out.
 

My Computer

T

Tae Song

#2
"Tae Song" <tae_song@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:E4A312C4-33A9-4FD8-8FF7-59C4B4914442@xxxxxx

> I thought I would share this with you all, a few little tricks to boost
> Windows performance.
>
> If you have a spare USB flash drive or you are willing to get a cheap say
> 1GB flash drive.
>
> First we plug in the flash drive.
>
> Go to Disk Manager and assign it a drive letter, like Z: (this is just to
> get it out of the way and optional)
>
> Go to Advanced system settings, Evironment variables.
>
> Change the Temp variable under User to Z:\ (I didn't see any point
> creating folders, but that's optional)
>
> Change the Temp variable under System variable to Z:\
>
> 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.
>
> Another trick I tried was moving Windows Search Index to a flash drive,
> but it won't let me select even a 16GB flash drive. Even though the Index
> doesn't grow beyond 1GB. It's max size seems to be just under 1GB. You
> can move to it to a removable drive, though. I rebuilt the Index on an
> external 500GB USB drive. Again, this cuts down I/O traffic to the
> internal hard drive. More performance gain.
>
> Another idea I tried was creating a pagefile on a 16GB USB flash drive. I
> found out you can only have 4095MB pagefile or just under 25% of total
> capacity. I don't know what the rule of thumb is though, because on the
> internal 1TB hard drive I could create up to the max free space, which was
> about 700,000GB. Not that I needed that much, but just to test. I'm
> actually running with 4GB RAM and no page file, at the moment. Even with
> lots of 100MB picture (scanned documents/photos) open, virtual memory
> wasn't required. I would like to use most of an 8GB flash drive.
> Possibly use it for both temp files and virtual memory.
>
> I don't know if pagefile is the same thing as running ReadyBoost. I don't
> think it is, but I will have to look into that. I am not using
> Readyboost, since I read it doesn't do much good if you have more than 2GB
> of RAM.
>
> Now, if you have a 2nd or 3rd internal hard drive, you can create a
> pagefile on the 2nd drive and search index on the 3rd or index on 2nd and
> page file on 3rd. I highly recommended using a USB drive for temp files.
> 1-2GB are pretty cheap. I don't think you need a larger one unless you
> are working with full length movies, but I don't for certain.
>
> They do something like this on big database servers, some might refer to
> as "mainframes". The index and database are each on their own storage
> device. The aggregated bandwidth offers even better performance then RAID
> and the best part is you can implement it along side with RAID for insane
> amount of storage I/O performance.
>
> Anyways, that's it.
>
> If you need more detailed info on setting this up, leave a little note in
> the newsgroup. If I don't get to it, I'm sure someone else will help you
> out.
I forgot to mention, putting pagefile on USB flash drive doesn't work. I
think Windows tries to create it during boot, but USB drivers don't get
loaded so it can't access the flash drive to create it. (Probably why you
can't boot in to Windows from USB drives, I even tried enabling BIOS support
for USB drive which works for booting Linux). When I got into Windows and
checked, the pagefile never got created. But if you have another internal
hard drive or maybe even eSATA (in non-ACHI/RAID mode) you can create a
pagefile there.

Done. I think.
 

My Computer

B

Bill in Co.

#3
Tae Song wrote:

> I thought I would share this with you all, a few little tricks to boost
> Windows performance.
>
> If you have a spare USB flash drive or you are willing to get a cheap say
> 1GB flash drive.
>
> First we plug in the flash drive.
>
> Go to Disk Manager and assign it a drive letter, like Z: (this is just to
> get it out of the way and optional)
>
> Go to Advanced system settings, Evironment variables.
>
> Change the Temp variable under User to Z:\ (I didn't see any point
> creating
> folders, but that's optional)
>
> Change the Temp variable under System variable to Z:\
>
> 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.
I don't think so!! There will be a performance LOSS, in large part due to
the much longer write times to a flash drive. Also, it's generally a poor
idea to have so many continuous writes to a flash drive, as flash drives
have a more limited number of write cycles.

<snip> rest of this post
 

My Computer

P

Pegasus [MVP]

#4
"Tae Song" <tae_song@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:E4A312C4-33A9-4FD8-8FF7-59C4B4914442@xxxxxx

>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?
 

My Computer

J

Jerry

#5
Why not just create and RAMDRIVE and use it for the TMP/TEMP variables?

"Tae Song" <tae_song@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:E4A312C4-33A9-4FD8-8FF7-59C4B4914442@xxxxxx

>I thought I would share this with you all, a few little tricks to boost
>Windows performance.
>
> If you have a spare USB flash drive or you are willing to get a cheap say
> 1GB flash drive.
>
> First we plug in the flash drive.
>
> Go to Disk Manager and assign it a drive letter, like Z: (this is just to
> get it out of the way and optional)
>
> Go to Advanced system settings, Evironment variables.
>
> Change the Temp variable under User to Z:\ (I didn't see any point
> creating folders, but that's optional)
>
> Change the Temp variable under System variable to Z:\
>
> 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.
>
> Another trick I tried was moving Windows Search Index to a flash drive,
> but it won't let me select even a 16GB flash drive. Even though the Index
> doesn't grow beyond 1GB. It's max size seems to be just under 1GB. You
> can move to it to a removable drive, though. I rebuilt the Index on an
> external 500GB USB drive. Again, this cuts down I/O traffic to the
> internal hard drive. More performance gain.
>
> Another idea I tried was creating a pagefile on a 16GB USB flash drive. I
> found out you can only have 4095MB pagefile or just under 25% of total
> capacity. I don't know what the rule of thumb is though, because on the
> internal 1TB hard drive I could create up to the max free space, which was
> about 700,000GB. Not that I needed that much, but just to test. I'm
> actually running with 4GB RAM and no page file, at the moment. Even with
> lots of 100MB picture (scanned documents/photos) open, virtual memory
> wasn't required. I would like to use most of an 8GB flash drive.
> Possibly use it for both temp files and virtual memory.
>
> I don't know if pagefile is the same thing as running ReadyBoost. I don't
> think it is, but I will have to look into that. I am not using
> Readyboost, since I read it doesn't do much good if you have more than 2GB
> of RAM.
>
> Now, if you have a 2nd or 3rd internal hard drive, you can create a
> pagefile on the 2nd drive and search index on the 3rd or index on 2nd and
> page file on 3rd. I highly recommended using a USB drive for temp files.
> 1-2GB are pretty cheap. I don't think you need a larger one unless you
> are working with full length movies, but I don't for certain.
>
> They do something like this on big database servers, some might refer to
> as "mainframes". The index and database are each on their own storage
> device. The aggregated bandwidth offers even better performance then RAID
> and the best part is you can implement it along side with RAID for insane
> amount of storage I/O performance.
>
> Anyways, that's it.
>
> If you need more detailed info on setting this up, leave a little note in
> the newsgroup. If I don't get to it, I'm sure someone else will help you
> out.
 

My Computer

T

Tae Song

#6
"Pegasus [MVP]" <news@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:O8a9Ndg6JHA.5012@xxxxxx

>
> "Tae Song" <tae_song@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:E4A312C4-33A9-4FD8-8FF7-59C4B4914442@xxxxxx

>>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.
 

My Computer

T

Tae Song

#7
"Jerry" <ChiefZekeNoSpam@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:#6nvo$g6JHA.6136@xxxxxx

> Why not just create and RAMDRIVE and use it for the TMP/TEMP variables?
>
> "Tae Song" <tae_song@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:E4A312C4-33A9-4FD8-8FF7-59C4B4914442@xxxxxx

>>I thought I would share this with you all, a few little tricks to boost
>>Windows performance.
>>
>> If you have a spare USB flash drive or you are willing to get a cheap say
>> 1GB flash drive.
>>
>> First we plug in the flash drive.
>>
>> Go to Disk Manager and assign it a drive letter, like Z: (this is just
>> to get it out of the way and optional)
>>
>> Go to Advanced system settings, Evironment variables.
>>
>> Change the Temp variable under User to Z:\ (I didn't see any point
>> creating folders, but that's optional)
>>
>> Change the Temp variable under System variable to Z:\
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Another trick I tried was moving Windows Search Index to a flash drive,
>> but it won't let me select even a 16GB flash drive. Even though the
>> Index doesn't grow beyond 1GB. It's max size seems to be just under 1GB.
>> You can move to it to a removable drive, though. I rebuilt the Index on
>> an external 500GB USB drive. Again, this cuts down I/O traffic to the
>> internal hard drive. More performance gain.
>>
>> Another idea I tried was creating a pagefile on a 16GB USB flash drive.
>> I found out you can only have 4095MB pagefile or just under 25% of total
>> capacity. I don't know what the rule of thumb is though, because on the
>> internal 1TB hard drive I could create up to the max free space, which
>> was about 700,000GB. Not that I needed that much, but just to test. I'm
>> actually running with 4GB RAM and no page file, at the moment. Even with
>> lots of 100MB picture (scanned documents/photos) open, virtual memory
>> wasn't required. I would like to use most of an 8GB flash drive.
>> Possibly use it for both temp files and virtual memory.
>>
>> I don't know if pagefile is the same thing as running ReadyBoost. I
>> don't think it is, but I will have to look into that. I am not using
>> Readyboost, since I read it doesn't do much good if you have more than
>> 2GB of RAM.
>>
>> Now, if you have a 2nd or 3rd internal hard drive, you can create a
>> pagefile on the 2nd drive and search index on the 3rd or index on 2nd and
>> page file on 3rd. I highly recommended using a USB drive for temp files.
>> 1-2GB are pretty cheap. I don't think you need a larger one unless you
>> are working with full length movies, but I don't for certain.
>>
>> They do something like this on big database servers, some might refer to
>> as "mainframes". The index and database are each on their own storage
>> device. The aggregated bandwidth offers even better performance then RAID
>> and the best part is you can implement it along side with RAID for insane
>> amount of storage I/O performance.
>>
>> Anyways, that's it.
>>
>> If you need more detailed info on setting this up, leave a little note in
>> the newsgroup. If I don't get to it, I'm sure someone else will help you
>> out.
>
>
>
That would work. But how much memory are you going to allocate to RAM
drive? 1GB flash are practically free these days. They were giving them
out for free at a community college if you signed up for a computer class.
Well... technically that's not free... but... they gave you one 1GB flash
drive if you signed up for a class, that's more accurate.
 

My Computer

P

Pegasus [MVP]

#8
"Tae Song" <tae_song@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4E87102D-4004-4699-8BF6-3235EC1A5735@xxxxxx

>
> "Pegasus [MVP]" <news@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:O8a9Ndg6JHA.5012@xxxxxx

>>
>> "Tae Song" <tae_song@xxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:E4A312C4-33A9-4FD8-8FF7-59C4B4914442@xxxxxx

>>>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! 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?
 

My Computer

B

Bill in Co.

#9
Tae Song wrote:

> "Pegasus [MVP]" <news@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:O8a9Ndg6JHA.5012@xxxxxx

>>
>> "Tae Song" <tae_song@xxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:E4A312C4-33A9-4FD8-8FF7-59C4B4914442@xxxxxx

>>> 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.
 

My Computer

B

Bill in Co.

#10
Pegasus [MVP] wrote:

> "Tae Song" <tae_song@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:4E87102D-4004-4699-8BF6-3235EC1A5735@xxxxxx

>>
>> "Pegasus [MVP]" <news@xxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:O8a9Ndg6JHA.5012@xxxxxx

>>>
>>> "Tae Song" <tae_song@xxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:E4A312C4-33A9-4FD8-8FF7-59C4B4914442@xxxxxx
>>>> 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.
 

My Computer

P

Pegasus [MVP]

#11
"Tae Song" <tae_song@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4E87102D-4004-4699-8BF6-3235EC1A5735@xxxxxx

>
> "Pegasus [MVP]" <news@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:O8a9Ndg6JHA.5012@xxxxxx

>>
>> "Tae Song" <tae_song@xxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:E4A312C4-33A9-4FD8-8FF7-59C4B4914442@xxxxxx

>>>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.
 

My Computer

P

Peter Foldes

#12
>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.
 

My Computer

P

propman

#13
Pegasus [MVP] wrote:

> "Tae Song" <tae_song@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:4E87102D-4004-4699-8BF6-3235EC1A5735@xxxxxx

>> "Pegasus [MVP]" <news@xxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:O8a9Ndg6JHA.5012@xxxxxx

>>> "Tae Song" <tae_song@xxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:E4A312C4-33A9-4FD8-8FF7-59C4B4914442@xxxxxx
>>>> 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>
 

My Computer

T

Tae Song

#14
"Peter Foldes" <okf22@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eq56qlh6JHA.1380@xxxxxx

>>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.
 

My Computer

T

Tae Song

#15
"Pegasus [MVP]" <news@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:elhorlh6JHA.4116@xxxxxx

>
> "Tae Song" <tae_song@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:4E87102D-4004-4699-8BF6-3235EC1A5735@xxxxxx

>>
>> "Pegasus [MVP]" <news@xxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:O8a9Ndg6JHA.5012@xxxxxx

>>>
>>> "Tae Song" <tae_song@xxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:E4A312C4-33A9-4FD8-8FF7-59C4B4914442@xxxxxx
>>>>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.
 

My Computer

R

Richard Urban

#16
Only if you want to set up to read news groups. Outlook is email only! If
you don't do news groups you don't need Outlook Express.



--

Richard Urban
Microsoft MVP
Windows Desktop Experience


"Tae Song" <tae_song@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9924FDC6-DB94-4D11-9DE9-CB31D0402E8A@xxxxxx

>
> "Peter Foldes" <okf22@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:eq56qlh6JHA.1380@xxxxxx

>>>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.
>
>
>
 

My Computer

M

Michael

#17
On Jun 10, 3:18 pm, "Pegasus [MVP]" <n...@xxxxxx> wrote:

> "Tae Song" <tae_s...@xxxxxx> wrote in message
>
> news:4E87102D-4004-4699-8BF6-3235EC1A5735@xxxxxx
>
>
>
>
>

> > "Pegasus [MVP]" <n...@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> >news:O8a9Ndg6JHA.5012@xxxxxx
>

> >> "Tae Song" <tae_s...@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> >>news:E4A312C4-33A9-4FD8-8FF7-59C4B4914442@xxxxxx
> >>>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.
Pegasus is right, I think what a lot of you don't understand about
flash memory is that it's not access speeds that are fast, it
ADRESSING (seek) speeds that are fast. Flash memory is very fast at
being able to find data within the chip itself. But there are many
more factors than just the addressing speed. First you have the USB
port which is only capable of 480 Mbit/s versus today's SATA 3.0 Gbit/
s. And both of those interfaces rarely if not never reach those ideal
values. You have to keep in mind that the controller within a USB
memory device is a huge limiting factor. The memory itself may be very
fast, but the computer isn't talking to that, it's talking to its
controller, and if you are using cheap USB sticks, then that
controller is very likely to be low quality, and slow. Go google some
benchmarks, you'll see that flash memory isn't all that fast.

Moving page file and other things away form the OS drive, that I could
see having some possible change. If you really want some significant
speed increases, check out RAIDing and don't buy cheap RAM, and use a
page file, page files do a whole lot more than dealing with minimized
programs, there are tons of background applications that don't need to
be in memory constantly because they don't do much once they are
loaded (software updaters, printer/scanner stuff, etc).
 

My Computer

G

Gene E. Bloch

#18
Folders and files in %TEMP% can grow to be larger than the total amount of
RAM...

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:10:38 -0700, Jerry wrote:

> Why not just create and RAMDRIVE and use it for the TMP/TEMP variables?
>
> "Tae Song" <tae_song@xxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:E4A312C4-33A9-4FD8-8FF7-59C4B4914442@xxxxxx

>>I thought I would share this with you all, a few little tricks to boost
>>Windows performance.
>>
>> If you have a spare USB flash drive or you are willing to get a cheap say
>> 1GB flash drive.
>>
>> First we plug in the flash drive.
>>
>> Go to Disk Manager and assign it a drive letter, like Z: (this is just to
>> get it out of the way and optional)
>>
>> Go to Advanced system settings, Evironment variables.
>>
>> Change the Temp variable under User to Z:\ (I didn't see any point
>> creating folders, but that's optional)
>>
>> Change the Temp variable under System variable to Z:\
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> Another trick I tried was moving Windows Search Index to a flash drive,
>> but it won't let me select even a 16GB flash drive. Even though the Index
>> doesn't grow beyond 1GB. It's max size seems to be just under 1GB. You
>> can move to it to a removable drive, though. I rebuilt the Index on an
>> external 500GB USB drive. Again, this cuts down I/O traffic to the
>> internal hard drive. More performance gain.
>>
>> Another idea I tried was creating a pagefile on a 16GB USB flash drive. I
>> found out you can only have 4095MB pagefile or just under 25% of total
>> capacity. I don't know what the rule of thumb is though, because on the
>> internal 1TB hard drive I could create up to the max free space, which was
>> about 700,000GB. Not that I needed that much, but just to test. I'm
>> actually running with 4GB RAM and no page file, at the moment. Even with
>> lots of 100MB picture (scanned documents/photos) open, virtual memory
>> wasn't required. I would like to use most of an 8GB flash drive.
>> Possibly use it for both temp files and virtual memory.
>>
>> I don't know if pagefile is the same thing as running ReadyBoost. I don't
>> think it is, but I will have to look into that. I am not using
>> Readyboost, since I read it doesn't do much good if you have more than 2GB
>> of RAM.
>>
>> Now, if you have a 2nd or 3rd internal hard drive, you can create a
>> pagefile on the 2nd drive and search index on the 3rd or index on 2nd and
>> page file on 3rd. I highly recommended using a USB drive for temp files.
>> 1-2GB are pretty cheap. I don't think you need a larger one unless you
>> are working with full length movies, but I don't for certain.
>>
>> They do something like this on big database servers, some might refer to
>> as "mainframes". The index and database are each on their own storage
>> device. The aggregated bandwidth offers even better performance then RAID
>> and the best part is you can implement it along side with RAID for insane
>> amount of storage I/O performance.
>>
>> Anyways, that's it.
>>
>> If you need more detailed info on setting this up, leave a little note in
>> the newsgroup. If I don't get to it, I'm sure someone else will help you
>> out.

--
Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom
 

My Computer

P

Pegasus [MVP]

#19
"propman" <propman@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:h0pcrq$jfs$1@xxxxxx-september.org...

> Pegasus [MVP] wrote:

>> "Tae Song" <tae_song@xxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:4E87102D-4004-4699-8BF6-3235EC1A5735@xxxxxx

>>> "Pegasus [MVP]" <news@xxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:O8a9Ndg6JHA.5012@xxxxxx
>>>> "Tae Song" <tae_song@xxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>> news:E4A312C4-33A9-4FD8-8FF7-59C4B4914442@xxxxxx
>>>>> 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 [addresses?] 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>

Nice words but so far the OP has not offered the slightest evidence that his
idea speeds up a machine. Let's see a few tests that anyone can reproduce!
 

My Computer

M

Monitor

#20
"Tae Song" <tae_song@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:E4A312C4-33A9-4FD8-8FF7-59C4B4914442@xxxxxx

>I thought I would share this with you all, a few little tricks to boost
>Windows performance.
>
> If you have a spare USB flash drive or you are willing to get a cheap say
> 1GB flash drive.
>
> First we plug in the flash drive.
>
> Go to Disk Manager and assign it a drive letter, like Z: (this is just to
> get it out of the way and optional)
>
> Go to Advanced system settings, Evironment variables.
>
> Change the Temp variable under User to Z:\ (I didn't see any point
> creating folders, but that's optional)
>
> Change the Temp variable under System variable to Z:\
>
> 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.
>
> Another trick I tried was moving Windows Search Index to a flash drive,
> but it won't let me select even a 16GB flash drive. Even though the Index
> doesn't grow beyond 1GB. It's max size seems to be just under 1GB. You
> can move to it to a removable drive, though. I rebuilt the Index on an
> external 500GB USB drive. Again, this cuts down I/O traffic to the
> internal hard drive. More performance gain.
>
> Another idea I tried was creating a pagefile on a 16GB USB flash drive. I
> found out you can only have 4095MB pagefile or just under 25% of total
> capacity. I don't know what the rule of thumb is though, because on the
> internal 1TB hard drive I could create up to the max free space, which was
> about 700,000GB. Not that I needed that much, but just to test. I'm
> actually running with 4GB RAM and no page file, at the moment. Even with
> lots of 100MB picture (scanned documents/photos) open, virtual memory
> wasn't required. I would like to use most of an 8GB flash drive.
> Possibly use it for both temp files and virtual memory.
>
> I don't know if pagefile is the same thing as running ReadyBoost. I don't
> think it is, but I will have to look into that. I am not using
> Readyboost, since I read it doesn't do much good if you have more than 2GB
> of RAM.
>
> Now, if you have a 2nd or 3rd internal hard drive, you can create a
> pagefile on the 2nd drive and search index on the 3rd or index on 2nd and
> page file on 3rd. I highly recommended using a USB drive for temp files.
> 1-2GB are pretty cheap. I don't think you need a larger one unless you
> are working with full length movies, but I don't for certain.
>
> They do something like this on big database servers, some might refer to
> as "mainframes". The index and database are each on their own storage
> device. The aggregated bandwidth offers even better performance then RAID
> and the best part is you can implement it along side with RAID for insane
> amount of storage I/O performance.
>
> Anyways, that's it.
>
> If you need more detailed info on setting this up, leave a little note in
> the newsgroup. If I don't get to it, I'm sure someone else will help you
> out.
Here is how geniuses work:
1. They have a brilliant idea.
2. They test it.
3. They test it again.
4. They have it verified by someone else.
5. They publish it.
6. They enjoy the praise and the fame.

It seems you jumped from Step 1 directly to Step 5, expecting to be showered
with praise. Instead you need to scrape a lot of egg off your face.
 

My Computer

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)