| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 99041 | 2009-04-17 12:03:00 | USB memory boost for XP | myke (7862) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 765969 | 2009-04-17 12:03:00 | Is there much of a performance gain in using a USB Flash drive as additional cache memory for XP? See cnettv.cnet.com Is there a limit to how much memory can be used this way? ...as in would an 8GB flash drive be wasted? My wife uses my old laptop (P4 3.06 GhzXP SP3)with 512mb shared RAM & yes it runs like a dog, but RAM for the old beast is like expensive... so I'd like to just try and get it through to the end of the year before thinking about a Windows 7 based replacement (without wife throwing it at me). Finally, does the USB stick need to stay in the USB port? Can it be ejected without crashing or causing major issues? What happens if the pen is not in the drive at startup?:help: |
myke (7862) | ||
| 765970 | 2009-04-17 12:06:00 | Some might be tempted to just say try it out... I'll test this when I find a spare flash drive. I was just interested to see if anyone was in the know. |
myke (7862) | ||
| 765971 | 2009-04-17 12:11:00 | Depends if it'll actually work. According to the link, noone has managed to get it to work. So, If you want it, change to Vista or Windows 7, if it supports it Or change the mobo / cpu / ram to a new system. Ram will be cheaper |
Speedy Gonzales (78) | ||
| 765972 | 2009-04-17 12:26:00 | I use to use one of those free ram monitor/free up ram tools (www.snapfiles.com). But can't recall if they were really effective. | kahawai chaser (3545) | ||
| 765973 | 2009-04-17 15:08:00 | flash memory is several magnitudes slower than DRAM, SRAM or SDRAM. and possibly slower or maybe (slightly) faster than a hard disk except maybe for those with USB2.0 even then the drive would merely act as a swap file eg placing unused processes on non-volatile storage until a spare chunk of ram will fit a currently running process. also it will have a low(er) priority software/hardware interrupt which means it will take the cpu longer for it to perform its requests physical ram being higher priority, in the long run it would be better to get more ram | williamF (115) | ||
| 765974 | 2009-04-18 03:31:00 | I use to use one of those free ram monitor/free up ram tools (www.snapfiles.com). But can't recall if they were really effective. All scams. Freeing memory is a scam flash memory is several magnitudes slower than DRAM, SRAM or SDRAM. and possibly slower or maybe (slightly) faster than a hard disk except maybe for those with USB2.0 even then the drive would merely act as a swap file eg placing unused processes on non-volatile storage until a spare chunk of ram will fit a currently running process. also it will have a low(er) priority software/hardware interrupt which means it will take the cpu longer for it to perform its requests physical ram being higher priority, in the long run it would be better to get more ram I agree with you, Vista's "readyboost" feature was a large failure because of this obvious reason. You'd be better off getting a stick of RAM than investing in a fast flash drive that would actually make a speed difference. Blam |
Blam (54) | ||
| 1 | |||||