How to increase system system performance

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.

"Tae Song" <tae_song@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:E4A312C4-33A9-4FD8-8FF7-59C4B4914442@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue">

> 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.</span>

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.

Tae Song wrote:<span style="color:blue">

> 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.</span>

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

"Tae Song" <tae_song@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:E4A312C4-33A9-4FD8-8FF7-59C4B4914442@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue">

>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:

></span>

So what happens when you remove the flash drive and the TEMP variable points

to a non-existant drive?

"Tae Song" <tae_song@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:E4A312C4-33A9-4FD8-8FF7-59C4B4914442@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue">

>I thought I would share this with you all, a few little tricks to boost

>Windows performance.</span>

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?

"measekite Da Monkey" <measekite@DaMonkey.org> wrote in message

news:FfUXl.5841$fD.294@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com...<span style="color:blue">

>

>

> So what happens when you remove the flash drive and the TEMP variable

> points to a non-existant drive?</span>

Windows will have very serious problems.

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

"Tae Song" <tae_song@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:E4A312C4-33A9-4FD8-8FF7-59C4B4914442@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue">

>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. </span>

"measekite Da Monkey" <measekite@DaMonkey.org> wrote in message

news:FfUXl.5841$fD.294@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com...

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.

"Tae Song" <tae_song@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:D7A72456-5C8E-4027-8DE5-15CA01D14E19@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue">

>

> "measekite Da Monkey" <measekite@DaMonkey.org> wrote in message

> news:FfUXl.5841$fD.294@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com...

>

>

> 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.

>

></span>

OK, I plugged the flash drive in Process Monitor pops up with an error

message... Out of memory: Unable to allocate a memory block of size 8388608.

Clicked OK, it closes.

ClipMagic says The file

:C\Users\User\AppData\Roaming\ClipMagic\clipmagic.qdb is corrupt. Disable

automatic backups and restore. Clicked OK, it's still running.

Some minor problems, but nothing major.

"Pegasus [MVP]" <news@microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:O8a9Ndg6JHA.5012@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue">

>

> "Tae Song" <tae_song@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> news:E4A312C4-33A9-4FD8-8FF7-59C4B4914442@microsoft.com...<span style="color:green">

>>I thought I would share this with you all, a few little tricks to boost

>>Windows performance.</span>

>

> 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?

></span>

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.

On Jun 10, 2:17 pm, "Tae Song" <tae_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:<span style="color:blue">

> "measekite Da Monkey" <measek...@DaMonkey.org> wrote in messagenews:FfUXl..5841$fD.294@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com...

>

> 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.</span>

You will have problems in the long run. My suggestion is to wipe your

system clean. Remove Vista and install Ubuntu.

"Jerry" <ChiefZekeNoSpam@MSN.com> wrote in message

news:#6nvo$g6JHA.6136@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue">

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

>

> "Tae Song" <tae_song@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> news:E4A312C4-33A9-4FD8-8FF7-59C4B4914442@microsoft.com...<span style="color:green">

>>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.</span>

>

>

></span>

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.

"Tae Song" <tae_song@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:7329A6F8-8602-4E86-889B-BE6DA3252C8A@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue">

>

> "Tae Song" <tae_song@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> news:D7A72456-5C8E-4027-8DE5-15CA01D14E19@microsoft.com...<span style="color:green">

>>

>> "measekite Da Monkey" <measekite@DaMonkey.org> wrote in message

>> news:FfUXl.5841$fD.294@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com...

>>

>>

>> 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.

>>

>></span>

>

> OK, I plugged the flash drive in Process Monitor pops up with an error

> message... Out of memory: Unable to allocate a memory block of size

> 8388608. Clicked OK, it closes.

>

> ClipMagic says The file

> :CUsersUserAppDataRoamingClipMagicclipmagic.qdb is corrupt. Disable

> automatic backups and restore. Clicked OK, it's still running.

>

> Some minor problems, but nothing major.</span>

You really are stupid.

<swinehoonts@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:34d81558-6188-406e-811e-0aa8e8676600@y7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...<span style="color:blue">

> On Jun 10, 2:17 pm, "Tae Song" <tae_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:<span style="color:green">

>> "measekite Da Monkey" <measek...@DaMonkey.org> wrote in

>> messagenews:FfUXl.5841$fD.294@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com...

>>

>> 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.</span>

>

> You will have problems in the long run. My suggestion is to wipe your

> system clean. Remove Vista and install Ubuntu.</span>

I have Fedora 9 on another machine, does that count?

"Tae Song" <tae_song@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:4E87102D-4004-4699-8BF6-3235EC1A5735@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue">

>

> "Pegasus [MVP]" <news@microsoft.com> wrote in message

> news:O8a9Ndg6JHA.5012@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...<span style="color:green">

>>

>> "Tae Song" <tae_song@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:E4A312C4-33A9-4FD8-8FF7-59C4B4914442@microsoft.com...<span style="color:darkred">

>>>I thought I would share this with you all, a few little tricks to boost

>>>Windows performance.</span>

>>

>> 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?

>></span>

>

> 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.</span>

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?

Tae Song wrote:<span style="color:blue">

> "Pegasus [MVP]" <news@microsoft.com> wrote in message

> news:O8a9Ndg6JHA.5012@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...<span style="color:green">

>>

>> "Tae Song" <tae_song@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:E4A312C4-33A9-4FD8-8FF7-59C4B4914442@microsoft.com...<span style="color:darkred">

>>> I thought I would share this with you all, a few little tricks to boost

>>> Windows performance.</span>

>>

>> 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?

>></span>

>

> 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.</span>

The write time is much larger for a flash drive.

Pegasus [MVP] wrote:<span style="color:blue">

> "Tae Song" <tae_song@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> news:4E87102D-4004-4699-8BF6-3235EC1A5735@microsoft.com...<span style="color:green">

>>

>> "Pegasus [MVP]" <news@microsoft.com> wrote in message

>> news:O8a9Ndg6JHA.5012@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...<span style="color:darkred">

>>>

>>> "Tae Song" <tae_song@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:E4A312C4-33A9-4FD8-8FF7-59C4B4914442@microsoft.com...

>>>> 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?

>>></span>

>>

>> 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.</span>

>

> I recommend you do some reading about the difference between RAM and flash

> memory. It's huge!</span>

Seconded.

<span style="color:blue">

> 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?</span>

the latter - obviously. The bottom line here is that it was, and is, very

bad advice.

"Tae Song" <tae_song@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:4E87102D-4004-4699-8BF6-3235EC1A5735@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue">

>

> "Pegasus [MVP]" <news@microsoft.com> wrote in message

> news:O8a9Ndg6JHA.5012@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...<span style="color:green">

>>

>> "Tae Song" <tae_song@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:E4A312C4-33A9-4FD8-8FF7-59C4B4914442@microsoft.com...<span style="color:darkred">

>>>I thought I would share this with you all, a few little tricks to boost

>>>Windows performance.</span>

>>

>> 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?

>></span>

>

> 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.</span>

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.

>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.

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" <tae_song@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:D7A72456-5C8E-4027-8DE5-15CA01D14E19@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue">

>

> "measekite Da Monkey" <measekite@DaMonkey.org> wrote in message

> news:FfUXl.5841$fD.294@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com...

>

>

> 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.

>

> </span>

Pegasus [MVP] wrote:<span style="color:blue">

> "Tae Song" <tae_song@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> news:4E87102D-4004-4699-8BF6-3235EC1A5735@microsoft.com...<span style="color:green">

>> "Pegasus [MVP]" <news@microsoft.com> wrote in message

>> news:O8a9Ndg6JHA.5012@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...<span style="color:darkred">

>>> "Tae Song" <tae_song@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:E4A312C4-33A9-4FD8-8FF7-59C4B4914442@microsoft.com...

>>>> 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?

>>></span>

>> 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.</span>

>

> 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.

>

> </span>

......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>

"Peter Foldes" <okf22@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:eq56qlh6JHA.1380@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue"><span style="color:green">

>>Outlook does not work if you don't already have Outlook Express installed.</span>

>

> 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.

></span>

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.

"Pegasus [MVP]" <news@microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:elhorlh6JHA.4116@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...<span style="color:blue">

>

> "Tae Song" <tae_song@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> news:4E87102D-4004-4699-8BF6-3235EC1A5735@microsoft.com...<span style="color:green">

>>

>> "Pegasus [MVP]" <news@microsoft.com> wrote in message

>> news:O8a9Ndg6JHA.5012@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...<span style="color:darkred">

>>>

>>> "Tae Song" <tae_song@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>>> news:E4A312C4-33A9-4FD8-8FF7-59C4B4914442@microsoft.com...

>>>>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?

>>></span>

>>

>> 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.</span>

>

> 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

></span>

It says "currently" , but it doesn't say when it was written.

Microsoft offers Readyboost, so perhaps things have changed since this was

written.

<span style="color:blue">

> 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.

></span>

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.

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@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:9924FDC6-DB94-4D11-9DE9-CB31D0402E8A@microsoft.com...<span style="color:blue">

>

> "Peter Foldes" <okf22@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> news:eq56qlh6JHA.1380@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...<span style="color:green"><span style="color:darkred">

>>>Outlook does not work if you don't already have Outlook Express

>>>installed.</span>

>>

>> 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.

>></span>

>

> 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.

>

>

> </span>

On Jun 10, 3:18 pm, "Pegasus [MVP]" <n...@microsoft.com> wrote:<span style="color:blue">

> "Tae Song" <tae_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

>

> news:4E87102D-4004-4699-8BF6-3235EC1A5735@microsoft.com...

>

>

>

>

><span style="color:green">

> > "Pegasus [MVP]" <n...@microsoft.com> wrote in message

> >news:O8a9Ndg6JHA.5012@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...</span>

><span style="color:green"><span style="color:darkred">

> >> "Tae Song" <tae_s...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> >>news:E4A312C4-33A9-4FD8-8FF7-59C4B4914442@microsoft.com...

> >>>I thought I would share this with you all, a few little tricks to boost

> >>>Windows performance.</span></span>

><span style="color:green"><span style="color:darkred">

> >> 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?</span></span>

><span style="color:green">

> > 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.</span>

>

> 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.</span>

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).