Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.

Trending News

Promoted
G M
Lv 6
G M asked in Computers & InternetHardwareOther - Hardware · 1 decade ago

Is the following setup basically turbo boost for XP?

I recently updated the drive in my aspire one and was left with a 16gb zif ssd.

I purchased a Zif to Sata adapter fashioned a small mount bracket for inside the tower and then mounted the assembly inside. I then adjusted XP to use it for swap space as opposed to the standard hard drive.

My question: Is this not in principle the same as turbo boosted memory for Vista and Seven? Or do they use both turbo boosted memory and disk cache? If so how is that an advantage over using solid state memory only ?

I have to state the old XP system performs better overall than prior to this little mod.

Update:

LOL I meant ready boost some one needs more coffee.

Update 2:

I already know about the lack of performance when compared to RAM, but thank you for the input and pointing it out to those who may not.

So I'm going by the lack of response that it is similar to Ready Boost for newer Microsoft incarnations. But after sleeping on it I did think of another potential pitfall and to why Ready Boost would use both flash and hard drive for paging.

Early SSD drives have a limit in the number of writes they can handle prior to failure and having it used as a sole source paging. Constantly being written to, it sets one up for the risk of a system crash if the SSD fails with no hard drive to fall back on, and the SSD solely being set in stone "so to speak" as a page file.

I appreciate the answer and I'll give you 10 just for responding Thanks.

1 Answer

Relevance
  • ?
    Lv 7
    1 decade ago
    Favorite Answer

    You'd be better served with upgrading the RAM than the disk used for the swap file.

    Not only is RAM faster, but it's probably cheaper than a SSD, albeit, not in the same quantity as 16GB. You typically want 1.5x the amount of RAM for the swap file, so you wouldn't need as much RAM.

    I don't care how fast your SSD is, it'll never be faster than RAM.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.