Vista Readyboost makes a difference.

PeteHerts

Hello everyone.
I thought I'd just let you know my experience with Vista Readyboost and a difference it's made to my system.
I have a Sony AR41E laptop running 2GB of memory. I thought I'd try this Readyboost to see how much of a difference it would make.
I did a search for a suitable device and found a 4GB Sandisk Cruzer Micro USB 2.0 flash drive stick on Play.com for £9.99 delivered. What you have to remember is not all USB sticks will work with Readyboost so if you do this yourself then make sure the item you purchase a Vista Readyboost one and also this only works with Vista.
I think you can use SD cards as well but again they must be compatible.
Anyway I got the stick this morning and plugged it in and was offered a choice of opening the files or setting up the Readyboost. I clicked the Readyboost and the next screen asked how much of the memory I wanted to use so I choose all of it. I rebooted and now opening and running programs, opening files and the internet are alot quicker so if you want a cheaper and easier way so to boost your system without the hassle of installing internal memory then I believe this is the way to go.
Hope this helps.
Pete.

jmc160

Hi Pete,

I have to say I completely agree with you! I also use the Sandisk MicroCruzer 4GB as a ReadyBoost drive on my Vista Ultimate Media Centre. Its definitely improved things.

Did you get the free music downloads voucher in the pen drive's packaging too?

PeteHerts

jmc160 wrote: »

Hi Pete,

I have to say I completely agree with you! I also use the Sandisk MicroCruzer 4GB as a ReadyBoost drive on my Vista Ultimate Media Centre. Its definitely improved things.

Did you get the free music downloads voucher in the pen drive's packaging too?

Yes I did but don't need it
I know they have a 8GB stick in Tesco for £14.97 but sure if it would work or it if Readyboost would use that much.

banger9365

i will agree it do's make a difference put real ram is still better in the long run
put it is good and do's work well if you have not got a lot of ram to start with ,nice cheap way of speeding things up
put i do have 8GB ram

Conor_3

Its completely against the Moneysavingexpert mantra though. System RAM is WAY cheaper than flash RAM sticks.

TBH though, if you've 2GB in already and it's not opening stuff up near instantly, I think I'd be checking to see what malware is running because once you get above 1.5GB with Vista, there's no noticable increase in performance unless specific apps are seriously memory intensive such as Photoshop.

Inactive

Or just use XP, now that is MSE, less memory and recourses required..

iviv

Inactive wrote: »

Or just use XP, now that is MSE, less memory and recourses required..

Apart from the fact that 90% of PCs sold now come with Vista, so to use XP would require the user to go out and buy a copy of it. Hardle money saving

Regarding readyboost, its better in the long run to buy extra ram instead, as its dirt cheap at the moment. If you're running 32-bit windows then 3Gb is the max you can run, otherwise its as much as your motherboard can realistically handle (Max 8Gb on vista basic, up to 128Gb).
With readyboost, you need to look at two factors. Fist, size. You should have the readyboost drive size equal to the ammount of RAM you have. More is pointless, as it simply won't be used, less means it won't be running as efficiently (Though its better to have more than less).
More importantly is the speed of the flash drive. Cheap drives have slow read and write times, meaning they aren't compatable with readyboost. (Read at 2.5Mb/s and write at 1.75Mb/s is the minimum). The more you spend on the drive, the faster the speeds are, meaning the more efficient they are and the greater the speed boost.

Personally, I don't see the point in buying a flash drive purely to be used for readyboost. Instead, buy more ram, as if you're runing 4Gb there's little performance boost from it anyway. However, if you have a flash drive just lying around that you aren't using, by all means go for it.

[Deleted User]

And remember 3GB of RAM will only run in single channel unless you're running 64bit operating system, so if you're going up past 2GB then I'd seriously consider upgrading to one.

Inactive

iviv wrote: »

Apart from the fact that 90% of PCs sold now come with Vista, so to use XP would require the user to go out and buy a copy of it. Hardle money saving

Still probably cheaper than buying all of the components required to get the bloated Vista to run properly.;)

iviv

Inactive wrote: »

Still probably cheaper than buying all of the components required to get the bloated Vista to run properly.;)

Ignorance.

Windows 98 minimum specs were a 66Mhz processor and 16Mb of ram. You couldn't run 'bloated' XP on that. Windows 2000 required 133Mhz, 32Mb ram. XP requires 233Mhz, 64Mb ram. Vista requires 800Mhz and 512Mb ram. Yes, this is a large step up.

But look at the release dates. 98 was released in 1998. 2000 was released in 2000. XP was released in 2001. Vista was 2006. A large step up in requirements with a corresponding gap between different versions.

I've been running Vista fine* since release. So have loads of other people. Many simply prefer XP, and thats fine. But Vista is a fine OS, sure there's a couple of problems that mean I still dual boot to XP (Lack of IPX), but for gaming and work, I use vista.
Vista hate was so 2 years ago, as long as you aren't trying to run it on a poorly underpowered machine, its fine. I use XP on my laptop because it can't cope with aero. Its not up to spec, so I don't try running it, simple as.

*Except for some awful drivers released by Belkin

Inactive

iviv wrote: »

Ignorance.

Windows 98 minimum specs were a 66Mhz processor and 16Mb of ram. You couldn't run 'bloated' XP on that. Windows 2000 required 133Mhz, 32Mb ram. XP requires 233Mhz, 64Mb ram. Vista requires 800Mhz and 512Mb ram. Yes, this is a large step up.

:rotfl: :rotfl: Have you tried running Vista on 512Mb of RAM?:rotfl: :rotfl:

Watching...and paint dry...spring to mind.;)

Not " Ignorance " just plain fact.