Just my 2 cents but I would not throw money at SSDs now personally. I would just slap a couple velociraptors in raid 0 instead. You will save a lot of money that way and just wait for the next gens that will be out some time next year. Well at least that is what I am going to do. Price/performance ratio just aint there.
My first machine was very fast too! It was a 286DX2 (if i remember well) with 20MB! HDD and a few KB! RAM!It was the fastest PC in the village where i lived! :) No one else had any at the neighborhood.
But after a few years we will laugh on theese PCs, what we are using now. I can't wait that time!
digitalrurouni you are right but i just want to try out something new :)
I address this again because I believe that you are in a "teachable moment".
From this forum, and from the source they are quoting from.
Consider the immense amount of technological improvement in SuperFetch and ReadyBoost that MS has developed in Windows 7. Why didn't they include a routine that says "Hey, this machine has 16 GB of DDR3 RAM, so let's automatically disable the page file"? Aside from a slight reduction in memory usage, disabling the page file will not increase your system performance. Even this reduction does not increase performance - it only increases free memory.
Look at how much memory is consumed by tabbed browsers and/or protected browser pages. Do you want to go back to IE 4 to reduce this memory usage?
Not including my video editing work, I never use all of my 8 GB of RAM. That doesn't mean that I am going to remove it.
And for you ubergeeks - I did not say "I never allocate all of my 8 GB of RAM".
Having a page file allows a program to allocate more address space than is available in physical RAM - whether it uses it or not. The page file is NOT a dinosaur bone.
LOLI believe that you are in a "teachable moment".
Ok I give it up! You've just saved my swapfiles life! :)
But I will turn it off when you won't see :)
My first machine had 10 relays, 10 switches and 10 lamps. I really don't miss it ...
I've been playing around with my disk configuration too. Yesterday I switched so I have a RAID 0 and a RAID 10 section in each of my two controllers, the on-board ICH10R and the Areca PCI-E controller.
The system is on the ICH10R RAID 0, and the pagefile & temp folders on the Areca RAID 0. I don't mind the system in the non-redundant disk which is faster, because I keep regular image backups of it on the RAID 10 section of the Areca controller.
Conversely, my data is on the RAID 10 of the Areca controller, some app temp files on the ICH10R RAID 0, and data image backups on the ICH10R RAID 10.
Same here...my Gr 10 computer class back in 71 (yes, that's 1900 + 71 fer you yuguns) had basic circuit boards that we put in certain configs using double contact plug cords to perform basic math functions, basically to flash different lights at different times...LOL, Lot's of fun, I actually really enjoyed it!
My 1st program was written on 8500 punch cards and made a 6' poster of Raquel Welch out of characters, ! # @ and the like, on the only machine for 500 miles around (as big as a truck it was). I had that on my wall for 10 years.
Antman, you have a well defined grasp of the Windows I/O interactions, obviously been in IT for awhile eh
Personally Robert, I also wouldn't waste my $$$ on SSD right yet, let the tech mature and the prices drop enough to make it worthwhile. I agree that Raid is probably better for you, on fast disk drives.
The fastest machine I've ever built has a pair of VelociRaptors in RAID-0 for the OS and Apps, a 3rd VelociRaptor used for various temporary & scratch files, a 16-drive RAID-50 array using WD Caviar Black RE3 drives with two Adaptec 5805 array controllers for storage space, and a single "slow" WD Caviar Green used to store a rotating, 3-generation, daily backup of the RAID-0 array in case of failure. Mobo, CPU are GA-EX58-UD5, a Core i7-975 Extreme overclocked to ~4GHz, and 12GB DDR3 1600 ram.
The machine is being used for video editing & rendering. And, considering the current SSD state of being, I doubt a machine with an SSD for the OS would be significantly faster. A year from now (maybe a year & a half), SSDs will probably rule. They will probably be less expensive, too.
Back in the day, we could slip a single punch card somewhere into the middle of the many stacks of them - a single card with two backslashes. End of read. The next day, there would be truncated output from the Amdahl and we could get some time off.
I did not possess my own microcomputer until 2002 - a customer bought it for me to do some database migration.
One thing that most users fail to grasp - at the lowest level, there is NOTHING new in all of this. Processors do what processors do. Storage devices do what storage devices do. 'Tis a wee bit faster now.
Quote
