• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Vista readyboost filesystem, which is best and why?

E

Evander

Golden Member
Can't seem to find a definitive answer to this, though several people seem to think ntfs will cause the card to wear down the fastest.

In case it matters, I'm using a SanDisk Ultra II 2GB SD card (factory default is FAT), laptop has 1GB RAM with shared graphics memory. Vista's recommended settings it to take up nearly the entire card, leaving me 100-200MB free
 
You can always do some benchmarks with HD Tach or something with different formats to see which provides the best throughput. For a small USB device with lots of small reads and writes, the difference between FAT32 and NTFS isn't massive, so to speak.

And don't worry about the life cycle of the drive. It should last for years before encountering issues and it's common knowledge that Readyboost isn't going to dramatically shorten the life of your stick. Remember, they're selling solid state hard drives, which, by nature, endure a LOT more reading and writing than a little USB memory stick. The technology is there and I think people worrying about their read/write cycles being exhausted are stuck in the past. Do you know anyone who has encountered this? It's like trying to find someone who died from radon poisoining. Makes you start to wonder if radon really is the "silent killer" considering there's hardly anyone dying from it.
 
For my thumb drives I tend to use FAT just because it's the most compatible, I know I can plug it into any machine and get at the files. If you use a 32-bit FAT you lose some compatibility but any system that can't read that should probably be avoided anyway.

NTFS will likely put my wear on the drive but like nerp said, I really doubt it'll make a difference.
 
I've tested this, and the difference between the three wasnt even measurable. Not to mention someone from MS told me directly that it didnt matter.

BTW Vista recommends less than max cause it thinks you might want to use some left for yourself. If all youre using it for is RB, use the whole thing.
 
You can probably use 1GB and be just fine, leaving 1GB for yourself.

Ready Boost has not made a big enough difference to substitue for actual RAM. It's been reviewed countless times, even with the fastest flash drives available out there.

Taken directly out of CPU Magazine(Oct 2007) after a review of several of the latest and greatest flash drives:

"All this said, the best way to speed up your PC is to add internal memory. ReadyBoost offers a convenient way to provide a little performance enhancement. Perhaps Microsoft can improve ReadyBoost performance in future Vista updates. For now, we recommend buying ReadyBoost flash drives, but keep the ReadyBoost "benefits" low on your list of flash drive selection criteria."

Now granted this was more of a purchasing review guideline, the end statement helps harden the fact that ReadyBoost isn't doing what it was promised would be a great way to speed up system performance.
 
Originally posted by: Tarrant64
You can probably use 1GB and be just fine, leaving 1GB for yourself.

Ready Boost has not made a big enough difference to substitue for actual RAM. It's been reviewed countless times, even with the fastest flash drives available out there.

Taken directly out of CPU Magazine(Oct 2007) after a review of several of the latest and greatest flash drives:

"All this said, the best way to speed up your PC is to add internal memory. ReadyBoost offers a convenient way to provide a little performance enhancement. Perhaps Microsoft can improve ReadyBoost performance in future Vista updates. For now, we recommend buying ReadyBoost flash drives, but keep the ReadyBoost "benefits" low on your list of flash drive selection criteria."

Now granted this was more of a purchasing review guideline, the end statement helps harden the fact that ReadyBoost isn't doing what it was promised would be a great way to speed up system performance.
Click to expand...

Its doing what it promised, people are just expecting too much. It shouldnt be expected to substitute for ram, because it isnt. Noone ever said it was as good as good ol fashioned ddr. Its not even close.

But it can still make a big difference in certain situations.
 
People do expect too much, but in a lot of cases(for basic usage let's say), ReadyBoost doesn't do that well. In tests where users are using only 512mb of RAM, and only over 1GB+ of ReadyBoost there is a performance increase. Unless it's Photoshop, which sees a big performance increase.

But who in their right mind is running Vista, with only 512mb of RAM, AND Photoshop? ReadyBoost, to me anyways, is a way to keep old machines chugging along. Tests done with users with 1GB+ RAM don't really see much benefit out of ReadyBoost, only users with 512MB of RAM.

Anand has a review itself of Vista and has a section on ReadyBoost, and in a couple of the benches a 4GB+ flash drive is used in a 512mb system, and the performance increase is too small to mention.
 
Personal choice as always,however I prefer NTFS for my ReadyBoost device,mainly because of security and reliability that NTFS offers and also the fact that my HD is NTFS so might as well keep it all the same.


NTFS or FAT32 info.
 
I guess I'll just leave it as FAT then. I know more memory would be best, but to bump myself up to 2GB I'd have to remove my 2x512MB modules which seems like a waste. RB is supposed to be one of Vista's features and supposedly good for preserving power when the laptop is running on the battery, so I figured why not.
 
Originally posted by: Evander
I guess I'll just leave it as FAT then. I know more memory would be best, but to bump myself up to 2GB I'd have to remove my 2x512MB modules which seems like a waste. RB is supposed to be one of Vista's features and supposedly good for preserving power when the laptop is running on the battery, so I figured why not.
Click to expand...

Readydrive (as in a hybrid hard drive) will help with laptop battery life, since it caches reads and writes, but readyboost won't do a damn thing for battery life, since it only caches reads.

Still though, a laptop with difficult to upgrade memory is a prime candidate for readyboost, just don't expect the world, and you'll be happy.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top