"Jeff Ingram" <ingramje@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f15ukb$5kb$1@news04.infoave.net...
<snip>
I wouldn't set it up with RAID based on performance. The gains just aren't
perceptible, imo.
Nothing wrong with setting it up RAID1 if you want redundancy/mirroring.
Might cost you a slight amount of performance but nice to have when a hard
disk fails.
"Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:986915ACA37A459FBD50227B4CF11AF7@T9200...
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Ingram [mailto:ingramje@gmail.com]
> Posted At: Monday, April 30, 2007 7:38 PM
> Posted To: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
> Conversation: Would this make a noticiable difference?
> Subject: Re: Would this make a noticiable difference?
>
> I guess what I'd most like is to speed up how fast my system boots and
> launches applications. It's not molasses slow, but it doesn't have that
>
> "snap" that I'd like. I've turned off all the pretty stuff in Vista but
>
> that didn't really seem to make much difference.
>
> Since I've already got a 10,000 RPM drive and I have the defrag run once
> a
> week I don't imagine there's much more I could do about the speed of the
>
> hard drive. Unless of course the disk defrag included with Vista sucks
> ass
> and there's something else out there that would do a much better job. I
>
> don't like how you can't check to see how fragmented the drive is.
>
> I had considered getting an identical 10,000 RPM drive and setting it up
> as
> a RAID for boost in speed, but I don't know how much of a gain I would
> get
> from a RAID configuration.
>
>
> Anyone have any suggestions?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff
>
> "Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:4635ce27$0$15179$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> In terms of memory, upgrading to a complete 2 gigs from 1.5 gigs would
> not
>> make a significant difference.
>>
>> But with 1.5 gigs, depending on how you have implemented it, you MAY
> have
>> disabled dual channel operation, thus cutting your memory speed in
> half.
>> In that regard, going to 2 gigs might restore dual channel operation.
>>
>> [If your 1.5 gigs is 1GB + 512GB, you likely have an issue; if your
> 1.5GB
>> is 2x512 + 2x256, PROPERLY INSTALLED IN THE CORRECT SOCKETS, then
> 1.5GB
>> could still be dual channel.]
>>
>> Jeff Ingram wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I have a Dimension XPS 410 with the following specs:
>>>
>>> System Specs:
>>>
>>> Dell XPS 410
>>> 2.13Ghz Pentium Core 2 Duo
>>> 1536MB RAM
>>> Phillips 16X DVD-ROM
>>> Plextor PX755SA 16x DVD Writer
>>> Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeMusic sound card
>>> SATA Western Digital 160Gig 10,000 RPM
>>> SATA Maxtor 250 Gig 16mb cache
>>> SATA Western Digital 36 gig 10,000 RPM
>>>
>>> I've also upgraded to Windows Vista Home Edition. I've read that
> Vista
>>> runs best on 2048MB of RAM. Would upgrading to a complete 2Gig make
> a
>>> noticeable difference in performance. Most of my usage is keeping
>>> several windows open at the same time, Web Browser, Mediaplayer,
> Outlook
>>> or Windows Mail, uTorrent, Firefox (with several tabs open at the
> same
>>> time.)
>
>
>
> Raid probably wouldn't make a big difference. It doesn't on my machine.
>
>
> Have you tried readyboost? Get a very fast CF or SD card, say 2gb, and
> attach it to your system. Dedicate it to ReadyBoost.
>
> Haven't tried it, but it is supposed to make a measurable difference.
>
> Tom
I've thought of doing just that, but I've also read that there's no real
substitute for installed RAM. That's one other reason why I wondered if
going up to 2Gig would make a difference. I guess I'm just as confused as
when I first started out.
What do I upgrade next to increase my system's speed? OR, is Vista just too
slow to keep up?
>Have you tried readyboost? Get a very fast CF or SD card, say 2gb, and
>attach it to your system. Dedicate it to ReadyBoost.
>
>Haven't tried it, but it is supposed to make a measurable difference.
>
>Tom
I have an extra (when I am not on vacation) Sandisk Ultra III 1G SD
card which I keep permanently installed in my 640m laptops built-in
card reader. I don't know if my laptop's performance is improved or
not but my laptop is very fast.
(my laptop does have a mobile Core 2 Duo with 4M cache, 2G RAM, and a
7200rmp hard drive, so it would be expected to be fast with or without
Ready Boost, but I have heard that Ready Boost does improve
performance)
If nothing else, it's a way to put an otherwise mostly unused SD card
to work.
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Ingram [mailto:ingramje@gmail.com]
Posted At: Monday, April 30, 2007 8:03 PM
Posted To: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
Conversation: Would this make a noticiable difference?
Subject: Re: Would this make a noticeable difference?
"Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:986915ACA37A459FBD50227B4CF11AF7@T9200...
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Ingram [mailto:ingramje@gmail.com]
> Posted At: Monday, April 30, 2007 7:38 PM
> Posted To: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
> Conversation: Would this make a noticiable difference?
> Subject: Re: Would this make a noticiable difference?
>
> I guess what I'd most like is to speed up how fast my system boots and
> launches applications. It's not molasses slow, but it doesn't have
that
>
> "snap" that I'd like. I've turned off all the pretty stuff in Vista
but
>
> that didn't really seem to make much difference.
>
> Since I've already got a 10,000 RPM drive and I have the defrag run
once
> a
> week I don't imagine there's much more I could do about the speed of
the
>
> hard drive. Unless of course the disk defrag included with Vista
sucks
> ass
> and there's something else out there that would do a much better job.
I
>
> don't like how you can't check to see how fragmented the drive is.
>
> I had considered getting an identical 10,000 RPM drive and setting it
up
> as
> a RAID for boost in speed, but I don't know how much of a gain I would
> get
> from a RAID configuration.
>
>
> Anyone have any suggestions?
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jeff
>
> "Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:4635ce27$0$15179$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>> In terms of memory, upgrading to a complete 2 gigs from 1.5 gigs
would
> not
>> make a significant difference.
>>
>> But with 1.5 gigs, depending on how you have implemented it, you MAY
> have
>> disabled dual channel operation, thus cutting your memory speed in
> half.
>> In that regard, going to 2 gigs might restore dual channel operation.
>>
>> [If your 1.5 gigs is 1GB + 512GB, you likely have an issue; if your
> 1.5GB
>> is 2x512 + 2x256, PROPERLY INSTALLED IN THE CORRECT SOCKETS, then
> 1.5GB
>> could still be dual channel.]
>>
>> Jeff Ingram wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I have a Dimension XPS 410 with the following specs:
>>>
>>> System Specs:
>>>
>>> Dell XPS 410
>>> 2.13Ghz Pentium Core 2 Duo
>>> 1536MB RAM
>>> Phillips 16X DVD-ROM
>>> Plextor PX755SA 16x DVD Writer
>>> Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeMusic sound card
>>> SATA Western Digital 160Gig 10,000 RPM
>>> SATA Maxtor 250 Gig 16mb cache
>>> SATA Western Digital 36 gig 10,000 RPM
>>>
>>> I've also upgraded to Windows Vista Home Edition. I've read that
> Vista
>>> runs best on 2048MB of RAM. Would upgrading to a complete 2Gig make
> a
>>> noticeable difference in performance. Most of my usage is keeping
>>> several windows open at the same time, Web Browser, Mediaplayer,
> Outlook
>>> or Windows Mail, uTorrent, Firefox (with several tabs open at the
> same
>>> time.)
>
>
>
> Raid probably wouldn't make a big difference. It doesn't on my
machine.
>
>
> Have you tried readyboost? Get a very fast CF or SD card, say 2gb,
and
> attach it to your system. Dedicate it to ReadyBoost.
>
> Haven't tried it, but it is supposed to make a measurable difference.
>
> Tom
I've thought of doing just that, but I've also read that there's no real
substitute for installed RAM. That's one other reason why I wondered if
going up to 2Gig would make a difference. I guess I'm just as confused
as
when I first started out.
What do I upgrade next to increase my system's speed? OR, is Vista just
too
slow to keep up?
Thanks,
Jeff
I'm not seeing a visible difference in performance between XP and Vista,
so I don't know what to say. My machine is a touch faster (2.4), but
when I only had 1Gb, I was happy with it. 3gb didn't make any
difference that I see.
>> Raid probably wouldn't make a big difference. It doesn't on my machine.
>>
>>
>> Have you tried readyboost? Get a very fast CF or SD card, say 2gb, and
>> attach it to your system. Dedicate it to ReadyBoost.
>>
>> Haven't tried it, but it is supposed to make a measurable difference.
>>
>> Tom
>
>I've thought of doing just that, but I've also read that there's no real
>substitute for installed RAM. That's one other reason why I wondered if
>going up to 2Gig would make a difference. I guess I'm just as confused as
>when I first started out.
>
>What do I upgrade next to increase my system's speed? OR, is Vista just too
>slow to keep up?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jeff
Ready Boost doesn't substitute for installed RAM. I could explain it
partly but it would be far better for anyone to Google "Ready Boost"
and read some of the excellent web articles about it. I haven't found
any of them to say that there is any downside to Ready Boost.
Vista isn't slow at all on my 2 Core 2 Duo PCs. You have a XPS 410
with Core 2 Duo so I would have thought that it would be very
satisfying to open Apps. I also have a XPS 410 with a Core 2 Duo (one
that has 4M cache though) and my system is very fast -- the only
system I've ever had that is as fast as I'd like it to be, almost
instantenously opening applications.
Your original post doesn't show on my newsreader currently so I don't
know if you have Vista installed on your fastest hard drive. I would
install Vista on your fastest hard drive and then make sure that your
swap file is on another (and not on your Vista drive) hard drive --
your 2nd fastest one. I let Windows manage my swap file size.
I have 4G of RAM. The outlet PC came with it. I don't think it makes
use of all the RAM because only 3G is reported. If I had a XPS 410
Core 2 Duo with less RAM, I would want to upgrade to 3G of RAM on it.
I haven't used an upgraded Diskkeeper defragmenter on my Vista PCs
yet. I have Diskkeeper 10, for an XP PC, and I like it, but I don't
want to pay for licenses for my Vista PCs because they are fast enough
already. That's another thing you can try.
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:31:13 -0500, Journey <rainbow@oasis.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:03:21 -0400, "Jeff Ingram" <ingramje@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>> Raid probably wouldn't make a big difference. It doesn't on my machine.
>>>
>>>
>>> Have you tried readyboost? Get a very fast CF or SD card, say 2gb, and
>>> attach it to your system. Dedicate it to ReadyBoost.
>>>
>>> Haven't tried it, but it is supposed to make a measurable difference.
>>>
>>> Tom
>>
>>I've thought of doing just that, but I've also read that there's no real
>>substitute for installed RAM. That's one other reason why I wondered if
>>going up to 2Gig would make a difference. I guess I'm just as confused as
>>when I first started out.
>>
>>What do I upgrade next to increase my system's speed? OR, is Vista just too
>>slow to keep up?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Jeff
>
>Ready Boost doesn't substitute for installed RAM. I could explain it
>partly but it would be far better for anyone to Google "Ready Boost"
>and read some of the excellent web articles about it. I haven't found
>any of them to say that there is any downside to Ready Boost.
Additional thought -- if you don't yet have either a SD card or a USB
flash drive, I would compare the speeds and cost of those before
buying either. I have a feeling that the USB flash drive will be a
lot less expensive. I would connect it directly to a USB port on the
computer and not as one of the devices on a hub.
If you do get a USB Flash drive, check out the Sandisk Titanium
Cruzer. I got a 4G one for $40 several weeks ago and really like it.
Newegg has it for $58 now which is a good price, or watch your
favorite online deal sites for bargains on a good, fast, flash drive.
The Titanium Cruzer is nice because it withstands a lot of weight (up
to 2,000 pounds, so if you step on it, it shouldn't break -- hopefully
:-) It also has a retractable connector which is convenient -- no
lost caps. Amazon currently has a better price on the 2G Titanium
Cruzer than Newegg.
>"Tom Scales" <tjscales@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:986915ACA37A459FBD50227B4CF11AF7@T9200...
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jeff Ingram [mailto:ingramje@gmail.com]
>> Posted At: Monday, April 30, 2007 7:38 PM
>> Posted To: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell
>> Conversation: Would this make a noticiable difference?
>> Subject: Re: Would this make a noticiable difference?
>>
>> I guess what I'd most like is to speed up how fast my system boots and
>> launches applications. It's not molasses slow, but it doesn't have that
>>
>> "snap" that I'd like. I've turned off all the pretty stuff in Vista but
>>
>> that didn't really seem to make much difference.
>>
>> Since I've already got a 10,000 RPM drive and I have the defrag run once
>> a
>> week I don't imagine there's much more I could do about the speed of the
>>
>> hard drive. Unless of course the disk defrag included with Vista sucks
>> ass
>> and there's something else out there that would do a much better job. I
>>
>> don't like how you can't check to see how fragmented the drive is.
>>
>> I had considered getting an identical 10,000 RPM drive and setting it up
>> as
>> a RAID for boost in speed, but I don't know how much of a gain I would
>> get
>> from a RAID configuration.
>>
>>
>> Anyone have any suggestions?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> "Barry Watzman" <WatzmanNOSPAM@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:4635ce27$0$15179$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>> In terms of memory, upgrading to a complete 2 gigs from 1.5 gigs would
>> not
>>> make a significant difference.
>>>
>>> But with 1.5 gigs, depending on how you have implemented it, you MAY
>> have
>>> disabled dual channel operation, thus cutting your memory speed in
>> half.
>>> In that regard, going to 2 gigs might restore dual channel operation.
>>>
>>> [If your 1.5 gigs is 1GB + 512GB, you likely have an issue; if your
>> 1.5GB
>>> is 2x512 + 2x256, PROPERLY INSTALLED IN THE CORRECT SOCKETS, then
>> 1.5GB
>>> could still be dual channel.]
>>>
>>> Jeff Ingram wrote:
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I have a Dimension XPS 410 with the following specs:
>>>>
>>>> System Specs:
>>>>
>>>> Dell XPS 410
>>>> 2.13Ghz Pentium Core 2 Duo
>>>> 1536MB RAM
>>>> Phillips 16X DVD-ROM
>>>> Plextor PX755SA 16x DVD Writer
>>>> Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeMusic sound card
>>>> SATA Western Digital 160Gig 10,000 RPM
>>>> SATA Maxtor 250 Gig 16mb cache
>>>> SATA Western Digital 36 gig 10,000 RPM
>>>>
>>>> I've also upgraded to Windows Vista Home Edition. I've read that
>> Vista
>>>> runs best on 2048MB of RAM. Would upgrading to a complete 2Gig make
>> a
>>>> noticeable difference in performance. Most of my usage is keeping
>>>> several windows open at the same time, Web Browser, Mediaplayer,
>> Outlook
>>>> or Windows Mail, uTorrent, Firefox (with several tabs open at the
>> same
>>>> time.)
>>
>>
>>
>> Raid probably wouldn't make a big difference. It doesn't on my machine.
>>
>>
>> Have you tried readyboost? Get a very fast CF or SD card, say 2gb, and
>> attach it to your system. Dedicate it to ReadyBoost.
>>
>> Haven't tried it, but it is supposed to make a measurable difference.
>>
>> Tom
>
>I've thought of doing just that, but I've also read that there's no real
>substitute for installed RAM. That's one other reason why I wondered if
>going up to 2Gig would make a difference. I guess I'm just as confused as
>when I first started out.
>
>What do I upgrade next to increase my system's speed? OR, is Vista just too
>slow to keep up?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Jeff
>
I'm a bit confused whether you want to speed up the boot up or the
actual system speed? Seems like I've read both in different posts??
I guess for more system speed, use more ram tho I think above 1gb in
Vista will not be that noticeable unless you do a lot of multitasking
or edit large video files. As far as boot up speed, I don't think
more ram will speed up the boot up process as much as what processes
you run. You will need to research what processes you don't need to
speed up the boot up process. One site that comes to mind that might
help explain each process is blackviper.com. I'm sure there are
others but I'm not aware of them. Use Google to help more.
>>
>>What do I upgrade next to increase my system's speed? OR, is Vista just too
>>slow to keep up?
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Jeff
>>
>
>I'm a bit confused whether you want to speed up the boot up or the
>actual system speed? Seems like I've read both in different posts??
I'm confused about whether the OP has the system or if it's on order.
Some responses seem to indicate that it's on order but I thought he
already had it and wanted to speed it up. My responses assume the
latter.
<snip>
>As far as boot up speed, I don't think
>more ram will speed up the boot up process as much as what processes
>you run.
Very true, and good point which hasn't been mentioned yet but is a
major factor in bootup speed.
Does anyone know of a good Vista-compatible startup manager? (other
than msconfig that is)
>You will need to research what processes you don't need to
>speed up the boot up process. One site that comes to mind that might
>help explain each process is blackviper.com. I'm sure there are
>others but I'm not aware of them. Use Google to help more.
Yes, Google is definitly your friend for this. Whenever I Google a
process name, I get a wealth of information about it.
I use .bat files with PSTools to kill processes. I leave my PC on
most of the time so bootup isn't an issue. I can document the
processes that I kill in comments in the .bat files. It's an approach
that works for me but I may switch back to using a startup manager
like CodeStuff Starter.
Jeff Ingram wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a Dimension XPS 410 with the following specs:
>
> System Specs:
>
> Dell XPS 410
> 2.13Ghz Pentium Core 2 Duo
> 1536MB RAM
> Phillips 16X DVD-ROM
> Plextor PX755SA 16x DVD Writer
> Sound Blaster X-Fi XtremeMusic sound card
> SATA Western Digital 160Gig 10,000 RPM
> SATA Maxtor 250 Gig 16mb cache
> SATA Western Digital 36 gig 10,000 RPM
>
> I've also upgraded to Windows Vista Home Edition. I've read that Vista
> runs best on 2048MB of RAM. Would upgrading to a complete 2Gig make a
> noticeable difference in performance. Most of my usage is keeping
> several windows open at the same time, Web Browser, Mediaplayer, Outlook
> or Windows Mail, uTorrent, Firefox (with several tabs open at the same
> time.)
There are tools in any decent operating system to tell you when you are
low on resources. I don't know how good they are in Vista (overall I'm
not impressed with Vista at all), but I guess they should be usable.
Task manager is one of them of course. It's better to check if you are
low and then consider upgrading if necessary. Otherwise its just a waste
of money, time and electricity (OK, not much, but a few Watts at least).
Re: Would this make a noticiable difference? 
Linear Mode
