ReadyBoost and Vista Performance Revisited Other Vista Discussions Discuss ReadyBoost and Vista Performance Revisited in the Windows Vista forums; Hi Gang: I can't say too much on this topic because of a possible confounding effect; however, here goes with what I think I can say. Previously, I wrote ...

[Znod]

Hi Gang:

I can't say too much on this topic because of a possible confounding effect; however, here goes with what I think I can say.

Previously, I wrote ReadyBoost (RB) off as ReadyBust. I have not changed my opioion markedly. Still, I decided to give RB another shot on my new 64-bit drive. Before doing so, I reformatted my Apacer Handy Steno 4 GB enhanced for ReadyBoost flash drive to NTSF (the confounding action). The PassMark composite scores below show that RB is adding a small amount to my system's performance (about .87% overall on average = 7.83 / 896.23). Some tests conducted by others may imply that RB makes more of a difference on lower performance machines.

Without RB:
896.359
896.278
896.055
Avg 896.23

With RB:
904.272
904.382
903.518
Avg 904.06

[Snuffy]

ZNod have you tested startup and shutdown with the USB installed.
I also decided to stick with a Super Fast 2GB. Flash... I get the best overall performance with it...
somethings work better some do not... DVD/CD Roms all seem faster with FLASH, and Startup and Shutdown... are shaving time on ea use.... but as you and I know every system is different..
Thanks for you info.

[Znod]

I'll try starting up and shutting down soon. Thank you for your interest.

[felix8406]

I think that in order to see much improvement you'll have to use the ReadyBoost feature for a while. I base my reasoning due to SuperFetch working in tandem with ReadyBoost. But this is my opinion though; I have not seen any information about ReadyBoost becoming faster with time because of SuperFetch.

[Znod]

Given my various results over time, I have concluded that Superfetch "learns" very quickly so I assume that the combo of ReadyBoost and Superfetch alos would "learn" very quickly.

But, I am not sure. I actually did many more tests of ReadyBoost than I posted. So, I feel pretty confident that I have gotton all that is available through ReadyBoost. But, whatever, thanks. I always value your opinions.

I probably will try FAT32 tomorrow. But, maybe not. Do you have any reason to think that FAT32 would be better than NFTS for ReadyBoost purposes?

[Midway]

I have been looking around researching this and I found this statement:

Use FAT for anything UNDER 2GB.
Use FAT32 or NTFS for anything OVER 2GB.

But the general acceptance seems to be FAT.

Here are a couple of interesting links about ReadyBoost:

http://www.istartedsomething.com/200...dyboost-works/

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/...boostanalyzed/

[crabby]

The reason for this is simply that FAT cannot utilise more than 2 GB

crabby

[Znod]

Fat actually can deal with files up to 4 GB.

[Znod]

Originally Posted by Midway

I have been looking around researching this and I found this statement:

Use FAT for anything UNDER 2GB.
Use FAT32 or NTFS for anything OVER 2GB.

But the general acceptance seems to be FAT.

Here are a couple of interesting links about ReadyBoost:

http://www.istartedsomething.com/200...dyboost-works/

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/01/...boostanalyzed/

Thanks much. I am trying to figure out if FAT32 specifically would have any inherent advantage vis-a-vis NTFS when used with ReadyBoost.

[Snuffy]

When I first started using the USB Flash and formatted it, I simply said FORMAT... looked today just due to you saying Fat32 or NTFS it is FAT32.
Assumpting that Vista on NTFS would FORMAT NTFS was wrong... even when checking a FORMAT as DEFAULT it formatted at FAT32...
thanks for the note on testing FAT32 to NTFS...