"Fernando Cassia" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:cacgw4h5njpnqekfpyzwria35br5zzr7vegd8besw7rbsohk...@mail.gmail.com...
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 6:19 PM, John A. Wallace <[email protected]> wrote: Microsoft includes a feature with Win7 called ReadyBoost, which caches random reads and writes to a flash drive if one is installed. it´s 50% marketing hype, like everything from Microsoft, I´d say. ;) here one blogger enabled readyboost and only got its system boot time to decrease 30 secs on a 2 min 30 sec boot delay, which is insane... and shows the amount of smegma that can accumulate and make windows OS evermore slow. http://merchantstand.com/2012/07/windows-ready-boost-and-other-system-performance-ramblings/ best way to speed up windows is load msconfig and disable all the crap that loads upon system loading including unneeded services... http://www.netsquirrel.com/msconfig/msconfig_win7.html and here one fun factoid about Microsoft OS´s bloat and evermore slow system performance... 0. Win7 5x slower than XP http://channel9.msdn.com/Forums/Coffeehouse/Test-shows-Windows-7-is-5x-slower-than-XP-in-UI-and-apps-load-slower-than-in-Vista 1. Vista: 25% slower than Windows XP http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/dec/06/microsoft " We did informal tests, booting both Vista and XP on the same hardware, and Vista was between 15% and 25% slower than XP in benchmarks" 2. Inforworld: WInXP slower than Windows 2000 "Waiting for Windows XP" http://web.archive.org/web/20071012211343rn_1/www.infoworld.com/articles/tc/xml/01/10/29/011029tcwinxp.html " as indicated by results of independent testing performed by CSA Research and confirmed by our work in the InfoWorld Test Center. Our tests of the multitasking capabilities of Windows XP and Windows 2000 demonstrated that under the same heavy load on identical hardware, Windows 2000 significantly outperformed Windows XP. In the most extreme scenario, our Windows XP system took nearly twice as long to complete a workload as did the Windows 2000 client" 3. Win2k slower than NT4... Microsoft looks to bury test results that show NT is faster than Win2000 http://web.archive.org/web/20061022093046/www.infoworld.com/articles/op/xml/01/03/05/010305opcringely.html "Microsoft recently threw around its weight -- and its fat wallet -- to squash an independent testing lab from publishing benchmark results that the lab ran for InfoWorld's sister publication NetworkWorld. The test demonstrated that SQL Server 7 runs nearly twice as fast on Windows NT 4.0 than it does on Windows 2000 ." One of my projects is attempting to compile OpenJDK java so that it runs on NT4... much leaner win32 development VM.... These appear to be “very” old data you quoted (W2K and WXP), and I suspect that the hardware used for their fiddling was equally old. Fortunately, my experience with 64-bit Windows 7 has been stellar. Also, the blogger you mentioned reduced boot time by 20%, and that is not a pittance. In any case, you use what works for you, and I will use what works for me. If this sounds defensive, it certainly is not meant to be so because I am exceedingly comfortable and confident in my “independent testing” as well, all the way to the bank.
wlEmoticon-smile[1].png
Description: Binary data
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Security Virtual Conference Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/
_______________________________________________ VBox-users-community mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/vbox-users-community _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe: mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
