Reading would be fast, but without write-back your computer would be "stuck" or "frozen" some moments when you're doing small writes. Therefore, for desktop performance a good SSD with good controller is a must.
However, this problem is non-existent with SLC memory based SSDs; so a small 16GB SLC SSD would do. Those don't need very advanced controllers to get decent random write performance.
I forget XP's actual footprint after initial install, but keeping them ona 16GB partition has been an effort in my shop. Page file, temp files are all offloaded to a FAT32 partition (D:\) but still many apps install "common" files to C no matter where the program is, e-mail defaults to storage on C (we've changed that too) but the big culprit is *.msi, *.cab and driver files which are not only huge but also Windows many times wants to keep 3 copies of each in different folders.
Alright, why would you want to install applications on the much inferior, slower, crappier hard drive when you can install it on the superior and faster SSD.
-Your pagefile will need a lot of space, and i am pretty sure even if you disable it, it will still take up your 1.5x of RAM as usual, its still there just wont be used, maybe i am wrong though.
-Tell me how much RAM you have also because it will determine the size of your pagefile.
Well the pagefile shouldn't have to be on the SSD; it won't get used anyway unless one of your programs is malfunctioning and allocating as much RAM as possible. Such a thing happened to me a few days ago. Without swap the program would be killed; with swap your computer would slow down and you have no control whatsoever and it'll keep being unresponsive for 10 minutes until it ran out of swap space (remember random access to swap goes at less than 1MB/s on the fastest HDD) - it will finally kill the process.