Odd question, I currently have a Laptop running Windows Vista 64-bit off of an SSD drive and I'm wondering why it still allows me run a Readyboost USB drive.
Now my current RAM is 2GB, normal running operation uses over 1GB just idle. Likewise, the SSD drive (primary and only drive in the laptop) is hooked up to a Serial ATA 1.0 which I think may be why Vista allows it. The USB is 2.0 at 4GB readyboost cache which Vista recommends I use.
Now with all the facts out of the way, my personal (subjective) experience is a positive one. When multiple programs are open (audio player, Microsoft works, internet, virus scan) the laptop seems more responsive than without (especially when switching from one program to another). However, I don't have any way to benchmark this leaving me curious.
Is there any reason a Readyboost drive on an SSD would improve performance? Vista allowing it could simply be that SSDs weren't too widespread (which is why Defrag has to be turned off manually) at the time. Likewise, is there some way to benchmark this?
Now my current RAM is 2GB, normal running operation uses over 1GB just idle. Likewise, the SSD drive (primary and only drive in the laptop) is hooked up to a Serial ATA 1.0 which I think may be why Vista allows it. The USB is 2.0 at 4GB readyboost cache which Vista recommends I use.
Now with all the facts out of the way, my personal (subjective) experience is a positive one. When multiple programs are open (audio player, Microsoft works, internet, virus scan) the laptop seems more responsive than without (especially when switching from one program to another). However, I don't have any way to benchmark this leaving me curious.
Is there any reason a Readyboost drive on an SSD would improve performance? Vista allowing it could simply be that SSDs weren't too widespread (which is why Defrag has to be turned off manually) at the time. Likewise, is there some way to benchmark this?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram