Usually, tuning up a PC requires a lot of work, spending much money on new components, or both. ReadyBoost can speed up slow or overwhelmed PCs without either one.
There’s no such thing as a fast-enough computer. No matter how hot your CPU runs or how much RAM you have, eventually you’ll run out of performance — usually, just when you need it most. Fortunately, Windows 7 comes with a cheap and easy way of improving system performance: ReadyBoost.
Windows 7’s ReadyBoost is Microsoft’s latest take on a very old idea for improving computer performance: caching. With a cache, you gain speed by keeping frequently accessed data as close as possible to the CPU cores. The faster the cache, the closer it should be to cores. That’s why high-end processors, like the Intel i7 quad-core CPU, have their own on-board cache.
Caching used to be easy. You used caching on uniprocessor, single user systems to free yourself from the slow I/O jail, whether that I/O was from the system bus to the processor or from the hard drive to the bus. As multiple-CPU and core systems became more common, simply placing fast RAM between system components with varying I/O throughputs was no longer enough. System designers had to contend with making sure that the available data to the processor was the real, newest data.
In ReadyBoost, cached data is stored in a Flash memory drive (usually a USB stick, but Secure Digital (SD) and Compact Flash (CF) cards are also supported). When data is read at random rather than in large blocks of data, ReadyBoost can improve file and data read input/output (I/O) by several times over traditional hard drives. You also get a performance boost from random writes, but it won’t be as significant.
In Windows 7, caching is usually done with SuperFetch and ReadyBoost working hand in glove. That’s setting aside such specialized caches as DNS cache (for Domain Name Service Internet addressing), Thumbnails cache (which contains downloaded ActiveX and JavaScript programs), and network file caching programs (such as BranchCache).
SuperFetch watches for which applications, documents, and system programs you use the most often and pre-loads them into your system memory. This way they’re ready to spring into action when you call on them. Of course, you could be using that RAM for other, potentially more useful work like running memory-hungry programs such as Adobe Photoshop or InDesign. In short, if you have relatively little RAM, or you’re using most of it, you should see some benefits from using ReadyBoost.
The other situation where you’ll see some performance improvements from ReadyBoost is when the computer has a slow hard disk drive. Computers with a hard disk Windows Experience Index (WEI) sub-score lower than 4.0 should see the most significant improvements. Conversely, if you have a very fast hard drive, such as a solid state drive (SSD), you won’t see any benefit from a USB 2.0 drive. Indeed, by default, Windows 7 disables ReadyBoost if you’re using an SSD drive.
Unfortunately, not all SD and CF cards, or even USB flash drives, work with ReadyBoost. While some storage media advertise that they’re “enhanced for Windows ReadyBoost,” they may not actually be ReadyBoost worthy. For a device to be ReadyBoost capable, it has to be able to handle 2.5 MBps throughout for 4 KB random reads and 1.75 MBps throughout for 512 KB random writes. In addition, the device must have at least 235 MB of available storage.
To my surprise, I’ve found that some ancient, tiny USB drives were ReadyBoost ready while other, brand-new drives failed. If you’d rather not waste time buying and trying USB drives, there’s a useful ReadyBoost Compatibility List based on real-world testing.
When you first attach a flash drive that ready for ReadyBoost, AutoPlay should provide ReadyBoost as an option. Even if you don’t see that as an option, you may still be in luck.
Try configuring ReadyBoost by right-clicking the device in Windows Explorer, clicking Properties, and then clicking the ReadyBoost tab. The only configuration option is to configure the space reserved for the cache. You must reserve at least 256 MB. Larger caches can improve performance, but the ReadyBoost cache cannot be greater than 4 GB on a FAT32 file system or greater than 32 GB on an NTFS file system.
So how much should you use? Microsoft recommends, “a 1:1 ratio of Flash to system memory at the low end and as high as 2.5:1 flash to system memory.” So if you have 4GB of RAM, you should pair it with at least a 4GB USB drive, but a 16GB USB stick would be overkill. With Windows Vista you could only use one drive at a time for ReadyBoost, but you can now use multiple drives. For example, on my Windows 7 test system with 6GB of RAM, I use a pair of inexpensive 4GB USB drives to provide the system with an 8GB ReadyBoost.
Worried about someone pulling out your USB stick and walking away with the files you’ve been working on for months? Don’t be. Information on ReadyBoost drives or disks is safe from casual hackers. All files on removable drives are encrypted with Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) 128. In any case, while ReadyBoost stores data and programs as files, and not as raw data, you can’t access these files as if the USB stick was a normal drive. They can only be used by ReadyBoost.
So, is it worth it? In my informal tests, when I pushed my Window 7 system by running PhotoShop and InDesign on a large publishing project with multiple small files, I saw an overall performance benefit of about 10%. When I wasn’t pushing my system, however, I saw no improvement. If you want to drill down into what ReadyBoost is, or isn’t, doing for you I recommend using Performance Monitor, as described in this excellent and detailed article.
That said, if your workers have slower systems or large computing workloads I have no doubt that ReadyBoost, with its minimal requirements, is an easy way to get more productivity out of your systems. Sure, you could do more (say, adding a faster hard drive or adding more RAM), but when you consider that ReadyBoost only costs a few dollars for USB drives and a minute to activate, ReadyBoost is a clear winner when it comes to a cheap, easy way to get more out of your PCs.
May 10, 2010
by sjvn01
2 Comments
Sun Open Source Reborn in ForgeRock
When Oracle bought Sun, there were many unanswered questions about Sun’s open-source portfolio of programs. Over a year later, we still don’t know, for example, if OpenSolaris is going to have Oracle’s support. We now know, however, that OpenSSO, an open source access management and federation server platform, will live on as a product under the new open-source company ForgeRock.
ForgeRock is an ISV (independent software vendor) made up of former Sun business and technology experts. The company claims that it based its “business exclusively on open source products.” The first of these is its I3 Open Platform. This identify management suite is built on top of several open-source including OpenAM, which is based on OpenSSO); OpenESB; OpenIdM; and OpenPortal, which is built on LifeRay.
According to Simon Phipps, former chief open source officer at Sun and, as of today, May 10th, a member of ForgeRock’s board and the Norwegian company’s chief strategy officer. ForgeRock’s I3 Open Platform is an open, high-performance and unified platform addressing.
May 7, 2010
by sjvn01
2 Comments
Linux needs to do more for programmers
Much as I hate to admit it, Microsoft does some things better, much better, than Linux. Number one with a bullet is how Microsoft helps programmers and ISVs (independent software vendors). MSDN (Microsoft Software Developer Network) is a wonderful online developer resource. Linux has had nothing to compare.
True, there is the Linux Developer Network, which, when it began, looked like it would be the Linux equivalent of MSDN, but it hasn’t lived up to its promise. And, I can’t overlook the Linux Foundation’s Linux training classes. But, if I’m an ISV and I want to write software for Linux, I’m still going to need to piece together a lot of it by myself.
May 7, 2010
by sjvn01
0 comments
Playing it Safe(r) on Facebook
I’m not ready to give up on Facebook yet, like my friend Jason Perlow, but I can understand why he’s sick to death of it. The simple truth is that Facebook takes lousy care of your personal information and is happy to sell it to advertisers at the drop of a hat.
Now, I lead a pretty public life and I really don’t care if anyone knows, for example, that I like watching Dr. Who; reading the books of Terry Pratchett, or listening to alt.country music. But, I don’t want people ‘listening’ in to my IM (instant message) conversations or Facebook quietly adding applications to my account without me knowing. Facebook is already full of games like Farmville and Mafia Wars that are always trying to get my attention when I have less than zero interest in them. The last thing I need is yet another insecure Facebook App, which I didn’t even ask for.
For now, though, I’m sticking with Facebook. I’m just going to be scaling back a lot of what I’ve made public on my account though. While I’m not going to go as far as Perlow has in his excellent Lockdown or Death for your Facebook Profile, I have tried to make my site a bit more private, and here’s how I went about it.
First, and foremost, when you decide what information you’re going to try to keep private you should keep in mind that Facebook’s security is rotten. If you really don’t want something to be known about you, then don’t just keep it off Facebook, keep it off the Web. If you don’t, you could end up like the woman who lost her job because she had posted about her polyamorous life on Twitter, without realizing that in the brief time she had used her real name on her profile a Twitter search engine had picked it up.
You can argue all you want that she shouldn’t have been fired for what she did outside her job. I’d agree with you. But, the sad, simple truth is that she was fired because her private life wasn’t as private as she thought it was.
Does that scare you enough that you want to delete your Facebook account? Well, as that woman found it may already be too late to hide your deep dark secret. Google, Yahoo, and all the other search engines track down everything public on Facebook just like they do everything else. Even if you decided to delete your Facebook account today, the actual deletion will take at least two weeks and your ‘tracks’ on the search engines will persist for months and even years.
Me? I’m just going to get rid of some information. Yes, an expert can find and drag out most of this stuff from the Web if they know what they’re doing, but that’s the point. Facebook has made it trivial for crackers or advertisers to watch your every move. I just want to make it harder.
That said, head over to Facebook’s Basic Information tab and edit down what you already have on there. Is anyone ever going to need to find your full snail-mail address on Facebook? I doubt it. Out it goes. Do you really want anyone to know how old you are when a potential employer may very well hold it against you that you’re over 50? I don’t think so. Go over your information carefully and unless you can think of a good reason for it to be public knowledge, get rid of it.
Next, you need to be ready to spend a lot of time customizing your Facebook Privacy settings. I’ll make it simple for you though. While Perlow suggests that you use “The most restrictive level [which] is to choose Custom for each of these fields and to set it to Only Me,” I’d suggest that if you feel that way about it you should delete the information in the first place. For everything else, I’d set it to “Only Friends.”
That done, you should pay particular attention to the Privacy Settings Applications and Websites page. This page determines what your friends can share about you. I don’t know about you, but I want to be the one in charge of my information, not my friends. Here, I un-check everything. Facebook, bless their no privacy little hearts, wants to let my friends share everything about me both to Facebook and to other Web sites. I think not.
Another simple, for once, page you should pay particular attention to is the Instant Personalization Pilot Program. This is Facebook’s new toy, which lets Facebook — excuse me, you — share your information with third party Web sites. Maybe you feel the need to share everything that’s public about you on Facebook with, say, Microsoft via Microsoft Docs, but I’m not so trusting. Just say no and don’t allow it access.
The privacy settings let you clean up a lot of the mess, but it doesn’t take care of everything. Let’s say that you want to get out of some groups like, “IAlwaysGetDrunkonFridays.” Facebook doesn’t make it easy to just dump all the silly groups from one page. Instead, you need to go to each group and leave them individually. Look for the “Leave Group” link below the group’s image on its page and click it. Then, move on to the “IalwaysGetDrunkonSaturdays” page and leave it. You get the idea.
Next, let’s get rid of any applications you don’t need. Applications are especially bad about sharing your information with people so you should show no mercy in getting rid of them. To do this, head over to Account, select Application Settings, and then use the “Authorized” filter. Do not, do not, think that you can use the Facebook Applications link to do this. That only shows you a small fraction of all the applications you’ve authorized for access to your account.
If you’re like me, you’ll be amazed at how many applications you’ve given leave to raid your account for information. You could edit each application for how much it can show the world about you, but personally, I found myself zapping almost all of them. The Monty Python Gifts app., for instance, was funny once; it’s not funny for all time.
Once you’ve got all this done, you’ll be relatively safe on Facebook. Of course, Facebook can throw up another security hairball at any time and, goodness knows, we can always make fools of ourselves with our own efforts, but at least this will keep your information as secure as Facebook will currently allow. Good luck.
May 5, 2010
by sjvn01
0 comments
Chrome 5: Faster and Better
The first thing you’ll notice with Google’s new beta of its Chrome Web browser is that it’s faster, much faster, than the last version. You don’t need any fancy tests to see that. All you have to do is use it and you’ll see that it blows other browsers away.
But, if numbers are what you want, here’s what I found using the SunSpider JavaScript benchmarks. I ran these tests on a pair of Dell 530S desktop PCs. These older computers are powered by a 2.2GHz Intel Pentium E2200 dual-core processor with an 800MHz front-side bus. Each has 4GB of RAM, a 500GB SATA (Serial ATA) drive, and an Integrated Intel 3100 GMA (Graphics Media Accelerator) chipset. One was loaded with Windows XP SP3 and the other used MEPIS 8.0 desktop Linux. First, I ran the benchmarks with an old copy of Chrome 4, which I installed just for these tests, and then with Chrome 5.0.375.29, the latest beta. The average result was 660.4ms for Chrome 4 and 380.0 for Chrome 5.
Other Chrome tests haven’t shown such significant improvements, but the bottom line is that the new Chrome is visibly faster than most other browsers. While it’s true that Opera Software’s Opera 10.53 is faster still, it’s also true that Opera has been plagued with numerous serious security problems. For the best combination of speed and security you can’t currently beat Chrome.
May 4, 2010
by sjvn01
2 Comments
The other Ubuntu Linux distributions
I like the brand spanking new Ubuntu 10.04 a lot. But while I like its GNOME 2.30 interface, I also like other interfaces such as KDE. It would be nice if Ubuntu could also play MP3s, common video formats and Flash from the get-go. You could install all these and other extras from the Ubuntu repositories, but there’s also a wide-variety of Ubuntu spin-offs that come ready to give you the functionality you want right out of the box.
Here’s my list of the most important of the Ubuntu-based distributions.
Kubuntu 10.04. Like the name suggests, the big difference between Ubuntu and Kubuntu is that the K-Ubuntu runs KDE 4.4.2 instead of GNOME 2.30 for its desktop. But Kubuntu isn’t just Ubuntu with KDE. Instead of KDE’s default Konqueror Web browser, Kubuntu defaults to using Firefox 3.6.3.
Kubuntu also does a nice job of integrating GNOME applications into the KDE 4.4 interface. That’s the good news; the bad news is, instead of using a KDE frontend to Ubuntu’s outstanding Ubuntu Software Center, you’re stuck with the far less attractive and more difficult to use KPackageKit to add new programs and update your software. KPackageKit is fine for experienced Linux users, but Linux newcomers, which is what Ubuntu wants, will find it less than appealing. For more on Kubuntu, check out this excellent review.
More >