readyboost support 8GB drive fully?

[RogueTrip]

I know originally that readyboost supported 4GB max but with compression its more like 8GB, but I could've sworn I read after SP1 on Vista that it could do 8GB now, did I miss something, googling isn't showing more than just initial readyboost pre and post release of vista.

I ordered patriot XT 8GB 180x thinking it would be a nice toy in vista to see if it would help out anything (just installed vista last tuesday so go easy on me, i've been reading for days now!) Now just thinking I'm only gonna get 4GB kinda makes me regret it buying a 8GB.

Maybe it was a tweak to force 8GB, i'm sure someone here would know. anyways its only 20.98 for the drive so no big loss and can always use it for other things.

 

[Catweazle]

If that rig in your sig is the one you installed Vista to then I wouldn't even bother about ReadyBoost. 4Gb RAM doesn't need it and doesn't really benefit from it, IMO. It's only useful on Vista rigs which don't have enough RAM in them.

 

[Joe Average]

ReadyBoost is/was designed for low-RAM machines under the expectation - at the time it was conceived and first put together - that RAM was very expensive (4 years ago 1GB was what, $200?) and that the coming wave of USB sticks would be a cheap low-cost way to supplement some of the caching duties of SuperFetch and the virtual memory subsystem of Vista.

Nowadays, with 4GB (2x2GB) going for ~$45, the actual usefulness of ReadyBoost on machines with 2GB or more of RAM is simply lackluster at best. With 4GB, as noted by Cat, ReadyBoost - regardless of the size of the Flash-RAM media device you're using - is simply not going to make any tangible difference. A difference? Yes. Tangible, noticeable difference? No.

Only in benchmarks could you see a difference of any discernible degree, and that's one thing about ReadyBoost overall: it's nearly impossible to actually test the usefulness, it's more of "My god my system sure seems a lot snappier using ReadyBoost than without using it..." or words to that effect. Some would argue it's just a placebo sort of thing, but there are some tasks you can do with ReadyBoost enabled and with it disabled where you can spot the differences, but that would only apply to those low-RAM machines it was designed to be most useful with.

2GB of RAM, perhaps a 1GB ReadyBoost cache can help to a noticeable degree of sorts, but with more than 2GB of RAM, use the Flash-RAM device for something else...

 

[Catweazle]

Yep. I use ReadyBoost on one machine only. An older singlecore jobbie which sits out in the living area for 'household' use, and which is running Vista32 in 1Gb RAM. A cheap-as-shit 2Gb USB stick in that'n does make a difference when it's put to work at anything more demanding than not really demanding at all. who the hell is gonna go chasing more DDR400 for an old shitbox, right? DDR400 doesn't come at $25 per 4Gb nowadays, that's for sure.


Beyond that kinda thing you've exceeded what ReadyBoost was designed for. It ain't a foolproof performance boost for anything and everything. It's simply a second-best solution for a rig which is starved for RAM and not gonna get more of it.