Does Readyboost do any good?

I have a 2 gig Home Prem laptop used mostly for web surfing and email.
Would I see much benefit from adding a 2 gig Readyboost-capable flash drive?

Lee M. wrote:

> I have a 2 gig Home Prem laptop used mostly for web surfing and email.
> Would I see much benefit from adding a 2 gig Readyboost-capable flash drive?
>
>

No. Readyboost is most effective when you have 1 gig or less.

Unlikely as that is more than sufficient ram for those activities.
Readyboost would help performance when the amount of installed ram is low in
comparison to the requirements of the programs normally run by the user.

--
Best of Luck,

Rick Rogers, aka "Nutcase" - Microsoft MVP
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/
Windows help - www.rickrogers.org
My thoughts http://rick-mvp.blogspot.com

"Lee M." <lmacmil@forget_it.com> wrote in message
news:4s-...
>I have a 2 gig Home Prem laptop used mostly for web surfing and email.
>Would I see much benefit from adding a 2 gig Readyboost-capable flash
>drive?
>

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:14:38 -0400, "Lee M." <lmacmil@forget_it.com>
wrote:

>I have a 2 gig Home Prem laptop used mostly for web surfing and email.
>Would I see much benefit from adding a 2 gig Readyboost-capable flash drive?

Probably not.

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:14:38 -0400, "Lee M." <lmacmil@forget_it.com>
wrote:

> I have a 2 gig Home Prem laptop used mostly for web surfing and email.
> Would I see much benefit from adding a 2 gig Readyboost-capable flash drive?



Highly unlikely.


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

I had tried Readyboost for a week. (I have 2GB ram Home premium, dual core
intel.)

No noticable improvement in system performance or speed.

--
oscar

....Right click is your best friend...


"Lee M." wrote:

> I have a 2 gig Home Prem laptop used mostly for web surfing and email.
> Would I see much benefit from adding a 2 gig Readyboost-capable flash drive?
>
>
>

No. It was designed for computers which can't take enough RAM. Magazine
tests show a noticeable improvement in machines with 512M, but little or no
improvement beyond that.

SteveT

On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 10:34:26 +0100, "Steve Thackery"
<> wrote:

> No. It was designed for computers which can't take enough RAM. Magazine
> tests show a noticeable improvement in machines with 512M, but little or no
> improvement beyond that.


I think the whole idea was a poor one. It's ineffective on computers
with enough ram, and on those with inadequate RAM, it's a poor value;
for the same or slightly more money, you could add more RAM and get
much better performance.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup