"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 19:29:10 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 26 Jun 2018 11:47:00 +0100, whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 21 June 2018 22:00:24 UTC+1, Jimmy Wilkinson Knife wrote:
On Sun, 17 Jun 2018 21:22:36 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news On Fri, 15 Jun 2018 20:32:09 +0100, Rod Speed

wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news On Thu, 14 Jun 2018 00:09:21 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 21:49:06 +0100, Rod Speed
wrote:



"Jimmy Wilkinson Knife" wrote in message
news On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 16:50:09 +0100, Bob Eager

wrote:

On Wed, 13 Jun 2018 07:26:26 -0700, whisky-dave wrote:

Try starting up a PC from an SD card then I dare you, a
raspeberry Pis
are OK and they still need a relatively fast card.

I've done it from a CF card. A lot.

A USB memory stick is faster than a hard disk.

Nope. I put the movies I download for the back neighbours on
USB sticks because they have no broadband or dialup and its
much slower to do that than to move them between hard drives.

That's why Windows Vista onwards allows you to boost the RAM
with it.

Utterly mangled all over again.

So M$ were lying?

No, MS never said it would be at the same speed as normal ram
and
it
isnt.

That's not what I claimed, I'm talking about it being faster than
the
hard disk.

It isnt that either. The back neighbours get me to download
movies for them because they don't have wired broadband,
only the 4G service which is much more expensive and they
don't know how to torrent anyway, so I give them the movies
on USB sticks. Those are much slower than my hard drives.

In the absence of the USB stick, more pagefile on the hard disk
would be used instead.

And that would be fast on the hard drive.

But anyone with half a clue has enough physical
ram so it never uses the pagefile for anything much.

So what was the point in M$ providing the feature of using your USB
stick as extra memory?

It's a cheap, better than nothing approach. 8GB of physical ram cost
me
$65 and
that's used ram, new price is $120. A 32GB usb3 stick is only $16,
but
is much slower.

My point is that the USB stick is faster than the hard disk,

They aren't always and it depends on the formatting.

otherwise
there's no point in using it as RAM, as the hard disk already has a
swapfile.

People don;t use sticks as RAM unless they have a really slow machine.

Microsoft invented the programming so you could use it as RAM,

Nope.

Yes, why else would they have designed it?

For those who couldn't add more physical ram
easily and for the 32 bit OSs that couldn't use
it even if more physical ram was added.

so they must have decided it was faster than a hard disk for a page
file.

Nope. That's for those that can't as easily have a faster hard drive.

It can still be a lot faster than a lot of hard drives.

Nope.

Remember, we're talking about seek times aswell as transfer rates.

Not with a page file.

Are you ****ing serious?!

Yep.

A page file is VERY likely to need access to multiple parts of the
storage.

Yes, but doesn't need access to the FAT, it does direct access to the right
bit of the page file, so only one seek and in practice that's fast enough to
not matter anymore given how much seeking the heads are already doing.