How I Got Full Windows XP Installed Under 2GB!
in [Laptops]
|
From: ~misfit~ on 16 Jan 2010 19:25 Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote: > In news:hiqjra$o0b$2(a)reader1.panix.com, > the wharf rat typed on Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:40:10 +0000 (UTC): >> In article <hiq7mg$dcp$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, >> BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: >>> >>> I average 100MB to 150MB writes per day of writes to SLC flash >>> drives. At that rate, it would take 4,000 years to hit 100,000 >>> writes per cell. >> >> But writes aren't evenly distributed across cells. The exact pattern >> depends on free space available, the balancing algorithms, and the >> patterns of the load. Also, MTBF doesn't mean that ALL those cells >> will last that long. It's a statistic; you'll see plenty of failures >> before that magic number is reached. > > No problem. As that is what wear leveling takes care of. I have been > using flash drives (SSD) for running Windows for two years now and no > problems yet. So you've been using the term 'flash drive' to refer to an SSD from the start of this thread? That's pretty confusing as they're two different things with fairly well established nomenclature. -- Shaun. "Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.
From: BillW50 on 17 Jan 2010 10:06 In news:hitld1$hn0$1(a)news.eternal-september.org, ~misfit~ typed on Sun, 17 Jan 2010 13:25:01 +1300: > Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote: >> In news:hiqjra$o0b$2(a)reader1.panix.com, >> the wharf rat typed on Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:40:10 +0000 (UTC): >>> In article <hiq7mg$dcp$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, >>> BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: >>>> >>>> I average 100MB to 150MB writes per day of writes to SLC flash >>>> drives. At that rate, it would take 4,000 years to hit 100,000 >>>> writes per cell. >>> >>> But writes aren't evenly distributed across cells. The exact >>> pattern depends on free space available, the balancing algorithms, >>> and the patterns of the load. Also, MTBF doesn't mean that ALL >>> those cells will last that long. It's a statistic; you'll see >>> plenty of failures before that magic number is reached. >> >> No problem. As that is what wear leveling takes care of. I have been >> using flash drives (SSD) for running Windows for two years now and no >> problems yet. > > So you've been using the term 'flash drive' to refer to an SSD from > the start of this thread? > > That's pretty confusing as they're two different things with fairly > well established nomenclature. How do you figure? From the outside they might look different. But from the inside, they are all the same. As they use the same technology with the same SLC / MLC chips for the drive. And the same rules of longevity and wear leveling also apply. Speaking of which, have you ever thought about how much writing is evolved for 100,000 writes per cell? For a 4GB for example, you would have to write 400TB worth to reach the expected lifespan. That is a lifetime or more worth the way I use computers. And the problem that I had solved to get the full Windows XP to fit inside of less than 2GB SSD, was to move the Program Files folder over to a SD flash drive. Sounds easy, except Windows sees the SD flash as a removable drive. Plus all of the many registry entries are thinking that programs are in the C:\Program Files folder. And many programs that you wish to later install will refuse to install on a removable drive anyway. All of these problems disappear, if you mount the SD flash in the Program Files folder. As the Windows registry is happy, as nothing as far as it is concern has changed. And Windows and the applications are happy, as they don't see the SD drive as a removable drive anymore. And unlike previous hacks to pull this off, which requires registry hacking and slower I/O performance. This one even a non-computer geek can pull it off very easily. Thus I believe this information is a gold mine for those with 2GB and 4GB SSD running Windows XP. As free space can get very limited really fast if you are not careful. And this allows for a lot of more breathing room. ;-) -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Windows XP SP3
From: the wharf rat on 17 Jan 2010 14:18 In article <hit182$v58$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: > >I wouldn't know without checking. Here I have my three 16GB flash drives >right here. Here is what CHKDSK reports for the three. > >1) 15,880,752 KB total disk space. 1,985,094 blocks. >2) 15,672,112 KB total disk space. 1,959,014 blocks. >3) 15,664,088 KB total disk space. 1,958,011 blocks. PHYSICAL blocks. Not logical blocks... Sigh. Anyway, the reason wear matters is because solid state storage devices have fewer physical blocks. Losing one matters a lot more.
From: BillW50 on 17 Jan 2010 14:43 In news:hivnqq$c8b$2(a)reader1.panix.com, the wharf rat typed on Sun, 17 Jan 2010 19:18:50 +0000 (UTC): > In article <hit182$v58$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: >> >> I wouldn't know without checking. Here I have my three 16GB flash >> drives right here. Here is what CHKDSK reports for the three. >> >> 1) 15,880,752 KB total disk space. 1,985,094 blocks. >> 2) 15,672,112 KB total disk space. 1,959,014 blocks. >> 3) 15,664,088 KB total disk space. 1,958,011 blocks. > > PHYSICAL blocks. Not logical blocks... Sigh. Well a Google search for Adata 16GB SDHC data sheet should pull the information up. > Anyway, the reason wear matters is because solid state storage > devices have fewer physical blocks. Losing one matters a lot more. It doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is how much of the total space disappears over its lifetime. After all, that is the real bottom-line, right? And the 12 flash drives I have hasn't even dropped 1% of the original capacity yet. It isn't even close. And let's say after 20 years of heavy use the capacity drops to a whopping 10% less capacity than they were when brand new. Then I still wouldn't care. Since 20 years from now, 16GB flash drives will be a dime a dozen by then. ;-) -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Windows XP SP3
From: the wharf rat on 18 Jan 2010 00:05
In article <hivp9a$4po$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: > >bottom-line, right? And the 12 flash drives I have hasn't even dropped >1% of the original capacity yet. It isn't even close. > How many of those are in service as virtual memory or scratch fiel space for an operating system installation? >20 years from now, 16GB flash drives will be a dime a dozen by then. ;-) Sure. And in 2001 we'll all be driving flying cars. |