Quote:
Originally Posted by the_beast 
So, you go against the advice of those who wrote the software you use because you know better, but gain nothing for doing so? Why would you do that?
|
Because the Paging File proved to be unnecessary in my system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_beast 
If the pagefile was not a 'good thing', why would MS persist with it? Surely it would be the work of a few moments to code "if RAM>3GB then pagefile=off" if such a thing was actually a better idea?
|
If they did that, then their OS would be less universally-compatible than it is now. So, by having the Paging File enabled by default, they are covering all of their bases. But since I proved that the Paging File is not necessary on my particular system, I just leave it disabled. I mean, what's the point in using something that makes no difference with or without it? And what's the point of leaving it enabled when I can further streamline my system by disabling it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_beast 
Why would it be redundant? Because you knew that minimising writes is necessary?
|
No. It is because the article makes it obvious to anyone who's paying attention to what they're reading. If after reading that article you don't get the sense that you should try to gain more control over your SSD writes, then you weren't paying attention to the article.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_beast 
If you already knew everything about SSDs, why read the article? A flash cell may have limited write cycles, but the life of your SSD is not necessarily limited in the same way.
|
I'd rather go by all of the research I've done than take your word for it here. That article isn't the first little bit of information I've read about SSDs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_beast 
Assumption is the mother of all f*#~ ups (Under Seige 2, for those who don't know their Segal movies).
|
You are assuming that I am making an assumption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_beast 
Such a thread would be a good idea. But writing it in a balanced, objective way would be hard, and there would always be people who would dismiss everything.
|
Yeah, kinda like how you're trying to dismiss everything that article said and also like how you're trying to dismiss everything I said. You're right. We have way too many people like that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_beast 
There is also the problem of different brands/types of SSD - what is true of current-gen, cache-equipped, wear-levelling enabled MLC drives was not so true with older drives. Such an article would have to deal with different types, or make it abundantly clear that all SSDs are not created equal.
|
Yeah, you're right. It's not worth it.
Yes, that was sarcasm. Of
course it's worth it! You have to start
somewhere! Why do you have to come up with all of the reasons why it won't work? With an attitude like that, of
course it won't work. But if you ignore those possible reasons why it won't work, then you'll get started on it and you'll eventually finish it. But once it's finish, you don't have to stop there: you can just continue perfecting it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_beast 
Or to put it another, slightly more realistic way - your SSD will last longer than it remains useful for. Honestly, how many people that care about performance still use HDDs over 5 years old for their OS? Even 3 years old is pushing it - around half the minimum useful life that Intel quote, even with the somewhat high 20GB/day usage figures.
|
With technology this immature, it is impossible to be as certain as you are trying to be. I mean, can you prove it? Hey, we can prove this kind of stuff with hard drives, but how about with SSDs? We can't. Therefore, time will tell.