Want to know why MS went for flash based cache in Vista

A 1GB USB drive is $20. 1GB DDR2 is $110. Further; if your system is maxed with RAM (like Tannin's poor laptop), it could prove useful. It's not necessarily an either/or thing.

Of course, that is only if it actually makes a difference...
 
You can get a 2GB key for less than $20, but so what? Does wearing out your flash drive really help that OS performance that much?
 
I guess it all depends on how fast Vista eats flash drives as to weather it's worth it... Sounds like it'd be good for solving Tannins problem, not many reads writes but they're painfully slow when they happen... Not that it'd be worth installing Vista for that or anything...
 
I agree, Sol. It might improve my system performance by ... oh ... 10% maybe. Balance that with Vista itself taking away ... oh ... on a 1.5GB system, something like 30% ... net gain = minus 20%, and all for only around AU$500.

You know my mantra: never buy a Microsoft product before Service Pack 2. In Vista's case, Service Pack 3 is probably a better bet. Actually, I wonder if Vista might end up like ME: that smart people will simply skip this one completely and go straight to the following version - the same way most people gave ME a miss and went straight from 98SE to XP or 2000.
 
God I hated WinME. What did it supposedly bring to the table? I remember jumpting to Win2k as soon as I could, and that was probably the biggest jump in computing pleasure I've ever taken - moreso than Win3.1 to Win95.
 
Windows ME... Tannin has been known to rather aptly refer to it as Morons Edition, I've always thought that it was basically a stop gap. Windows2000 was kind of hyped as being NT for home users (I'm not sure if that was by MS or others), pretty much what XP ended up being. But some features, inevitably, got dropped and others (like DirectX) delayed so that at launch it wasn't something MS wanted to sell to consumers (It was stable and had few useless features how does one sell that?). AFAIK ME was a hack job patch to 98 to make people think that they had the new OS they'd been promised. 2000/Millennium, sounded similar, the target audience wouldn't know the difference. I came across a lot of people who sure didn't.
In another theory ME was Microsoft's way of maintaining the law of preservation of stability, if 2000 meant that some home users were going to have improved system stability then a force was needed to offset that - Windows ME.

Of course all of this is based largely on my personal impressions (and some perhaps rather shaky science) rather than fact, and on discussions I've had with people regarding it. But I think that ME was somewhat the dung-beetle of operating systems, more reviled than actually studied, at least amongst my peers, so you might find somewhere like Wikipedia to be a more authoritative source.
 
Back
Top