A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » Homebuilt PC's
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Updating an XP box



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 11th 18, 03:57 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Bill[_39_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 38
Default PCIe , Was: Updating an XP box

Paul wrote:
Bill wrote:
Flasherly wrote:

And I'd need the real experience of running both PCIe Gen3x2 M.2
against SATA SSD for an impression of applicable benefits.


Since you brought it up, and since I am curious.Â* I would like
to ask if there a difference between running these 2
technologies? My MB has the capability of running both (I am
using SSD Sata 6.0).Â*Â* I don't process video, play games, or do
anything else that involves a very large number of GB all at
once.Â* I just enjoy a responsive system.

Bill


Let's take an example.

If I run a Macrium backup, if the storage is infinitely
fast, the backup still only runs at 200-250MB/sec.
Why is that ? The software computes a checksum while
it is backing up, and that is the rate limiting step.

I have little MD5 and SHA1 programs here of my own,
and the speed ranges between 100MB/sec and 300MB/sec.
And these are far from optimal programs.

Now, given these speeds for some existing tasks,
how much difference would a 600MB/sec or a 2400MB/sec
storage device make.

The answer is... none.


Paul, Thank you for your detailed explanation. I got the point!
Maybe some details besides speed will emerge about these two
technologies. I've learned about the 4 or so types of "cell
technology", single, double, octal, etc.--though I may be abusing
their appropriate names in favor of how I think about them.

Bill
  #12  
Old December 11th 18, 05:38 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Paul[_28_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,467
Default PCIe , Was: Updating an XP box

Bill wrote:


Paul, Thank you for your detailed explanation. I got the point!
Maybe some details besides speed will emerge about these two
technologies. I've learned about the 4 or so types of "cell technology",
single, double, octal, etc.--though I may be abusing their appropriate
names in favor of how I think about them.

Bill


Your computer is only as good as the weakest link.

The seek time of your two device types is low, and
much lower than a HDD. Either drive type would solve
the seek time problem.

The most visible improvement is at boot time. Some
other things, you might forget you got an SSD.

One other thing I noticed, is how much faster
a 32 bit OS boots (because it supports less RAM).
After the pudgy boot times on all the 64 bit OSes here,
I was kinda shocked about how fast the first
boot of the 32 bit system was. It got slower later
in the day, after I added some stuff in and it
did some updates. But at least what that showed
me, is the amount of RAM when I boot 64 bit, is
having an impact on how long I have to wait.
SSD or no SSD.

Paul
  #13  
Old December 11th 18, 06:50 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Flasherly[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,407
Default PCIe , Was: Updating an XP box

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 18:43:40 -0500, Bill wrote:

Since you brought it up, and since I am curious. I would like to
ask if there a difference between running these 2 technologies?
My MB has the capability of running both (I am using SSD Sata
6.0). I don't process video, play games, or do anything else
that involves a very large number of GB all at once. I just
enjoy a responsive system.


Given that resource on your MB, I'd definitely check into it. I've
seen slotted-NAND SSDs no less viciously cut for pricing as any SATA
SSD variant. If you therefore derive any significant benefit in
transfers, say, x2-3 times faster than SATA, then the matter becomes a
sub-$20 question begging for, at the very least, an immediate 128G
solution.
  #14  
Old December 11th 18, 07:03 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Flasherly[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,407
Default PCIe , Was: Updating an XP box

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 00:50:38 -0500, Flasherly
wrote:

Given that resource on your MB ...

-
The one caveat, since XP is perhaps indirectly referenced, at least in
the header, is I'd be highly suspicious of XP actually "taking" to any
such NAND shenanigans. That the SSD controller, after XP, was able to
sufficiently remap convention HDD strategy for compatibility is a
lot;...just in saying, I personally wouldn't press the point to expect
too much on all but an abandoned operating system.
  #15  
Old December 11th 18, 07:49 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Paul[_28_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,467
Default PCIe , Was: Updating an XP box

Flasherly wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 00:50:38 -0500, Flasherly
wrote:

Given that resource on your MB ...

-
The one caveat, since XP is perhaps indirectly referenced, at least in
the header, is I'd be highly suspicious of XP actually "taking" to any
such NAND shenanigans. That the SSD controller, after XP, was able to
sufficiently remap convention HDD strategy for compatibility is a
lot;...just in saying, I personally wouldn't press the point to expect
too much on all but an abandoned operating system.


Intel offers a PDF, to discuss "alignment" if you want to
do it for your new SSD. If the source OS is Win7, Win8.1, Win10,
those are already aligned on 1MB boundaries, so don't
need any assistance in that regard.

https://www.intel.com/content/dam/ww...tech-brief.pdf

If you're using WinXP, fixing things up might help a bit.
It affects the speed a tiny bit.

Paul
  #16  
Old December 11th 18, 08:12 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Bill[_39_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 38
Default PCIe , Was: Updating an XP box

Flasherly wrote:
On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 00:50:38 -0500, Flasherly
wrote:

Given that resource on your MB ...


Doesn't apply to me.. still running Win7 here.


-
The one caveat, since XP is perhaps indirectly referenced, at least in
the header, is I'd be highly suspicious of XP actually "taking" to any
such NAND shenanigans. That the SSD controller, after XP, was able to
sufficiently remap convention HDD strategy for compatibility is a
lot;...just in saying, I personally wouldn't press the point to expect
too much on all but an abandoned operating system.


  #17  
Old December 11th 18, 08:17 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Bill[_39_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 38
Default PCIe , Was: Updating an XP box

Paul wrote:
Bill wrote:


Paul, Thank you for your detailed explanation. I got the point!
Maybe some details besides speed will emerge about these two
technologies. I've learned about the 4 or so types of "cell
technology", single, double, octal, etc.--though I may be
abusing their appropriate names in favor of how I think about
them.

Bill


Your computer is only as good as the weakest link.

The seek time of your two device types is low, and
much lower than a HDD. Either drive type would solve
the seek time problem.

The most visible improvement is at boot time. Some
other things, you might forget you got an SSD.

One other thing I noticed, is how much faster
a 32 bit OS boots (because it supports less RAM).
After the pudgy boot times on all the 64 bit OSes here,
I was kinda shocked about how fast the first
boot of the 32 bit system was. It got slower later
in the day, after I added some stuff in and it
did some updates. But at least what that showed
me, is the amount of RAM when I boot 64 bit, is
having an impact on how long I have to wait.
SSD or no SSD.


I think there is an option in the BIOS concerning how well that
you want your memory to be "checked" when the system is booted.
The entire purpose of that option is to be able to shorten the
boot time. You probably know more about this than I do...

Bill


  #18  
Old December 11th 18, 11:19 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Flasherly[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,407
Default PCIe , Was: Updating an XP box

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 01:49:08 -0500, Paul
wrote:


Intel offers a PDF, to discuss "alignment" if you want to
do it for your new SSD. If the source OS is Win7, Win8.1, Win10,
those are already aligned on 1MB boundaries, so don't
need any assistance in that regard.

https://www.intel.com/content/dam/ww...tech-brief.pdf

If you're using WinXP, fixing things up might help a bit.
It affects the speed a tiny bit.

Paul


I generally do it from Win7 - half a dozen various disk partitioning
tools, couple do the "alignment" thing. Of course there's also the
garbage-routine, not native to XP, but supposedly more robust about a
fall-back automated state of maintenance in recent generation
controllers.


freeware
Speed Up Your SSD By Correctly Aligning Your Partitions

We've covered proper solid state drive maintenance before, but one of
the most overlooked factors in proper SSD care is partition alignment.
Here's how to make sure your partitions are aligned correctly and that
you're getting the most out of your SSD.
How to Maximize the Life of Your SSDHow to Maximize the Life of Your
SSDHow to Maximize the Life of Your SSD

An SSD drive is a worthwhile investment, but like any storage device,
it can fail. In fact, failing …Read moreRead on

We talked about partition alignment in our SSD migrating tutorial, but
if you've already migrated to an SSD, you might not have realized that
you're sacrificing performance with misaligned partitions. A regular
hard drive usually starts its first partition after 63 empty blocks,
while SSDs require 64 blocks of data for optimal performance. This
means that sometimes, if your SSD was formatted by something other
than Windows' installer, it can be aligned incorrectly and will
transfer data much slower than intended.
How to Migrate to a Solid-State Drive Without Reinstalling WindowsHow
to Migrate to a Solid-State Drive Without Reinstalling WindowsHow to
Migrate to a Solid-State Drive Without Rein

Installing a solid-state drive is one of the best upgrades you can
make to your computer, but…Read moreRead on

To see if your partitions are aligned correctly, hit the Start menu
and type in msinfo32. Enter Msinfo32 and go to Components Storage
Disks. Look for your SSD on the list and find the "Partition Starting
Offset" item. If this number is divisible by 4096 (that is, if
dividing it by 4096 equals a whole number and not a decimal), your
partition is correctly aligned. If not, you need to realign it.
Luckily, this is pretty easy to do with the Gparted live CD. If you
have an Ubuntu live CD lying around, that will work too, since it has
Gparted available under System Administration.

Start up Gparted and find your SSD in the upper-right dropdown menu.
Select it, and click on your first partition in the menu. Hit the
Resize/Move button in the toolbar. Change the "Free Space Preceding"
box to 2MB, uncheck "Round to Cylinders", and hit "Resize/Move". (If
you're using a newer live CD, check the "MiB" box). Hit Apply once and
let it do its thing.

Now hit Resize/Move again, and change the "Free Space Preceding" box
to 1MB. Uncheck "Round to Cylinders" again, hit Resize/Move, then
click Apply. Now your drive will be aligned to exactly 2048 blocks
after the beginning of the disk, which allows for optimal SSD
performance. Note that if you have multiple partitions on your SSD,
you'll need to repeat this process for each partition, not just the
first one on the disk.

Yes, moving it 2MB away then moving it back 1MB seems like a long,
roundabout method, but Gparted measures space in a weird way. When you
first start up Gparted, your partition will have less than 1MB of
space preceding it, but Gparted will only measure it as 0-meaning if
you align it to 1MB right off the bat, it'll keep the drive annoyingly
misaligned at 1.03MB. If you set it to 2MB, hit Apply, and then move
it back to 1MB, it works fine.

Boot back into Windows, open Msinfo32 back up, and run the above check
again. If you get a whole number this time, your partition is
correctly aligned. If you get an error when you try to boot back into
Windows, that doesn't mean you did anything wrong—sometimes Windows
gets a little confused and can't find a partition if you move it (even
if you only move it 0.7MB away). Grab your Windows installation disc,
boot into it, and hit Repair Your Computer on the main menu. It should
automatically detect the issue and fix your boot menu for you.

That's it. It seems a little complicated and roundabout, but it's
something not a lot of people know to do, so you may have been sitting
with a non-optimized SSD for all this time (I know I have been for a
few months). This should fix the problem, and if you've had your SSD
for awhile, you might even notice a speed boost.
  #19  
Old December 11th 18, 11:44 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Flasherly[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,407
Default PCIe , Was: Updating an XP box

On Tue, 11 Dec 2018 02:12:41 -0500, Bill wrote:

Doesn't apply to me.. still running Win7 here.

-

You've everything covered then except for a newer architectural
chipset for an AM4 storage bus, Intel's counterpart, or AMD
"unofficial" driver support for W7, while that appertains, aside from
Intel's compact with Microsoft to only permit comparable Intel updates
to run from a Windows 10 platform.

Easier when compatibility for hardware used to be a hardware thing
that could be solely explained from a logical basis of advancements in
physics. Then came a day when Microsoft got its fingers burned, its
butt hauled into court for manipulating technology over monopolization
practices. Maybe twenty years ago, then they were saying, Bill Gates
had set back technological advancements by twenty years.

Obviously they since learned something, aside from an Indian CEO
presently managing 50,000 copyright patents on what Microsoft says
most of the computers in the world can and cannot do.
  #20  
Old December 11th 18, 01:56 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
pheasant16
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 75
Default Updating an XP box

On 12/10/2018 12:52 PM, Flasherly wrote:
On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 06:44:14 -0600, pheasant16
wrote:

Not a gamer, just need a newer OS to run current browsers so can do
things on websites that don't accept what works on XP any more.


Should handle W7 easily.
Socket: AM3
Clockspeed: 3.1 GHz
No of Cores: 3
Typical TDP: 95 W

I'd mistook you keeping both OS. You're good to go also with PCIE SSD,
although I'd question the point with only a browser in hand.

And I'd need the real experience of running both PCIe Gen3x2 M.2
against SATA SSD for an impression of applicable benefits. Presumably
perhaps a couple times faster than SATA, although I might advance, on
a loan, that you really can't expect HTML5 to look any prettier for
it.

You'll also need more help with XP and how all that works: having an
assembled hardware platform -- in subsequent preparation of stages and
processes for "bringing it all up" into its intended final
configuration.

Thanks guys.

You've given me the encouragement to attempt it. So when the snow flies
and alma mater has another championship put away will be looking for a
winter project.
If I have trouble bringing it back, know where to come for advice.
Thanks again.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
A7M 266 Updating Chull Asus Motherboards 5 August 19th 05 04:45 PM
updating cpu from 533 to 800 fsb BigJim Asus Motherboards 2 August 5th 05 06:43 AM
updating a7nx-vm/400 seadubya Asus Motherboards 1 February 25th 05 05:17 PM
Updating MoBo, what about XP..? Tim Gigabyte Motherboards 1 November 30th 03 11:04 AM
pb after updating my system Elouan Le Bretton Nvidia Videocards 1 October 15th 03 10:48 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.