How I Got Full Windows XP Installed Under 2GB!
in [Laptops]
|
From: ~misfit~ on 18 Jan 2010 05:01 Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote: > 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? <sigh> Google "Flash drive". Then Google "SSD". I don't know why you feel the urge to write all this other stuff below. -- 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 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. ;-)
From: BillW50 on 18 Jan 2010 11:28 In news:hj0q6h$ej1$2(a)reader1.panix.com, the wharf rat typed on Mon, 18 Jan 2010 05:05:21 +0000 (UTC): > In article <hivp9a$4po$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: >> >> bottom-line, right? And the 12 flash drives I have hasn't even >> dropped 1% of the original capacity yet. It isn't even close. > > How many of those are in service as virtual memory or scratch > fiel space for an operating system installation? It varies, hard drives have the same problem. >> 20 years from now, 16GB flash drives will be a dime a dozen by then. >> ;-) > > Sure. And in 2001 we'll all be driving flying cars. Not very knowledgeable about this computer stuff, are you? Back in the mid '80's it was easy to get 32KB flash drives dirt cheap. In the late '90's, it was true for 32MB flash drives. A thousand times more storage. Today, it is easy to purchase 32GB flash drives. That is another thousand times more storage just 10 years ago. So you are acting foolish and believe that we won't have cheap 32TB flash drives in a decade or two, eh? "People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt the people who are doing it." -- Anonymous -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Windows XP SP3
From: BillW50 on 18 Jan 2010 12:37 In news:hj1bi9$eqj$1(a)news.eternal-september.org, ~misfit~ typed on Mon, 18 Jan 2010 23:01:40 +1300: > Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote: >> In news:hitld1$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? > > <sigh> > > Google "Flash drive". > > Then Google "SSD". Actually, you are the one who needs to use Google. Here let me help you. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/555458/whats-the-difference-between-a-flash-drive-and-an-ssd Now solid state drive stores folders and files in solid-state memory (either Flash / SRAM / DRAM). And flash does not require constant power and is non-volatile while SRAM and DRAM are volatile. Also when we talk about SSD drives here, we are generally talking about the flash based ones. The very same type of memory used in flash drives. The reason why we don't talk much about SRAM and DRAM based solid state drives here in this newsgroup is that they are not really practical for our hard drive replacements. Although a few of us do take advantage of DRAM / SRAM based SSD in the form of a RAM disk. My drive R on my computers are actually RAM based drives. Not too useful for storing anything long term on them do to being so volatile though. Think you got all of this straight yet? > I don't know why you feel the urge to write all this other stuff > below. Not very knowledgeable about this computer stuff, are you Shaun? Most of it just flies right over your head, eh? And I am sorry that you are so darn confused about the terms SSD and flash drive. But to put it into simple terms that a simpleton could understand, they are one in the same. Thus flash based SSD and flash drive are one in the same. >> 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: BillW50 on 18 Jan 2010 13:02 In news:hj2691$hg2$1(a)news.eternal-september.org, BillW50 typed on Mon, 18 Jan 2010 11:37:26 -0600: > In news:hj1bi9$eqj$1(a)news.eternal-september.org, > ~misfit~ typed on Mon, 18 Jan 2010 23:01:40 +1300: >> Somewhere on teh intarwebs BillW50 wrote: > >> I don't know why you feel the urge to write all this other stuff >> below. > > Not very knowledgeable about this computer stuff, are you Shaun? Most > of it just flies right over your head, eh? Thus if you bothered to read it and actually understood it. You would realize that SSD and flash drive are one in the same. You seem to believe that SSD (solid state drive) and flash drive are different. They actually are not. Windows might see them as different, thus adds to your confusion. But Windows doesn't see SSD and flash drive as different per se, but how it connects to the computer as different. As both flash SSD and flash drives are the same. Although Windows sees some solid state drives as removable. And the point of the extra verbiage was to trick Windows in seeing a removable flash drive (aka SSD) as a fixed flash drive (aka SSD). But I guess you were not smart enough to figure that all out and thus adds to your confusion. <sigh> -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Windows XP SP3
From: the wharf rat on 18 Jan 2010 15:40
In article <hj2691$hg2$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: >and is non-volatile while SRAM and DRAM are volatile. Also when we talk >about SSD drives here, we are generally talking about the flash based >ones. The very same type of memory used in flash drives. > With spare capacity built in (since we're not building commodity devices) and sophisticated algorithms to hopefully work around the well known problems with cell death. I guess it's sort of like the way CRT, LCD, and the Sunday comics are all the same technology 'cause they make pictures out of little dots. |