Seeing a lot of XP software installed on the SSD that: one is unable to display SSD advantage; Second, also hurt SSD, let its life expectancy, excuse me everybody, this kind of view on it?

CodePudding user response:

Unreliable solid fast already short life
What is not the same

CodePudding user response:

XP for SSD basically no optimization, but you also can use SSD running XP, premise is you must correct install SATA 3 XP driver, and remove the hard drive swap file pagefile, close the disk defragmenter,,, etc., etc., and such cases, the impact on the life of the SSD basically does not exist, at that time, the system startup time, file loading time what can promote a big class, in a word, there is no so-called perform poorly, but drive and set no fixed, has an impact on performance and hard life,

CodePudding user response:

My machine is 4 gb of memory, it is first put XP on SSDS (NTFS partitions), and then a RAMDisk 1 gb of memory as a virtual disk (usually R disk, select PAE mode), because the XP can manage some more memory about 3 g, then cannot manage the part (plus a few) into a virtual disk, and then put the TEMP and TMP environment variable pointing to the R: \ TEMP, to build the virtual memory on R disk, put temporary Internet files also R plate, using junction tools to C: \ Documents and Settings \ Administrator \ Local Settings \ Application Data \ \ Google Chrome \ User Data \ Default repositioned to R plate of a directory,
Principle is: everything into virtual disk write frequently, the machine is very smooth, the sense is not infected (because most of the invasion of program would put a boot to the TEMP directory and then let the machine run automatically after the restart it, but the structure of the machine after reset R disk file doesn't exist)

CodePudding user response:

Xp not optimize the flash disk, is likely to be frequently write fixed place, cause local damage quickly
So don't recommend use flash disk to install xp

CodePudding user response:

CKC quote 5 floor response:

xp not optimize the flash disk, is likely to be frequently write fixed place, cause local damage quickly
So don't recommend use flash disk install xp

SSD master control chip is used to keep what you have said this kind of situation, why can't use the U disk to replace the SSD (not to consider the speed), because of U disk is not configuration of master control chip, which is with the capacity of SSD are much more expensive than U disk, this is not the real problem
Not the real problem is the XP optimization SSD access, you will have a lot of writing plate movement (virtual memory and temporary files), Windows 7/8/10 on internal strategy is to use physical memory without switching to the SSD, thereby reducing the essence of writing, but the premise is you have enough physical memory is available, otherwise no matter what kind of strategy, the service life of SSD is discounted,
And if you have enough physical memory, can through me the way to the posts above the often to write part of the (virtual memory, temporary files, browser cache, etc.) are allocated to the virtual disk (i.e., memory), SSDS can fully reflect the efficiency,

CodePudding user response:

Solid-state drives for installing 'read frequently, write a little' things, such as operating systems, this boot speed very quickly, and not too easy to harm solid-state drives;
Other things can be installed in mechanical drive, read speed will slow down a little, but the mechanical hard disk life.
If it is the place with bad environment, such as vibration, it is best to use SSD, because mechanical hard disk seismic performance is poor, easy to bad,

CodePudding user response:

Solid plate is small, but easy to bad, and once broken, data are difficult to restore, the company the use of the solid state set several computers, basic successively is broken, one of them with important data, looking for professional people to restore data, spent more than 3000,

CodePudding user response:

This is not recommended to use.