Upcoming technology, HDD replacement makes it


Recommended Posts

Having data stored in there SSD there is no need for superfetch. It can work as it's working in windows xp. It will get moved to memory when i say so, actually when i execute the program. It's gonna be fast. No need for creating overhead by moving data from ssd to ram.

Having data stored in there SSD there is no need for superfetch. It can work as it's working in windows xp. It will get moved to memory when i say so, actually when i execute the program. It's gonna be fast. No need for creating overhead by moving data from ssd to ram.

You keep thinking that ;) there are situations where superfetch helps out drastically like high disk IO situations... as in database servers and high performance file servers

Saying something like "as HDD get faster and faster and eventually replace with something fast as your RAM" shows a serious inability to look at history and realize that things will play out as they always have:

Both will get faster. Your memory is still many orders of magnitude faster than your hard disk drive. Your computer can access is MUCH more directly than the hard drive (It doesn't have to weave its way through various controllers, which add latency and bottlenecks) and it always will be able to. That's simply the way it is.

This thread is stupid and a waste of space. Current trends show that MORE caching is the answer, not less.

Superfetch wont be useless even with faster hard drives(It just means when superfetch does load data from the hd it wont have to wait as long),the only way superfetch could become useless is when the storage medium is the same or faster speed as RAM is and not a mechanical device with moving parts but it could take years to do that but by then we will have 64GB memory as a standard instead of like 1-2GB today.

I just read this about 15 minutes ago and had to agree with one of the comments left by a poster on that story. HDD's are no where near dead because SSD's are still a ways off. The price per gigabyte isn't close to resonable yet.

Sure in some sense you could say HDD's technology may be out of date (not dead) but because it is still viable and will be for some time, SSD's price won't be coming down rapidly any time soon.

Even if you have a SSD drive, your computer still needs to load the program into RAM first before it can be run.

Superfetch loads the program into RAM before you use it. As a result if you have a SSD, loading that program into RAM will be faster than if you had a HDD.

---

But if you think about it, superfetch isn't some expensive program that you have to pay for. It's included in Vista and probably will be included in Windows 7. Vista came out at a time when HDDs vastly outnumber SSDs [and windows 7 will probably be the same story], and hence superfetch has a reason to exist and it works well.

So why are you making superfetch seem like a bad pointless thing?

i bet the superfetch technology will be updated in some way for windows 7 and superfetch is awesome,with xp's prefetcher it did what superfetch does but it does not put stuff back in by itself it has to be reread from the HDD meaning a slowdown but superfetch avoids that slowdown and it learns how you use the system unlike xp's prefetcher which would not learn anything.

jjrambo:it seems you do not or do not want to understand how superfetch or even how prefetch works,if memory is needed superfetch will allocate that memory and whatever else your apps may need it will do that as well and will keep putting stuff into memory as that will help keep all running smoothly.there are plenty of articles about it,once ssd's price comes way down then it will be worth it but with any new tech it will take time for the price to fall way down.

only if i could get one of those in my T60. I'd be happy but as of now just gotta stick to my regular HDDs. Maybe if i win the lotto :) I'll buy a 128GB version ($3,000!!!) and slap it in there and be more than happy. I only have a 100GB HDD now anyways and that's good enough for me.

only if i could get one of those in my T60. I'd be happy but as of now just gotta stick to my regular HDDs. Maybe if i win the lotto :) I'll buy a 128GB version ($3,000!!!) and slap it in there and be more than happy. I only have a 100GB HDD now anyways and that's good enough for me.

A 64GB SSD used to cost $3000 six months ago. The prices are dropping but not fast enough. It'll be awhile before conventional HDDs are dead.

A 64GB SSD used to cost $3000 six months ago. The prices are dropping but not fast enough. It'll be awhile before conventional HDDs are dead.

Not that long, especially for laptops. You can get a 32GB USB flash drive for as little as $50 now, and running a laptop on a couple of those is not out of the question.

Sure, something like a 500gb or 1tb HD will be a while, but doing something like having a small OS drive of 16gb and then the 500gb+ storage drives is not out of the question even now.

We are not talking about HDD. SSD is not conventional HDD. It's like your RAM with different purpose. There will be absolute no need for Software layer between RAM - SSD because data between RAM and SSD goes in measure of 186000 miles per seconds. I think some people have no clue what are they talking about here.

Once we get SSD, superfetch is absolutely pointless...

We are not talking about HDD. SSD is not conventional HDD. It's like your RAM with different purpose. There will be absolute no need for Software layer between RAM - SSD because data between RAM and SSD goes in measure of 186000 miles per seconds. I think some people have no clue what are they talking about here.

Once we get SSD, superfetch is absolutely pointless...

No you have no idea what you are talking about.

A SSD cannot be as fast as ram, and nor can it communicate with the ram as fast as you seem to think it can. Data between a HDD and RAM goes at the same speed as between a SSD and RAM. Just it can be read of the drive faster. It still has to go through a number of controllers before it even gets to the ram, and that slows it down.

Superfetch eliminates the need for the data to be read from the drive as it is already in the ram, and hence loads faster.

---

And yet again, Vista came out in 2007....lets assume that it stays for 2010. Do you think the vast majority of people out there [yes including businesses] would suddenly rush to get SSD drives for their computers just because its faster than HDD? For a good amount of time, lets say the next 5 years, HDD will be more prevalent than SSD and [according to your logic, which is wrong] superfetch still will be useful.

---

So to sum it up, superfetch won't be pointless if you have either a HDD or a SSD. Just the performance gain would be greater for a HDD than a SDD.

Edited by / -Razorfold
You can get a 32GB USB flash drive for as little as $50 now
Where??

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList....0&name=32GB

Cheapest here is $136.. thats close to 3x the price your stating.

No you have no idea what you are talking about.

A SSD cannot be as fast as ram, and nor can it communicate with the ram as fast as you seem to think it can. Data between a HDD and RAM goes at the same speed as between a SSD and RAM. Just it can be read of the drive faster. It still has to go through a number of controllers before it even gets to the ram, and that slows it down.

Superfetch eliminates the need for the data to be read from the drive as it is already in the ram, and hence loads faster.

---

And yet again, Vista came out in 2007....lets assume that it stays for 2010. Do you think the vast majority of people out there [yes including businesses] would suddenly rush to get SSD drives for their computers just because its faster than HDD? For a good amount of time, lets say the next 5 years, HDD will be more prevalent than SSD and [according to your logic, which is wrong] superfetch still will be useful.

---

So to sum it up, superfetch won't be pointless if you have either a HDD or a SSD. Just the performance gain would be greater for a HDD than a SDD.

How the hell data gets into memory from HDD...magically using wireless technology lol?

Speaking of performance gain. I see no difference with or without Superfetch on my Raptor Raid 0 configuration. Not sure why most people are narrow minded. It's not like SSD will replace conventional HDD tomorrow. SSD will get improved and fast as RAM. Either way at some point Supefetch as midleware wont be necessary. Any software solution to overcome slowness of hardware has no future, never did in PC history and it will never have....end of story.

Edited by jjrambo
How the hell data gets into memory from HDD...magically using wireless technology lol?

Speaking of performance gain. I see no difference with or without Superfetch on my Raptor Raid 0 configuration. Not sure why most people are narrow minded. It's not like SSD will replace conventional HDD tomorrow. SSD will get improved and fast as RAM. Either way at some point Supefetch as midleware wont be necessary. Any software solution to overcome slowness of hardware has no future, never did in PC history and it will never have....end of story.

However, using hardware (RAM) to cache software (the OS and apps) does have a future, as RAM will be faster than HDD's/SSD's for the foreseeable future. We're already seeing RAM bandwidth in excess of 9GB/s. SSD's are nowhere close to that. Therefore, until SSD's close the gap (and whether they will is doubtful), RAM cache's will have a future.

SSD will get improved and fast as RAM

Sigh. This is simply not going to happen. As the data bus between the disk drive and the processor gets faster, the one between the processor and main memory (As well as main memory itself) is going to get even faster.

Do you think we're going to drop L1 and L2 cache because memory keeps getting faster? Of course not!

How the hell data gets into memory from HDD...magically using wireless technology lol?

Speaking of performance gain. I see no difference with or without Superfetch on my Raptor Raid 0 configuration. Not sure why most people are narrow minded. It's not like SSD will replace conventional HDD tomorrow. SSD will get improved and fast as RAM. Either way at some point Supefetch as midleware wont be necessary. Any software solution to overcome slowness of hardware has no future, never did in PC history and it will never have....end of story.

Data from the SSD/HDD gets into RAM IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.

Through I/O controllers....

And just because you have a nice big powerful computer, doesn't mean everyone does. If you can't seem to understand my post, stop trying to make yourself look intelligent.

The vast majority of people at the moment have HDDs, and the vast majority of people will continue having HDDs for 5 years at a minimum. Just because you don't notice any performance difference, doesn't mean others won't.

The other benefit of Superfetch is the hardrive doesn't have to be constantly spun up, and this is a power saving benefit for people with laptops. Windows loads, say word, IE, excel is loaded into memory. The hardrive can now be spun down and running at a very low power, compared to without superfetch. Without superfetch say the guy opened Word, then the drives spun down, and 20mins later he opened up Excel, the hardrives now have to spin up and excel will take longer to load [oh look a performance benefit also, who would have thought...] and this also wastes battery life. With superfetch, it learns what you use most and automatically loads into memory the instant your computer turns on...

---

According to your logic, why don't we just use Cache memory (which I believe is NAND?) for everything? It's the fastest possible...and yes even faster than RAM. Hell screw that, lets just make processors that have 1tb caches...there no need for ram...sadly thats not how computers work, maybe on your planet they do..but on Earth we're still way behind.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Microsoft finally admits its default Windows 11 25H2, 24H2 action broke key legacy component by Sayan Sen Microsoft last week released Windows 11 KB5094126 and KB5093998 as the latest Patch Tuesday updates. Following that the company also published the accompanying dynamic updates under KB5094149, KB5095971, and KB5094156. So far the company has acknowledged two known issues that have popped up after the release which include bugged-out Office apps as well as the Recycle Bin; though there could be more at play too. Speaking of bugs and issues, Microsoft seems to have finally acknowledged a problem that probably has been around for close to a year. That's because back in July of 2025 the company made a default change to the latest Windows 11 versions, wherein it switched to JScript9Legacy on Windows 11 24H2 and later releases. Hence following the release of version 25H2 in October 2025, JScript9Legacy also remained default-enabled. As a result there has been a compatibility issue ever since then. For those wondering, by switching to JScript9Legacy Microsoft intended to improve the security of modern Windows PCs by reducing vulnerabilities tied to legacy scripting like cross-site scripting (XSS), among others. XSS exploits can allow cyber-attackers to attach malicious code onto legitimate websites and use them to execute the code when a potential victim loads such a website. Hence the new JScript9Legacy engine enforced stricter execution policies and improved object handling, which should help mitigate such attacks. Microsoft today has published a new support article detailing the problem. Neowin spotted it while browsing. The company says that JScript global definitions and execution context may fail to persist across scripts, potentially breaking older dependent apps and web-based components that relied on this legacy behavior. In the article Microsoft has confirmed that the issue stems from its move away from the older jscript9.dll engine in favor of jscript9legacy.dll. As mentioned above, while the newer engine was designed to address vulnerabilities and strengthen security it also changes how JScript handles execution context. As a result functions and definitions loaded by one script could no longer remain available to subsequent scripts once execution ended. The company notes that some applications worked correctly on earlier Windows versions because the older JScript engine automatically retained global definitions and execution state between scripts. Under the newer model though that behavior is disabled by default causing certain legacy workloads and polyfill-dependent scripts to fail. Microsoft says it addressed the problem via the KB5077241 update though the fix had not been enabled automatically in the following updates. As such admins must explicitly turn on persistent JScript execution context using a Registry setting that the tech giant shared today. The configuration can be applied to individual processes or system-wide through the FEATURE_ENABLE_PERSISTENCE registry key. The steps have been outlined below: Run the following command to create the feature control registry key: reg add "HKLM\Software\Policies\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Main\FeatureControl\FEATURE_ENABLE_PERSISTENCE" Under this key, create a new DWORD (32-bit) value. Configure the value as follows: To enable persistence for specific processes only: Set the value to 1 for each target process name. To enable persistence for all processes: Add * as the key name and set its value to 1. You can find the official support article here on Microsoft's website.
    • The possibility that milk gathers back into a glass implies that gravity can be 'reversed'.
    • VidCoder 12.20 by Razvan Serea  VidCoder is a DVD/Blu-ray ripping and video transcoding application for Windows. It uses HandBrake as its encoding engine. Calling directly into the HandBrake library gives it a more rich UI than the official HandBrake Windows GUI. VidCoder can rip DVDs but does not defeat the CSS encryption found in most commercial DVDs. You’ll need the NET 8 Desktop Runtime. If you don’t have it, VidCoder will prompt you to download and install it. The Portable version is self-contained and does not require any .NET Runtime to be installed. You do not need to install HandBrake for VidCoder to work. Feature list: Multi-threaded MP4, MKV containers Completely integrated encoding pipeline: everything is in one process and no huge intermediate temporary files H.264, H.265, MPEG-4, MPEG-2, VP8, Theora video Hardware-accelerated encoding with AMD VCE, Nvidia NVENC and Intel QuickSync AAC, MP3, Vorbis, AC3, FLAC audio encoding and AAC/AC3/MP3/DTS/DTS-HD passthrough Target bitrate, size or quality for video 2-pass encoding Decomb, detelecine, deinterlace, rotate, reflect, chroma smooth, colorspace filters Powerful batch encoding with simultaneous encodes Customizable Pickers to automatically pick audio and subtitle tracks, destination, titles and more Instant source previews Creates small encoded preview clips Pause, resume encoding VidCoder 12.20 changes: Updated HandBrake core to 1.11.2. Download: VidCoder 12.20 | 47.0 MB (Open Source) Download: Portable VidCoder 12.19 | 89.3 MB Link: VidCoder Home Page | Github | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Too soon, I'm still not over this death!
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      Jordan Smith earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Reacting Well
      BizSAR earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • First Post
      AndreaB earned a badge
      First Post
    • Week One Done
      Huge Trailer earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Classifyskilleducation earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      593
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      185
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      77
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      73
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!