Does Windows ReadyBoost Work?

Posted by on Aug 18, 2011 | 12 Comments

While Windows ReadyBoost is rarely mentioned these days, it is still a sore subject among many geeks which makes one question why. Microsoft incorporated it in both its Windows Vista and Windows 7 operating systems. My following observations may offer insight as to why this program has such a low fan base.

First, when Microsoft originally introduced Windows Vista, the operating system was a resource hog that took up valuable memory space and chewed up CPU cycles like there was no tomorrow. Then Microsoft came to the realization that the crop of laptops at the time that were running Windows XP would most likely gag trying to use Windows Vista, so the company opted to add a USB or other media in an attempt to improve performance.

Does Windows ReadyBoost Work?However, as every geek knows, nothing replaces adding more internal memory or a faster CPU. But for those without the resources or knowledge to add more memory or change out a CPU, ReadyBoost seemed to be an inexpensive fix. Unfortunately, the results were, for the most part, lackluster and performance improvements were limited, resulting in few geeks recommending ReadyBoost to their clients. That meant that, as they recommended that their clients install more RAM and/or a new CPUs, the masses for the most part simply opted to buy a new computer that had the resources to operate the Windows Vista operating system.

Then, by the time Windows 7 was released, most folks had already bought either Vista boxes, or had resigned themselves to sticking with Windows XP until they went to their grave. I was one of those who opted to take the Windows 7 plunge and upgraded from Vista, finding in the process that, since Windows 7 ran very well on my dual core 3 GB laptop, that I no longer had any use for ReadyBoost.

The bottom line is that, given a computer with enough RAM and a capable CPU, today’s modern electronic equipment running Windows 7 no longer needs ReadyBoost to improve performance.

Comments welcome.

  • http://www.facebook.com/kurisu.x.yamato Chris Eldridge

    For me, readyboost proved useful on my current desktop (3GB Ram), and certainly sped up some of my coding tasks. Quick program loading, cached files, etc. Just some added speed.

    The problem came on web browsing: I found it running incredibly slow. I realized then what the issue was: Readyboost was caching my internet cache, and then LOADING from said cache… so basically, every video I watched on youtube, and everything that I had done online, was being redundantly loaded and re-loaded.

    So, on certain, task oriented machines, it can help a ton.. otherwise, forget it. :(

  • http://www.facebook.com/kurisu.x.yamato Chris Eldridge

    For me, readyboost proved useful on my current desktop (3GB Ram), and certainly sped up some of my coding tasks. Quick program loading, cached files, etc. Just some added speed.

    The problem came on web browsing: I found it running incredibly slow. I realized then what the issue was: Readyboost was caching my internet cache, and then LOADING from said cache… so basically, every video I watched on youtube, and everything that I had done online, was being redundantly loaded and re-loaded.

    So, on certain, task oriented machines, it can help a ton.. otherwise, forget it. :(

  • Anonymous

    I got an iPa d 2 32-GB for $21.68 and my girlfriend loves her Pana sonic Lumiix GF 1 Camera that we got for $ 38.76 there arriving tomorrow by UPS. I will never pay such expensive retail prices in stores again. Especially when I also sold a 40 inch LED TV to my boss for $ 657 which only cost me $ 62.81 . Here is the site we use to get it al from, http://to.ly/aXIi

  • Anonymous

    i have this Compaq 511, which has a 2Gb RAM, and its really hard to find the difference.
    UNTIL my ram went 97% because of Google chrome. with 97% ram usage the machine usually slows down (like you experience a few freeze when doing some task) but with Readyboost, that problem almost doesn’t Happen.

    and since my HDD is just beneath my palm (due to the hardware architecture of my laptop) I can feel that its more Hot without Readyboost than when there is; this happens especially when playing graphics-intensive games.

  • Anonymous

    i have this Compaq 511, which has a 2Gb RAM, and its really hard to find the difference.
    UNTIL my ram went 97% because of Google chrome. with 97% ram usage the machine usually slows down (like you experience a few freeze when doing some task) but with Readyboost, that problem almost doesn’t Happen.

    and since my HDD is just beneath my palm (due to the hardware architecture of my laptop) I can feel that its more Hot without Readyboost than when there is; this happens especially when playing graphics-intensive games.

  • Anonymous

    good

  • Anonymous

    I thought Engadget or Tomshardware did a major testing and there were only like a half dozen specific thumb drives that actually worked and sped things up? So you were forced to buy one of those drives if you wanted Readyboost to function correctly as Microsoft intended. All I remember now is that it required specific read and write times which were only produced by the half drives. All other drives were too slow. The testing was done at the beginning of Vista, maybe Win 7 improved on this?

  • Anonymous

    I thought Engadget or Tomshardware did a major testing and there were only like a half dozen specific thumb drives that actually worked and sped things up? So you were forced to buy one of those drives if you wanted Readyboost to function correctly as Microsoft intended. All I remember now is that it required specific read and write times which were only produced by the half drives. All other drives were too slow. The testing was done at the beginning of Vista, maybe Win 7 improved on this?

  • Anonymous

    I thought Engadget or Tomshardware did a major testing and there were only like a half dozen specific thumb drives that actually worked and sped things up? So you were forced to buy one of those drives if you wanted Readyboost to function correctly as Microsoft intended. All I remember now is that it required specific read and write times which were only produced by the half drives. All other drives were too slow. The testing was done at the beginning of Vista, maybe Win 7 improved on this?

  • http://twitter.com/presbyter180641 Gerry Mueller

    With Windows 7 x64, a fast multi-core processor, and enough memory, there is really no advantage to ready-boost, and there may be disadvantages. If you are trying to run on a marginal machine, your milage may improve slightly.
    In my case, and it may be machine-specific (Core i7 860 processor @2.8 GHz, 16 GB RAM), what little improvement I noticed weith a very few applications by using a 16 GB thumb-drive for ready-boost was totally negated by the machine hanging early on in the boot-up sequence for both re-starts and cold starts. Some experimenting and turning on verbose boot-up mode in my BIOS showed that the boot sequence hung on identifying the USB port into which the ready-boost drive was plugged. Pulling that drive removed the problem.
    Given that noticing the hang, powering down, waiting for drives to spin-down, powering back up hoping that the next boot would work took several minutes per cycle, it was obivious that any few seconds here or there saved by ready-boost were more than lost by the increased boot-up times, even if I only re-booted every few days.
    Unless you are trying to squeeze a marginal improvement in performance out of a marginal machine, forget about it.

  • http://twitter.com/presbyter180641 Gerry Mueller

    With Windows 7 x64, a fast multi-core processor, and enough memory, there is really no advantage to ready-boost, and there may be disadvantages. If you are trying to run on a marginal machine, your milage may improve slightly.
    In my case, and it may be machine-specific (Core i7 860 processor @2.8 GHz, 16 GB RAM), what little improvement I noticed weith a very few applications by using a 16 GB thumb-drive for ready-boost was totally negated by the machine hanging early on in the boot-up sequence for both re-starts and cold starts. Some experimenting and turning on verbose boot-up mode in my BIOS showed that the boot sequence hung on identifying the USB port into which the ready-boost drive was plugged. Pulling that drive removed the problem.
    Given that noticing the hang, powering down, waiting for drives to spin-down, powering back up hoping that the next boot would work took several minutes per cycle, it was obivious that any few seconds here or there saved by ready-boost were more than lost by the increased boot-up times, even if I only re-booted every few days.
    Unless you are trying to squeeze a marginal improvement in performance out of a marginal machine, forget about it.

  • http://twitter.com/presbyter180641 Gerry Mueller

    With Windows 7 x64, a fast multi-core processor, and enough memory, there is really no advantage to ready-boost, and there may be disadvantages. If you are trying to run on a marginal machine, your milage may improve slightly.
    In my case, and it may be machine-specific (Core i7 860 processor @2.8 GHz, 16 GB RAM), what little improvement I noticed weith a very few applications by using a 16 GB thumb-drive for ready-boost was totally negated by the machine hanging early on in the boot-up sequence for both re-starts and cold starts. Some experimenting and turning on verbose boot-up mode in my BIOS showed that the boot sequence hung on identifying the USB port into which the ready-boost drive was plugged. Pulling that drive removed the problem.
    Given that noticing the hang, powering down, waiting for drives to spin-down, powering back up hoping that the next boot would work took several minutes per cycle, it was obivious that any few seconds here or there saved by ready-boost were more than lost by the increased boot-up times, even if I only re-booted every few days.
    Unless you are trying to squeeze a marginal improvement in performance out of a marginal machine, forget about it.