Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 4th Sep 2008 21:33 UTC
Windows A few weeks ago, I reviewed the Acer Aspire One notebook, the variant which came with an Acer-modified version of Linpus Linux. This version was locked-down and difficult to modify, so not too long after I installed Ubuntu, and was reasonably pleased - despite the amount of tweaking it took to get it working. A few days ago, however, I realised Linux wouldn't be ideal for me on my netbook. Due to pragmatic reasons, I'm now running Windows XP.
Thread beginning with comment 329290
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
FAT, it's all about FAT
by truckweb on Thu 4th Sep 2008 23:57 UTC
truckweb
Member since:
2005-07-06

I made the mistake to install WinXP with NTFS on the SSD of my Aspire One. My god it was SLOW, even when disabling everything.

Scrap that, did another fresh install but using FAT32 and BAM! It was much much better. It could be faster but the SSD in the Aspire is probably the cheapest part of the Netbook. It's plain slow.

I wish I had waited a couple of weeks and get the Aspire One with the 120Gb HDD and 1Gb & WinXP. For only $50 more, it's a steal. I bet that the HDD is much faster than the SSD.

Reply Score: 2

RE: FAT, it's all about FAT
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 5th Sep 2008 01:16 in reply to "FAT, it's all about FAT"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Definitely - go with fat32, crucial step. Added it to the article. Slipped my mind!

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: FAT, it's all about FAT
by Nico57 on Fri 5th Sep 2008 03:24 in reply to "RE: FAT, it's all about FAT"
Nico57 Member since:
2006-12-18

Did you try NTFS with the DisableNTFSLastAccessUpdate switch on ?
This should relieve a lot of stress from the SSD.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: FAT, it's all about FAT
by pixel8r on Fri 5th Sep 2008 03:31 in reply to "RE: FAT, it's all about FAT"
pixel8r Member since:
2007-08-11

out of curiousity were you using linux with a non-journaling fs as well?

i find it hard to believe that XP was more snappy or more responsive than ubuntu on any pc.

In my experience with several xp boxes and several linux boxes, the linux ones generally feel more responsive. Not necessarily "faster" at everything but definitely if you had a few things running at once it generally does a better job of keeping things responsive, without locking the system up while reading from disks, network drives etc.

Dont get me wrong Windows XP is great, but I think it suffers when you have a few resource-intensive processes running at once. and particularly explorer really struggles a lot when accessing slow network drives etc. One bad connection pulls all explorer windows to a halt. Another example is when you put a cd into the cdrom drive - the whole system stops for a few seconds while it tries to read from the disk.

Linux just seems to deal with IO and overall system load so much better - probably its server roots coming into play i guess. And this is just in my experience so others mileage may vary.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: FAT, it's all about FAT
by malxau on Fri 5th Sep 2008 03:52 in reply to "RE: FAT, it's all about FAT"
malxau Member since:
2005-12-04

Have you looked at what writes NTFS was generating that caused it to be slower than FAT? The worst case for an SSD is random writes; as another poster pointed out, NtfsDisableLastAccessUpdate and NtfsDisable8dot3NameCreation should take care of a bunch of those. I'm surprised that there would be a significant difference in random writes between NTFS & FAT.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: FAT, it's all about FAT
by hyper on Fri 5th Sep 2008 06:15 in reply to "FAT, it's all about FAT"
hyper Member since:
2005-06-29

You and Thom could also try enabling Enhanced Write Filter:

http://jymster.org/wordpress/2008/06/18/windows-xp-running-from-a-c...

It caches all changes to file system to RAM at sector level (my understanding). If you need to save changes you can commit them manually or automatically on some condition.

Of course this adds some complexity to daily usage. You would probably need to separate documents partition from OS and only enable EWF for OS one. And after installing something and/or system settings change you would have to commit FS changes to disk but I think this should improve FS access speed quite noticeably. Also EWF and 1GB RAM would probably be better combination than 512MB ;)

Edit: URL linking too confusing for me here ;)

Edited 2008-09-05 06:23 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2