Tamper

Uhhh, I didn't start flinging insults, and invoking imaginary "laws". BTW, as I already explained, I have SSDs, and SuperFetch IS enabled on my machine. So there's absolutely no point in claiming that having SSDs in a system means you hurt performance by forcing it to be off. You can turn it back on, just like I did. I also already said I have nothing to gain or lose whether someone wants to buy SSDs or RAM. I just prefer to see factual evidence, with references, as opposed to mumbo-jumbo and fabricated "law". There's plenty of proof of what's what in this thread; there's plenty of proof out on the Internet as well. Anyone who wants to read can decide for themselves what makes more sense. I've posted links with authoritative references; I don't recall seeing any other such evidence, just individuals' opinions. Hellshade said he wouldn't recommend an extra 8G over an SSD, and I've already proved that the cost can be comparable. MudWasp has said, and now re-confirmed, he continued to have stuttering with SuperFetch, but it stopped with his getting an SSD. Hood said the stutters improve, but are not eliminated when he recently added an additional 8G, which was what was claimed would make all the difference. Of particular note is that he still plans to buy an SSD. I don't know how much more evidence one could ask for. And I don't know why anyone would find it appropriate to resort to poor behavior, just because the overwhelming amount of evidence doesn't agree with what they happen to believe. But, hey, like I already said, we'll just agree to disagree, let the evidence speak for itself, and let the readers decide for themselves.

You said what you intended, I simply replied. I have a "deeply embedded emotional disorder"?? Now we resort to the insult-flinging. Typical. You can't accept that your assumption was inaccurate and caused you to be wrong (which I proved, conclusively). You can't accept that you walked into the middle of something without reading the entire discussion (which I demonstrated). I stated fact. I provided references, including legitimate pricing from a real vendor, quotes from Microsoft, quotes from earlier in this discussion... ...and because I illustrate the flaws in your argument, *I* have a problem? Wow. Well, at least no one else has stooped to that level so far in the discussion (which I do admire and appreciate).

Hellshade, your numbered points omitted a response to one of my comments, so I'll go ahead and get that out of the way first: The "law" you fabricated implies that just because person "A" cannot afford the benefit of something, that no one else can enjoy that benefit, and no one else therefore has any right to discuss it. That's plain ridiculous. Even if not one of us had any of this technology or could afford it, we can still enjoy intelligent conversation on the subject. Even if none of us could afford it, the technical performance issues still exist. It's simply immaterial to make up and interject "law" into the discussion, regardless of who can afford what. As you'll see, moving forward here, your 'law' is also wrong in it's very foundation, because it assumes something that is inaccurate. Now, then, on to your numbers: 1. Can't argue (nor have I tried) that SuperFetch of itself costs anything. In fact, you came along in the middle of this and I'd venture you still haven't read the first part of the discussion. Maybe you, sir, should do so. (I did say twice now that the discussion was unfortunately bifurcated). You'd benefit if you did read the other thread, because you'd see that, in the other thread it was clearly implied (as I have repeated here) that 8G wasn't enough RAM to appreciate the benefits of SuperFetch. So, while I agree completely that SuperFetch costs nothing (and I said so myself in the other thread, which you really should take time to read, please) this discussion and the question of cost concerns an additional 8G of RAM for folks who only had 8. Cost = roughly $60-70, depending. 2. I compared the cost of 8G additional RAM, because that is the absolute crux and context of this discussion over it's entire course. If you'd please read more carefully, perhaps you'd see what I'm talking about. 3. The ~$60 cost of the SSD is the same as I just paid for an additional 8G of memory, as I stated in this thread. I'm honestly not sure why you can't see that anyone who can afford one, can afford the other. Moreover, taking your statement into account as follows: "If somebody asked me if I thought they should buy more RAM to get the most out of Superfetch, I would tell them to put the money towards an SSD drive because they will get more consistent performance gains for the money. " I will infer that you understand and agree with what I've said all along, because (factually) that's exactly - and entirely - what I'm saying. Not sure why you're in such a rush to ridicule me here, mate. 4. I genuinely hate to say so, at the risk of inviting your wrath and more unneeded comments, but I must prove you wrong here. If hood (or anyone else who reads this) would kindly give me a mailing address, I will provide for free - at absolutely no cost - (1) 30G SSD (an OCZ Vertex2, quite fast even if used). Big enough to load OFF and perhaps more. Big enough to hold 2-3 times what an additional 8G of RAM can cache, without any of the drawbacks of caching. (Caveat/disclaimer, I can only offer one; sorry. As-is, no warranty implied or stated. Drive is free, recipient must pay for shipping per instructions I will provide). Factual point? One needn't buy anything - or be able to afford it - to appreciate the benefit. I have myself given away hardware here to members of CA, and I've seen others do the same thing. So, I'm afraid, sir, you are absolutely incorrect in asserting that if you cannot afford to pay for something, you cannot benefit from it. (Just please admit you didn't consider this possibility and were therefore wrong, and let's not argue, OK?). The problem is you're attempting to focus on what someone can pay for, while in reality I'm talking about relative performance at the same cost, and therefore cost is immaterial. 5. Not really arguing this point, but again that is not what's at issue in this discussion, (Again, I invite you to read the posts) This discussion concerns whether an additional 8G of RAM, for someone with only 8G, will supplant the performance of an SSD. As I posted above, Lothar (in the original thread) said "If you already have a lot of RAM and consistent usage patterns, you likely won't see much performance gain from a SSD..." This implies - if it doesn't state outright - that sufficient RAM makes the performance of an SSD unneccessary. I've also shown (and provided a link), directly from the folks who wrote SuperFetch, that factually it's exactly the opposite: Having an SSD makes SuperFetch unnecessary, to the point it's creators turn it off where SSDs are used. 6. I'd prefer not to discuss who's embarrassing themselves. Please see my responses above. Again, I don't know why you're so intent to attack me, when at a technical level we are saying the exact same thing. My comment about 'keeping it real' was soley and entirely directed at the 'law' comment you posted - which was unecessary, and seemed clearly intended to belittle and/or provoke. Now that you've responded with (what you consider) factual statements, I have responded, indicating where I disagree, and providing proof where appropriate. So, in summary: a. You made an inaccurate assumption about someone's ability to acquire technology where they couldn't afford to buy it themselves, and b. It appears you were unaware of the context of the discussion (as regards the cost of additional ram which was in reality the context of this entire discussion). Therefore, unfortunately, the 'factual statements' you posted are inaccurate. That's an intelligent discussion, no need to try to ridicule or make up 'laws',

Hellshade, I posted a link proving that the cost difference is non-existent. And you retort with that? Dude, let's keep it real, please? If you have a factual point you can demonstrate with some kind of evidence, by all means, participate. But if you're just going to resort to making up "law" consisting of a poor attempt to ridicule, it doesn't help an intelligent discussion much. What's next, name-calling? By the way, just because I cannot afford to take a flight somewhere for a vacation...then, if we apply your logic, that means no one else can enjoy said vacation either...right? You're not there to hear the tree fall in the forest, therefore no one else could possibly hear it...izzat it? *Ahem*

Lothar of the Hill People Posted 09 June 2013 - 02:40:47 PM: http://combatace.com/topic/78576-off-and-ssd/page-1 LotHP: "I'd suggest for many gamers additional RAM is a more cost-effective performance boost than a SSD." I just showed above that, for the same price as I paid for an additional 8g of RAM, you could buy an actual SSD. (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820171645) Why imitate, or attempt to approximate when you can have the real performance? (BTW, that's a 64G SSD - which would factually hold several times what an additional 8G RAM can cache - and it doesn't have to be loaded after every boot, or rely on prediction to be fast, nor suffer any of the other flaws in a caching scheme.) LotHP: "If you already have a lot of RAM and consistent usage patterns, you likely won't see much performance gain from a SSD..." Sorry...who was it that didn't say RAM would supplant the performance of an SSD for less? If that's not saying 'having more RAM makes SSDs unecessary' - particularly to a layperson, who doesn't know any better - then I don't know what is. And for Pete's sake, please stop with the "limited lifetime write" business...factually *any storage* hard disks, SSDs or even RAM...all have limited lifetime writes. (In fact, to be specifically accurate, RAM has the shortest "life" of all since, without power, it is erased.) The SSD write issues were only a major factor back in the first gen devices and the very poor later units. The quality drives have all but overcome this with additional technology; built transparently into the drive. Finally, Microsoft didn't say they turned off caching on SSDs due to anything to do with all that nonsense you cited. I pasted a link, of course, in the other thread, but here is what they said, again: Be default, Windows 7 will disable Superfetch, ReadyBoost, as well as boot and application launch prefetching on SSDs with good random read, random write and flush performance. These technologies were all designed to improve performance on traditional HDDs, where random read performance could easily be a major bottleneck. Nothing at all about write life cycle fiddly-slop...it says right there in plain English that these caching schemes don't apply to SSDs because they were designed to improve performance on old hard disk technology. It doesn't apply to SSDs, which is exactly the same as saying if you have SSDs, SuperFetch is pointless. Certainly doesn't say anything about limited write-life-cycle nonsense. (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspx?Redirected=true) But, again, that's just the guys who wrote it.

Hellshade, that's close, but with one fairly large difference: It's not necessarily free. I explained above it was unfortunate we didn't continue the discussion in the original thread, but in that thread it was implied that - by way of SuperFetch - one could get rid of stutters for ~$70 worth of memory (if you didn't already have 16G). If you already have 16G, and you don't have an SSD, you don't need to do anything; SuperFetch (in all likelihood) is already running on your machine. But at least one person who meets all the criteria has already said that he still had stutters with just such an arrangement - until, that is, he got his SSD. If you don't have 16G, it was explained, then that's why you couldn't expect it to work well: Not enough memory. The reason I'm opposed to this "advice" is that it leads people to believe that, for the same cost, they can get the performance offered by an SSD - so spend money on buying 8G of RAM if you only have 8. My own experience is that the 8G isn't the culprit, nor is an additional 8G going to solve the actual, real problem. The real problem is solved by solid, consistent throughput, which is not something a caching algorithm can assure. It may approximate; it can attempt. It cannot assure. MudWasp already said he still had stutters even with 16G, but an SSD cured it. Hood says he still has stutters initially when loading OFF, even though he's now using SuperFetch. And, BTW, an SSD doesn't necessarily cost a "few hundred dollars". I have seen reputable name brand MLC flash drives big enough to load OFF and then some, for less than $70 - which is about what I just paid for an additional 8G RAM. And if we assume roughly the same cost @ ~$70?? I'll stick with 8G RAM and spend the money on an SSD, any time. Nothing says you can't have 8G and still turn SuperFetch on, just because you have an SSD... ...oh, wait; my mistake - Microsoft themselves acknowledge it's pointless, if you have an SSD. But what do they know? Just the guys who created the caching scheme.

Unfortunate we couldn't continue the discussion in the thread that was already running - strictly for continuity, mind you. Oh, well. But in that thread there was a description of a forum member with adequate memory, where SuperFetch would've been enabled by default, who maintains that he experienced stutters until getting his SSD. Yes, SSDs cost more, but they are "ready" to perform, without a need to cache anything, for any data they hold, anywhere on the drive, at any time. With the exact same speed. A conventional hard disk cannot do this, and a caching algorithm (like SuperFetch) cannot, either. This is probably why hood experiences the initial "loading stutters", where MudWasp (in the other thread) and my own experience with SSDs is that we don't have stutters, even at initial loading. As for the cost, it's a fairly simple and common matter: You get what you pay for. SSDs are built for the best storage performance (given present technology) possible, and this is proven and accepted throughout the industry. If you want the best performance, there's a reason it costs what it does. Caching algorithms (lke SuperFetch) can attempt to approximate the performance - perhaps even for less money - but that's exactly what you get: An attempt at approximation. These reports are all subjective, we all knew that going into this. Not that I'm complaining about the subjective nature, I'm simply saying it "is what it is". In the other thread, MudWasp states that, in spite of having a setup where SuperFetch would've been enabled, he still had stutters until he got an SSD - which he reports eliminated the stutters. In reality, that's what hood has reported. "Whenever I start OFF now exactly the same symptoms occur IE noticeable stutters on start up which disappear after a few minutes." Yes, the stutters reduce eventually, but they're not eliminated. Because a caching algorithm can't do that. Also, I have received memory recently and am still following my own testing; just not ready yet to report. The final phase will be disabling SuperFetch, whereupon I should notice a drastic difference (but I do not expect to, because I run SSDs). At the same time, I have doubled the memory in my son's W7-64 machine and plan the exact same test for him: Run with SuperFetch on, then abruptly turn it off, to see if he notices. The difference is he doesn't have an SSD, so his experience should be that he will immediately see a substantial decrease in performance when I turn it off (if SuperFetch is making all that much difference) . Again, all subjective, which I think is OK in this case, since this is largely about the perception of performance. So long as you're willing to accept all the subjective accounts. @ Kaische: I don't think there is a way to selectively cache drives with SuperFetch (which is another problem with using it in a multi-drive arrangement, BTW. Even Windows Defrag lets you pick which drives are scheduled, as well as being able to select which drives have paging files. But, AFAICT, SuperFetch is an all-or-none type arrangement) When I got the extra 8G memory, I turned SuperFetch on (started service/set to auto) I've definitely already noticed SuperFetch using 'available' memory to cache, so no one's disputing it actually does use memory to cache frequently-used data. The discussion is about whether the performance of this caching is comparable to that of SSDs, and is therefore worth the difference in cost. I've also confirmed that restarting the computer (as we all knew) will clear this cache. SSDs don't have to start over just because you restarted your PC, and I may be 'old school' but I still restart my computer, typically once a day. Helps clear up many of the problems Windows and apps have with rampant memory leaks that the producers of SW have seemingly lost the ability to control. So, there's another reason to consider a different solution besides caching (like SuperFetch). Lothar: There's nothing "dramatic" about employing a proven technological advantage in performance. You actually suggested a RAID array to another member here on this forum in yet another thread. I simply took the fastest storage performance I could find (SSDs), and built them into an arrangement that was created for performance (RAID0), because I wanted to achieve the best possible performance for a reasonable cost (around $250). To prove how well this works, OCZ actually offers a 'pre-built' RAID0 array of two SSD drives on a PCIexpress card (to eliminate the SATA interface bottleneck). And it works, extremely well, from my own experience and many accounts out there. No drama, just performance. Yes, it's expensive - I think around $350, but, again, you get what you pay for. My GTX570 video card is nowhere near top of the line, and it was $300 when I bought it - and it wasn't by far the most expensive at the time! No one's questioning that SuperFetch does something akin to improving response, in selective circumstances. But the facts show it doesn't work as well as an SSD. This is backed up - as I referenced in the other thread - by the fact that Microsoft, who created it - turn it off on SSDs, because it's simply unneeded at that point. And my opinion is that, if speed is the goal, then it doesn't make sense to spend good money and only get something that performs sometimes, when it's ready, which isn't even proven to increase speed consistently (depends on whether/what's been cached), and that factually has to start over every time you restart your computer. And BTW, we haven't even discussed the known issues that drive caching has when the 'prediction' algorithm goes wrong, and forces flushing/reloading of the cache (yes, this happens, and when it does, "micro-stutter" will pale by comparison). Now, if you're simply going for cheap - OK, sure; that's another matter. I just find it interesting that, among all the system specs and performance discussions you can find on these fora, the discussions don't usually revolve around cheap. In fact, I can't ever remember seeing a signature with cheap in it...just the latest and greatest (and often very expensive) video cards, CPUs, motherboards... Hell, if cheap is the point, I have a few machines around here that are winners; old Core2Duos with a 9800GT card I'd let go for dirt cheap...probably run OFF decent enough for what it costs. Probably won't perform quite as well as a newer rig, but won't cost nearly as much either. Makes you wonder why people spend hundreds on video cards, upgrades, new rigs... Can't imagine why there's so much problem understanding the relationship between cost and performance. This was the case with muscle car enthusiasts back in the 50s and 60s, and (surprise) it's still the case now, only now with PCs. Anyway, I expect to have more info on this eventually. In the meantime, again, what I advocate is letting common sense prevail: If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. You're not going to get the performance of a $350 item by spending $65.

hood, hello sir and thanks for getting back with us. I am glad you have noticed stutters (sounds rude, but you know what I mean *lol*) - this is the very core of what we're discussing here, so it helps that you have actually now seen the behavior we're concerned with. As far as your testing, the only thing I might note is that SuperFetch does take time to work - truth is, I don't know how much. I base some of my reasoning of testing for 'weeks' because I gathered SuperFetch is aware over time of your computer usage day-by-day and acts accordingly. So, I thought, let it settle in and 'learn' as it wants to, while you do...what you do :) In that regard, it might be best to leave it on for a while before switching back. I'm still very early in recording values from the task manager and resource monitor, so I can't even say yet that turning it on most recently has had any effect. Gotta give it time, though :)

Hi Al, as always your suggestions are very relevant and helpful. I'd have to let the other folks here doing the testing decide how detailed they can afford to make it. Myself, while I'll probably try to work in something more objective in due course, like measurements of some sort(s), I am also of the mind that this is a subjective kind of arrangement by nature. What I mean is, while I usually want to 'see the math', I've often heard others contend that regardless of what the numbers say, their own observations tell them that (insert whatever subjective findings are being discussed here). What I've decided to do, at least initially, is to install the memory I got (just in time for Father's Day!), enable SuperFetch, and check the task manager/process list/resource monitor figures to see what changes in the way the extra memory is used with SUperFetch on v off (fairly objective observation). At the same time, I intend to 'just run it' to see if it "feels" any different (obviously subjective) for a period of time; let it train itself around me and what I do (because that's what it's supposed to do). Then, for the most dramatic comparison, I plan to shut it off, click-boom. I thought about it, and considered that it might be too difficult to notice/observe/follow the change SuperFetch made, particularly during the time it supposedly 'learns' - if I had poor results, it could be I didn't give it time to adapt or whatever. But, I figure that by letting it do whatever it should for a reasonable time (~couple weeks), then pulling the plug fairly abruptly, I should be able to see the most pronounced difference. By design, SuperFetch will supposedly improve more over time, so it's not an accurate test to start measuring/observing right after you first turn it on. I also thought to test while basically doing what I would normally, because even if it's subjective, that is the exact environment in which SuperFetch must provide improvement, if it's going to. My reasoning here is that If it isn't going to help me within the way I use my machine, what good is it? Again, I may well decide later on to set up/use carefully structured scenarios, to compare the same elements over and over. However, within this thread, it's been discussed that SuperFetch should have ample ability to cache everything I can throw at it (assuming adquate memory), so I shouldn't necessarily have to follow a strict regimen to see improvement. While duplicating tests is obviously valid methodology, it's not at all the way anyone uses a computer day to day. So this is one case where I'm as interested in subjective observations as I am the subjective - at least at first. I also cheated a bit, I purchased memory for my youngest's machine - it currently has 6G, being an X58 chipset. I plan to install the extra 6G and let him 'test' without knowing what or why. I already interviewed him, without letting on what it was about, and I can do the same thing with him: Let it run awhile, then shut it off abruptly and note what happens. I work on, and ask him questions about, his machine all the time, so there's nothing unusual about this to him. Being a teenager, he's far too concerned with the games themselves to pay attention to how much memory's in the machine - IOW, he won't have reason to suspect memory's been changed, and he damn sure does't know or care what SuperFetch is. For all the objections I can hear, I do realize there is some *ahem* "non-standardized" methodology here, but do keep in mind, I do support and maintenance on computer equipment every day for a living, and have for almost 30 years now. I know fairly well how to interview users to see if a change 'worked'; and I know how to vet out folks who are imagining things. *lol* We used to make a big, very visible spectacle out of doing absolutely nothing to an equipment while convincing the onlooking users we were clearly changing something...and then we'd get the biggest laughs out of some of the stories we'd get back over the next few days. Some would say it was running much better; some would insist it had problems after we 'messed with it'. In fact, it got to where we could *predict* who was going to complain and who would actually be more accurate in reporting back - thus proving our suspicions that it had more to do with circumstance and the individual users than anything else *hehe* So there it is. More to follow :)

Something I just noticed, not sure WTF, but -like you- I noticed previously that there was no way to go to the last post in a thread at SimHQ. So you're not dreaming; it wasn't just you, it always ticked me off too. But just now I'm looking around there, and lo-and-behold, the date/time of the last post is now a link which will take you to said last post. Same on both RoF and OFF sub-fora. FWIW.

Well, Siggi, you can't be a revolutionary and be safe all at the same time, m8. God bless you. I'm 138% with you on this one. (PS, FWIW I offset all the shortcomings of SimHQ by not going there much. "Voting with me feet" to quote an Irishman I knew once.)

hood, One other thing, if you please: I know we talked about your memory, but I don't recall hearing much about the balance of your setup (CPU, graphics, etc). This is of particular interest, as you indicate not having a lot of stutters to begin with - I'd like to try to establish why that is. To that end, if you could also include your OFF slider settings, it would be most helpful and appreciated. These 'microstutters' I've learned are difficult to quantify, some people I think just plain don't notice them (no offense intended to anyone, of course). For me, it just absolutely destroys immersion to not have what I would call 'fluid' video. Not just high frames rates, as I explained earlier, but smoothness. Sometimes they are so minute as to make them unnoticed. When I've seen them, I would say that, as a *very* rough estimate - and even then it depends on a lot of factors - I would usually experience a small stutter or a few during a QC session. It's not that the graphics are 'choppy' the entire time, either...just every so often there's a distinct pause; genuinely a "split-second" as they say, and it's over just as fast as it came about; the whole thing's usually done in less than a second. Maybe that will help to clarify what I mean when I'm talking about (micro)stutters.

MudWasp, It's terrain which should not be set higher than 4, per http://www.overflandersfields.com/FAQ.htm HTH :) Great ideas BTW for testing,

Goodness, hood...you're right! I guess in all the excitement, I have completely lost perspective. I hadn't taken into account the inherent risk in exposing one's pilots to increased activity. You are truly a brave man indeed, sir, to face such peril with selflessness and devotion to duty, in the name of science!! I can almost envision the citation now! "Having encountered overwhelming odds, and confronting his own, almost certain demise, Lt Hood did indeed guide his craft squarely into the face of danger, in order to enhance the chances of having stutters..." Your commitment reflects the greatest credit upon yourself, the air service, and the Empire, sir! (I do indeed hope this doesn't become one of those posthumous affairs...*ughh*) MudWasp offers a hint, though: TBH I'm not sure which - landscape/terrain or aircraft - have the sort of textures that are more likely to cause this effect. I honestly would go with landscape, simply because there's more of it, it is literally everywhere, no matter where you go, and it extends (if you'll forgive me) as far as the eye can see. I know I've heard No Man's Land associated with heavy system loads/performance hits for as long as I've had OFF. However, I've often associated this with the magnificent way OFF has truly recreated the war over the lines - the massive amount of material, men and movement causes an entire system to be loaded (and noticeably lower framerates, but still fairly consistent). I also have, myself, often associated the stutters with other aircraft coming into range - it's very obvious when it happens, so much so that I have been able to associate this with the arrival on-scene (if you will) of particular model. I'm not the oly one who has noticied this, either. The distinct impression I get is that, as the other craft get closer, of course, higher levels of detail must be revealed for each craft. This continues until the point at which the system can't get info from the hard disk to the video adapter fast enough. It hiccups or pauses, ever-so-slightly, while trying to retreive all the extra data. A lot like pauses you sometimes see in a YouTube video when the playback rate exceeds the download rate. What's significant about this is that it's not necessarily accompanied by sustained, consistently lowered framerates. It's just a small, momentary bump - you notice it, but generally by the time you think to look at a framerate counter, the effect is diminished and the framerate 'average' buries the distinctive glitch. So, I'm not sure which is more likely...but I guess we could say if you use both higher A/C counts and 'busier' terrain/surroundings, that's probably the highest odds you have of getting stutters. In any event, I thank you again for your sacrifice and contribution.

MudWasp, I think your experience really tells the tale. It may not seem obvious, but here's what I see (and, whatever you do, be sure to correct anything I say out of order here, because the order in this case is everything): First, you had an existing, default Windows install on a conventional hard disk. This undoubtedly means Windows would be running SuperFetch (I have confirmed this is default recently through research, and first-hand on the machines I have running W7 on conventional, platter drives). You also had 16G RAM available to the OS, which is established in this thread as the 'cutoff' more or less, for the improvements SuperFetch supposedly provides. While running the conventional drive, which would've had SuperFetch enabled by default, and having 16G RAM, you had "...always had "microstutters" in certain heavy addon scenery areas when flying into them." Then, you got an SSD and did a clean install. You've confirmed that the SuperFetch service is set to 'Manual', which is completely consistent with Windows installing to a (properly recognized) SSD. This effectively disables SuperFetch - by design, per Microsoft. And, presto - no more stutters. To review: a. Using Conventional hard disk, default Windows install w/SuperFetch - stutters. b. Using SSD, default Windows install w/SuperFetch disabled - stutters gone. (Same system; and at the time, same OS and same 16G accessible system RAM.) Even though I do intend to continue research into the matter, and encourage others to; as well as continued discussion, I'd say your case proves the point as clearly and concisely as necessary. Thanks for the continued information.

Hi folks. Through a set of unusual and 'double-edged' circumstances, I've managed to acquire adequate graphics adapters and monitors to consider setting up a triple monitor arrangement. Thought I'd ask to see who here has experience with it (good or bad, whether current or not), hardware recommendations (for the monitor mount), any advice? Also - inexperience talking here - do the mounts typically allow for adjust the 'deflection' angle (ie, angle off the straight line/plane of the primary center monitor) of the outside two monitors on a 3-monitor mount, or are they fixed? I can imagine that image distortion is more of an issue the further from center you go, and I wondered if this isn't offset (or even aggravated) by the angle of the outboard two monitors. Anyone here who can tell me more about this? Any/all input appreciated. Regards,

Well, I finally got 3 monitors set up but not at all like I thought I would *whew*. You weren't kiddin', FenrisWlf, when you said we're a small minority, and there isn't a lot of official support - which I find odd, because when you consider what many gamer spend on peripherals to enhance the experience and that monitors continue to get cheaper...I dunno, you'd think there would be more interest. Even though I didn't get what I wanted at first, I did get a setup finally, and it's pretty amazing if you ignore the few drawbacks. Nvidia's 'surround spanning' does support 3 monitors, and you can run SLI with it, too. But they MUST be the same resolution, orientation, refresh rate and synch polarity. That means: - No mixing DVI and analog VGA monitors (I found out because I use a VGA KVM on my primary monitor to switch over to my server box without having another monitor, mouse and keyboard on my desk). - No "PLP" . As much as they should support it; as much as it is probably far more popular than any other arrangement, Surround only supports all monitors in the same orientation (typically, 3 monitors side by side in landscape orientation). And, unfortunately this is where it starts to suck. 3 widescreen monitors in "LLL" setup is very wide; it's basically a 48:9 aspect ratio and a lot of games distort all to hell when the view is that wide. *IF* you can get 3 older monitors that are 5:4 (*non*-widescreen), it makes a big difference. This is where I wound up, with 3x19" 1280x1024 displays. Problem is, I had to give up my nice, big 1080p 27" primary display *uggh*. SoftTH I did actually manage to get working - sort of - and it works wonders, I'll tell you. But there are limits. I was trying to use 2x17" 5:4 monitors in portrait mode to flank my 27". Problem is there's no common resolution between the 'short side' of a 1080 16:9 monitor and the 'long side' of a 1024 5:4 monitor. They are physically very near the same size, which is why I hoped it would work...but it was wishful thinking; ignoring the math, unfortunately. No matter how I tried it, I had dissimilar scaling on the two sides and the middle monitor, so that nothing ever lined up like it should *or* when I could get it to line up, part of a full-screen app (aka "game") was truncated or part of the desktop would show (windowed mode)...or it just wouldn't run at all...etc..*sigh* Also, you cannot run in SLI when you use SoftTH. In order for it to work, the monitors all have to be 'activated' as basically an extended Windows desktop. With Nvidia at least, the only way to do this is disable SLI. Yes, it will render all on one card, but then you're not running SLI (IOW defeats the purpose of having 2+ cards) Near as I could tell, without spending days on it, the closest way to get it would be to buy a 30" and 20" monitors (2), which both have 1200 on the 'common side' in PLP. Of course, this is ***waay*** outta my price range; I actually only did any of this because I got some monitors free and a great deal on SLI arrangement thanks to a fellow OFFer (you know who you are - thanks again!). I definitely am not the sort who could afford this otherwise! So I'm happy to say it works, to an extent. It *IS* incredible, no doubt. I'd like to see - as would many others - better vendor support, especially for dissimilar monitors and orientations. I do not know yet if I'll go back to my single 27", or keep this 3x19" LLL setup, or...? Thanks FenrisWlf, I appreciate the info and your help.

I'm going to say 28 July (2013, in case it should come up...*lol*)

Good question, MudWasp - first, let me say how fascinating I think it is that, since you're not running SuperFetch, you noticed the elimination of stutters by using an SSD. In fact, I'd bet (if you had a default Windows install) you were running Superfetch, right up until you installed the SSD which (depending on how it was installed) may have been why Windows disabled SuperFetch. Again, I have a 'default' Windows install other than adding SSDs, and I did not turn off SuperFetch, but it's set to manual on my machine as well. If all this is the way I'm seeing it, then it means you had noticeable stutters before, when SuperFetch was enabled, but they went away when you got your SSD. Tell me: Were you running a default Windows install on a conventional platter drive before the SSD, and definitely noticed stuttering, etc? Here's what Microsoft had to say about W7 and SSDs; (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/e7/archive/2009/05/05/support-and-q-a-for-solid-state-drives-and.aspx?Redirected=true) - dated, but probably still accurate: Should the pagefile be placed on SSDs? Yes. Most pagefile operations are small random reads or larger sequential writes, both of which are types of operations that SSDs handle well. In looking at telemetry data from thousands of traces and focusing on pagefile reads and writes, we find that Pagefile.sys reads outnumber pagefile.sys writes by about 40 to 1, Pagefile.sys read sizes are typically quite small, with 67% less than or equal to 4 KB, and 88% less than 16 KB. Pagefile.sys writes are relatively large, with 62% greater than or equal to 128 KB and 45% being exactly 1 MB in size. In fact, given typical pagefile reference patterns and the favorable performance characteristics SSDs have on those patterns, there are few files better than the pagefile to place on an SSD. Personally I turned off paging files on all but the conventional drive in my machine, primarily out of concern for writes as Lothar describes. I note that even Microsoft doesn't come out and say having the pagefile there won't hurt the SSD over time. Even if there is wear leveling, I thought, I'm really only concerned with the SSDs ultra fast random reads, and therefore there's no real need to incur a lot of writes anyway. I basically wanted to copy a game to the SSDs, and from then on, only read from that drive, as much as possible. So I don't have a pagefile on any of the SSDs I use. Again, I'd be very interested to hear others' input. I forget, MudWasp, how much memory you have - but you could also do some SuperFetch testing, especially if you have 16G+. Go turn the Service on, and you should see a significant improvement, if SuperFetch works as advertised.

I appreciate your willingness to help, hood. Just make sure SuperFetch is on. If you can indulge us, the thing to do would be, after the memory is installed and running for a week or so (once you've had a chance to gauge whether SuperFetch is helping or not), then go to the SuperFetch service and turn it off. (You can do this, at will, and it doesn't hurt anything) If the SuperFetch memory caching was working as advertised, when you turn it off you should note a very dramatic difference, immediately, in the responsiveness of your computer. Since it's a change for the worse, it should be very obvious to you. Of course, it takes patience and time to do this, but there's not a lot to actually "do"; hopefully it's not a burden. Once it's all said and done, you'll have all the evidence anyone could ask for as to whether SuperFetch is appropriate to your needs - and I hope, some helpful info for the rest of us, too! Thanks again, and best of luck!

hood, I can briefly describe the testing I had in mind: It works out well you're 'shekel-challenged' *lol* for lack of a more polite term :) This way, you get the RAM first, and that's precisely the order I would have suggested: Using only the RAM first, check to make sure SuperFetch is running (there's a service and a registry entry, I will be glad to post directions if need be). For the most part if the service is running, SuperFetch is running. Do some testing now, prior to adding the new memory, Of particular note would be anything that seems to suffer from 'loading issues', like stuttering, or momentary pauses which you sometimes see in the normal course of using your machine. Web sites aren't the best for this, because the delays are often in the content or provider, not necessarily your machine. Not just games, either - if you can, use some 'productivity apps' like Office (I can tell you where to get a very good one, legitmately free if you don't have one). If SuperFetch is on, and you've followed your own typical usage patterns with regard to what you're running at what time of day/what day of teh week, you're pretty much testing SuperFetch in the truest, 'real-world' sense. Then, add your new memory. Notice the same factors as before, trying your best to follow the same patterns you normally would (SuperFetch, after all, is intended to be 'adaptive'). One caveat (and another reason I'm not crazy about the caching schemes) is it's all in memory. If you reset or shut down, the cache has to re-load. It should still theoretically know, better as you go, what to load based on your behavior, but it still has to load once you restart. My own recommendation here is to just do what you would normally do, during both test periods, because the technoclogy isn't worth much if it can't work as you need it to. After I dunno, maybe a week or two with the new RAM, maybe you can report back your perceptions, I'm hoping to do a more empirical, measured test myself, but your testing can help determine the impact from an anecdotal, 'real-world' perspective, which has value of itself. Hopefully it's not too much, largely it's just doing what you do. Many thanks to you for at least offering to help test. There may be flaws in what I'm suggeting, but if so, I'd imagine someone will be fairly quick to say so - and I'd welcome it, so long as it doesn't unreasonably burden anyone willing to test voluntarily. Thanks :)

I feel I should apologize, and offer an explanation to make something clear (or try): Folks often don't get my sarcasm. Easy enough to understand, especially in a 'written-only' environment like this forum. I forget that people don't necessarily know me, and might not appreciate when I'm being sarcastic. Let me make something perfectly clear: I bought the extra 8G of RAM for exactly the reasons I cited: It's gotten cheaper, I had a coupon; I had considered adding memory anyway, and Father's Day is literally coming up. At the same time, let me make something else perfectly clear: I expect absolutely zero performance increase from adding this memory, at least due to any caching algorithm of itself. I have a "slow" hard disk that I intentionally use to load any/all programs that don't require peak performance in terms of texture loading, etc. I've checked, and although I never turned off SuperFetch, the service isn't running on my machine. Well, if that means I'm not caching a hard disk because I have SSDs, guess what: I load what I do on that drive precisely because it doesn't require top-end performance. TBH I still haven't figured out why SuperFetch is off; my best guess is installing RAID driver software, having RAID set up in an UEFI BIOS, and/or the array controller(s) recognizing SSD media has set the service to "Manual". I am absolutely certain I didn't turn it off, yet it's off. Another mystery, I suppose, for another time. (There are some reports of Windows not recognizing SSDs properly and therefore not disabling SuperFetch etc by default...but I have always believed that, being as my SSDs are all in RAID arrays, any operational enhancements would need to be made manually. It appears that's not true.) WIndows, by design, is supposed to turn off SuperFetch and the other caching tricks where SSDs because (get this) the Engineers at Microsoft understood that SSD performance means all that caching isn't necessary. It was designed for conventional drives. Imagine that: Even with all the wonders reported about how great it is, SuperFetch is turned off by design, by the people who invented it, if you have an SSD. Now, time for a common sense question: What does this tell you about the comparative performance of the two? I'm not using SuperFetch. And I only have 8G of RAM, and my poor old SSDs, so much slower than RAM...and running things from that old platter based drive must really be killing me. Thing is, nope, none of that's true. Somehow, with my less than preferred amount of memory and SuperFetch not even running, I have no stutters and my system is responsive and snappy. It boots fast, apps load fast, no stutters... But, as long as I had to admit I only had 8G of RAM, you see, I was excluded from being able to say I was sure SuperFetch didn't do what a fast storage subsystem can. 8 freakin' gigs of memory ain't enough, right? Well, now I have addressed that. We shall see. I do not recommend anyone buy RAM because they have been lead to believe it will rival the performance of having a truly fast storage subsystem. I didn't buy RAM because I believe that, and I hope no one else does either. In fact, I pretty much bought the RAM because it's necessary to test this with, and what I expect is to find it doesn't offer that much of an advantage (if any). Finally, I have enough computers at home that I can always use the memory in another machine, but not everyone can say that. Folks, I encourage you to use common sense here: If you find it unbelievable that a $75 memory upgrade will accomplish what others wind up spending $200 on, congratulations - you've obviously learned to recognize, accept and apply the common sense rule about things that "sound too good to be true". Lothar, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I enjoy technical pursuits but I'm also a busy person. I hope one day to post in follow-up after testing. but it will take time and it's honestly not a priority for me ATM. If your experience is that 8G isn't enough RAM, then I'd suggest maybe taking a hard look at what you're running on your machines (knowing full well you have no intention of listening to my advice, mind you). And I sincerely mean every bit of this in the nicest possible way - I'm sorry if it seems an affront; I'm just being honest. I believe everyone has a right to decide what makes sense for themselves, and should do so. I'm posting this now in the hope that people will think for themselves which option(s) make the most common sense to them. Again, if my actions (in sarcasm) caused anyone to make a poor decision here, I deeply regret it, and felt compelled to set the record straight. If you buy memory, I am not saying you'll regret it. I am saying if you buy memory with the idea that it will somehow replace a fast storage subsystem, you'll probably wind up realizing exactly how adequately it replaces fast storage. And then, later on, you'll still probably wind up buying fast storage, anyway (shekels being always a factor, naturally). My opinion remains: If you have a 64-bit OS, a decent CPU and video card, 8+G of memory, only conventional hard disk(s), and some money to spend on an upgrade, find a good sale on an SSD.

Now that's the way to cover all the bases, hood! I'm sure you'll enjoy a performance improvement worthy of your cost and effort. I wonder if we might impose on you - strictly in the name of science - to do a little experiment. I do hate to ask, but, given the discussion we've had here, I'd welcome any actual specific testing to verify. Don't suppose you'd be willing to try it? I can describe what I had in mind, but it will take some of your time, and require you to hold off on putting all the new parts in your machine at once, temporarily.

*heh* RAM ordered; 10% off the price that was already $5 cheaper than MicroCenter (my usual haunt). 4-7 days free shipping (but it always comes faster...I love NewEgg). Can't wait to test! Now where's that coffee?

I'd certainly admit a dose of sarcasm, Lothar, but you have to admit many of those things I said are certainy implied by what you've said. Logically, if 16G marks the point beyond which SuperFetch makes SSD performance look sluggish, well, what the heck would be the point in putting an SSD in a system with 16G+ RAM? (Because it's still going to be faster, that's why...but never mind that for a moment...) Either way, I don't make any money off SSDs *lol* so folks are free to do whatever, of course. I just know what made "the" difference for me, and I try to help others understand it; hopefully maybe benefit from it as well. I admittedly cannot convey the benefits of having 16G+ of RAM... ...or can I? Hmmm. I have a question, then: In my sig, you'll see performance figures for all my volumes, both the plain old 500G hard drive and two different SSD-based RAID0 arrays, on two different controllers and two different interfaces - the difference being apparent in the respective read and write figures. Also, you'll note I currently have 8G of RAM. I've been considering adding memory lately, and it's gotten cheaper all the while...*heh* Father's Day is coming up...NewEgg emailed me a discount on the exact memory I used... So, here's the thing: The performance figures you see in the sig (as well as a lot of others I fool with, but you don't see in the sig) are all programs. I've not disabled SuperFetch. RAM, we all agree, is faster than even the fast Revodrive SSD... So, I get another 8G of RAM, slap it in the rig here, run the same several programs enough times, I should fairly soon see my SSDs performance get even faster... I will have gone well past the 8G that isn't enough to give the increase. Even if the SSDs are doing their best, the RAM's still faster...and the drive testing apps I use are all programs which would be recognized, cached and made faster by SuperFetch. Even better, I think...since I have two different types of drives (but both solid state media) I ought to see some comparative differences once the caching kicks in, as well.... Oh, man, this is fun...I'm almost giddy here...*whew* I gotta go get a beverage