Welcome to My World

Last night I went to FutureShop and picked up a 1GB flash memory stick.

The idea was that I would set it up for ReadyBoost. When I arrived here at Haaseltons to try it out I was faced with an annoying dialog. Windows Vista had informed me that my flash drive was not ReadyBoost compatible. On the package the drive said it supports 5MB write and 8MB read transfer rate. This should be more than enough but it seems the manufacturer embellished a bit…

Before you start, it’s probably best to reformat your USB key as FAT32. NTFS is nice, and more stable and much better in many, many ways but it might suffer a bit in performance due to overhead. Besides which… FAT32 is accessible in a greater number of Operating Systems.

How to Force ReadyBoost

ReadyBoost can be forced by editing a specific region of your Windows Registry.

Step 1: Open Regedit

Open up Regedit. There are two ways you can get there. Many of you might be pleased to know you can still open the Run Program window by pressing the Windows Key and R in combination (Win+R).

Alternately you can just type ‘regedit’ in the new Vista search dialog. It will find what you need as well.

Step 2: Find the right key in the registry.

Open the following key in regedit:
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\EMDMgmt\

Do this by clicking on the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE and expanding that menu, then click the next and so-on. You can also find this by searching for the key named “ReadSpeedKBs”. The key will look like this:

Step 3: Change the Registry to Make ReadyBoost Work

Change the registry key so that your DeviceStatus, ReadSpeedKBs and WriteSpeedKBs look like mine.

Set DeviceStatus to 4 hex.

Set ReadSpeedKBs to 1000 hex or greater.

Set WriteSpeedKBs to 1000 hex or greater.

Step 5: Enable ReadyBoost

Close Regedit and re-open the properties dialog on your USB key.

Now set ReadyBoost to use some or all of the USB key. There you have it. Now you are ReadyBoosting!

You may notice the new file created on your USB key like mine in the picture above. This ReadyBoost.sfcache file is the file that holds cached information from your Windows Swap File. If you turn off ReadyBoost it will delete this file automatically, but if you accidentally remove the USB key while Windows is running it will simply notice the cache isn’t available and keep working. Cool, isn’t it?

Part 2 : Make this change Permanent

Well now that you have a USB key whose whole purpose in life is to speed up Windows Vista. You don’t really want to lose that boost or have to plug a key into your laptop each time. Well what I did was simply open up my laptop and find a suitable amount of free space to mount the USB key. Then I coated the USB key in hot glue wherever there were metal contacts, mounted the key inside the case and soldered the USB pins to some wire which was connected to the USB terminals on the laptop motherboard.

This whole process took me about 15 minutes but it was really worth it. The reason I’m not writing a complete tutorial on this process is that if you don’t know how to do this to your machine, you probably shouldn’t try.

Make friends with your local electronics geek. Perhaps they will do it for you. If you choose a decent size for your USB key and a brand that already supports ReadyBoost you’re likely to see a decent performance increase from it.

Enjoy~

This article is really a cache for CSS, XHTML and proper web design articles that I have read and want to keep a semi-permanent copy of.

(The Only) Ten Things To Know About CSS
[John Manoogian III]

Unobtrusive Javascript
[Onlinetools]

Developing Flash websites using progressive enhancement
[Adobe Developer Center]

Form field hinds with CSS and JavaScript
[Ask the CSS Guy]

Web Development Toolbox: 120+ Web Development Resources
[Mashable.com]

I Got 99 Problems, but Developing Ain’t One – 100 Essential Resources for Web Developers
[softwaredeveloper.com]

So I′ve ordered Microsoft Canada′s “Get the Facts” CD kit.

I wanted to see all of the independent studies those ads you see online are citing, saying that the total cost of ownership (TCO) is much lower for a Windows 2003 Server.

While the studies do prove lots of Microsoft bred IT managers who grew up with a Windows PC and only really know that OS well like purchasing and dealing with Windows servers, most of the studies are surveys which are highly subjective.

In my personal experience, a server with any other operating system and a Windows based server perform completely differently. So much about the underlying operating system of Windows is sub-obtimal that typically it just chugs along compared to anything else, really. This includes linux distributions, BSDs, Mac servers and pretty much anything else I can get my hands on.

As far as maintaining a Linux, Unix, Sun or other odd branded server is concerned – your costs are definitely going to be higher on a per-incident basis because you need someone with a higher degree of training to fix the problem. Considering the fact that you′re much less likely to have an issue with, for example Linux or Unix than with a Windows server this might offset the cost. I can′t say anything conclusively on this either.

Interoperability was a major point in thier missives. From what I read the IT managers who migrated to Windows Server 2003 threw their hands up in the air and said, “Hey! This is easier to administer and it′s not that bad!” Microsoft has taken a slightly better stance lately on using open standards in their products, but it is admittedly half-assed as it usually is. This might get better with time, as long as we continue to be savvy consumers and demand better. They may be a slow-moving giant but Microsoft does seem to listen.

The big sticking point in all of these articles seems to be indemifying clients against loss associated with their use of the product. Essentially if you buy your server software, supposedly you are protected should someone sue you. If you use an open-source, free alternative they argue that your hands are tied.

The articles downplay the fact that many linux groups and Linux-based companies have come up with indemnification solutions of their own. I′m no expert on this so I can′t even comment on it.

From what I′ve read of my end user licence agreement (EULA) for my copy of Windows XP (admittedly a consumer product) I can not hold Microsoft in any way responsible for damages that arise from the use of their product. This includes claims of fitness for a particular use, merchantability, etc, etc, etc… The legalese goes on for a while and basically lets you know you′re boned if you get sued for using Windows and letting something sensative slip out.

So the world of business consumers getting indemnification is completely new to me. I′ll have to read more on the subject.

Overall? I′d have to say that I need to learn more. I′ve used Linux distributions of many flavours for years for my own purposes and this website is, in fact now hosted on a modest Linux box. (Which I′m sure you can glean from the HTTP request.)

I generally like the stability of Linux. I′ve never had downtime with linux due to anything but a hardware failure. If I were to have a server farm with no SPFs (Single Points of Failure) I could make that exactly zero percent downtime, easily. I′ve had a shaky relationship with running servers on any flavour of Windows.

So Microsoft definitely has it′s work cut out for them convincing die-hard fans of alternate solutions like myself of their merits. I′m sure they′re not worried as they have lots of money.