Please See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAM_drive"block-caching-layer into RAM, while PrimoRAM_Disk puts a logical-disk into RAM"
So you are saying that adding anything to the startup doesn't slow it down o.o;? lol2.) PrimoCache takes a relative amount of time to start as does PrimoRAM-Disk. None takes longer each because the other one running. In fact you have the time it takes for PrimoCache to start plus additional the time PrimoRAM-DIsk needs to start. Nothing extra. Because the time for each to start up is short you wont even recognize a longer startup having both at all.
PrimoCache is cache... not data. Cache has no meaning in the programming world other than it's a strip down version of the data that the computer can only use in a real world way. Aka, if it's full we still have a option to clear it at run time to make more room or better yet, remove cache that isn't needed for your main program. PrimoRamDisk has this limitation because it keeps whole data meaning you are wasting more overhead along side the file system it self (Duh?). I never said assign less space was a issue... for that matter a larger one, but it's still limited it size that it can cause poorly written programs to crash out meaning data lose if that happens.3.) PrimoCache space is limited too, the fact that it wont crash a programm because it runs full, doesn't make the PrimoCache-solution having no "issue" the issue with full PrimoCache is disk-bottlneck and that means in that situation, that PrimoCache is useless. Of cause the RAM-Disk is limited, thats why you make it large enough. The fact that you can assign to less space is not an "issue".
Only your opinion....4.) Your argument is none. Your impression/opionion/rating doesn't count.
They each carry a different name because they are different programs for two different reasons. Yet, the new version can almost do what the older version can do.. A few new settings and you can replace the older version if they wanted too. The only thing is that they both hit the ram disk, BUT only after they hit the CPU first that then talks to the DRIVER that tells the CPU to get the data from RAM creating a almost 2x issue as now the data in the ramdisk is read and turn into cache that's loaded into system memory.5.) Thats why each carries a different name. Input and Output on a partition is reducing throughput on that device, yeah, but RAM-DIsk IO do not reduce the IO of the disk-device. Why?
I tested this a long time ago with other products. Ram disk are nothing new you know? The issue still exist with them back then as they do today. Primo has done a lot to help lowers these issues, but they still exist either way xD To me, it sounds like you have drive issues if putting the program data into ram it helping you at all. That, or you are choking your system somewhere. Browsers are 50% CPU, 30% GPU, 19 network, and only 1% Disk. If 1% is helping you at all.. then you have some really questionable issues going on man... The disk is only used to store cache of websites you go to... everything else was brought into ram on run xD or in case of IE, at start up.6.) Browser can be limiting everywhere, it depends on which task you use the browser. My system is not in a bad design state but as a matter of fact my 15 tabs load lots faster when carried the browser-cache on a RAM-disk. Despite you not see a slowdown with 30-tabs, maybe you'll see the a speedup, when putting your browsers-cache onto a RAM-disk.
No they do not? They load data into them... Unless you mean they create the "box" on creation? Yea they do that. Actually the very first read was from the disk into the ramdisk... so it's still the 2nd read. The only speed you get on fist is write speed. All others were process already at some point. Why wont you get into my poorly written program argument? Because you know I am right xD. There are a few reason why people have switch from IE to FireFox, so even MS can write very poor code. It just takes time to make code better. Time is something a lot of people simply skip over because they never see the time it took to get this far.7.) Thats totally wrong. A RAM-disk loads all the data on creation. So the very first read will be boosted, while with PrimoCache you only boost the 2nd read. To stay with the example, PrimoCache will never speedup my browser firing up 15 tabs on the very first time. I not go into your "poorly written program" argue.
I am having fun breaking down your ignorance. xD8.) You are arrogant, i have fun, you seem not to.
9) You do not need a UPS when runnning PrimoCache and PrimoRAM-Disk.
Glad you agree to what is already known ^.^On a power loss you always loose non flushed blocks of PrimoCache defer-write and you always loose non-saved RAM-disk file.
1) I would choose either cache or ramdisk... this way only one program is needed at start up and I don't have to fuse where each cache data setup.1.) No problem. PrimoCache using 6GiB, PrimoRAM-Disk using 1GiB, some overhead, so OS has 8 GiB left to play with in middle of the runtime.
2.) No Problem. PrimoCache doesn't load any data on startup, PrimoRAM-DIsk loading up 1 GiB on startup... for me this is finished as soon as the system is usable.2
3.) No problem. PrimoRAM-disk is limited to 1 GiB while my browser plus cache never ever hit 850mb, that's why I designed it that size.
4.) Still don't get this: "Programs are poorly written that it requires a RamDisk." No argue, not even english at all. So you say Primo-developers should leave the project and try to improve applications on the market that these do not need a cache for benefit anymore, because anything that benefits from cache/ram-disk is "poorly written". Your logic is faulty.
5.) No problem. Running the browser in RAM-disk and another application read from PrimoCache the same time does not produce any single input output on the disk, that's exactly their very most purpose.
2) I would setup cache to use 7GB of my ram if I know that no other program or os will use 8GB of my ram. (OS uses 2GB either way, so that only leaves my 6GB useable).
3) I tell cache to do either write, read, or both. Because I don't have a UPS or anyway to block a crash at the driver level, I am going to use it for my disk read.
4) I go on my happy way with 7GB of ram cache for read speeds. Because I don't shutdown my computer much, I already have first 1 read done at some point in the day.
5) Any poorly written code will still see performance boost while it creates it's own cache on my HDD so when I go back to a website; for example, I am not slow down at all as it'll already be there read to read from the cache
But to also answer your questions ^^
1) Ok, so you have a lot of ram... what's your point? Not everyone does and simply you don't seem to be running a lot in the background to take full usage of that ram unlike a lot of power users can. Aka, you got a monster computer and yet you don't know how to use it right.
2) You say as "soon as it's usable" wtf? So you agree it takes time for it to load... the point is not to take a lot of time for your computer to be useable xD
3) With a cache... I don't have to worry about it being limited as it'll clear room for the cache hits.
4) A program is a collection of commands written by a programmer. Sometimes that programmer makes mistakes, doesn't use all tools, or simply doesn't know how to write a program as there are a lot of "what-ifs" that goes into making a program. Do you ever program? You would know that half a programs size is the "what-if" code. If programmers didn't have to guess what could happen and users would follow suit, then you could cut almost half or more of a program at any time, but that's not realistic in a real world environment that changes. Aka, that's where Primo comes into play. To answer your question, yes, they are creating this program to do such a thing because they can and there is a market for it. Why? Because there are a LOT of bad programmers out there... even MS makes some pretty questionable code. Not that I am digging on them. I am a programmer too, so I know the hardships that go into each scrip that a programmer writes. It all comes down to time and a lot of trial and error.
5) You are wasting so much ram... it's silly and very risky to have no IO going to the disk xD.