An experiment with Windows XP

[Nightshade]

Picture, if you will, a computer that has no conventional hard disk with only a CD rom and a USB flash disk thumb drive.

Is it possible to install and run XP off a thumb drive? These solid-state drives are handy and are getting larger by the day. I have a 16GB drive I would love to be able to use for my own portable XP installation.

Is there any way to create a bootable XP install on these thumb drives? I've done it with Linux. (Newer motherboards will let you boot from USB devices.)

[AceCombat]

i have a friend who installs XP from a USB Drive, ill ask how he got it on there

[Isaac]

There's this free program I had where it would take your licensed verion of windows and build a boot disk from it. In the end it was... windowsish. Now to boot from a flash drive depends on the motherboard settings. Some dells don't have it.

[fliptw]

Solid state drives aren't USB flash drives, lets get that clear.

Running XP off a USB drive can be done.

[Nightshade]

That page you linked seems to be out of date fliptw- along with the HP usb boot utility. It's gone too.

[Krom]

Yes its possible to boot XP off a USB flash drive, however it should be noted that many USB flash drives are actually very slow at random reads/writes and will take forever to boot.

[Zantor]

Yes its possible to boot XP off a USB flash drive, however it should be noted that many USB flash drives are actually very slow at random reads/writes and will take forever to boot.

that is correct. You'd be better off booting from a solid state drive (SSD) or external hard drive.

[Krom]

After a bit of digging around I remembered this: http://www.nu2.nu/pebuilder/

[Birdseye]

Krom how are you always still posting really good voice of reason computer posts...if i needed an IT guy in my company I would hire you instantly

[Insurrectionist]

Yes its possible to boot XP off a USB flash drive, however it should be noted that many USB flash drives are actually very slow at random reads/writes and will take forever to boot.

I thought it was that Flash devices typically are slower than a hard disk for sequential I/O USB 2.0 flash drives are slower for sequential reads and writes, compared to modern desktop hard drives. Desktop hard drives can sustain anywhere from 2 to 10 times the transfer speed of USB 2.0 flash drives but are equal to or slower than the new USB 3.0 and Firewire 1320 for sequential data. So, all USB flash drives hold an advantage in random access times: typically around 1ms, compared to 12ms and upwards for desktop hard drives and now USB 3.0 and Firewire 1320 also hold a slight advantage on sequential data too.

[BUBBALOU]

Yeah let's not use USB specs for speed comparisons again, this is not a perfect world.

Also there are definitely 2 types of memory used in flash drives currently in circulation today.

One can even be defragmented ... now which one is in your thumbdrive (it's not in that 12.99 4GB USB 2.0 drive you bought at wal-mart)

pro and cons of each comes to mind now.. oh my now we are talking why it's no fun.....and has nothing to do with USB specs

But if you're just looking for a portable desktop environment, then use MojoPac for usb or ipod

[Zantor]

I would think that for all the wear that a flash drive would be subjected to, it'd be a better choice to use an SSD or external HDD, mostly for the longevity of the device.

[TechPro]

Krom's recommendation is the same stuff we use at my job (and we use it a lot). It works very well.