• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Win XP Ad Says 36% faster than Win 98!!

I just put XP on my mom's 433MHz Celeron w/ ~128MB ram (maybe 160MB?), and it feels quite a bit faster than 98se did on it.
 
Yeah, I don't know that XP boot times would really be that much faster (if at all) than 98. I guess it depends on the computer. My hazey recollection has 98 booting up pretty fast, but since I personally haven't used 98 since NT 4.0 came out, my recollection may be off. All I know is that I get a usable desktop in 15-20 seconds with XP. Compared to NT 4.0/2000 that's blazing fast. 😉

\Dan
 
Originally posted by: unbiased
Seems that programs, memory handling ETC are faster but Boot-up and Shut-down times are definitely longer.
Click to expand...

XP's boot-up time is a lot faster for me than it ever was for Windows 98. The new XP computer is pretty fast, but the Windows 98 machine took 3 MINUTES to start up with almost everything turned off. The XP boots up in about 20 seconds. But it takes about 30 seconds to save all settings and shut down in XP while it took about 5 seconds on the Windows 98. The standby recovery times are admirable, though.
 
Originally posted by: Psych
Originally posted by: unbiased
Seems that programs, memory handling ETC are faster but Boot-up and Shut-down times are definitely longer.
Click to expand...

XP's boot-up time is a lot faster for me than it ever was for Windows 98. The new XP computer is pretty fast, but the Windows 98 machine took 3 MINUTES to start up with almost everything turned off. The XP boots up in about 20 seconds. But it takes about 30 seconds to save all settings and shut down in XP while it took about 5 seconds on the Windows 98. The standby recovery times are admirable, though.
Click to expand...

Google for TuneXP. 4 second shutdown, I thank you. 🙂
 
It depends on your system configuration. If u use enough processor power and enough RAM than WinXP is faster (during bootup). In general, if it is faster or not is debateable. BUT, it is really stable, much much stabler than Win9x/Me
 
Tnanks guys for the enlightenment, and thanks dope for the link. But even after running tune XP 'for ultrafast booting' my system boots in about a minutes time. No diffrence.
Rig is fairly respectable ie,
Athlon XP 2200+
A7N8X Deluxe Rev2
512 MB Kingston PC2700 DDR
Samsung ATA 133 7200 RPM HDD.
.
.
.
.

Is there something with tune XP which really improves booting time?
 
Originally posted by: PsychXP's boot-up time is a lot faster for me than it ever was for Windows 98. The new XP computer is pretty fast, but the Windows 98 machine took 3 MINUTES to start up with almost everything turned off. The XP boots up in about 20 seconds. But it takes about 30 seconds to save all settings and shut down in XP while it took about 5 seconds on the Windows 98. The standby recovery times are admirable, though.
Click to expand...

Well, you're comparing different machines now. You have to be using the same hardware/software to be able to make a useful comparison.

In my experience, Win98 bootup is MUCH faster than WinXP. On clean installs, the difference is so noticeable that I wouldn't know what to debate.
 
Originally posted by: unbiased
Tnanks guys for the enlightenment, and thanks dope for the link. But even after running tune XP 'for ultrafast booting' my system boots in about a minutes time. No diffrence.
Rig is fairly respectable ie,
Athlon XP 2200+
A7N8X Deluxe Rev2
512 MB Kingston PC2700 DDR
Samsung ATA 133 7200 RPM HDD.
.
.
.
.

Is there something with tune XP which really improves booting time?
Click to expand...

Well, it's a combination of that and turning off uneccesary stuff - all those tray icons that you don't really need. Start -> Run -> msconfig -> Startup tab -> turn off anything that you can live without.

Now, reboot and run Tune XP again. Leave off "Clear pagefile on shutdown", turn eveything else on. It'll take a while with the defrag, but the results should be pretty clear. I have a 15second-to-desktop boot time and a 4-second shutdown time after playing with this.
 
Originally posted by: unbiased
Tnanks guys for the enlightenment, and thanks dope for the link. But even after running tune XP 'for ultrafast booting' my system boots in about a minutes time. No diffrence.
Rig is fairly respectable ie,
Athlon XP 2200+
A7N8X Deluxe Rev2
512 MB Kingston PC2700 DDR
Samsung ATA 133 7200 RPM HDD.
.
.
.
.

Is there something with tune XP which really improves booting time?
Click to expand...

A faster HD maybe. Mostly it boils down to what you have installed; check all that startup stuff, etc. But buying a faster HD will always increase boot speeds.
 
One more thing to try, as I had to do this on a Samsung hard disk at work that was running "too" slow for my liking.

Go get the Hitachi Feature Tool and run it on the Samsung. Turn the Acoustic Management off; you can use "Test" to see what the difference in noise is like. If it's one of the Samsungs that ships with AM turned on, you'll notice a fair difference.
 
Hi Dope,
I tried running SFC fro tune XP and it kep asking me to put the CD in to replace some system file. Does this mean that some of my system files have become corrupted or just 'altered' due to patches and fixes added later on, lond after the installation was done from the CD.
My concern is that if this system file checker will replace some of the genuinely modified files with the old ones?
What say?
 
Originally posted by: unbiased
Hi Dope,
I tried running SFC fro tune XP and it kep asking me to put the CD in to replace some system file. Does this mean that some of my system files have become corrupted or just 'altered' due to patches and fixes added later on, lond after the installation was done from the CD.
My concern is that if this system file checker will replace some of the genuinely modified files with the old ones?
What say?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry about System File Checker to be honest; if you have legitimately replaced files, then SFC will simply replace them with the Microsoft versions. This can cause problems 🙂
Just apply the speed patches, and "Ultra-fast booting (re-arrange boot files)" and all should be well.
 
Thanks. The shutdown has really improved though the boot up remains the same. Still it is an improvement.
BTW the ad is a TV ad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top