Compatible Support Forums: boot is getting slower

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

boot is getting slower

#1 User is offline   oaydin 

  • journeyman
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 61
  • Joined: 18-March 01

Posted 24 June 2001 - 10:52 PM

ok beta2 was booting slow
with 2475 per n pro boot was very fast, it was even faster than tweaked winme with 1 sec.
but with 2481 pro it looked like booting a little bit slower
same with 85, 86
n now with 2494 personal boot is nearly 10 seconds slower
nothing different I installed all tweaked
anyone else noticed that ?
0

#2 User is offline   Brian Frank 

  • Carpal Tunnel
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3088
  • Joined: 21-January 01

Posted 25 June 2001 - 12:59 AM

Not an expert on XP, but...have you tried running the defragger in XP?
0

#3 User is offline   oaydin 

  • journeyman
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 61
  • Joined: 18-March 01

Posted 25 June 2001 - 01:34 AM

of course I did,
as I say nothing is different with me
didn't install new software or such
anyway waiting for Rc1 is logical
0

#4 User is offline   EddiE314 

  • Pooh-Bah
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1778
  • Joined: 18-January 00

Posted 25 June 2001 - 06:32 AM

sounds like operator error to me, almost everyone else (including me)seems to think XP is getting faster, oh, i have found that the defragger that comes with XP is sh1tty, it doesn't defrag well at all, try using NTFS instead of FAT32, it fragments far less. if that doesn't help you, oh well.
0

#5 User is offline   Brian Frank 

  • Carpal Tunnel
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3088
  • Joined: 21-January 01

Posted 25 June 2001 - 10:51 AM

There is a way to convert FAT32 to NTFS in Win2k, from what I understand...and I figure that should apply to XP. It's a special command...can anyone confirm this?
Anyway, it would save you a reinstall and all the joy that brings...:/
0

#6 User is offline   EddiE314 

  • Pooh-Bah
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1778
  • Joined: 18-January 00

Posted 25 June 2001 - 09:11 PM

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2481]
© Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>convert /?
Converts FAT volumes to NTFS.

CONVERT volume /FS:NTFS [/V] [/CvtArea:filename] [/NoSecurity] [/X]

volume Specifies the drive letter (followed by a colon),
mount point, or volume name.
/FS:NTFS Specifies that the volume is to be converted to NTFS.
/V Specifies that Convert should be run in verbose mode.
/CvtArea:filename
Specifies a contiguous file in the root directory to be
the place holder for NTFS system files.
/NoSecurity Specifies the converted files and directories security
settings to be accessible by everyone.
/X Forces the volume to dismount first if necessary.
All opened handles to the volume would then be invalid.

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator>

--------------------------
The same applies for Win2k.
0

#7 User is offline   bottleneck 

  • journeyman
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 97
  • Joined: 11-September 00

Posted 25 June 2001 - 09:17 PM

Quote:
There is a way to convert FAT32 to NTFS in Win2k...

yes,but you will end up with 1024kbytes(I think) alocation unit size wich is slower
the command is
convert c: /fs:ntfs
and ofcourse its irreversable

sorry for my lousy spelling

[edit]too late[/edit]
0

#8 User is offline   ThC 129 

  • veteran
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1578
  • Joined: 06-December 99

Posted 25 June 2001 - 10:00 PM

seesh with all that work it would be easier to format and reinstall XP using NTFS.


Oh and my boottimes are faster. Check your hardware settings it might be something like Creatve's Gay!ware slowing it down. My friend even said 2494 per boots faster and runs faster than 2495 pro.
0

#9 User is offline   EddiE314 

  • Pooh-Bah
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1778
  • Joined: 18-January 00

Posted 27 June 2001 - 06:39 AM

i'd imagine per. is faster than pro. there's probably less services to start.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users