Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 14:10:18 -0700 (PDT) From: "Kevin McClelland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [LIB] Overclocking
On Tue, 30 April 2002, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote > > Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 01:59:23 +0700 > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [LIB] Overclocking > > > Best bet however for those wanting a bit more umpf from their L110s? > > > > 1) max ram to 64MB. It'll make it run as fast as it possibly can. > > 2) replace HD with 30+GB 9.5mm HD. The latest HDs transfer data far > > quicker than the ol' <3GB HD on the L110, and that alone will make your > > L110 feel quite snappy. bigger 2MB cache buffers also do wonders for > > snappiness and performance on the L110. > > 3) defrag completely with a good disk defragmenter like Norton Speed Disk. > > (minor, esp. on a newely setup system, so don't bother with this unless > > you've got time and money to waste). > > 4) Windows 98SE or lower. Anything higher will kill system performance. > > Turn off 'display icons in all colors', use 16-bit display mode, turn off > > animated menus, turn the background to pure black, etc. will keep the OS > > running as quickly as possible w/o lagging due to silly shadows and > > animations. 98lite.net if needed to squeeze out extra performance. > > > > With maxed out ram, 30GB HD, and Win98SE optimized, my L110 is running > > quite snappily for the most part and does a great job as a portable > > laptop. > > My 2 Cents / Sen / Ringgit / Kip / Pennies / whatever: > > - I've always had 64MB in my L110 (Win'98) > - used it for two years, defragged regularly > - then upgraded to a 30MB HDD with Win'2K > > I know it's subjective, but... I have to say, it's definitely faster with > Win'2K and the 30GB HDD than it is with Win'98 and the 4.3GB HDD. > > As well as all the other advantages (I don't think I've found a disadvantage > yet), it even boots faster... > > I've still got Win'98 on the old HDD and on the odd occasions I've popped it > back in, it makes me smile by reminding me what a tremendous improvement has > taken place. I would agree. I never had Win98 on mine, only Win95 when I first bought it, then Win2k after that. On the old 2.1gb, it was pretty slow, especially in Win2k. The OC helped some, but the real change came when I put in the IBM 30gb HDD. That 2mb cache and faster access time really helped a lot. Since I maintain dual boot with Win95 and Win2k, I can say that Win95 will boot very quickly, almost as fast as a resume from hibernation. It is also pretty quick with apps while running. Win2k, although faster on boot than before on the old drive, still takes a little more time. Hibernation is pretty quick though, and there is very little disk access at idle. ------------------------------------------------- Get your free @Elvis e-mail account at Elvis.com! http://www.elvis.com ************************************************************** http://libretto.basiclink.com - Libretto mailing list http://www.silverace.com/libretto/ - Archives -------TO UNSUBSCRIBE------- Reply to any of the list messages. The reply mail should be addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Then replace any text on the message's subject line: cmd:unsubscribe --------TO UNSUBSCRIBE DIGEST------ Do above but with this on subject line: cmd:unsubscribe digest **************************************************************
