Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 11:17:10 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [LIB] Win2000 boot & performance on 110
Matt Hanson wrote: Hmmm Matt, your messages come in three times in my mailbox lately. List server problems I'd guess? > > Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 06:56:35 -0800 (PST) > From: Matt Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Win2000 boot & performance on 110 > > Well... so far I'm extremely happy with this > installation of Win2000 on my 100 with a newly > installed 233MHz 110 MB. > > But has anyone learned how to tweak W2K to get a > noticeable and significant improvement of the > performance of their 100 after the basic OS > installation? > > Thanks to Philip for all the great information on his > website about getting it all set up. > > As I recall, Philip was using the original W2K release > when he wrote the support info there. He had > mentioned it taking over 4 minutes for his 110 to > boot, and was happy that hibernation worked around > that, and got the system to wake up in about a minute > if I recall. > > But with the SP3 copy of Win2000 I've installed, I > find that the system only takes about 80 seconds to > reach the Windows desktop where some simple functions > are available pretty much immediately. And then maybe > another minute for the HDD to finally stop working on > loading the OS at a total of about 2:20 for booting. But then of course, you probably don't have much SW installed yet, like: - McAfee AV - Zonelarm - LAN drivers & connections - MS IntelliMouse - Flat panel rotation software. Especially McAfee takes _ages_ to load. And setting up the LAN and TCP/IP stack and searching for network connections (and having McAfee think about those) is also a time-consuming affair. Another W2K SP4 install on my Lib 100, stripped a la Fred Vorck's instructions (http://ww.vorck.com/remove-ie.html) all in all takes just 40-50 seconds incl. LAN, Grisoft AV & ZoneAlarm. But it steadily gets slower with each new SW package installed. A good argument to keep Windows lean and mean. > On performance, I'm really happy to find I can run all > of the components in Winamp simultaneously that I > couldn't on the old 70: > > * Shibatch in_mpg123 replaygain playback from APE tags > * Gapless playback > * Equalizer > * Cover art video plugin > * Visualizations > * Lyrics plugin > > The Shibatch RG playback is what I really was after, > as it reads RG values written to the MP3's APE tag. I > was having a hell of a time with the older RG plugin's > external replaygain.csv file constantly being > corrupted on the 70 in Win98. Everything else I > pretty much had working, though I never really > attempted visualizations on the 70, tho' now I'm > guessing some of of the less demanding ones may indeed > be possible. > > But the system in just falling short of supporting the > equalizer in FooBar2000. And I'm wondering if it's > going to be at all possible to tweak the W2K OS to get > that little added power. > > I haven't yet tries the suggestions Philip mentioned > on his support page. But after all of my failed > attempts tweaking Win98 on the 70 for the very same > purpose, I'm a bit doubtful about whether or not > something other than monumental will achieve the > needed affect. Even 98Lite didn't help 70 playback in > W98. And the free XP/2KLite download doesn't include > removing MSIE, about the only thing I'd thing removing > would gain significant resources. Again, have a look at Vorck's web page. His stripped W2K made for a really *big* performance boost. And there's NuHi Lite, another IE stripper, but it doesn't strip all of IE (URL on Vorck's page), typing a URL in the a window's address bar still loads the web site. With Vorck's patches, that won't happen. > Again, has anyone successfully improved performance of > W2K noticeably on their 110 after the basic > installation? Sure. Philip
