umm i dont think there is anything u can do. there are just loads of fiels that need to load. you can always try formatting and reinstalling a fresh copy
Originally posted by riosluts umm i dont think there is anything u can do. there are just loads of fiels that need to load. you can always try formatting and reinstalling a fresh copy
yeah, im already pissed and i would end up formatting instead.. but right now, if there's some other way aside installing a fresh copy, im willing to try it out...
I was gonna say crap like, make sure you don't keep a lot of fonts in your actual Fonts folder, defrag regularly, etc. But if it's taking 5 full minutes, sounds like you've got bigger problems.
I have XP on another partition on the same machine and it sucks ass, takes much longer to boot, totally legit apps crash, and it just can't handle any kind of decent load at all... it's just shit.
I have XP on another partition on the same machine and it sucks ass, takes much longer to boot, totally legit apps crash, and it just can't handle any kind of decent load at all... it's just shit.
(what a noob nerd. first post is about computer tech shit.)
anyway, yeah. Having an Intel or an AMD chip or whatever really isn't going to matter that much in terms of start-up time... especially when you want to get it down from 5 minutes (which is freaking ridiculous)
I'm not sure what to recommend though without tinkering first-hand with things... but, just at first thought;
- defrag HDs
- get / use ad-aware
- clear up registry (if ad-aware does nothing)
- turn off system restore (unless you like that sort of thing)
... yeah. Nothing else springs to mind right now, but i'm tired as fuck. So maybe something else'll come up later.
XP, 2000 are losers. Run win98se on a win95 shell. Just as stable as Xp and Faster than either. We have pentium Xp's in the office an I can beat em startup and prog load time with a shitty AMD 450 running win98 on top of a win95 shell. Startup is dependant on your os and what its loading, you'll never get a quick load with XP.
You can run a 300mhz with 98se installed on top of a win95 shell and get better load time as well as better performance than XP . Another benefit is Less spyware. :0
One other thing that should be brought up is the RPM of the drive, if you have a 5400 RPM drive, I'd recommend ya upping that up to a 7200 RPM drive with 8 meg cache (or faster if you got the cash). That wouldn't speed up the entire 5 minutes there, but it'd help with not only that, but the loading of everything else.
Originally posted by buzzard XP, 2000 are losers. Run win98se on a win95 shell. Just as stable as Xp and Faster than either. We have pentium Xp's in the office an I can beat em startup and prog load time with a shitty AMD 450 running win98 on top of a win95 shell. Startup is dependant on your os and what its loading, you'll never get a quick load with XP.
You can run a 300mhz with 98se installed on top of a win95 shell and get better load time as well as better performance than XP . Another benefit is Less spyware. :0
Problem with Win98SE and other old Windows OS, Microsoft has stopped creating Updates for such softwares.
Originally posted by jack867 (what a noob nerd. first post is about computer tech shit.)
anyway, yeah. Having an Intel or an AMD chip or whatever really isn't going to matter that much in terms of start-up time... especially when you want to get it down from 5 minutes (which is freaking ridiculous)
I'm not sure what to recommend though without tinkering first-hand with things... but, just at first thought;
- defrag HDs
- get / use ad-aware
- clear up registry (if ad-aware does nothing)
- turn off system restore (unless you like that sort of thing)
... yeah. Nothing else springs to mind right now, but i'm tired as fuck. So maybe something else'll come up later.
goodluck.
weolcome to the board...
already did the above you mentioned and so far no luck
Comment