Putting my swapfile on seperate a drive!!
half_pint
I just put my old drive back on my computer as a slave
drive so I have more space. Its quite a bit slower than
my new drive but its certaintly a *lot* quiter.
Now.... I have been toying with the idea of putting my
swap file on the old drive, indeed I was going to but
I found I had to click "let me specify my virtual memory
setting" to do this. When you try to save the settings
(with the swapfile on the D: drive rather than C:) it pops
up a warning "You may not be able to restart you computer
blah, blah, blah....." which kind got me worried and caused
me to change my mind.
So should I give it a go and change it?
Does anyone forsee any problems?
Obviously if I cannot restart I cannot change it back
so I will be f***ed.
Would I be able to boot into DOS? and if so how would
I change the swapfile settings back.
I am assuming doing the change would give me a quick
boot time yet quieter operation which would be very
nice.
I am thinking that if I had say half my programs on
one disk and say half on another the system would run
faster as it should be less disk bound?
I am assuming drive access is a bottle neck and that
'splitting the workload' would give a faster performance?
Any ideas appreciated, especially regarding speeding
my computer up.
I obvioulsy won't be doing any changes (major) untill
I have some idea of what to expect, any potential
problems, and perhaps more importantly how to
recover from them (assuming I can)!!
I would appreciate any links on this as I would
perfer a 'trustworthy' source, In the meantime I will
do some googling and post links to any useful sources.
--
regards half_pint.
Jeff Richards
the warning, provided that the disk is working OK and there is plenty of
room. If there is a problem you can unplug the second disk - Windows will
simply revert to using the boot drive for the swap file.
Splitting the work between two disks should provide a performance boost. But
if the second disk is significantly slower than the existing one, putting
applications there might actually hurt your performance. You may need to
experiment. I have my swap file on a separate disk, but it's a disk that I
only use for archiving, so the swap file is the only thing being regularly
accessed.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP W95/W98
"half_pint" <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bvs2t6$109r1a$1...@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de...
half_pint
I had decided to do it any way, I just wrote out my
'last will and testament' post in case it didn't work (which I
will post after this), however I just did a quick check before
I posted and found your response.
So here goes!!!!!
Jeff Richards wrote:
> Moving the swapfile to a second disk is unlikely to cause a problem,
> despite the warning, provided that the disk is working OK and there
> is plenty of room. If there is a problem you can unplug the second
> disk - Windows will simply revert to using the boot drive for the
> swap file.
>
> Splitting the work between two disks should provide a performance
> boost. But if the second disk is significantly slower than the
> existing one, putting applications there might actually hurt your
> performance. You may need to experiment. I have my swap file on a
> separate disk, but it's a disk that I only use for archiving, so the
> swap file is the only thing being regularly accessed.
--
---------------
regards half_pint
half_pint
OK sod it, it don't look like I will get an answer soon and curiosity
(and a pint or two of cider) is getting the better of me.
Curiosity killed the cat and it may well kill my computer if this
does not work, but what the heck you only live once!!
Anyway my old drive still has the OS on it so if I cannot reboot
I will put the old drive back on as master and hopefully it will
boot ok. (At worst it will find it has the 'wrong swapfile' but
I should hopefully be able to boot into DOS and delete it
some how). I can them get back on the net and discover how to
'fix' my old hard drive.
Wish me luck!!
I will report back (hopefully)
--
---------------
regards half_pint
half_pint
And it worked a treat (booted up OK and got back online).
I am not sure yet about how the performance is affected though.
The thing is, the new drive I bought on ebay is *much* noisier than
the old drive, so much so that I considered leaving some negative
feedback, however as it seems to be considerably faster I decided not
too (you only get a line to vent your spleen), I just didnt leave any feed
back.
Having said that the new drive was still a 5400 rpm so I didn't expect
it to be faster, although it was. Its seems speed vs noise is a bit of a
trade
off (perhaps). I believe SCSI (scussy) drives are faster but noisier,
my new drive sounds lilke a scussy, I would estimate is is *ten times*
noisier (at least) but I need to check.
I don't mind noise at start-up but it can be a bit irritating when surfing
so I will have to see if that situation improves or not.
I am trying to get the best of both worlds basically.
Incidently the new drive is about 50% quicker (I estimate) but 10 times
noisier. I will have to do some more investigating.
Another thing is that I only have one hard drive 'bay' so the second
drive is only held in place by its IDE and power cable!!
However I think I will be OK as long as I don't shake my computer
about ( not recommened anyway).
Another thing I am pondering is putting half my boot up programs on
one drive and half on on the other, hoping to effectively (almost?) half the
boot up time, but I need to give this more thought.
Also my old drive is 2 gig but my new drive is a huge 3.2 gig (I am
a cheapskate lol).
In the meantime I will have a bit of a surf and see what differences I
notice.
Thank you for your reply.
.
Jeff Richards wrote:
> Moving the swapfile to a second disk is unlikely to cause a problem,
> despite the warning, provided that the disk is working OK and there
> is plenty of room. If there is a problem you can unplug the second
> disk - Windows will simply revert to using the boot drive for the
> swap file.
>
> Splitting the work between two disks should provide a performance
> boost. But if the second disk is significantly slower than the
> existing one, putting applications there might actually hurt your
> performance. You may need to experiment. I have my swap file on a
> separate disk, but it's a disk that I only use for archiving, so the
> swap file is the only thing being regularly accessed.
>> Hi,
--
---------------
regards half_pint
Ron Badour
noisy. I would not put anything of value on it.
--
Regards
Ron Badour, MS MVP W98 System
Tips: http://home.satx.rr.com/badour
Knowledge Base Info:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=kbinfo
"half_pint" <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bvs8tk$kg4bh$1...@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de...
half_pint
anti-static bag. I was worried too which is why I kept my old
drive in a bootable format, waiting for it to give its final noisy
clunk. It really does sound horrible and scratchy, I can't remember
what my old drive sounded like, I think it was more of a 'bubble'
rather than the loud 'ticking' of the new one.
I am trying to get the swapfile into use so that I can make a
comparison..
Actually I just did a test by doing a 'text find' on each drive.
The old drive has a 'soft rustle' whilst the new drive sounds like
a rather irriitated rattle snake!!
Ron Badour wrote:
> It sounds like you bought a drive that is on its last legs if it is
> that noisy. I would not put anything of value on it.
>
>
--
---------------
regards half_pint
half_pint
on each drive to reduce the noise.
I think its the small 'bits and bobs' scattered over the drive which make
the noise (when it has to chance track often), hence putting the
swapfile on the quiet drive.
I think its a case of all the small pieces of data on the quite drive
and the big files on the noisey one?
I think that would work well, for instance putting Outlook Express's
cache on the quiet one?
Also if the noisy drive does fail the data (which is hardest to replace
and so more valuable) will be safe?
Best stick all my best porno pics on there too ;O)
Ron Badour wrote:
> It sounds like you bought a drive that is on its last legs if it is
> that noisy. I would not put anything of value on it.
>
>
--
---------------
regards half_pint
Bill in Co.
designing" coming along (the one to replace Windows)? LOL!
For your HD noise problem: I'd suggest some 3 in 1 oil !
half_pint
I noticed windows picked up a bit regarding all it's faults
once it realised it had some 'serious competition' to contend with.
If it goes back to its old ways I shall "release the beast!!!"
It may not be long before my little beast rules the planet!!!
pjp
of ram so seldom actually access the hard disk's swap file, it's certainly
faster to keep the swap file on the faster (but apparently noisier) hard
disk. I'd personally choose to instead install selected programs on the
slower (but quieter) hard disk (few have to be installed into C:\Program
Files) electing to use the slower disk for "static" stuff while freeing up
space on the faster hard disk. Unless significantly slower, I doubt you'd
notice any change in the apps loading time. Also once things more or less
settled out over time, the second hard disk would'nt change much as you'd
have all the apps installed on it you wanted, hence a good scandisk/degrag
once in awhile would be the only maintainance it might need as files
wouldn't be suffled around very often and access speed would be as fast
"normally" as possible.
Another way to look at it would be put everything on slower hard disk you
can so you can use the fastest hard disk for the swap file. The thinking
being loading apps, data etc. tends to be a one time read where-as accessing
the swap file tends to be a lot of write/read combo's hence faster the
better.
Mind you, I'd trade off more noise for more speed most any day, can always
turn WinAmp up louder :)
BeamGuy
noise, sounded like a car driving in the wrong gear. I thought it was just
price you paid for faster, so I just stuffed all sorts of sound insulation
in the case and held my ears when I used the computer. After about
35 days or so it just gave up the ghost, with bad sectors appearing
everywhere. I managed to get most my data off it and soon had a
nice quiet drive from another manufacturer.
Now days my main hard drive is a Seagate, which claims to be the
quietest drive out there. I have both a 40G and a 160G. If there are any
quieter drives out there I don't need them, I have a hard time telling if
they are on or off!
"Ron Badour" <So...@NoAdddress.com> wrote in message news:%23EUcc64...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
half_pint
as a backup. I have had it over 6 months now and I just did
a scan disk which reported no bad sectors so I assume it has
plenty of life left in it, also it looked new when I bought it,
(sealed antistatic bag).
I think there is a noise trade off though, your new drive may be
slower. My new drive seemed to do well in some tests I did
at some site son after I got it.
Its only boot up time which concerns me though, if the drive
is in use a lot during normal operation your system is going
to be very slow however fast the drive is (You need more
memory basically).(Or a new operating system!!).
My noisey drive is a Western Digital 3.2 Gig or (3.0) the
quiet one is a Samsung I think.(Maybe Seagate, I forget).
It would be nice is manufactures provided noise specification
as well as better speed information, as the RPM doesn't
appear to count for much.
"BeamGuy" <nob...@SPAM.com> wrote in message
news:eZOAOo$6DHA...@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
half_pint
'thrash'!!
Actually I am now thinking that maybe my new drive needs defragging!!
I have never defragged it IIRC since I bought it! Although I noticed it
was noisy as soon as I installed it. I basically just copied all the data
across
from my old drive. I am not too sure that defragging does anyway apart
from making files continueous. When you do a defrag it says some stuff
belongs at the beginning, some in the middle and some at the end.
How does it know what belongs where? It doesn't know what the
data is or which program uses it?
The first time I defragged my system it seemed slower rather than
faster!!
I don't know if it matters where the swap file is because if it is in use
a lot it will be very slow either way.
I wouldn't mind having the swapfile split over two drives!!!
Basically I want a quick boot up time, as mine can take 2-3 minutes.
After that I am not really bothered much as if you are surfing most of the
wait if for data to download. Once my swap file becomes large
(over 30 meg ) I tend to reboot anyway.
I think I need to spend more time experimenting and investigating
various aspects of the situation.
"pjp" <pjpoirier_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Oi1MEH66...@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Hugh Candlin
half_pint <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bvu4e3$10tbot$2...@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> I am not too sure that defragging does anyway apart
> from making files continueous.
There are 2 levels of fragmentation, and thus 4 possible scenarios.
1 Files may be fragmented on an unfragmented drive.
2 Files may be fragmented on a fragmented drive.
3 Files may be contiguous on a fragmented drive.
4 Files may be contiguous on an unfragmented drive.
A file is fragmented, or non-contiguous, when it is stored
in 2 or more parts.
A disk is fragmented, or non-contiguous, when the free space
is not contiguous on the drive, and cannot therefore be used
without creating further file and/or disk fragmentation.
> When you do a defrag it says some stuff
> belongs at the beginning, some in the middle and some at the end.
> How does it know what belongs where?
Task Monitor runs in the background, continuously watching and logging
what you do, so that DEFRAG can move those programs so that they
start up faster.
> It doesn't know what the data is or which program uses it?
It only relocates programs, I believe. Regardless, it doesn't know
what the function of those programs is, and doesn't need to.
It simply tracks the incidence of usage by you of each program,
and claims to optimize your hard drive for speed. I believe it
to be akin to getting off your bike every 10 miles to oil it.
What you gain on the swing, you lose on the roundabout.
If you want speed, disable Task Monitor. See if that helps.
BeamGuy
And some of them do specify noise... Also Tom's hardware guide
measures it. They do not all measure it the same way though.
"half_pint" <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bvu4e0$10tbot$1...@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de...
half_pint
"Hugh Candlin" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
news:uirfWQC7...@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>
> half_pint <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bvu4e3$10tbot$2...@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de...
> >
> > I am not too sure that defragging does anyway apart
> > from making files continueous.
>
> There are 2 levels of fragmentation, and thus 4 possible scenarios.
>
> 1 Files may be fragmented on an unfragmented drive.
> 2 Files may be fragmented on a fragmented drive.
> 3 Files may be contiguous on a fragmented drive.
> 4 Files may be contiguous on an unfragmented drive.
>
> A file is fragmented, or non-contiguous, when it is stored
> in 2 or more parts.
>
> A disk is fragmented, or non-contiguous, when the free space
> is not contiguous on the drive, and cannot therefore be used
> without creating further file and/or disk fragmentation.
>
> > When you do a defrag it says some stuff
> > belongs at the beginning, some in the middle and some at the end.
> > How does it know what belongs where?
>
> Task Monitor runs in the background, continuously watching and logging
> what you do, so that DEFRAG can move those programs so that they
> start up faster.
Not on my system it doesn't!! I have that unchecked for startup for ages!
Maybe I will uncheck it.
How long does it take to start up?
Assuming programs were installed on a defragged disk defragging wont make
much difference I wouldn't think. One track change per program isn't
much of an over head I don't think.
>
> > It doesn't know what the data is or which program uses it?
>
> It only relocates programs, I believe. Regardless, it doesn't know
> what the function of those programs is, and doesn't need to.
> It simply tracks the incidence of usage by you of each program,
> and claims to optimize your hard drive for speed. I believe it
> to be akin to getting off your bike every 10 miles to oil it.
> What you gain on the swing, you lose on the roundabout.
>
> If you want speed, disable Task Monitor. See if that helps.
Already did that!
I may enable it again.
I need to play around a bit.
What about data? How does it deal with that?
What if it scatters data which was on one track all over the drive?
I dont think that would help much!
Also I think I was wrong about having things on two seperate disks
as I believe only one disk can be in use at a time, although
I am not 100% sure of this. (98%?).
Also I want to put my OE data on a different drive but I am not
sure if I can do this.
>
>
Hugh Candlin
half_pint <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:bvubte$10r6se$1...@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "Hugh Candlin" <n...@spam.com> wrote in message
> news:uirfWQC7...@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> >
> > half_pint <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:bvu4e3$10tbot$2...@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > >
> > > I am not too sure that defragging does anyway apart
> > > from making files continueous.
> >
> > There are 2 levels of fragmentation, and thus 4 possible scenarios.
> >
> > 1 Files may be fragmented on an unfragmented drive.
> > 2 Files may be fragmented on a fragmented drive.
> > 3 Files may be contiguous on a fragmented drive.
> > 4 Files may be contiguous on an unfragmented drive.
> >
> > A file is fragmented, or non-contiguous, when it is stored
> > in 2 or more parts.
> >
> > A disk is fragmented, or non-contiguous, when the free space
> > is not contiguous on the drive, and cannot therefore be used
> > without creating further file and/or disk fragmentation.
> >
> > > When you do a defrag it says some stuff
> > > belongs at the beginning, some in the middle and some at the end.
> > > How does it know what belongs where?
> >
> > Task Monitor runs in the background, continuously watching and logging
> > what you do, so that DEFRAG can move those programs so that they
> > start up faster.
>
> Not on my system it doesn't!! I have that unchecked for startup for ages!
I was speaking about the general concept. Anyway, even if you have it
deactivated, the log file is still probably lying around. So now the question
becomes
"Did you configure DEFRAG to deactivate the option
'Rearrange program files so my programs start faster' (sic)
If you did not, then the disk optimizer is still effective,
even if the statistics are out-of-date.
> Maybe I will uncheck it.
You already did that, you said?
> How long does it take to start up?
No idea. I disable it automatically.
>
> Assuming programs were installed on a defragged disk defragging wont make
> much difference I wouldn't think. One track change per program isn't
> much of an over head I don't think.
Fragmentation is a certitude. There is nothing that you can do
to prevent it. Your assumption is wishful thinking.
> >
> > > It doesn't know what the data is or which program uses it?
> >
> > It only relocates programs, I believe. Regardless, it doesn't know
> > what the function of those programs is, and doesn't need to.
> > It simply tracks the incidence of usage by you of each program,
> > and claims to optimize your hard drive for speed. I believe it
> > to be akin to getting off your bike every 10 miles to oil it.
> > What you gain on the swing, you lose on the roundabout.
> >
> > If you want speed, disable Task Monitor. See if that helps.
>
> Already did that!
> I may enable it again.
> I need to play around a bit.
>
> What about data? How does it deal with that?
> What if it scatters data which was on one track all over the drive?
> I dont think that would help much!
It wouldn't. That's why DEFRAG was developed.
>
> Also I think I was wrong about having things on two seperate disks
> as I believe only one disk can be in use at a time, although
> I am not 100% sure of this. (98%?).
You cannot split the SWP file. The software mechanism doesn't exist.
>
> Also I want to put my OE data on a different drive but I am not
> sure if I can do this.
Tools => Options => Maintenance => Store Folder => Change
Jeff Richards
spreading files across two disks you likely reduce the circumstances where
one disk is alternating between two files, for instance, the swap file and a
EXE file that is being loaded. If the files are on separate disks this
allows each disk to operate more efficiently, as costly head movement is
reduced.
Whether this actually happens often enough in practice to make a difference
depends heavily on how you use the machine and how you have arranged the
files between the two disks.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP W95/W98
"half_pint" <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bvubte$10r6se$1...@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> snip <
Hugh Candlin
Jeff Richards <JRic...@msn.com.au> wrote in message news:eugRQLD7...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
> While it is true that only one disk can be accessed at any one time, by
> spreading files across two disks you likely reduce the circumstances where
> one disk is alternating between two files, for instance, the swap file and a
> EXE file that is being loaded. If the files are on separate disks this
> allows each disk to operate more efficiently, as costly head movement is
> reduced.
What he actually said was
half_pint
No.
>
> If you did not, then the disk optimizer is still effective,
> even if the statistics are out-of-date.
>
> > Maybe I will uncheck it.
>
> You already did that, you said?
I meant un-uncheck it ie check it.
>
> > How long does it take to start up?
>
> No idea. I disable it automatically.
> >
> > Assuming programs were installed on a defragged disk defragging wont
make
> > much difference I wouldn't think. One track change per program isn't
> > much of an over head I don't think.
>
> Fragmentation is a certitude. There is nothing that you can do
> to prevent it. Your assumption is wishful thinking.
Yes but is program file is already continuous I don't see how it can
get fragmented because it will only ever get read (not rewitten).
Obviously newly added programs might become fragmented
but I haven't added any new software for ages.
Also I imagine programs get run from the swapfile anyway.
> > >
> > > > It doesn't know what the data is or which program uses it?
> > >
> > > It only relocates programs, I believe. Regardless, it doesn't know
> > > what the function of those programs is, and doesn't need to.
> > > It simply tracks the incidence of usage by you of each program,
> > > and claims to optimize your hard drive for speed. I believe it
> > > to be akin to getting off your bike every 10 miles to oil it.
> > > What you gain on the swing, you lose on the roundabout.
> > >
> > > If you want speed, disable Task Monitor. See if that helps.
> >
> > Already did that!
> > I may enable it again.
> > I need to play around a bit.
> >
> > What about data? How does it deal with that?
> > What if it scatters data which was on one track all over the drive?
> > I dont think that would help much!
>
> It wouldn't. That's why DEFRAG was developed.
But it does move data about, so it must put it somewhere
who is to say it puts it in a more suitable place?
> >
> > Also I think I was wrong about having things on two seperate disks
> > as I believe only one disk can be in use at a time, although
> > I am not 100% sure of this. (98%?).
>
> You cannot split the SWP file. The software mechanism doesn't exist.
> >
> > Also I want to put my OE data on a different drive but I am not
> > sure if I can do this.
>
> Tools => Options => Maintenance => Store Folder => Change
Ok I did try that but I somehow got it into my head that that was just
my mail, I was incorrect.(slaps wrists).
I will try shifting it to the quiet drive (maybe), although some newsgroups
can get quite large and take a while to load.
>
>
half_pint
There are bits of data scattered all over the place!
Maybe I should make the quite drive the main master drive
and put selected startup programs on the noisey drive?
I really ought to back up my current drive onto the old one,
except it won't fit now! But If I skip a few big folders it should.
Another problem is if one drive I might get all sorts
of problems trying to restore to other to a useable state!
For instance if the one with the swapfile fails I might not
be able to boot up! (I could simulate this).
I really need to consider what is the best option overall.
--
---------------
regards half_pint
"Jeff Richards" <JRic...@msn.com.au> wrote in message
news:eugRQLD7...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
half_pint
> > sure if I can do this.
>
> Tools => Options => Maintenance => Store Folder => Change
>
a hear a faint flutter as it loads and then a huge grinding
of coggs as it loads the dial up application!! (New noisey
drive firing up!!).
>
J...@no.komm
"pjp" <pjpoirier_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Another way to look at it would be put everything on slower hard disk you
>can so you can use the fastest hard disk for the swap file. The thinking
>being loading apps, data etc. tends to be a one time read where-as accessing
>the swap file tends to be a lot of write/read combo's hence faster the
>better.
You have that completely backwards. Your swapfile should hardly ever be
written to or read from; it's mainly there for memory collateral. Put
your programs on the faster drive.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <J...@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
J...@no.komm
"Jeff Richards" <JRic...@msn.com.au> wrote:
>While it is true that only one disk can be accessed at any one time
That was true up until about 1996. It is no longer true, unless you
have an ancient hard disk controller.
Bill in Co.
I think you ought to put windows on your good drive (for now), and "your" brand
new operating system" (you know, the one that was going to replace windows) on
the noisy one. And also try out that suggestion of the 3 in 1 oil on the
bearings of your noisy drive, half pint.
J...@no.komm
"Hugh Candlin" <n...@spam.com> wrote:
>What he actually said was
>"I wouldn't mind having the swapfile split over two drives!!!"
Then he wants Windows NT, 2000, or XP. They allow you to have 16
swapfiles each. Supposedly the OS is intelligent enough to know which
one to write to to avoid extra seek times. Of course, it has no choice
where to *read* pages from.
half_pint
<J...@no.komm> wrote in message
news:rsl5205q82bec45qc...@4ax.com...
> In message <eugRQLD7...@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl>,
> "Jeff Richards" <JRic...@msn.com.au> wrote:
>
> >While it is true that only one disk can be accessed at any one time
>
> That was true up until about 1996. It is no longer true, unless you
> have an ancient hard disk controller.
Looks like I am back where I started on this one. My problem was
that if the bus as in use by one drive being read, the other drive would
have no where to put its data!! (assuming it has no buffer).
I suppose with 'multiplexing' of data this would not be a problem
anyway.
Truth is I am not really sure, I have gone from one opinion
to the other then back again!!
My system was a bargain basement job in about 1998 (I think)
so I don't really no about the controller.
Also I have two drives, so do you mean the controller in the
drive? If so it might depend which drive was master?
If its a software 'driver' type controller then I would assume
mine has been updated somewhere along the line.
Anyway 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating'
so I am going to devise a test to determind what difference
there is in having a data transfer task split over two drives!!
half_pint
with an eye to putting zonealarm on drive d: (slave) to see if
this 'slow loader' would load any quicker from their.
I must say I was rather surprised to find it was already running
from drive d: !!! Especially since I only added drive d: yesterday
and I am 99.95 certain I didn't change it!! Infact I am not was looking
for the registry entry for the start-up progs just know and I could not
find it!! so I doubt I found it yesterday!
Curiously something called PowerPro is also set to run from drive
d: (although it is unchecked).
I am pretty mystified! I though perhaps it auto configured itself
and that I addidently ran it from drive d: however I just ran it
from drive c: and it still shows as drive d: in msconfig?
Actually (I am thinking out loud) I have a hunch it is not actually
ran via the msconfig startup list! I think it runs from else where!
And here it is! windows\all users\start menu\programs\startup
Actually its a link so I can try running it from d: :O)
And see what happens (something nasty no doubt!!!).
--
---------------
regards half_pint
Jeff Richards
W9x, regardless of the controller. Windows 9x kernel services are not
re-entrant and do not support overlapped I/O.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP W95/W98
news:rsl5205q82bec45qc...@4ax.com...
Bill in Co.
> Anyway 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating'
Speaking of which....when are you gonna ship us that new operating system you
told us about (you know, "the one you designed"), half pint? (We need that
windows replacement of yours)!
!!! ROFLMAO!!!
half_pint
"Bill in Co." <no...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:#BqNMQG7...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
It will be ready next Friday :O|
>
>
half_pint
any quicker.
I booted in 1:50 against 2:00 all aprox measurements which tend
to vary anyway, I am not really any the wiser.
Was that a round about way of saying W9X is sh*te?
"Jeff Richards" <JRic...@msn.com.au> wrote in message
news:OM#cvMG7D...@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
Jeff Richards
detect.
Windows 9x carries a lot of baggage from Win3.x and its history as a DOS
shell. That includes relatively unsophisticated I/O processing, at least by
current standards.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP W95/W98
"half_pint" <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bvv4h8$10uh76$1...@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de...
J...@no.komm
"Jeff Richards" <JRic...@msn.com.au> wrote:
>It might not be true for other operating systems, but it is still true for
>W9x, regardless of the controller. Windows 9x kernel services are not
>re-entrant and do not support overlapped I/O.
It all gets lost in the translation when you face the fact that you
*can* access two drives on the same ribbon at twice the total throughput
than you can one. That's a fact.
half_pint
<J...@no.komm> wrote in message
news:o6u620lsphpqdfckl...@4ax.com...
> In message <OM#cvMG7D...@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl>,
> "Jeff Richards" <JRic...@msn.com.au> wrote:
>
> >It might not be true for other operating systems, but it is still true
for
> >W9x, regardless of the controller. Windows 9x kernel services are not
> >re-entrant and do not support overlapped I/O.
>
> It all gets lost in the translation when you face the fact that you
> *can* access two drives on the same ribbon at twice the total throughput
> than you can one. That's a fact.
There seems to be a difference of opinion here, whats the definitive
answer?
Jeff Richards
for increased total throughput, but that wasn't the question. The question
was whether 'only one disk can be in use at a time'. This is the case -
Windows 9x has to complete one disk access request before it commences the
next one: there cannot be two current disk access requests. Other operating
systems do support multiple simultaneous disk accesses. Whether or not the
drives are on the same channel or even on the same controller doesn't
matter. Recent improvements in controller design do not affect this
limitation.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP W95/W98
<J...@no.komm> wrote in message
half_pint
from MS or from a drive manufacturer or whatever.
I will try some experiments when I have more time.
--
---------------
regards half_pint
"Jeff Richards" <JRic...@msn.com.au> wrote in message
news:#fTKNLP7...@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
Bill in Co.
> I think I would like to see an 'offical' answer to this, either
> from MS or from a drive manufacturer or whatever.
>
> I will try some experiments when I have more time.
Did you try oiling those HD bearings yet, to quiet down the drive, half pint?
half_pint
little fooka won't work at all :O(
--
---------------
regards half_pint
"Bill in Co." <no...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:#7T4fzQ7...@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
PCR
Startup Group...
http://www.pcmag.com/ 's StartUpCop has "undo", and it is more than a
combination of "START, Run, MSInfo32, Software Environment, Startup
Programs" and "START, Run, MSConfig, Startup tab". It can even do a
permanent delete. You may create multiple "profiles" of Startup items.
................Start.....of a StartupCop help screen.............
Windows loads startup items from three locations in the Registry, two
lines in WIN.INI, and two folders. Observation reveals that it always
loads the seven groups in the same order. Here they are, in order:
1. Registry (Machine Service) - Each value in the Registry key
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\RunServices
defines a startup item. The value's data string is the command to be
executed at startup.
2. Win.ini (Load=) - The value of the Load= key in the [Windows] section
of WIN.INI consists of one or more startup program names, separated by
semicolons. Neither long filenames nor command-line arguments may be
used. (Windows NT users - see note below)
3. Win.ini (Run=) - The value of the Run= key in the [Windows] section
of WIN.INI consists of one or more startup program names, separated by
semicolons. Neither long filenames nor command-line arguments may be
used. (Windows NT users - see note below)
4. Registry (Machine Run) - Each value in the Registry key
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run defines
a startup item. The value's data string is the command to be executed at
startup.
5. Registry (Per-User Run) - Each value in the Registry key
HKEY_CURRENT_USER\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\RunServices
defines a startup item. The value's data string is the command to be
executed at startup.
6. Common Startup Group - Each shortcut in the common startup group (by
default, C:\Windows\All Users\Start Menu\Programs\Startup) is launched
at startup. This group does not appear on the Start menu. Some Windows
installations will not have a common startup group.
7. Startup Group - Each shortcut in the Start menu's startup group (by
default, C:\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\Startup) is launched at startup.
Startup Cop displays each item's group number in the Priority column.
Within each group, enabled items are shown first, then disabled items,
and finally items that are ready for removal. The groups load in the
order specified, and enabled items within a group will load in roughly
the order shown, though this may vary. Because the order of the items is
significant, Startup Cop does not permit sorting into different orders
by clicking the column headings.
...snip
.................End......of a StartupCop help screen....
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcr...@netzero.net
"half_pint" <esboell...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bvur87$vrd5q$1...@ID-204080.news.uni-berlin.de...
Jeff Richards
one (unless that other disk is significantly slower) even though Windows 98
cannot take full advantage of the arrangement in the way that some other
operating systems can. Whether you can actually identify the performance
improvement is a different question.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP W95/W98
J...@no.komm
"Jeff Richards" <JRic...@msn.com.au> wrote:
>Spreading your files across two disks is likely to be faster than using just
>one (unless that other disk is significantly slower) even though Windows 98
>cannot take full advantage of the arrangement in the way that some other
>operating systems can. Whether you can actually identify the performance
>improvement is a different question.
Access of two files at the same time can be up to 20x faster on separate
disks than on the same disk.