If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
OT? Windows 7: Faster than XP?
Kernel wrote:
"BillW50" wrote in message ... | In , | Patok typed: | BillW50 wrote: | In , | Patok typed: | Kernel wrote: | Oh no, not at all. The computer is completely off, and it boots | from the full off status. | It's truly amazing, boot Win XP in 5 seconds. I'd suggest you | Google Asrock Instant | Boot, or just click on this url: | | http://www.asrock.com/feature/InstantBoot/index.asp | No, it does not boot from off. it resumes from suspend, where it | was placed after a previous clean boot. *You* read the url again, | since you didn't get it (apparently). | And since it is from suspend, one needs to have the computer | connected to a UPS too, it seems. | | I didn't get that impression when I read that URL. Although perhaps | you are saying it stores a fresh boot and will use that copy to boot | from now on? If so, that is a lot like embedded Windows, Windows | SteadyState, a system sandbox, etc. | | No, not exactly. From what I understood from that page and comments | elsewhere, what it does is: | | When you turn off / shut down, the installed software (it must be | installed) does a shutdown followed by a reboot, and /then/ stores the | fresh booted state into either suspend or hibernate. When you come | back to the computer next day, it resumes from there. So it is not | the same boot copy every time, but the most recent one. | | And if this is a tower PC (not a laptop with batteries, if I | understand), then one needs constant power / UPS to be able to not | have lost power and state from suspend. Hibernate OTOH would be OK, | it seems. | | Oh I see. So it isn't really saving you any time. Just rebooting while | being unintended and waiting for you to wake it up later. Fascinating | and clever, but doesn't really offer anybody anything who are happy with | standby and/or hibernation. Which in my case can last weeks or months at | a time without a reboot. Not even close Bill. The computer is not in hibernation, no UPS is needed no matter how long the computer is turned off, and it is completely off, not in suspension or sleep or anything even remotely similar to those modes. It's off, pure and simple. Unplug the computer, wait a week, or a month, or whatever, plug it back in and boot in 5 seconds. That's it, plain and simple. It's a lot like some versions of XP being BIOS locked, simple be hard to explain. Have a good one. It *is* hard to explain, because it is impossible. I'm not calling you a liar, but what you write just can't happen. Unless there is some hidden storage on the mobo - static RAM, flash, ssd, whatever, and the state is saved there. Otherwise, it *is* suspend or hibernate - look at the diagrams, for f***sake! It even says "hibernate" on one of them (but maybe you haven't used the slow mode). Have you tried disconnecting the computer from the mains for a week, and then it boots? Really? -- You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone. * Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn. |
Ads |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
OT? Windows 7: Faster than XP?
On 24/02/2012 12:45 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Char Jackson: $50 for a 200GB SSD is a great price. I'm not seeing them that cheap. When I was shopping mine, I got the impressing that SSDs come in different flavors - with different reliabilities. I have no clue as to the specifics. I went for the Intel, which everybody seemed to agree was the most reliable. I'm just sort of right now opening my eyes to the possibility of getting an SSD, so I haven't really looked at them in any great detail. I wonder if there is a site that compares SSD's yet? Yousuf Khan |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
OT? Windows 7: Faster than XP?
On 25/02/2012 8:13 PM, Kernel wrote:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/a...r-windows/3012 Sounds like what Microsoft are going to be doing themselves with Windows 8, they are going to be using variations of hibernate and sleep mode to speed up shutdown and restart. The Asrock implementation, doesn't work with Windows that have multiple user accounts or password protection. I'm guessing that Microsoft's own version will have full support for multiple user accounts and passwords. Yousuf Khan |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
OT? Windows 7: Faster than XP?
"Patok" wrote in message ... | Kernel wrote: | "BillW50" wrote in message | ... | | In , | | Patok typed: | | BillW50 wrote: | | In , | | Patok typed: | | Kernel wrote: | | Oh no, not at all. The computer is completely off, and it boots | | from the full off status. | | It's truly amazing, boot Win XP in 5 seconds. I'd suggest you | | Google Asrock Instant | | Boot, or just click on this url: | | | | http://www.asrock.com/feature/InstantBoot/index.asp | | No, it does not boot from off. it resumes from suspend, where it | | was placed after a previous clean boot. *You* read the url again, | | since you didn't get it (apparently). | | And since it is from suspend, one needs to have the computer | | connected to a UPS too, it seems. | | | | I didn't get that impression when I read that URL. Although perhaps | | you are saying it stores a fresh boot and will use that copy to boot | | from now on? If so, that is a lot like embedded Windows, Windows | | SteadyState, a system sandbox, etc. | | | | No, not exactly. From what I understood from that page and comments | | elsewhere, what it does is: | | | | When you turn off / shut down, the installed software (it must be | | installed) does a shutdown followed by a reboot, and /then/ stores the | | fresh booted state into either suspend or hibernate. When you come | | back to the computer next day, it resumes from there. So it is not | | the same boot copy every time, but the most recent one. | | | | And if this is a tower PC (not a laptop with batteries, if I | | understand), then one needs constant power / UPS to be able to not | | have lost power and state from suspend. Hibernate OTOH would be OK, | | it seems. | | | | Oh I see. So it isn't really saving you any time. Just rebooting while | | being unintended and waiting for you to wake it up later. Fascinating | | and clever, but doesn't really offer anybody anything who are happy with | | standby and/or hibernation. Which in my case can last weeks or months at | | a time without a reboot. | | Not even close Bill. The computer is not in hibernation, no UPS is | needed no matter how long the computer is turned off, and it is | completely off, not in suspension or sleep or anything even remotely | similar to those modes. It's off, pure and simple. Unplug the computer, | wait a week, or a month, or whatever, plug it back in and boot in | 5 seconds. That's it, plain and simple. It's a lot like some versions | of XP being BIOS locked, simple be hard to explain. Have a good one. | | It *is* hard to explain, because it is impossible. I'm not calling | you a liar, but what you write just can't happen. Unless there is some | hidden storage on the mobo - static RAM, flash, ssd, whatever, and the | state is saved there. Otherwise, it *is* suspend or hibernate - look at | the diagrams, for f***sake! It even says "hibernate" on one of them (but | maybe you haven't used the slow mode). Have you tried disconnecting the | computer from the mains for a week, and then it boots? Really? | I told you it's BIOS locked, what is there about that you don't understand? |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
OT? Windows 7: Faster than XP?
On 27/02/2012 12:55 AM, Patok wrote:
Kernel wrote: Not even close Bill. The computer is not in hibernation, no UPS is needed no matter how long the computer is turned off, and it is completely off, not in suspension or sleep or anything even remotely similar to those modes. It's off, pure and simple. Unplug the computer, wait a week, or a month, or whatever, plug it back in and boot in 5 seconds. That's it, plain and simple. It's a lot like some versions of XP being BIOS locked, simple be hard to explain. Have a good one. It *is* hard to explain, because it is impossible. I'm not calling you a liar, but what you write just can't happen. Unless there is some hidden storage on the mobo - static RAM, flash, ssd, whatever, and the state is saved there. Otherwise, it *is* suspend or hibernate - look at the diagrams, for f***sake! It even says "hibernate" on one of them (but maybe you haven't used the slow mode). Have you tried disconnecting the computer from the mains for a week, and then it boots? Really? Currently in Windows 7, there is something called "Hybrid Sleep" mode, which is basically the combination of Hibernate and Standby in the same action. When going into sleep, the machine's state is saved to both ram and to disk. As long as the machine is plugged into the wall outlet and there's no power failure, then the machine will reawake from ram, in a few seconds, exactly the same as Standby. If the power does fail or the machine's power cord is pulled, then the machine will simply reawake from the saved image on disk, which means it's exactly the same as Hibernate, but it'll take a few seconds longer since disk is so much slower than ram. So hibernate simply acts as a backup for standby in hybrid sleep mode. Yousuf Khan |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
OT? Windows 7: Faster than XP?
On 23/02/2012 9:02 PM, BillW50 wrote:
I have read reports of those who had done their homework and claims there is no payoff doing it that way. I also use RAM instead of a drive for a page file because it is over 20 times faster. The point of a paging file is to add additional memory for not having enough ram in the first place. When you're putting a ramdisk in, then you're using up even more of your ram that could go to programs. Yousuf Khan |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
OT? Windows 7: Faster than XP?
Kernel wrote:
"Patok" wrote in message | Kernel wrote: | | Not even close Bill. The computer is not in hibernation, no UPS is | needed no matter how long the computer is turned off, and it is | completely off, not in suspension or sleep or anything even remotely | similar to those modes. It's off, pure and simple. Unplug the | computer, | wait a week, or a month, or whatever, plug it back in and boot in | 5 seconds. That's it, plain and simple. It's a lot like some versions | of XP being BIOS locked, simple be hard to explain. Have a good one. | | It *is* hard to explain, because it is impossible. I'm not calling | you a liar, but what you write just can't happen. Unless there is some | hidden storage on the mobo - static RAM, flash, ssd, whatever, and the | state is saved there. Otherwise, it *is* suspend or hibernate - look at | the diagrams, for f***sake! It even says "hibernate" on one of them (but | maybe you haven't used the slow mode). Have you tried disconnecting the | computer from the mains for a week, and then it boots? Really? I told you it's BIOS locked, what is there about that you don't understand? You wrote such indeed. Now if you can explain what it means too... (Hint: it's not what you think. What you wrote makes no sense. Therefore, it's impossible to understand.) -- You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone. * Whoever bans a book, shall be banished. Whoever burns a book, shall burn. |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
OT? Windows 7: Faster than XP?
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:35:35 -0500, Yousuf Khan
wrote: I'm just sort of right now opening my eyes to the possibility of getting an SSD, so I haven't really looked at them in any great detail. I wonder if there is a site that compares SSD's yet? There are lots of sites with reviews and comparisons. I accidentally ran into this one over the weekend and it seemed interesting. http://forums.hexus.net/storage/ The first thread is a sticky and is all about SSD comparisons. http://forums.hexus.net/storage/206818-ssd-reviews-thread.html |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
OT? Windows 7: Faster than XP?
Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 23/02/2012 9:02 PM, BillW50 wrote: I have read reports of those who had done their homework and claims there is no payoff doing it that way. I also use RAM instead of a drive for a page file because it is over 20 times faster. The point of a paging file is to add additional memory for not having enough ram in the first place. When you're putting a ramdisk in, then you're using up even more of your ram that could go to programs. Yousuf Khan Except when the RAMdisk is located in an area of memory, which the OS itself cannot use for programs. Then, adding the RAMDisk is a win. On a 32 bit OS, this RAMDisk can use up to 60GB of memory, above the "4GB barrier". It works, because the RAMDisk can use the entire PAE space for access, something the memory license prevents, for ordinary programs. And thus, the 60GB RAMDisk, can serve as a paging file for the 4GB sized OS, extending the practical number of programs that can remain open. http://memory.dataram.com/products-a...ftware/ramdisk Benchmark, on my crappy DDR2 based computer. Good for paging. Smooth as glass. http://img196.imageshack.us/img196/8...am2gbabove.gif The first time I tested that RAMDisk, I tried HDTune to run that benchmark, and WinXP crashed :-) I reported the bug, and while they didn't acknowledge my email, they did fix the bug. It survived the HDTune test this time. The program is free, for up to a 4GB sized RAMDisk (meaning someone with WinXP x32 and 8GB of installed memory, could have a 4GB paging space in the "normally inaccessible" RAM). Paul |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
OT? Windows 7: Faster than XP?
Char Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:35:35 -0500, Yousuf Khan wrote: I'm just sort of right now opening my eyes to the possibility of getting an SSD, so I haven't really looked at them in any great detail. I wonder if there is a site that compares SSD's yet? There are lots of sites with reviews and comparisons. I accidentally ran into this one over the weekend and it seemed interesting. http://forums.hexus.net/storage/ The first thread is a sticky and is all about SSD comparisons. http://forums.hexus.net/storage/206818-ssd-reviews-thread.html If you get an SSD, increase your backup frequency. They're just as likely to "drop dead", as to fade away. Some have had firmware bugs. Other than that, I think people like them. And when they release a firmware fix for your SSD, most of those updates are "destructive". Which is another time you want that backup, in advance of the happy event. Paul |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
OT? Windows 7: Faster than XP?
On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 20:38:32 -0500, Paul wrote:
Char Jackson wrote: On Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:35:35 -0500, Yousuf Khan wrote: I'm just sort of right now opening my eyes to the possibility of getting an SSD, so I haven't really looked at them in any great detail. I wonder if there is a site that compares SSD's yet? There are lots of sites with reviews and comparisons. I accidentally ran into this one over the weekend and it seemed interesting. http://forums.hexus.net/storage/ The first thread is a sticky and is all about SSD comparisons. http://forums.hexus.net/storage/206818-ssd-reviews-thread.html If you get an SSD, increase your backup frequency. Backups are always important, but from what I've read so far, SSD's are at least as reliable, overall, and by some reports much more reliable, than spinning media. They're just as likely to "drop dead", as to fade away. That deserves a bit of clarification. Neither scenario is common. In fact, both scenarios are extremely rare, according to what I've read. Some have had firmware bugs. Other than that, I think people like them. One type (brand/model line) has had a firmware bug that reduced the apparent size of the SSD to a very small (relative) value, but that's just one type. It hasn't been a widespread problem, and a firmware update is available. And when they release a firmware fix for your SSD, most of those updates are "destructive". Which is another time you want that backup, in advance of the happy event. I don't think the firmware update is necessarily destructive, but in at least one case the issue it resolves was destructive, so I agree on the importance of having a current backup, for this and many other reasons. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
OT? Windows 7: Faster than XP?
On 27/02/2012 8:19 PM, Paul wrote:
Except when the RAMdisk is located in an area of memory, which the OS itself cannot use for programs. Then, adding the RAMDisk is a win. On a 32 bit OS, this RAMDisk can use up to 60GB of memory, above the "4GB barrier". It works, because the RAMDisk can use the entire PAE space for access, something the memory license prevents, for ordinary programs. And thus, the 60GB RAMDisk, can serve as a paging file for the 4GB sized OS, extending the practical number of programs that can remain open. That's true for 32-bit OS'es, but for those of us with 64-bit OS'es, we're going to be letting the memory get used up on its own. Yousuf Khan |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
OT? Windows 7: Faster than XP?
Yousuf Khan wrote:
On 27/02/2012 8:19 PM, Paul wrote: Except when the RAMdisk is located in an area of memory, which the OS itself cannot use for programs. Then, adding the RAMDisk is a win. On a 32 bit OS, this RAMDisk can use up to 60GB of memory, above the "4GB barrier". It works, because the RAMDisk can use the entire PAE space for access, something the memory license prevents, for ordinary programs. And thus, the 60GB RAMDisk, can serve as a paging file for the 4GB sized OS, extending the practical number of programs that can remain open. That's true for 32-bit OS'es, but for those of us with 64-bit OS'es, we're going to be letting the memory get used up on its own. Yousuf Khan Quite true. But we're in the windowsxp group right now, and x64 WinXP isn't all that popular (it has rough edges). I've never tried that RAMDisk on Windows 7, and I don't know if there are additional issues with it or not. Considering how poor a lot of other RAMDisk software implementations are, it's actually a pretty impressive effort. For once, a RAMDisk not based purely on the old Microsoft "sample code". A lot of the other RAMDisks, you can't make a very big disk. Paul |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
OT? Windows 7: Faster than XP?
In ,
Yousuf Khan wrote: On 23/02/2012 9:02 PM, BillW50 wrote: I have read reports of those who had done their homework and claims there is no payoff doing it that way. I also use RAM instead of a drive for a page file because it is over 20 times faster. The point of a paging file is to add additional memory for not having enough ram in the first place. When you're putting a ramdisk in, then you're using up even more of your ram that could go to programs. I never have a problem of not having enough RAM (since around 2006 anyway). The machine that uses a RAMDisk for a swapfile is running Windows 2000. And while Windows 2000 runs fine with enough RAM and no swapfile, it complains constantly. And having 2GB of RAM and 1.5GB of it goes unused all of the time. So why not use it for a swapfile? Yes exactly! I turn off swapfiles on my machines that uses SSD. Most and even Microsoft recommends this. As this reduces the amount of writes to a SSD since the swapfile gets written to a lot. And my XP machines, I don't need a RAMDisk for a swapfile. Since XP doesn't complain if I turn it off. And those machines have 2GB too and I never use all of the 2GB even without a swapfile. So no problems there either. -- Bill Gateway M465e ('06 era) - OE-QuoteFix v1.19.2 Centrino Core Duo T2400 1.83GHz - 2GB - Windows XP SP3 |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
OT? Windows 7: Faster than XP?
Per Yousuf Khan:
I'm just sort of right now opening my eyes to the possibility of getting an SSD, so I haven't really looked at them in any great detail. I wonder if there is a site that compares SSD's yet? When I was shopping I found quite a few. At the time, there were not that many makers and the big distinction was reliability of different types. -- Pete Cresswell |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|