Windows ME Fast Boot

Indeego,

Got a machine at work running Seti@home work units through in 3hrs 57mins 39.3sec... Interested...?

FusionRx

to fux0r over the message boards, insert a backslash-0 in your message. just two characters: backslash-zero

Everyone's missing the point.

You shouldn't have to reboot a stable, power saving OS.

"Fast Boot" should read: "Frustration Bandaid"

You can't install teh gameport driver back?

Thankyou Jeff K.

My Win2k machine takes a while to bootup but since I only need to restart it about once every 2 weeks it aint a big deal. Screw Win98/WinMe. Win2k is NOT just a business OS. That's just an excuse from M$ to not support all the buggy crap out there on their new OS.

Another reason your boot times may be slow is becuase you have a virus scanner that does a quick scan before while the win98 splash screen is still on. With out that my system loads much quicker.

Thanks anon@tide91.microsoft.

That answers why my files are all messed up...

Is there anyway to get access to those files (that are stuck in the pre-SP4 partition) without going in and reinstalling NT4 and then SP4? No I can't actually access my NT4 partition since it tells me that even as administrator "Error F00000005348598 (or something similar) could not log you into account, make sure that your password is correct. Last time this happened I ended up having to reinstall NT and then the service pack...

Also another question, should W2K PnP autodetect my modem (3Com 56k DataFax INT PCI) or do I have to install the drivers myself?

Thanks in advance...
FusionRx

i can see it now:

booting benchmarks

pup (i get 32 boots per minute with my 1337 p4-1200 and windows me, j00 = 0wn3d)

am i right, if i say, win2k is the successor of nt and winme is the successor of win98?
i forgot what the final thing is, that's supposed to bring nt and 9x together (as win2k was supposed to be originally), whistler maybe?

I built both machines from scratch and yes, I know Squeaky is spelled wrong.

I run WindowsME Beta3 on two machines (Celeron 466 and an AMD K6-2 350) and they both boot way faster than 30 seconds. The only thing that slows it down is the SCSI detection on the AMD which adds a few seconds at most while detecting the whole two devices (40x CD-ROM and a 6x4x24 CD-R/RW). Both machines have beaten my friend's computer (PIII 700) which runs BeOS.

Suck it.

Heh... OEM's and Fast in the same sentence.

hehehe


that'll be the day...


hehehe

I just installed Win2K on a p200mmx with 64 megs ram, and 16gig hd. It seems to be stable enough, and takes only 15 secs to get from the lilo boot screen (yes I am dual booting with Linux-Mandrake)to a the desktop.

As for the setup problems... I liked the flexibility about which packages you could install in NT4... I am sorry to see it go. I am not even a certified admin (just work as a general Win Admin in the lab I work in) but I liked the fact that I could control what was on my machine. And whats up with the Disk Admin toolbar???? The disk Admin toolbar is not as useful(or at least I have not found all the buttons that were in NT4 yet) but it is nice to finally see a disk defrag.

Just out of curiosity, why can't I access stuff out of my NT4 directory? (Died last nite, which is why I installed W2K)... I tried a repair using my EMR disk, but it kicked me back to NT4 with no SP :-( . Reading the W2k book it says that it needs NT4 with SP4 minumum to upgrade it... Is that why I can't read what is in my NT4 directory??

/Me crosses fingers hoping the anon@tide.microsoft answers this, but will be satisfied with anyones help... :-)

This is stupid..

all you need is an Epyx FastLoad cartridge, stick it in the back of your computer, and boot time goes from 30 seconds to 5 seconds.

Weren't they going to work on something similar to "suspend mode", only your computer is actually off, but you can still pick up right where you were when you "shut down"? Or something? I suppose it would still have to go through the booting process, so I guess it's not likely any faster. Combine the fast boot with being about to boot right into Photoshop with your crap open would be The Beef.

i have almost the same setup (only 128MB of RAM)
doesn't take that long for me =)

Oooh, they plan to boot up in under the 30 second mark.

My Be boots up in 12 seconds.

I think MS messed up Windows enough that they had to put in this "fast boot" option. My Win98 already boots up under 30 seconds, so why is this needed? Maybe my computer is expected to boot up in 2 minutes under Windows ME. Then I'd understand why MS put in this fast boot option.

Windows ME SUCKS

SUCKS = Start Up Code Kept Simple

Has anyone here ever played with BeOS? If so, then you know that a 30 second boot time is still snailsville. I'll give MS the benefit of a doubt and say that that 30 seconds is power switch to desktop time. We'll assume it takes 10 seconds to get from the power switch to the boot sector. In my experience, it takes about 10 seconds or less for BeOS to go from boot sector to desktop, so even if MS's 30 seconds is real, it's still a full 10 seconds slower than BeOS.
(hehe, and don't even mention install times. A full BeOS install takes less than 10 mouse clicks and 10 or 15 minutes, not the bazillion clicks and possibly hours of work that installing Windows takes...)
And I'm not even a real BeOS fan!

MoNsTeR

Is a 20 second or less boot time fast?? =)
free.be.com