jaclaz

Have you looked for it? Go here: http://w2k.flxsrv.org/wlu/wluen.htm On the left click on "Manual Update", then select OS=Windows 2000 and "kind"=drivers, language English. Look for Intel Gigabit Network LAN Driver(v3) should link to: http://w2k.flxsrv.org/cgi-bin/dl.cgi?file=PRO2Kv3.zip&lang=en (but you need to get there from the main page). jaclaz

As a side note and just for the record, while that statement most probably applies to user 98SE. it is not entirely accurate, it is possible to run Windows 98 from a CD, using the (long gone) Qualystem Rescue setup, that makes use of a registry redirector and of the Franck Uberto's Ramdisk or other methods (also long forgotten). Whether this is a "smart" or "practical" thing to do is another thing, but definitely is possible, and a similar approach can be replicated using freely available software, though AFAICR there were only attempts for a minimal PE-like 98 Os and noone fully replicated the original Qualystem behaviour for a "full" OS. jaclaz

I a not particularly interested in what you will use it for, I was only pointing out how grub4dos is NOT Grub (nor Grub2) and you asked specifically for "a better tutorial for DOS 6.22/9X/ME/2K/XP with Grub4DOS", now you have it, do with it whatever you see fit. Of course not, I never test the tools or the booting methods that I (sometimes, and just a little) contribute to develop. The Gavotte's Ramdisk (AFAIK) is not a bootable Ramdisk (unlike Winvblock or Firadisk), and is - I believe - the only one actually "hooking" the past 3.x Gb ram for use as Ramdrive, not much choice here. jaclaz

Well, it's a different approach, if you want something more recent, but similar to sequoiaview, try: https://windirstat.net/ the kind of visualization with areas proportional to size is very intuitive, and (IMHO) graphically better looking than this view: http://www.jam-software.com/treesize_free/tree_map.shtml jaclaz

But possibly slower than a NT 4.0 in Ramdisk and around the same speed of a 2K in Ramdisk .... jaclaz

How exactly do you see your "profile" size? The usual (good ol') recommendation is to use a software like SequoiaView: http://www.win.tue.nl/sequoiaview/ Get it from here (seemingly the original download isnot working right now): https://matt.ucc.asn.au/mirror/ or from one of the other mirrors: http://www.filewatcher.com/m/Sequoia1_3XPInstall.exe.567003-0.html And have a look at what takes what space where. jaclaz

Naah, 72-73° is HOT in itself, but not as hot as it will be needed to damage the chip or - as in this case - the tin balls soldering, and most probably around what you can expect from one of those GO 7200/7400 cards. Notwithstanding what (hear-hear) Nvidia says about their GPU's being heat resistant up to 105°: http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/2752/~/nvidia-gpu-maximum-operating-temperature-and-overheating I would say that until you go over 85-90° it is fine, though the issue on the specific card, from what I could understand (and that I can remember) was about "prolonged" times at high temperatures, there is nothing to tell us whether the heat that is "sucked or blown away" from the cooler (top) doesn't somehow remain in the underside of the chip (please read as the stupid BGA) that couold even be at a higher temperature, simply because extracting heat from under the chip is more difficult . jaclaz

I believe that all you get is "New Simple Volume". jaclaz

Well you cannot make proper questions while making assumptions. Your question is VOID for not one, but TWO reasons : 1) there is NO such thing as an "active" partition on GPT 2) ALL partitions on GPT are "primary" ones [1] jaclaz [1] this is not actually 100% correct, as there is a "special" kind of partition (with an embedded MBR) that may in theory behave in a very similar way to an Extended partition, but in practice noone uses that particular GUI/format and I know of no OS that supports it.

There are still quitre a few BBS's accessible via Internet/Telnet, if you want to have the feelings of the good ol' times. http://www.bbscorner.com/ http://www.bbscorner.com/usersinfo/bbslists.htm And an IMHO interesting article, JFYI: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/11/the-lost-civilization-of-dial-up-bulletin-board-systems/506465/ jaclaz

As always when it comes to those stupid chips, there may be an issue also with the "thermal pad" that is used to connect to the cooler, maybe (have no idea) there are better quality (with higher heat transmission capacity) than the standard ones (just like there is better and worse thermal paste). And of course taking care of the fan and of the duct to be clean and open usually helps, I seem to remember that those "burned" DELLs had *anything* in the duct (hairs, dust, grease, etc.). jaclaz

As said earlier, most of the point about boot optimization, at least the part connected with the sequence of loading files, is derived more or less linearly from the difference between "random seek/read" and "sequential seek/read" of the underlying storage media. So in the mentioned good ol' times (PE on CD) the difference was dramatic (even for greatly reducing the queer noises that came from the CD seeking up and down), the same technique applied to (USB 2.0) sticks roughly reduced boot time to 1/2 or 1/3 s (very, very noticeable), on internal hard disks (connected via SATA or however fast buses and with modern largish read ahead cache on the hd itself) it became not so noticeable, I don't expect that much difference on a SSD, but of course it is a nice experiment to perform. jaclaz

Once upon a time you set the explorer view as you liked it, then closed the windows clicking on the right top cross icon while holding the CTRL key and the view setting was saved. But I am not sure it applies to NT 4.00 Is that what you are asking? jaclaz

As a side note, I remember repairing a couple of laptops with those stupid Nvidia boards, and had to reflow them (it only worked once), but it happened on DELLs running (from factory) a plain enough XP (BTW used mostly for office work/web browsing, not gaming or other form of high speed/resources graphics), and they "burned" nonetheless, and I believe XP required less graphic resources than Vista (Aero or not Aero). jaclaz

Are you trying to join the old grumpy people club? I can put a good word for you, if you are interested . 8 bit processors? LUXURY! Why in my day .... https://tinyapps.org/blog/misc/200702250700_why_in_my_day.html ... and we LIKED it! jaclaz

We are not talking of "generic schools", we are taking of "computer classes", where the people that tomorrow (or the day after tomorrow) will be likely qualified to maintain your personal system (or your bank system, or the system that runs traffic lights in your city, whatever) learn the base knowledge on how to do that. I was hoping that they were better educated by their teachers. I was not expecting (I know how schools have often older systems) times expressed in seconds, but 5-10 minutes, come on . jaclaz

Well, allow me to disagree, students in a computer class should have been taught how to speed up their booting, I see it more as a failure of the course than wasted learning time, if the teachers/instructors didn't manage to teach (in the remaining minutes after the looooong time to boot) how to optimize the system for faster booting (and/or if the students didn't decide to study on their own how to solve this evident anomaly) there is a problem. jaclaz

Naah, it's ok , it's the FSB clock that can be raised to 1066 Mhz, I thought it was the RAM, as there is DDRAM2-1066 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAS_latency#Memory_timing_examples jaclaz

Anyway it is 99% some "fake" news. It seems like it originated a couple years ago when someone saw the screen of a technician's laptop that (with some sense of humour) had an XP looking background. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/15/windows_xp_royal_navy/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/12/18/windows_for_warships_not_on_queen_elizabeth_class_aircraft_carriers/ Hard to say how it re-surfaced. In any case some of HMS's do run a (obviously "special") version of Microsoft OS's: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/ukgovernment/2008/12/17/windows-for-submarines/ jaclaz

Any source for this? Not really my field of experience but I remember that clocking/CAS/etc. is tricky business. But 1066 mhz should be DDR2, shouldn't it? Post a link to your exact motherboard (and manual). jaclaz

I usually find RAM (and most other things) at the other end of a web search. Like here (example only): http://www.ebay.it/itm/1GB-MDT-DDR1-RAM-PC3200U-400MHz-CL2-5-64Mx8-M924-400-16B-Desktop-/281914586060?hash=item41a36b33cc:g:LZIAAOSw0HVWA-8x More seriously, do you really need a CAS latency of 2.5? (CL3's are more common and cheaper) jaclaz

And I didn't say exactly that, I meant that maybe a reboot in a VM may not be as "complete" as it is on real hardware and anyway (when compared to a direct access to a physical drive) there are added "layers" of *whatever* that may make a "cold start" very different from a "reboot". Of course comparing different OS's on a "same" VM makes a lot of sense, and of course comparing different VM's (to see which is faster) is nice, it is the comparing of Virtual vs Real that I see as not fully appropriate because a lot of things may be different in the way things work. jaclaz

Brought to you by the same guys that call "system" what everyone else calls "boot" and call "boot" what everyone calls "system", BTW . http://www.multibooters.co.uk/system.html jaclaz

If I may, comparing "real" machines with "virtual" ones is not really-really appropriate anyway. Maybe a virtual machine using direct physicaldrive access (as opposed to a - I believe that is what you use - a vhd/vdi/vmdk file) may give some more comparable results, but when using a virtual device such an image file it is likely that any kind of filesystem or OS or Virtual Machine cache may have a role in faster reboot times. jaclaz

It seems to me like a very good result . Warpdisk (AFAICT) is essentially a boot optimizer, as I read it (but I may well be wrong of course) all the stuff about defragmentation is the usual mumbo-jumbo and commercial bull§hit[1] but a read ahead cache AND making files sequential does make a big difference (the bigger the slower is random access times vs. random access ones). In the good ol'days of BartPE (and of real CD's) using a "sort.txt" with mkisofs did make miracles, by simply writing to the CDFS (where files are already contiguous by definition) the files in the exact same order they were requested by the booting OS. jaclaz [1]a file ( a single file) is either fragmented or it is contiguous, once every file in the boot sequence is made contiguous there is no fragmentation, the difference maybe in the contiguity (and right sequential order) of several files