Ibis

Didn't find anyone pointing this out, but Helvetica should be replaced with Arial, not MS Sans Serif, because Arial is MS version of Helvetica, Helvetica is the original and can be found on the Macs and such. Looks as far as I know almost exactly the same.

You have to enable more repositories, Universe and Multiverse, then you can install gstreamer-ugly or somesuch, that will enable you to play mp3s with any player using gstreamer (Rhythmbox, etc). Do read the documentation/Forum guides first, before you install Everything you want to know is there. And one thing, NEVER EVER ENABLE THE ROOT ACCOUNT. You don't need to whatever some guides say. "sudo" is better, and is what Ubuntu is supposed to use. www.ubuntuforums.org wiki.ubuntu.com

Of course he does, 98 isn't immune to intrusions in any way.

And for us with a language not supported by RVM that works very well.

Xubuntu, XFCE is better than Gnome/KDE for slower systems.

If they banned you, why not just take your punishment and behave better next time? I'm sure you must have done something to deserve the bans.

Yup, PATA = Parallell ATA, the big flat IDE-cables SATA = Serial ATA, the new smaller ones.

That's not a gene, that's evolution. Survival of the fittest. You could probably do it by shortening our lifespan to say 10 years, and make us able to breed around 5, thus evolution would go faster. But I don't think it would help us much to get used to our enviroment with machines, computers etc. They are still evolving much faster.

Is there anyone with a Windows installation that has the full usability of Prefetch still in it and could test so we get something to look at? My test are worthless, and so i gdoggs if he tested on a computer either without the standard disk defragmenter or the Task Scheduler service. Otherwise it's good I guess, but I don't think we can be sure and draw any conclusion until some more tests is done to see exactly what is needed for the full Prefetch. I'll start playing around in VPC and I'll post my results here. I'll begin with my current installation, just not remove the Defragmenter and see what happens.

True but if someone wants to confirm it they can try either or both. 1. Disable Prefetching, 2. Clean the Prefetch Folder, 3. Disable Prefetching and Clean the Prefetch Folder. That is probably best, as my installation might have screwed up the rest anyway

Well, one system says nothing, and not just one test either We need tests from many people to be able to draw any conclusion. My test is flawed as hell, so a new one would be good anyhow. It's not that hard really, no need to cleanse the cache if you have disabled the prefetch for testing anyway, cause it isn't used after that, so that should speed up any tests done, not cleaning the cache I mean. Oh then I see I always remove it because I couldn't se any reason to keep it when PerfectDisk is so much better. Hmm, might be that without the default defragmenter installed something is missing for the layout.ini to be created and PerfectDisk can't use it. Hmm, and when I think of it, I might not have run it in this version of my install :S EDIT: Yep, I have, on the fifth this month, so I guess it does need the default defragmenter installed. Or PerfectDisk lies I'll go and edit my test again.

Nope, no layout.ini which I guess is because I have no defragmenter and/or have disabled the automatic "layout-of-files"-thingie with nLite. No boot.pf either, although an NTOSBOOT-B00DFAAD.pf and a BOOTSTRAP.EXE-328DB08F.pf, and many other for applications. It really seems my test is flawed Ah well, someone else needs to take over, I'll edit my post to say that it's flawed. I don't want to reinstall a working windows just to test this :/ Edit: Done, if someone misses that, they are surely blind

It's nothing like that, I think it runs in the background, don't even know if there is any option to control it. I think bootvis does exactly that though, that you can run the optimization whenever you want, not just when it's scheduled. But power over what to place? No, just automatically after how they are used and accessed, which is the better way anyhow. Probably why Task Scheduler is needed for Prefetch to work as intended, and the defragment-program. Mastertech: Hehe, read my test again, after I tested with prefetch off and cleared the cache (I can only clear something that is there from the beginning, right ) I restored it from the backup I took, I have the files there, 129 if I can remember it correctly, maybe some hidden also. Prefetch works for me, not just the defragment part. I actually used the option in nLite to preserve Prefetch functionality.

I've had the prefetch on since I installed windows, that is a couple of weeks ago, I've done a number of reboots since then, so that can't be the case. I didn't just turn it on for this test. And I don't use the Windows Defragmenter, removed it with nLite so can't use that, I use perfect disk It places files by how much they are accessed, that should do. gdogg: I guess he's talking about that thing about Windows optimizing files for boot during idleness, there's a option in nLite to disable it, that's why I remember it.

Under 200MB what? :S ISO? Mine's at ~135 or some such But I understand what you mean and I think you're right. The less you have to load in the bootup and the less programs you use after, the less Prefetch does for you. And yeah, I need those services started, or else I loose functionality with some things, I'm not after the smallest Windows possible, but the smallest I can get without loosing any functionality I can't be without. I could probably kill a few more, but I haven't really looked into it (got any tips you can share by just looking at what I have there?) I think my gaming system is more up to your standard and there I haven't planned on using Prefetch either, but for my workstation OS, I couldn't live without it. I do so much in that, as opposed to the Gaming OS where I only do one thing at a time.

Still, with Prefetch turned off sure I won a second in boot time, but lost another when starting Firefox, which is just one of many programs I use daily, others are MSN Messenger, Foobar, Apache Server, Alcohol 120%, Thunderbird, Photoshop etc etc. And if that gain with Prefetch on is true for all those programs then I can't se any reason not to have it on. It does not just apply to the boot sequence. I'd say we need more and perhaps more precise tests before any real conclusion that works in most cases kan be drawn. Just five test each is to few to really smooth out the small differences in reaction from the tester etc. Someone with alot of time on their hands should run the test with 20-50 reboots with every option Btw, updated my previous post with my computers stats and Session.ini etc.

EDIT! THIS TEST IS FLAWED It has been confirmed that my Prefetch was not fully working, no smart placement of files to be loaded on the harddrive, this renders my test invalid and worthless, as it tells nothing about how Prefetch could help a working system with boot time. Prefetch still seems to work for applications and bootfiles loading though, worth to note. Except the smart placement that is. EDIT! THIS TEST IS FLAWED I've started my testings now, although I won't use bootvis, it's not on Microsofts homepage any longer and thus I won't use it. Instead I'm timing from when I choose Windows XP in the bootloader to where all the icons in the systray are loaded, and the IDE-lamp has stopped with its constant glow. It might not be as accurate as bootvis but the differences should nevertheless be seen. I've started first to measure my boot times as they are, with Prefetch on and the cache that has been gathered since the install of Windows. Those times are: 1: 42.8s 2: 42.6s 3: 42.6s 4: 42.7s 5: 42.6s Average: ~42.66s I'm now moving on to where I disable Prefetch in the registry, but I don't touch the cache itself. Those times are: 1: 42.0s 2: 41.9s 3: 41.7s 4: 41.7s 5: 41.9s Average: ~41.84s Observations so far: After disabling Prefetch in the registry I was left with a boot time 0.82s faster than with Prefetch enabled. This was without cleaning the cache, but I already now guess that it will have no affect on the result as I noticed that all the "symptoms" of prefetch being used was gone, that is that green progress bar going several times instead of not even one, and that programs once logged in took much longer time to load. I took notice to the time of just when I was past the classic login box that without prefetch the clock was at almost exactly 20s there, whereas as I can remember with prefetch it was around 30+, can't say for sure so I'll check that again later on. Still the times are almost the same, and I guess that if I would have started Firefox or Foobar in the situation where prefetch were disabled I would have had longer loading times than with prefetch on. I'll make a proper test of this later on, but I guess that what little time I've saved by disabling prefetch I have to give away again by longer loading times on my other applications. Anyway, onwards to the test where I clean the Prefetch-folder. Those times are: 1: 41.6s 2: 41.2s 3: 41.9s 4: 41.7s 5: 42.0s Average: ~41.68s As far as I can tell I was right about that the cache wasn't used when Prefetch was disabled in the register, the little speeddifference (avg. 0.16s) is better explained with more or less exact reactions from the tester in question, than any real speed difference. But my conclusions this far is that disabling Prefetch can, atleast in the case of my setup, shave of a little time from ones boot time. But I also tested to launch Firefox without and with Prefetch on (and the cache restored after I removed it). FF w/o Prefetch and no cache: 7.2s FF w Prefetch and cache: 6.3s Almost a seconds difference there. I should of course run som more tests to be more sure, but that was just one application of many, and if that applies to all my programs then I rather use Prefetch, because what I earned in disabling it I loose with just one application. Results: Prefetch ON: 42.66s Prefetch OFF: 41.84s Diff: 0.82s gained. Prefetch ON: 42.66s Prefetch OFF, no cache: 41.68s Diff: 0.98s gained (?). If you're unhappy about my test or/and the results, I suggest you do some testings yourself. I will continue to use Prefetch, I rather have my apps start faster than my Windows. Oh, just realized this means nothing if I don't write what kind of system I was testing it on Well, here it goes, with a little help of Everest. PS: Its an 2500+(1.83Ghz) overclocked to 2200Mhz, not 3200+ original. Computer: Operating System Microsoft Windows XP Professional OS Service Pack Service Pack 2 DirectX 4.09.00.0904 (DirectX 9.0c) Computer Name ANDREAS User Name Andreas Motherboard: CPU Type AMD Athlon XP, 2200 MHz (11 x 200) 3200+ Motherboard Name Asus A7N8X v2.0 Deluxe (5 PCI, 1 AGP Pro, 3 DDR DIMM, Dual LAN, IEEE-1394) Motherboard Chipset nVIDIA nForce2 Ultra 400 System Memory 1280 MB (PC3200 DDR SDRAM) BIOS Type Award (08/04/04) CPU Properties: CPU Type AMD Athlon XP 3200+ CPU Alias Barton CPU Stepping A2 CPUID CPU Name AMD Athlon XP 3200+ CPUID Revision 000006A0h CPU Speed: CPU Clock 2204.56 MHz CPU Multiplier 11.0x CPU FSB 200.41 MHz Memory Bus 200.41 MHz Chipset Properties: Motherboard Chipset nVIDIA nForce2 Ultra 400 Memory Timings 2.5-3-3-11 (CL-RCD-RP-RAS) Command Rate (CR) 1T My Session.ini is attached. Other registry tweaks applied: [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\FileSystem] "NtfsDisable8dot3NameCreation"=dword:00000001 "NtfsDisableLastAccessUpdate"=dword:00000001 "Win95TruncatedExtensions"=dword:00000001 "Win31FileSystem"=dword:00000000 [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\Advanced] "NoNetCrawling"=dword:00000001 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Policies\Explorer] "NoRemoteRecursiveEvents"=dword:00000001 [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\WOW] "DefaultSeparateVDM"="Yes" [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer\BrowseNewProcess] "BrowseNewProcess"="Yes" [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\ContentIndex] "FilterFilesWithUnknownExtensions"=dword:00000001 [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Explorer] "DesktopProcess"=dword:00000001 Services running: Programs autostarting: EDIT! THIS TEST IS FLAWED Last_Session.ini

If what he says is the truth, then it might be good for a thread to live, but yeah, it's a little irritating I say that we run some tests and go for that result.

This might be of interest: http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=51754&st=10# Calling ntldr and ntdetect for memory controller is just wrong, cause it has nothing to do with memory management, as stated by Microsoft themselves. After Windows has booted, ntldr and ntdetect is not used anymore. http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documen...mc_str_reii.asp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NTLDR http://billslater.com/teach/nt/cccpa/sec_5/sld007.htm

Ehm, ntldr and ntdetect, isn't that just part of the bootfiles for Windows, and has absolutely nothing to do with memory management, which should be a part of the kernel itself? So, doing what you are doing should do squat for the memory management in Windows XP.

Fixed! By not removing COM+, DTC and SENS, I can once more get the updates installed. Don't know exactly which one of those that did it though.

Sorry, I was wrong, what I thought was the solution wasn't it :/ So I still have this problem. Just tried with a non nLited installation in VPC and everything works ok. And so does my "old" nLite-version made with 0.998, but not the new one made with 0.999. Reuploading the Last Session.ini once more, but the WindowsUpdate-log is gone, removed it :/ Error code was 0x80240020 btw. EDIT: Have played around some more, has nothing to do with 0.999 (made a new one with 0.998, removed much here too, same result), it's just me that have removed something that breaks the installation of updates from WU. Now, to find out what

Nevermind, found the error, not in nLite nLite rawks EDIT: Nope, I was wrong, still have that problem. Updates from Windows Update gets downloaded OK, can install them from the WU -tempfolder, but WU can't install them. Just gives me 0x80240020 error in the log file :/ What have I removed that could give this kind of problem? Compability with WU was selected in the installation, well, not this Last Session.ini, but the two CDs I made before that, and they had the same problem Last_Session.ini