darkz Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 i might be confident that you're all high. in fact i am. what does it change? nothing. question is about boot time, not trust, remember? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercellus Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 i might be confident that you're all high. in fact i am. what does it change? nothing. question is about boot time, not trust, remember? The advantages of this "trick" are exactly that -- a trick. It is nothing more than a placebo effect. As already mentioned, your hard disk access times and the rate of speed in which the drive spins has a larger impact on your boot times compared to changing a setting in the System Configuration Utility. I don't see what the big deal is to shave a few seconds off your boot times... just use sleep mode if it really bothers you, or if your computer can't utilize sleep mode, grab a coffee or do something else while the computer starts up, there is no point in sitting in front of your computer with a stopwatch seeing how long it takes to start up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellofsouls Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 I am confident that Brandon knows what he is talking about. but The Random Guy with a chronometer who measured it himself should always be more believable than Microsoft, right? because they're not trying to sell you a product ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkz Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 The advantages of this "trick" are exactly that -- a trick. It is nothing more than a placebo effect. As already mentioned, your hard disk access times and the rate of speed in which the drive spins has a larger impact on your boot times compared to changing a setting in the System Configuration Utility.I don't see what the big deal is to shave a few seconds off your boot times... just use sleep mode if it really bothers you, or if your computer can't utilize sleep mode, grab a coffee or do something else while the computer starts up, there is no point in sitting in front of your computer with a stopwatch seeing how long it takes to start up. don't tell me what to do, k i'm wasting my time here just because i'm interested why my boot time got improved, but not for the others. or if simply others did not take their time to find out what they are talking about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellofsouls Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 The advantages of this "trick" are exactly that -- a trick. It is nothing more than a placebo effect. As already mentioned, your hard disk access times and the rate of speed in which the drive spins has a larger impact on your boot times compared to changing a setting in the System Configuration Utility. So the placebo effect can affect the performance of a chronometer? AFAIK, the cold boot up time is rather constant given a specific system. For example currently my XP system always boot up in 46 seconds, give or take a second only. I don't see what the big deal is to shave a few seconds off your boot times... just use sleep mode if it really bothers you, or if your computer can't utilize sleep mode, grab a coffee or do something else while the computer starts up, there is no point in sitting in front of your computer with a stopwatch seeing how long it takes to start up. Of course there's a point. The point is whether The Random Guy or Microsoft is more believable, one way or another (depending on who you take as Microsoft and who you take as The Random Guy) ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercellus Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 So the placebo effect can affect the performance of a chronometer? AFAIK, the cold boot up time is rather constant given a specific system. For example currently my XP system always boot up in 46 seconds, give or take a second only. Each boot time is different, for some it works and for some it does absolutely nothing. I'm sorry, but I just don't understand what the big deal is over how many seconds it takes a computer to start up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellofsouls Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 (edited) Each boot time is different, for some it works and for some it does absolutely nothing. I'm sorry, but I just don't understand what the big deal is over how many seconds it takes a computer to start up. Like I said, the big deal is "whether The Random Guy or Microsoft is more believable, one way or another (depending on who you take as Microsoft and who you take as The Random Guy)" ;) and obviously it's enough of a big deal to keep you talking here. :D more seriously though, it shows how much Microsoft knows what it is doing. Like I said, I don't care about boot time at all since I keep my Vista machine up 24/7 most of the time, but it's still interesting to see how clueless Microsoft can be at times, one way or another, the Microsoft KB or some Microsoft guy :laugh: if even just for some it actually works, then it means it's not just placebo effect, and some Microsoft guy may not know what they are talking about. if it doesn't work at all, it means some Microsoft KB don't know what it is talking about :D And at least for me "each boot time" is not really different, it remains more or less constant as long as the system is kept the same. Edited November 10, 2008 by wellofsouls Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Lyle Global Moderator Posted November 10, 2008 Global Moderator Share Posted November 10, 2008 It looks like it is worth a try. What is the harm in trying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gertin Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 It looks like it is worth a try. What is the harm in trying? Well, as others have pointed out (including Mark Russinovich) most of these guides are useless and potentially harmful. Not worth trying, unless your time is worth nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkz Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Well, as others have pointed out (including Mark Russinovich) most of these guides are useless and potentially harmful. Not worth trying, unless your time is worth nothing. oh come on, sounds like he didn't even read what he's talking about. 50% of that stuff mentioned works for me, and it's really strange (not to say, smells like lies) that it won't work for others. and harmful? wtf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperAFK Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkz Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 my argument is invalid, huh. care to explain why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperAFK Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 twas a joke good sir :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjf288 Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 oh come on, sounds like he didn't even read what he's talking about. 50% of that stuff mentioned works for me, and it's really strange (not to say, smells like lies) that it won't work for others. and harmful? wtf. Advanced performance mode works and will bring benefit as well as the risks involved with activating it. If your that hellbent on proving it then go ahead and video it on youtube. If Mark Russovich calls bull on it then thats pretty much the authority on it, Besides I've tried it and it booted at exactly the same time as it did without.. So stop getting angry over internet forums :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkz Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 no risks with an ups, and losing power is risky without advanced performance aswell. dunno bout russinovich, he surely is not an authority for me. well, bad for you just don't say this doesn't work, it just doesn't work for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperAFK Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 lmfao @ this thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raskren Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 The Knowledge Base article referenced in the first post is now gone. Thank goodness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperAFK Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 I'd hate to say I told ya so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkz Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 means i gotta start feeling like the chosen one. are there anymore tweaks out there that won't work for anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panacik Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 So, by logic, if puting the number of processors up, slowing down your machine, if you set the number of processors to zero, your machine should start in the blink of an eye! :rofl: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkz Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 So, by logic, if puting the number of processors up, slowing down your machine, if you set the number of processors to zero, your machine should start in the blink of an eye! :rofl: by that logic -- if you smash your machine with a hammer you shouldn't wait for it to start up at all :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryster Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 I'm with darkz on this whole issue. While I didn't perform any scientific measurements, when I made the settings change to 4, my system did FEEL like it booted quicker, and after entering my password everything seemed to load quicker. As for changing that setting being harmful, I'm not sure about that one. Setting it to less than the number of cores you've got will hinder performance, sure, but I can't see how setting it correctly would be harmful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ViperAFK Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 Windows uses however many cores you have by default so there's no way it will do anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkz Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 I'm with darkz on this whole issue. While I didn't perform any scientific measurements, when I made the settings change to 4, my system did FEEL like it booted quicker, and after entering my password everything seemed to load quicker.As for changing that setting being harmful, I'm not sure about that one. Setting it to less than the number of cores you've got will hinder performance, sure, but I can't see how setting it correctly would be harmful. well i didn't perform scientific measurements either, but a simple chronometer test can't be wrong and i believe it will only affect boot time between the post message and the blue orb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azz0r_wugg Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 http://www.withinwindows.com/2008/08/09/tw...-with-msconfig/ http://www.withinwindows.com/2008/08/09/tw...-with-msconfig/ http://www.withinwindows.com/2008/08/09/tw...-with-msconfig/ http://www.withinwindows.com/2008/08/09/tw...-with-msconfig/ http://www.withinwindows.com/2008/08/09/tw...-with-msconfig/ http://www.withinwindows.com/2008/08/09/tw...-with-msconfig/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts