Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Windows ME hard drive access time?

Feb 17, 2004 8:14AM PST

Hi:
I want to know is there anyway to improve my hard drive access time, so I can write my file to hard drive faster? I already use a big cache on the hard drive to improve accessing.

Another question. I know is improssible. But is there anyway I can run windows me under ntfs partition? If yes. It will be run much faster.

Regards

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re:Windows ME hard drive access time?
Feb 17, 2004 9:32AM PST

1. Read about RAID setups. This is the current "cheap" way to eek some speed.

2. No.

Bob

- Collapse -
Re:Re:Windows ME hard drive access time?
Feb 17, 2004 10:37AM PST

Do you mean I should add a second hard drive so I can use redundant array of independent disk?

Regards

- Collapse -
I see you've read about that.
Feb 17, 2004 10:39AM PST

It's one of the current methods to eek more disk speed.

Bob

- Collapse -
Re:I see you've read about that.
Feb 17, 2004 12:04PM PST

too bad that windows me can not run it at ntfs partition. FAT32 is just too slow, and security is not tie.

actually are there any method can improve the windows me speed accessing hard drive without adding a new hard drive?

I had been shut down some of the un-use programs. (Msconig)
adding caches to hard drive
over clock the cpu and add a super big fans to it.
disable all the un-use ports

The computer speed is Pentium-MMX 233mhz, and I overclock to 300mhz
ram is 544 SDRAM and EDO

If you know any method of increasing the speed please let me know, because i had been thinking of the RAID lately too. Actually the speed is okay now. But I want to see how far I can push the computer to the limit.

Regards

- Collapse -
On i233mmx machines.... You often find (always in fact) that more ram can be slower...
Feb 17, 2004 9:05PM PST

There were so many bottlenecks and "issues."

Let's take note "that ram is 544 SDRAM and EDO" brings up a design limitation in chipsets that hosted the i233mmx. Depending on the chipset and board, the L2 CACHED memory space was 64, 128, or 256 MB of memory. I think I saw a few boards that did 512MB, but you've gone past that.

What upset some was they discovered Windows ran in the high memory which in these machines was uncached by the L2 memory. You may want to rerun your benchmarks with exactly 128, 256 and exactly 512 MB. I gave away the office AMD K6-400 machines with exactly 128MB and so far a few have called back to ask why they run slower with more RAM. What's interesting is that not only did I put a note with the machines about this effect, but I even told them when they picked up the machine...

Anyhow, the other issue that I find is that many will not load the motherboard drivers. In your posts, you didn't reveal the make/model of things and now we are conversing about a machine you can't give away. Get over it that it's a dumpster model and I know too much about that era and will help you a little, but you have to help the forum by spilling the beans.

Bob