Optimize Your Windows 2000/XP PC For Audio
not exactly a pulsar tip, but some readers here may have trouble doing a clean install of XP. Sometimes booting from the install CD the setup does not load drivers capable of reading the other files off your CD. depending on your hardware, Mobo and BIOS settings.
There is a way to run the Setup program on the CD having booted with a DOS floppy, but the more reliable way is to download (using another machine!!) an exe which will create a set of six setup floppies for XP from here:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.as ... &ID=310994
You can boot from the first of these, and it will then run XP setup quite reliably.
There is a way to run the Setup program on the CD having booted with a DOS floppy, but the more reliable way is to download (using another machine!!) an exe which will create a set of six setup floppies for XP from here:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.as ... &ID=310994
You can boot from the first of these, and it will then run XP setup quite reliably.
a note on FAT32/NTFS formats
I would now definitely take NTFS. I can't stand the scandisks after a crash. WinXP doesn't always do it automatically when it's required or when errors on the disk have been created. I now do scandisk myself often, but a good scandisk requires reboot :/
Might be that FAT32 is faster, didn't notice the difference. I do notice FAT32 scandisks and the bother me cos disk errors are a source of system instability. NTFS prevents disk errors.
More important, I think, could be the cluster size on your disk. A cluster is the smallest group of collected 0's and 1's on your disk. A pc needs at least one cluster per file, it cannot ie. put 5 6kB samples into one 64k cluster. A 33k file will take 2 32k clusters on pc.
So I took 8kB cluster size for my samples disk, which contains all very small files. Got a 64k cluster size for my backup partition, which contains most larger files. Cluster sizes are also restricted to certain disk sizes, FAT's can contain only a certain amount of clusters/file allocations.
Does this make sense to anyone?
atomic.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: atomic on 2002-02-13 22:56 ]</font>
I would now definitely take NTFS. I can't stand the scandisks after a crash. WinXP doesn't always do it automatically when it's required or when errors on the disk have been created. I now do scandisk myself often, but a good scandisk requires reboot :/
Might be that FAT32 is faster, didn't notice the difference. I do notice FAT32 scandisks and the bother me cos disk errors are a source of system instability. NTFS prevents disk errors.
More important, I think, could be the cluster size on your disk. A cluster is the smallest group of collected 0's and 1's on your disk. A pc needs at least one cluster per file, it cannot ie. put 5 6kB samples into one 64k cluster. A 33k file will take 2 32k clusters on pc.
So I took 8kB cluster size for my samples disk, which contains all very small files. Got a 64k cluster size for my backup partition, which contains most larger files. Cluster sizes are also restricted to certain disk sizes, FAT's can contain only a certain amount of clusters/file allocations.
Does this make sense to anyone?
atomic.
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: atomic on 2002-02-13 22:56 ]</font>
Yes, there is nothing wrong whith NTFS!
If you are in Video post-pro business, where you get larger files like 4Gb files, fat32 can´t even read them. Also, NTFS leads to a more stable system, when your "C"-drive is formatted that way... There are always lots of optimization advices, but I haven´t heard of a total catastrophe, where important data was lost, when formated whith NTFS!
Regards!
Sunshine
If you are in Video post-pro business, where you get larger files like 4Gb files, fat32 can´t even read them. Also, NTFS leads to a more stable system, when your "C"-drive is formatted that way... There are always lots of optimization advices, but I haven´t heard of a total catastrophe, where important data was lost, when formated whith NTFS!
Regards!
Sunshine
-
- Posts: 2310
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Canada/France
cant you just boot from a dos floppy
even with ghost on it ?
even with ghost on it ?
On 2002-02-12 05:31, marcuspocus wrote:
The only thing with NTFS, is that you can't backup using ghost on the same machine... DOS doesn't read NTFS att all... But one could live with that! I have chosen NTFS right from the start, and don't regret it!
-
- Posts: 2310
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Canada/France
Yes you can do that, but you still won't see the ntfs drive, it won't even appear at all! Dos DON'T see NTFS at all.. . It is a partition of type 'unknown'... So you cannot access it by booting on a flopy, you can ghost it if you had a network thou... Using another W2K/XP computer to host the data. Then to restore you would have to have a network bootrable floppy to access that server and read the previously made ghost file using network. So NTFS is not an issues using network, but cannot be accessed by a floppy at all.
-
- Posts: 2310
- Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2001 4:00 pm
- Location: Canada/France
- Gordon Gekko
- Posts: 1105
- Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2002 4:00 pm
- Location: paname
Hey Subhuman how are you 
(...getting ready to order that A16Ultra
...)
Questions for you:
1. can I install two separate Windows XP boots?
I want one with all my stuff (for graphics, games and other stuff) and one with JUST cubase, pulsar, etc. no internet connection even. super minimal install to get the best audio performances.
2. If so, do I need to partition my drive or can they both run on the same one?
Thank you for your help!

(...getting ready to order that A16Ultra

Questions for you:
1. can I install two separate Windows XP boots?
I want one with all my stuff (for graphics, games and other stuff) and one with JUST cubase, pulsar, etc. no internet connection even. super minimal install to get the best audio performances.
2. If so, do I need to partition my drive or can they both run on the same one?
Thank you for your help!
Lately I was at borg's place. I noticed that a Mac only loads anything until you actually activate it. It loads LAN drivers when it needs to load network connections for Explorer.
Now, WinXP has also 'manual' loading in Services. I have loads of Services set to 'manual', but some Services seem essential and this according to their Dependencies. They need to be activated first, and sometimes with some time delay (like contacting ISP for IP or so). Some Services crash here sometimes for that reason. When I'm playing with the OS again.(better word is testing ;] ).
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: at0mic on 2002-04-26 08:42 ]</font>
Now, WinXP has also 'manual' loading in Services. I have loads of Services set to 'manual', but some Services seem essential and this according to their Dependencies. They need to be activated first, and sometimes with some time delay (like contacting ISP for IP or so). Some Services crash here sometimes for that reason. When I'm playing with the OS again.(better word is testing ;] ).
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: at0mic on 2002-04-26 08:42 ]</font>
-
- Posts: 57
- Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 4:00 pm