How fast does XP sp3 boot?
Sir please messaging me for windows 11 boot jugaad I am microsoft answers certified.
>>109701954about the same.Win7 is not far also, i remember getting 15 seconds once.people dont realize how much of a chokepoint those shitbox hdd were. use a ssd and those Windowses are 10x faster.
>>109701390There are probably linux dirtos that also boot fast.
>>109701390LMFAO no. You hit the power button. The energy star logo appears as your monitor starts warming up, the floppy drive makes this loud machine gun noise, and then you wait multiple minutes while windows 98 slowly loads from your mechanical harddisk into the 64mb of RAM you have. When explorer appears things are still loading in the background, your Pentium screaming to paint all the desktop icons, panels, controls etc.No, unless you had some weird setup where you were loading from ROM (and even that was expensive at the time) Windows 98 did not boot in six seconds.
>>109702322>Windows 98 did not boot in six seconds>did notnot the point
>>109702311Moving from a 5400rpm HDD to a Crucial M500 240GB SATA 6Gb/s on a Thinkpad T430s running Win 7 was genuinely mindblowing. Cold boot to working desktop in sub 30s. Can't remember the last time I experienced such an upgrade.
>>109701390You can make Linux boot as fast as long as you skip bootloader, don't use LUKS, boot from SSD.Also, how the hell did he manage to install Windows 95 on Ryzen 9900X platform? Sounds like a bs to me.
>>109701390Pointless endeavors
>>109701390Is that supposed to be impressive? My W11 boots in ~4 sec with no FastBoot.
>>109702322you may be clinically retarded. work on that reading comprehension
>being nostalgic for a trash OSlul
Guys I think OP posted this because Views to Likes ratio is shown because sites hide things like that nowadays
>>109702535No it doesn't, also w8+ does a thing where it doesn't fully boot but rather lets a lot of the stuff load past the point you see the desktop that used to be fully loaded by that point. Same hack type as fastboot.
>>109701390Is the joke that an absurdly old operating system runs insanely fast on a ridiculously powerful PC?
>>109701390>64GB ram, (1.8 usable)KEK, they are called wintoddlers for a reason
>>109702726The joke is that "absurdly" old operating systems have about the same and often more features than the new slop, yet run infinitely faster on the same hardware.
>>109702747kinda hard for 95 to use more than 4gb
>>109702797there's dozens of patches for that
>>109702797So don't install it on a machine like that?
>>109701390The irony is that it would have probably booted faster on older hardware.Modern CPUs have many cores, but individual cores are weaker than they used to be.Go back 8 years and you get CPUs with 5MHz or even more per core. That would be ideal for Windows 95 which can only ever use one core and doesn't have GPU support (renders everything with CPU)
>>109701390absolutely fake and gay zoomer slop
>>109702754>"absurdly" old operating systems have about the same and often more features than the new slopNo, they don't.
>>109703011Whatever helps you sleep at night, zoomzoom.
> Reddit post
>>109703032Ooof
>>109701390Damn, when I was a kid I remember my siblings and I getting mad at each other if we turned off the computer before another kid wanted it because it would be a good 15 minutes to fully shut down and boot up again.
>>109702831You have no idea what you are talking about. Firstly modern CPUs are very strong in single core performance compared to anything that windows 95 was ever intended to run on. Secondly. The actual amount of cpu time that is needed to boot windows 95 is in the tens of ms, the majority of the boot time is waiting. Drivers from that era use very conservative sleep delays whilst waiting for hardware to initialize.
>>109703391>can't read
>>109702747What do you need more for? Not like your playing crysis or something
>>109701954There was an extremely stripped down 200mb ISO that would reboot in under a second in virtualbox. Real hardware is a bottleneck.
>>109701390OH MY FUCKING SNOY! I'M RETROOOOMING!
>>109702311>hddsit wasn't as bad as it is nowat least the old systems had to optimize for hdd access patterns. with win10 1703 or so they tossed those optimizations out and you can really see the difference
>>109703739KINOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>>109703760>it wasn't as bad as it is nowit's not about access patterns you retard or whatever chatgpt regurgitated to you. it was about sheer access time where on ssd is instantaneous and old hdd is like 40ms aka 1000 times slowersee for yourself, use a ssd and go install XP in a vm, it's just lightning fast.
>>109703866i know you're going to argue bullshit so i'm not even gonna continue after this, so i'll leave you with this - if you install the first windows release and then a release past 2018 and compare them you'll see a big difference in how the system feels on HDDi'm sorry you feel that way or how the world made you or whatever
>>109701390How is that some big thing?Windows 10 starts pretty fast as well, maybe 30s.And Windows 7 is sub 15s often.
>>109703739Looks like Fisher Price
>>109702311I mean, these are fresh installs with nothing on them.
yeah and linux boots in less than a second if you optimize for it
>>10970139095 booting in 6 seconds is not impressive. I used to boot windows 7 in 10 seconds.
>>109702564>>109702349It's completely uninteresting that it boots fast now. It's unimaginably more powerful hardware.
>>109701390If only there was some kind of warning sign about importing 45 IQ inbreeders from the most backwards country in the world and giving them total control over our most critical IT/tech companies.
>>109702754Windows 95:No journaling filesystemMs branded Mosaic for the browser (Oh boy they just added jscript or whatever abomination Microsoft came up with)Half assed process isolation (enjoy your blue screens)*No USB support OOTB* (Yup, that's extra.)No POSIXInsane TCP stackDoubly insane network sharing, Plan9 will feel more similar than anything modern except at least 9p2000 is a nice protocol.Forget about anything crypto, multimedia, or security related. You're lucky if your joystick port and sound card work.
>>1097069477 was the last serious version of Windows. Now it's just the legacy bloat for delivering WPF and ads.
a lotta angry hindu raperats up in here LMAO
>>109703739>my documents>my network place>my computer
>>109707436The expectations changed.>old>you own one computer>new>you own multiple computers
>>109701390>mobile screen recording of a desktop screen recording of a reddit video.What a sad state /g/ is in.
>>109707027Nice self-own lmao
>>109707521>you rent multiple computersFTFY
>ultra slow piece of shit spinny drive much slower than Australian internet>programs still start up faster than electron shit on a top of the line NVMelolhttps://youtu.be/NhZfThMv10Q&t=124
That's only slightly faster than my bloated Linux server with KDE. Windows 95 boot times weren't very good back when it was still relevant, because we didn't have no SSDs back then.
>conveniently left out the UEFI bullshit after turning on that alone takes as long as booting 11Everything nowadays takes a fuck long time to boot to load all the bloat
Google says 11 only takes 5 seconds to boot.
I used to press the power button first thing in the morning then go to the kitchen to make myself some coffee, finish it and return to my desk and win XP would STILL be booting.People don't remember how insanely slow HDD drives were.
>>109708910Wrong.With a Core 2 Duo and a 500GB HDD, XP boots in about 30 seconds total, including post.Source: we have such a PC at work for a CNC machine.If you're seeing boot times over a minute on XP, even with a HDD, it's user error. Or ancient hardware from the 90s.
>>109709044>core 2 duoThat's very late in the XP lifecycle anon. Already into vista, evenI'm talking about Pentium 3/4 era XP here.
>>109702322what is this mindset where someone posts something cool/fascinating and you immediately shriek NO! NO! IT DIDN'T HAPPEN! what the fuck is wrong with you bro seriously. where is your joy?
>>109709068Zoomers and their tiktok influencers have been a disaster for the human race.
>shitddit
>>109709068it's a jeet
>>109707027Realtek audio was always garbage. The audio only started work properly when we have got intel one on motherboards. Realtek is shit, and it didn't change, but back then it was most common. But we actually had good fucking audio with creative and others, which was nerfed with Vista. I don't remember joysticks, we had one long time ago but I never used it. It was stiff and junky, probably some cheapest shit. Maybe I should biy one and revisit to check if they were any good, but I assume that gameport age ones were that stiffy junk. I think these early usb probably might work with some usb 1-1.1 card. I don't know if usb 2 is supported by Win98.
>>109707818So, you are goomg to record a screen at boot time? You need some kind of capture card for that. Who will bother buying and setting this stuff to satisfy your snowflakes needs? Not everybody is a streamer.
>>109709044>implying the anon said anything about late era hardwareon actual hardware of the time people used it most it was longer - we had something like Pentium 4 or Athlon XP (my specifically was 1.7 Ghz). It was long, but not that long to make the coffee. Probably around 45s - 1m 30s. The numbers are taken from the ass, because we didn't measure that.
>>109709154a hdmi to usb capture card literally costs $10, you nigger
>>109709154>completely missing the very obvious point and going on about some unrelated bsWhat a sad state /g/ is in.
>>109709299>no argumentIt's OK to be tech illiterate, just stay away from /g/ and back to /x/ where you belong.
