Xiven

690 Posts
Location -
Joined 2000-05-21

#64574

2001-10-07 23:16

i only see System CMOS/real time clock on IRQ8
 
How could that possibly have an effect on speed?

0 0

SHS

1297 Posts
Location -
Joined 1999-07-16

OP

#64575

2001-10-07 23:23

AlecStaar you know how add in using the Registry Editor then reboot.

0 0

SHS

1297 Posts
Location -
Joined 1999-07-16

OP

#64576

2001-10-07 23:38

Xiven to tell you truth that very good questions I don't know one thing for sure it never dawn me to try System CMOS/Real Time Clock IRQ Priority I have always thougth wouldn't do anything boy was I wrong I guest should done that long time hehehe.

0 0

SHS

1297 Posts
Location -
Joined 1999-07-16

OP

#64577

2001-10-08 01:25

I hope hear good news from you AlecStaar on weather not it work for you.

0 0

Xiven

690 Posts
Location -
Joined 2000-05-21

#64578

2001-10-08 02:54

Tried it myself too. I think we can trust you
 
I dunno, Windows seems a bit "snappier" but it could well be my imagination... How could I really tell if there's been a speed increase?

0 0

SHS

1297 Posts
Location -
Joined 1999-07-16

OP

#64579

2001-10-08 03:00

don't your apps load faster?

0 0

Xiven

690 Posts
Location -
Joined 2000-05-21

#64580

2001-10-08 03:40

Maybe.. it's hard to tell though

0 0

Xiven

690 Posts
Location -
Joined 2000-05-21

#64581

2001-10-08 03:46

Actually ICQ does seem to start in about 1/2 the time as before.
 
Thanks for the great hack

0 0

Ekstreme

479 Posts
Location -
Joined 1999-10-30

#64582

2001-10-08 04:46

Has anyone tried this on NT4? NTDiagnostics doesn't actually show IRQ8 so I'm not sure if my System CMOS/real time clock is actually on that particular IRQ, but I guess it could be.
 
Thanks

0 0

Widow

40 Posts
Location -
Joined 2000-10-22

#64583

2001-10-08 18:04

Interesting. I have tried this on 2 seperate systems and it does seem to make the system snappier. The intersting thing is when I did a search of microsofts technet for infor about it I got nothing but a cryptic message at best; somthing to the effect of these options are not listed as they should not be changed by the user. Makes me wonder what other unknown settings aren't listed in Microsofts tech papers....anyway great tip...thanks...

0 0

CUViper

1117 Posts
Location -
Joined 2000-01-23

#64584

2001-10-08 18:10

anybody done benchmarks yet to measure the difference?

0 0

Xiven

690 Posts
Location -
Joined 2000-05-21

#64585

2001-10-09 02:02

Well I did some "benchmarks" on program startup times using a stopwatch (I couldn't think of any better way. Tested without the hack first (clean reboot, wait for all disk activity to finish) then with the hack.
 
Results are:
 

Code:

           Before    AfterICQ          4.81     4.12Mozilla      7.38     6.82Outlook      2.81     2.90PSP7         2.69     2.81

 
Hardly conclusive (and certainly not accurate), but it looks like it's pretty much even between the two.

0 0

Ekstreme

479 Posts
Location -
Joined 1999-10-30

#64586

2001-10-09 03:43

Well, I tried it under NT4 and I must say, things feel a bit snappier, but I really have no hard proof. Outlook seems to load a bit quicker, but everything else, just seems to feel a lil different. This could be my imagination though

0 0

reversing_drive

137 Posts
Location -
Joined 2001-07-26

#64587

2001-10-09 05:01

I thought i'd just say that there was no noticeable performance difference when i used the registry hack.
 
I'm sure different sytems have different response levels to the crack.
 
I Run on a Dell v400, PII 400, 128 PC100, 8mb 2x AGP. Win2K SP2.
 
I tested on ICQ2000b, Outlook 2000 & other apps.
 
I'm not saying it doesn't work, I'm sure it does, for one thing you seem so excited:D about it.
 
Maybe it'd make a difference if i had a PIII, or PC133 RAM or whatever the bottleneck in my sytem may be.
 
Cheers.

0 0

CrazyKillerMan

757 Posts
Location -
Joined 2000-10-14

#64588

2001-10-09 08:26

has anyone tried with XP ??

0 0

FrogMaster

450 Posts
Location -
Joined 2000-03-08

#64589

2001-10-09 23:47

Really weird
It seems that progs load faster ...
Tried:-
- 1stPage html editor, seems to load and quit twice faster
- PhotoShop, opens very fast, same for PaintShop Pro
- Quake3, loads so fast I can no longer see the console window with all the loading log stuff
Irq 8 is shown as being owned by realtime cmos on my system.
I am not sure it is subjective. Apps really seem to load faster.
Is there a way to measure this accurately?
I am puzzled...
If true, this is a great discovery

0 0

DrPizza

45 Posts
Location -
Joined 2001-03-01

#64590

2001-10-10 03:35

Makes no difference here whatsoever (which leaves me unsurprised). There seems to be no evidence of anything even reading such a registry key.

0 0

FrogMaster

450 Posts
Location -
Joined 2000-03-08

#64591

2001-10-11 23:39

Bump!
Anybody else tried it, tested, benchmarked?
Constructive answers please, no "I didn't expected anything from that" bullshit that do not bring any value-add...

0 0

OroTheGolden

5 Posts
Location -
Joined 2001-10-12

#64592

2001-10-12 08:22

Should I type the string in quotes or not?

0 0

FrogMaster

450 Posts
Location -
Joined 2000-03-08

#64593

2001-10-13 11:40

Just put the text below in a text editor and save as for example irq8.reg then double click on it to load it into the registry
 
REGEDIT4
 
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Control\PriorityControl]
"IRQ8Priority"=dword:00000001
 
Regards

0 0