You are here

FFP for U3 vs FFP

3 posts / 0 new
Last post
wsm23
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 7 months ago
Joined: 2006-01-09 22:05
FFP for U3 vs FFP

I have been comparing FFP 1.5.0.6 to the U3 ver. 1.5.0.6 (updated from John's 1.5.0.4 U3)

It seem boot time on the plain FFP is twice as long as the U3 version. Both have the same profiles (I coppied them over to FFP).

Any reason?

Is the U3 version slimmer or use memory better?

I just found the Pegtop version of PStart for U3 and wanted to use the FFP withou the U3 if it was faster.

John T. Haller
John T. Haller's picture
Online
Last seen: 31 min 55 sec ago
AdminDeveloperModeratorTranslator
Joined: 2005-11-28 22:21
Bout the same

They actually use the same code on startup. Be sure you're comparing the same types of starts. A start of a profile from a new location (path changed) takes much longer than when it's being started from the same place it was last time (and, oddly, sometimes varies based on other factors I can't determine). Also, a secondary start (starting once off a drive. closing. starting again.) takes much less time as well as much of the info is cached. So, be sure to compare apples to apples. Even when comparing apples to apples, both will sometimes randomly take longer to start. And it seems that placement of the bits on the drive enters into play as well... at least sometimes.

I tested out FF for U3 (1.5.0.43 updated to 1.5.0.6) vs FFP 1.5.0.6 with my fully loaded local profile copied in unaletered both. Both running from my Geek Squad 1gb U3 test drive. They both took about 15-16 seconds to do an initial start.

Sometimes, the impossible can become possible, if you're awesome!

wsm23
Offline
Last seen: 10 years 7 months ago
Joined: 2006-01-09 22:05
Thanks.

I just was trying to speed up the boot time. I have trimmed my extensions down to what I consider my bare minimum, but it is still alot. I have 29.

Thanks again.

Life is about the journey not the destination!

The Kazoo Spartan

Topic locked