Really cool I.E. 5 Registry hack for increased speed ...

Toejam31

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,989
0
20,780
<A HREF="http://www.amd3d.com/articles/iboost.htm" target="_new">http://www.amd3d.com/articles/iboost.htm</A>

I'm running Win2k SP2 with an ADSL modem and I.E. 5 SP2 (5.00.3315.1000). This hack really made a big difference in the webpage loading speed ... and it didn't cause any corruption. I suggest that you give it a try, restart the computer, come back here, and watch the pages fly! ZOOM!

Toejam31

<font color=purple>If there was a reason for everything, having faith would be redundant.</font color=purple>
 

Toejam31

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,989
0
20,780
Oddly enough, after trying different settings, I still have faster load times using the original settings of six and eight. I tried 16, 20, and 32. 32 was the worst, as if I hadn't applied the hack at all. Perhaps there's a limit that Win2K will allow ... or an optimal setting.

I've noticed, previously, that when I use a Download Manager, that the maximum amount of servers it can contact for simultaneous downloads is seven. I wonder if there is any correlation?

Anyway ... for me, the original hack produces at least twice the original loading speed, while the other settings seemed negliable. Interesting. I'll try out some other settings and see what happens.

Toejam31

<font color=purple>My Rig:</font color=purple> <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847</A>
 

James35

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
367
0
18,780
Try this, I also altered this part. Don't know if it works or not, but, I ..um, kinda went bezerk with the numbers now and punched in 400 :)

and I'm telling you it is like lighting now. For a 56k.
but as I said dont know if this helps but try it and see.

I also went to. HKEY_CURRENT_CONFIG/SOFTWARE/MICROSOFT/WINDOWS/CURRENTVERSION/INTERNETSETTINGS. And apply the same settings there.

See if that helps. make sure they are matched between the two thou, so you dont forget.
 

Toejam31

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,989
0
20,780
400!! That's insane!!

I like that in a person. ROTFLMAO!

Okay ... I figured, what the hell ... let's give it a try, Toe. But I did you one better; I went in every Internet Settings folder in the Registry and duplicated the values. After all, if you are going to fubar the Registry, might as well do it in a big way. Right? <GRIN>

Yep ... it's faster.

You can't argue with success!

How do I like the P4? Hmmm. How do I put this?

It's very fast! And the whole system is really stable; even more so than when I was using a 440BX chipset and a PIII. With Win2K as the OS, multi-tasking is a breeze. Graphics and streaming media look very good, and that includes games. With none of the lockups that AMD/VIA users regard as a normal, daily event. I won't go there again unless AMD starts making killer chipsets, and cuts VIA loose.

Without overclocking, I got a 5740 in 3DMark2001, which isn't bad for Win2K. P4 + GeForce3 ... excellent.

I also like the fact that it runs cool; average temp at full load ... 86.4F. No complaints on that score.

I know that upgrading will require a new mobo, but it's likely that it'll be at least a year or two before I'll begin thinking in that direction, and by that time, I'll expect I'll be pricing 3000MHz procs, or even faster, with a 1600MHz FSB. That's my guess, anyway. Until then, I'm satisfied.

By the way ... the BNC connectors? It didn't make a difference. The picture looks better, but no dice on the refresh rate. I'm waiting on the 12.80 drivers to see if they'll be an improvement. The 12.41's are just signed versions of the 12.40's, and the 12.60's are nothing special, with a screwed up .inf file.

See ya ...

Toejam31

<font color=purple>My Rig:</font color=purple> <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847</A>
 

Toejam31

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,989
0
20,780
Update: 12.60's are slower than the 12.40's. The 12.41's are almost exactly the same speed as the 12.40's.

James ... I had problems today using 400 as the DWORD value. Some sites would not load completely. Perhaps it's different with dial-up, but strangely enough, the original hack still produces better speed for me, which was contrary to my experience last night. (But I was tired, so might I be forgiven? LOL!) So I'm once more back at the beginning. Comments?

Toejam31

<font color=purple>My Rig:</font color=purple> <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=6847</A>
 

James35

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
367
0
18,780
Thanks for the tip on the 12.60's and your forgiven lol

dunno on the 400. Could be a dialup thing, and I just dont have the speed to mess up with ? lol

but I'll keep this in mind and let you know when I get the 128 wireless going in a couple of months.
Am going back on the road in two days 'Long haul Trucking'
and while im out there im taking the whole system with me into the truck and run some tests and see how it holds up under those conditions. 'thinking' ok maybe a couple of weeks before I am back on. once i get teh wireless installed on the truck I'll run the test and see if I die on the page loads.

You did set it the same under both areas I described up top yes?
As im havinga few beers prior to me going back on the road and zero sleep in the past two days, I sincerly hope this makes sense.
 

James35

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
367
0
18,780
Ok ,obviously it took affect 'beer' so I didnt read the post prior to update.
on the 400 I thought well what the hell too. lol
I am huge fan of just blowing new hacks all outta proportion to see how far I can go before the flames of hell hit my system. lol

As I was reading the post above the update got me to thinking, in a slushy kinda way. That maybe it is simply the connection itself?

Reason I'm saying this is, I'm running two isps at 56k and ran a tracert on won.net to see why one was dramatically slower than the other.
Come to find out the lines on sprint link and some other do dah line are dragging badly,where as the AT&T lines are not. checking this and thinking on that after the 400 was installed. I was getting the same drag you had just described. So reset it to 400 and do a tracert on the new york hubs then find one going to the west coast and note the ping times.
On one of the isp's that is using an AT&T line to won.net its running 220 average ping, whereas I run the other 'using a sprintlink line' its average ping is 780.
Not a thing is switched between them and they are both leaving the server at the same rate of 160ms the moment I get to New York is when I hit a wall with the sprinklink and the mystery line.

Something to consider.
My next system I am going to test, is the P-4 setup. 'Reading on the nforce chipset has me wondering now'...
But, if I'm to run a full blown system in my truck, I dont want to have to play constently with the system to make it run right, need it to run right, outta the box, the first time. So even with the crush chipset coming. I am still fearing bugs from it.
I am glad to hear its running smooth with minimal problems.

And of course whats the point of owning a 3 grand system if you can't beat the tar out of it right? :))))

By the way did you try changing the moniter drivers?