well, I have made some space and time comparison tests between filedisk full vhd and and filedisk winntsetup-made wimboot vhd. not much of a difference, whether spacewise or timewise, or rather, if there is some space gain, it is wil full vhd. In spite of my inability to appreciate the wimboot preference with an internal wim file as opposed to good old wimb's wimboot which is external, I believe something could be gained if the Good Teuton and the Flying Dutchman worked in synergy. I also resorted to vhd_wimboot to tame some compression whims and caprices by winntsetup, which apparently does not like compression that much. Wimb has proved to be second to none in space-time synchretism, obviously with Alacrán's assistance.
Mini Windows made with WinNTSetupmini-vhd
Posted 3 weeks ago
Eureka! all the above problems were probably due to my applying Alacrán's latest wimbootcompress.ini in winntsetup, which is good for my wife''s laptop, not for my desktop. Once I resorted to the original version in winntsetup526, everything worked back like spick&span again. I have taken 2 days to realize it. that does by no means mean that the original version cannot be further modified. the wim nside system volume information has never been so small for me (950megs). so space gain possible. now let us see if it is also sensibly faster. in a bit.
Posted 3 weeks ago
well, speed-wise, it is definitely fast, it is hard to tell whether it is sensibly faster than full vhd, though. if I am not mistaken, wimb's original idea was to load in ram a lot of pointers and a few files and leave the wim file on another folder, on filedisk. it was designed for speed bootups on little-ram systems. of course, nothing or nobody dictates that it be used exclusively for the same purpose. it might as well cater for other configs and serve other purposes, if any, at least in my opinion, but I would beg anybody who differs to tell.
3 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users