topic title: antiX M7.2 beta
Posts: 17
djrsml
Joined: 24 Mar 2008
#1
I downloaded and installed the beta with no problems, it installed in less than 5 minutes on my computer!
There are a couple of messages that pop up while booting : (1) PCI failed to allocate resources #6 .....

(2) ACPI exception ....processor device not present.

Other than that everything seams to work just fine!
Posts: 316
DJiNN
Joined: 26 Oct 2007
#2
Same here..... all installed fine & working well. Love the new antiXcc thing. Reminds me of the TinyMe one, and it's just what's needed.
Posts: 17
djrsml
Joined: 24 Mar 2008
#3
Thats great!, I've just finished installing antiX 7.2 preview1 and it's looking good!
anticapitalista
Posts: 5,955
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Sep 2007
#4
Thanks for the feedback.

Could you try out, as a livecd, the various cheatcode options.

ie in the grub menu for preview1 there is an UltraLite option with vesa/lean/Xtralean cheats.
and let me know how fast boot is.

Please post your computer spec ie CPU, RAM etc

Thanks.

anticapitalista
Posts: 17
djrsml
Joined: 24 Mar 2008
#5
I came up with 1 min 10 seconds from the time that I press enter, until the login screen appears.
I have an Intel Celeron D 3.33 GHZ with 2 GBs of memmory. I believe that my cd drive is an IDE 48x
edit: ultralite option = 1 min 10 seconds
vesa option = 1 min 15 sec
lite option =1 min 5 sec
normal boot = 1 min 48 sec
Last edited by djrsml on 03 Apr 2008, 23:01, edited 2 times in total.
Posts: 316
DJiNN
Joined: 26 Oct 2007
#6
I've just tried it on my Zepto 6615WD (Core 2 duo 2ghz with 2 gig ram) and i'm not sure of the speed of the drive, but i got the following.

UltraLite - 1min 10 secs from start to Login screen
Lite - 1min 04 Secs from start to Login.
Normal - 1min 24 secs from start to Login.

So, not a great deal of difference between them at all on this machine, and the Lite booted slightly faster than the UltraLite??

Anyway, i shall also be testing on several other machines to see if there's any difference, and i'll post the details asap.

Love the look though. __{{emoticon}}__
Posts: 17
djrsml
Joined: 24 Mar 2008
#7
I've retested several times now (with more accurate means of timing) and have not been able to duplicate the 59 second start up.
It appears to be closer to 1 min 10 seconds.