New Pornstar Interviews - [more]
Tiny Khloe: 2026 Exxxotica Interview

"I’m attracted to people’s intelligence. I like some substance. I want to be able to hold a conversation."
All Forums > Tech Talk > Tech Talk Forum Page 60 > windows xp load time
AuthorPost
DreamWeaver
Member

288 Posts
10/02
Posted - Feb 4 2004 : 5:02PM
Is it normal for Windows XP to take 1 and 1/2 minutes to load? This is what I'm experiencing: When I turn off my computer and restart, the desktop screen appears very quickly and it appears the computer is ready for action, but when you try to run any programs, nothing opens (for example, you click on any desktop icon to launch the program but nothing opens). Then nearly 1 and a 1/2 minutes later, you hear the windows jingle play (that sound the computer makes when you first turn it on) and everything is accessible. Is this normal for windows XP to take well over a minute to load after the desktop screen is visable?

(I wont bother posting the specs, but keep in mind this is a new pc with decent power so I'm assuming this problem is linked to XP or some sort of applications running I'm not aware of on startup.)

Saki
At-Large

2087 Posts
11/99
Posted - Feb 4 2004 : 5:34PM
I wouldn't say that's unreasonable. Depending on what you have loaded on the PC, once you log in (the "Welcome (username) Loading Personal Settings..." screen), Windows loads all of the programs scheduled to run during startup (in the Startup menu and in the registry). In addition, some network programs (such as instant messaging) attempt to connect to the Internet before they give control back to the system. Finally, Windows XP caches (i.e. pre-loads) frequently used programs on startup. The idea is that your startup takes longer but the time to open up frequently used programs is decreased.

As time goes on, you'll probably find the startup time will get longer and longer. This is one of the biggest complaints about Windows...it's like a car with buildup on the fuel injectors.

Even with high performance systems with clean installations, I don't think I've seen one boot up in less than 20 seconds from log in. On the other hand, I have seen systems take around 3-4 minutes to become useful.

- Saki [faqs]

Saki
At-Large

2087 Posts
11/99
Posted - Feb 4 2004 : 6:07PM
If you feel adventurous, you can follow some of these tips. However, while many of the tips are completely safe, some are fairly risky. The guy does a good job pointing out the problems you may experience, but if you're not prepared to restore your system, I'd just leave things alone.

- Saki [faqs]

DreamWeaver
Member

288 Posts
10/02
Posted - Feb 4 2004 : 6:34PM
Thanks for the info Saki. At most times I just put my notebook into standby or hibernation mode so I can quickly resume my work. I completely turn it off twice a week so the lengthy loading period is only a minor annoyance.

I recently set up a new gateway PC for my parents and its full boot up time takes 20-25 seconds. Considering they're running identical operating systems, same specs and pretty much the same applications being loaded, it made little sense to me why mine would take 4 times the loading time.

I'm not interested in restoring my system if I bugger things up so I'm content leaving things as they are.

Thanks again.

Saki
At-Large

2087 Posts
11/99
Posted - Feb 4 2004 : 8:43PM
Desktops, in general, have faster system busses (transferring data from the CPU to memory), faster memory, and faster hard drives than laptops. Also, even slight variations in the quantity of memory installed makes a big difference. Finally, different hardware manufacturers tend to customize the WinXP configuration, even between different models, so an apples-to-apples comparison can't really be made.

- Saki [faqs]

 
jamesn
Senior Member

Cambridge, MA
750 Posts
1/04
Posted - Feb 4 2004 : 11:35PM
In addition to saki's accurate explanation, your prefetch settings make a big impact on startup times. I'd be irresponsible to offer you specific advice on your own setup, but I'd at least google it and tinker with them when you get a chance-xp's defaults aren't optimal for lots of people. Other than that, your bios and how it loads have nothing to do with windows, but some companies put out slower ones than others i suppose-james
daviangel
Member

Only time I would buy a girl flowers is if she was in the hospital
455 Posts
1/04
Posted - Feb 5 2004 : 3:10AM
You hit the nail on the head. That's exactly why MS no longer let's you download bootvis:
"Please note that Bootvis .exe is not a tool that will improve boot/resume performance for end users. Contrary to some published reports, Bootvis .exe cannot reduce or alter a system's boot or resume performance. The boot optimization routines invoked by Bootvis .exe are built into Windows XP. These routines run automatically at pre-determined times as part of the normal operation of the operating system.

If you are an end-user seeking to resolve issues for boot/resume performance on your PC, we recommend that you contact the vendor from whom you purchased the PC. For information from Microsoft on specific issues, you can search Knowledge Base for Windows XP product issues related to "resume time." Knowledge Base is a free information service available at: http://support.microsoft.com/?scid=fh;[ln];kbhowto
"
personally all 8 of my desktops average under 30 sec but then again i custom built all of them. The fastest is obviously my opteron with 15,000rpm scsi drive that is pretty much instant. The only thing that beats it is my apple powerbook which IS always INSTANTANEOUS. Have alook at any mac laptop if you ever get a chance and you'll just keep wondering why the hell can't windows do that will all their billions! :

DreamWeaver
Member

288 Posts
10/02
Posted - Feb 5 2004 : 4:55AM
Saki, I don't know why but I changed my mind and tinkered around with many of the steps this "blackviper" guy suggested. I thought you might find it interesting that my loading time has not changed from the alterations. Best case scenario, I may have shaved 5-8 seconds off.
mookiemeister
Super Cool Dude

181 Posts
7/02
Posted - Feb 5 2004 : 6:23PM
I remember my older PCs with Windows 95 and 98 use to take 1 to 2 minutes to bootup. Usually it's due to a lot of stuff that got installed and then uninstalled. I'm speculating that some didn't get cleaned up 100% so that's why the bootup time kept on increasing. The only remedy I know is to wipe clean the OS and reinstall.

My current PC has XP Pro. I just timed it and it took about 30 seconds to bootup and 30 second to shutdown. Shutdown time has increased dramatically from around 5 seconds to 30 seconds because I've installed a bunch of new hardware. Also, my system has a reinstall of OS from less than 1 month ago. I had to reinstall OS twice last month because of OS instability.

"The lover knows much more about absolute good and universal beauty than any logician or theologian, unless the latter, too, be lovers in disguise." - George Santayana

daviangel
Member

Only time I would buy a girl flowers is if she was in the hospital
455 Posts
1/04
Posted - Feb 5 2004 : 7:23PM
"Usually it's due to a lot of stuff that got installed and then uninstalled. I'm speculating that some didn't get cleaned up 100% so that's why the bootup time kept on increasing. The only remedy I know is to wipe clean the OS and reinstall."
yeah pretty much this goes back to being an OS specific(windows) problems since anyone here that uses linux or macosx knows that installing/uninstalling programs doesn't usually slow down your computer. The main culprit is the windows "registry" which is supposed to keep track of all the programs you install/uninstall not to mention a lot of other things. And you have to remeber that it's pretty much a database type structure and anytime you remove stuff it's going to get fragmented and slow. So if you're stuck with windows your best bet is windows longhorn which comes out in about 2years since it finally get's rid of the registry!



Jump To: