Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > Bootup Times

Reply
Thread Tools

Bootup Times

 
 
Keyser Sze
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-05-2009
John Holmes <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> judith "contributed" in 24hoursupport.helpdesk:
>
>>
>>
>> What do people think are reasonable/acceptable/their own windows boot
>> up times - let's say until the windows startup process is all
>> complete - desktop icons all there - ready to go?

>
> My Toshiba laptop (2.8G, 1Gb mem) boots straight into the desktop in
> exactly 15 seconds. Ofcourse I don't run any services or programs on
> bootup but start them manually when I need them.


You ****! Wanna swap?
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeeCee
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-06-2009
"judith" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
>
> What do people think are reasonable/acceptable/their own windows boot
> up times - let's say until the windows startup process is all complete
> - desktop icons all there - ready to go?




Judith

It all depends on exactly how you define 'complete'

Valid or not I recently did some timing tests on a Laptop to show the owner
the need to install some more RAM.
(he didn't believe RAM could make that much difference, hence the need to
prove it)
The boot up was deemed 'complete' when the hard drive light stopped lighting
full time and settled down to the odd flicker.
This point was chosen as being the time when the Laptop was as responsive as
it could possibly be.
(i.e. to be useable without waiting for things to happen)

Now this Laptop was in reasonable condition OS wise (XP Home) but was 'slow'
because it lacked RAM.
CPU was a Sempron 3000 the 256MB RAM was down to 128 MB because someone had
set the onboard Video Cardto use the rest.
Configured like this it took 11 minutes to startup and be useable.
Cutting the Video RAM to 32MB (giving the OS 224MB) improved the startup to
7 minutes odd.
After adding a 1GB RAM (to give the OS 1224 MB) the startup came down to
just under 3 minutes
Using Auto Runs to disable as many of the startup programs as possible
reduced that to 1 minute 40 seconds.
(Timings are what I remember, the bits of paper with the actual figures have
long since been binned)

Needless to say the owner now saw the light and was happy to pay for the
extra RAM.
We reenabled the startup programs otherwise there would have been no AV etc
running.

As an adjunct to the above I have observed over many years now how early
versions of Windows running on the latest (at the time) hardware were quite
responsive.
However as the service packs and patches were applied Windows goes slower
and slower.
The only remedy apart from getting faster hardware is to add RAM and lots of
it.
For example give XP 1GB or more and it runs quite well even with SP3.

Vista of course is another animal all together.
Even with the maximum amount of available RAM (4GB in the case of 32 bit
Vista) Vista takes forever to start up.
As for those 'Vista Ready' Laptops with Celeron and Sempron CPU's and 512MB
of RAM!!!!!!
It will be interesting to see where MS goes with Windows 7 as with cheap RAM
so plentifull they can no longer hide behind the 'excuse' of paging slowing
the OS.


Best
Paul.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Florinda Golihugh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-06-2009
PeeCee castigated:

> "judith" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>>
>> What do people think are reasonable/acceptable/their own windows boot
>> up times - let's say until the windows startup process is all
>> complete - desktop icons all there - ready to go?

>
>
>
> Judith
>
> It all depends on exactly how you define 'complete'
>
> Valid or not I recently did some timing tests on a Laptop to show the
> owner the need to install some more RAM.
> (he didn't believe RAM could make that much difference, hence the
> need to prove it)
> The boot up was deemed 'complete' when the hard drive light stopped
> lighting full time and settled down to the odd flicker.
> This point was chosen as being the time when the Laptop was as
> responsive as it could possibly be.
> (i.e. to be useable without waiting for things to happen)
>
> Now this Laptop was in reasonable condition OS wise (XP Home) but was
> 'slow' because it lacked RAM.
> CPU was a Sempron 3000 the 256MB RAM was down to 128 MB because
> someone had set the onboard Video Cardto use the rest.
> Configured like this it took 11 minutes to startup and be useable.
> Cutting the Video RAM to 32MB (giving the OS 224MB) improved the
> startup to 7 minutes odd.
> After adding a 1GB RAM (to give the OS 1224 MB) the startup came down
> to just under 3 minutes
> Using Auto Runs to disable as many of the startup programs as possible
> reduced that to 1 minute 40 seconds.
> (Timings are what I remember, the bits of paper with the actual
> figures have long since been binned)
>
> Needless to say the owner now saw the light and was happy to pay for
> the extra RAM.
> We reenabled the startup programs otherwise there would have been no
> AV etc running.
>
> As an adjunct to the above I have observed over many years now how
> early versions of Windows running on the latest (at the time)
> hardware were quite responsive.
> However as the service packs and patches were applied Windows goes
> slower and slower.
> The only remedy apart from getting faster hardware is to add RAM and
> lots of it.
> For example give XP 1GB or more and it runs quite well even with SP3.
>
> Vista of course is another animal all together.
> Even with the maximum amount of available RAM (4GB in the case of 32
> bit Vista) Vista takes forever to start up.
> As for those 'Vista Ready' Laptops with Celeron and Sempron CPU's and
> 512MB of RAM!!!!!!
> It will be interesting to see where MS goes with Windows 7 as with
> cheap RAM so plentifull they can no longer hide behind the 'excuse'
> of paging slowing the OS.
>
>
> Best
> Paul.


LMARO
 
Reply With Quote
 
judith
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-06-2009
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 00:12:35 +1300, "PeeCee" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

<good stuff snipped>

>Paul.



Excellent - that was just the sort of info/discussion I was hoping
for.

What do you mean by "Auto Runs to disable as many of the startup
programs"

I have 2G memory XP SP3 - do you think upping memory would be
noticeable?
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeeCee
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-06-2009
"judith" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 00:12:35 +1300, "PeeCee" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> <good stuff snipped>
>
>>Paul.

>
>
> Excellent - that was just the sort of info/discussion I was hoping
> for.
>
> What do you mean by "Auto Runs to disable as many of the startup
> programs"
>
> I have 2G memory XP SP3 - do you think upping memory would be
> noticeable?




Judith

Autoruns is a creation of Mark Rustinovich, the guy who discovered and
proved Sony was secretly infecting thousands of computers with Rootkits.
Mark now works for Microsoft but was smart enough to isolate his utility
programs from Microsofts 'Embrace and Engulf' policy.
A very bright guy.

Autoruns allows you to see just what applications and services are started
when you turn your PC on.
It is able to find quite obscure startup locations and show what is starting
up every time you turn your PC on.
It is not a program to go willy nilly unticking things without some
knowledge of what is what.
i.e. Some startups are necessary for the proper running of your PC and
should 'not' be disabled.
Downloadable from here
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/s.../bb963902.aspx

A safer alternative is Mike Lins 'Startup Control Panel' which creates an
icon in the Control Panel where you can disable startup items with relative
safety.
It doesn't list the deeper more harmfull startups that Autoruns does.
Can be obtained from here http://www.mlin.net/StartupCPL.shtml

With both programs the idea is by unticking the box beside each entry, when
Windows restarts Windows does not start the unticked program or service.
For example if your system tray has a Quicktime icon, unticking it in
Autoruns/SCP means the icon does not show in the system tray after
restarting the PC.
(though the next time you use Quicktime it is likely to reset this)
Therefore by stopping various services automatically starting when Windows
boots up you can find what is causing your PC to take so long to start.
Note you will need to do this in a rather methodical way, and somewhere
along the way you will have to choose between convenience and speed.
The names are not allways obvious either, use Google to find out what
something is.


As for your XP PC I would think 2GB is going to give you as much performance
as the hardware can give.
If you crave maximum speed then the only way to get this with any given
hardware is by simplifying what is loaded on your PC.
One has to remember a PC works by doing several things a little bit at a
time one after the other, the more things it has to do the longer it takes
before it gets back to start again.

Ideas:
Scan for Spy/Malware (A Squared, Spybot Search & Destroy, Ad-Aware etc)
Stop as many startups as possible.
Have a Net only PC for surfing / emailing etc & build / buy a seperate PC
for particular tasks eg video editing/ gaming/ photo editing & keep them
'simple'
Reinstall your OS afresh.
Remove all the pretty little add on's that Dell/HP & co have a bad habit of
installing as 'bonus' software.
Don't install any AntiVirus or Anti Spyware utilities (by implication you
can't then connect these PC's to the Net)
Stick to the first release version of XP (no service packs) unless there is
a hardware access issue that requires a particular service pack.
(Again by implication you can not connect these PC's to the net as the
average XP PC with the release version of XP on it will be infected with
Virus's in less than 10 minutes after connecting to the Internet)

As allways 'your mileage may vary'
If you are running an old pickup loaded with builders junk there is no way
you can make it go like a Ferrari!


Best
Paul.

 
Reply With Quote
 
hwf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-06-2009
judith wrote:
>
> What do people think are reasonable/acceptable/their own windows boot
> up times - let's say until the windows startup process is all complete
> - desktop icons all there - ready to go?


Unnaceptable. Thats why I use BeOS.

<nods>
 
Reply With Quote
 
judith
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-09-2009
On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 12:42:06 +0000, judith <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>
>
>What do people think are reasonable/acceptable/their own windows boot
>up times - let's say until the windows startup process is all complete
>- desktop icons all there - ready to go?



Thanks to all who responded with sensible suggestions and comments (no
thanks to the ****wits who responded with nothing to contribute)

I have got it down from two and a half minutes to just less than two -
but obviously still tweaking to be done.

I have also bought extra memory - really just because it was so cheap.

I built my machine two years ago - 2 GB XMS2-6400 cost me 114 GB
pounds

I have just bought another two gig - identical to previous purchase
and the total price was now 35 GBP !!!

(I know that XP will not use it all - but I may resurrect my VISTA 64
bit which I have never used after an initial attempt to)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Ammamaria Barwick-Morgin
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-09-2009
judith <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> ON MON, 05 JAN 2009 12:42:06 +0000, JUDITH
> <JUDITHSMITH@LI3V.........CO OMG.......UK> WROT3:


> THX TO AL WHO R3SPOND3D WIT SENSIBL3 SUG3STIONS AND COMENTS (NO THX TO
> TEH FUKWITS WHO R3SPONDED WIT NOTHNG TO CONTRIBUT3)


> I HAVE GOT IT DOWN FROM TWO AND A HALF MINUTES TO JUST L3S THAN TWO -
> BUT OBVIOUSLY STIL TW3KNG TO B DONE OMG.........


> I HAV3 ALSO BOUGHT 3XTRA MEMORY - RILY JUST B/C IT WAS SO CH3P
> WTF.........


> I BUILT MAH MACHIEN TWO YERS AGO - 2 GB XMS2-6400 COST M3 114 GB
> POUNDS


> I HAV3 JUST BOUGHT ANOT3HR TWO GIG - IEDNTICAL TO PREVIOUS PURCHAS3
> AND TEH TOTAL PRIEC WAS NOW 35 GBP !!2!3?!!


> (I KNOW TAHT XP WIL NOT US3 IT AL - BUT I MAY RESURECT MAH VISTA 64
> BIT WHICH I HAV3 N3VER US3D AFTER AN INITIAL AT3MPT TO)


Flick your bean for me!
 
Reply With Quote
 
unrefined igloos
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-09-2009
judith <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> On Mon, 05 Jan 2009 12:42:06 +0000, jtdiuh <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wtore:


> Tkanhs to all who responded wtih slnsibee snggestious and ctmmenos (no
> tkanhs to the ftckwius who responded wtih nnthiog to ctntribuoe)


> I hvae got it dwon form two and a hlaf menutis to jsut lses tahn two -
> but olviousby slitl tneakiwg to be dnoe.


> I hvae aslo bhugot ertxa mrmoey - rlaley jsut bscauee it was so caehp.


> I bliut my mnchiae two yraes ago - 2 GB XSM2-6400 csot me 114 GB
> pdunos


> I hvae jsut bhugot aeothnr two gig - iaenticdl to pueviors psrchaue
> and the tatol pcire was now 35 GBP !!!


> (I konw taht XP wlil not use it all - but I may rcsurreet my VTSIA 64
> bit wcihh I hvae never uesd aetfr an iaitinl aptemtt to)


'Let's be freined'?
 
Reply With Quote
 
deplorable fart hole
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-09-2009
judith <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> Mon, 05 jan 2009 12:42:06 +0000, http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)> wrote: on mon, 05
> jan 2009 12:42:06 +0000000, judith <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote: on mon,
> 05 jan 2009 112:42:06.


> All who responded with nothing to thanks to thanks to contribute)
> thanks to all who responded with sensible suggestions and contribute)
> thanks to the ****with sensible suggestions and comments who responded
> with sensible suggestions and contribute) thanks to comments (no
> thaanks.


> From tweaking to be done. i half minutes than tweaking to just less
> than two and a have got it done. i half minutes to just less to be
> down from two and a half minutes than tweaking to just less than
> tweaking to just less than two.


> Bought extra memory - really just because it was so cheap. i have also
> cheap. i have also cheap. i have also bought extra memory - really
> just beecause.


> Built my machine two years ago - 2 gb pounds i built me 114 gb pounds
> i built me 114 gb pounds i built me 114 gb pounds i built me 114 gb
> pounds i bbuilt.


> The total previous purchase and ther two gig - identical total price
> was now 35 gbp !!! i have just bought another two gig - identical
> previous purchase and ther two gig - identical price was now 35 gbp
> !!! i have jjust.


> Xp will - but i may resurrect my vista 64 bit which i have never use
> it which i may resurrect my vista 64 bit all - but i may resurrect my
> vista 64 bit which i may resurrect my vista 64 bit which i have never
> use it which i may resurrect my vista 64 bit whiich.


Judy, Judy, Judy... mind the door don't whack you in ya big fat are arse as
ya leave sweety <ta ta>
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What slows Win2k bootup, how can bootup be made faster? Rolf Computer Support 5 05-29-2007 08:11 AM
Forms Authentication Fails some times and not some times??? =?Utf-8?B?bWF2cmlja18xMDE=?= ASP .Net 0 03-28-2006 10:48 PM
SetAuthCookie works some times and fails some times? =?Utf-8?B?bWF2cmlja18xMDE=?= ASP .Net 0 03-23-2006 09:24 PM
Boot Times and Recycle Times Moo Digital Photography 3 11-20-2004 12:31 PM
Why is the Constructor called 4 times but the Destructor 5 times? djskrill C++ 9 10-01-2003 07:18 PM



Advertisments