Advice for fresh install

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by ::Nick::, Oct 31, 2003.

  1. ::Nick::

    ::Nick:: Guest

    I just installed windowsXP Pro on a fresh 5 gig partition

    intsalled on ...

    AMD 2500+
    512 DDR400
    SOltek SL-75FRN2-RL

    it takes like up to a minute to get into windows...

    It does a distinct pause when it lights up the KB lights.. just sits there
    thinking, the screen flickers sometimes .. like its initialising the VGA..

    I thought it would boot really quickly on this fresh setup..

    i have tried BootVis and it says that the Drivers are utilising alot of the
    boot time.. could it be doing stuff behind my back (innocent stuff but.)

    any thoughts, i havent really hada decent chance to change things,, but any
    headers would be good

    latest Nforce Drivers
    lateest Nvidia drivers (Geforce 3)

    I think those are the only drivers I have distinct control over..

    thanks in advance. :)

    Nk
     
    ::Nick::, Oct 31, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. In article <gbmob.4157$>,
    says...
    > I just installed windowsXP Pro on a fresh 5 gig partition
    >
    > intsalled on ...
    >
    > AMD 2500+
    > 512 DDR400
    > SOltek SL-75FRN2-RL
    >
    > it takes like up to a minute to get into windows...
    >
    > It does a distinct pause when it lights up the KB lights.. just sits there
    > thinking, the screen flickers sometimes .. like its initialising the VGA..
    >
    > I thought it would boot really quickly on this fresh setup..
    >
    > i have tried BootVis and it says that the Drivers are utilising alot of the
    > boot time.. could it be doing stuff behind my back (innocent stuff but.)
    >
    > any thoughts, i havent really hada decent chance to change things,, but any
    > headers would be good
    >
    > latest Nforce Drivers
    > lateest Nvidia drivers (Geforce 3)
    >
    > I think those are the only drivers I have distinct control over..
    >
    > thanks in advance. :)
    >
    > Nk


    Um. I am not entirely sure if I understand you right but I'll have a shot
    anyway.

    I had a problem with a huge delay between clicking on the user icon on
    the login screen and anything working on XP - "my computer" took >45
    seconds before it would begin to populate. Software wouldn't start or
    crash because it couldn't find its own files - you get the picture.

    I finally tracked the problem to networking. I have a NIC, and a
    satellite card installed as well as a dialup adapter and XP was trying to
    initiate LAN traffic over the satellite card (and maybe dialup as well).

    Unfortunately I can't even remember how I managed to rectify that :-\


    O.t.o.h., if your problem occurs _before_ the login screen, then I can
    only make the observation that the one other XP install I've seen on a
    Soltek based machine also takes ages to boot (Athlon XP 2700; brand
    spanking new install, took twice as long to boot as my own Celeron 1.3
    Mhz).

    hope that is in any way useful to you -Peter


    --

    Please note munged reply address - delete the obvious ....
     
    Peter Huebner, Oct 31, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ::Nick::

    Patrick Bold Guest

    "::Nick::" <> wrote in message
    news:gbmob.4157$...
    > I just installed windowsXP Pro on a fresh 5 gig partition
    >
    > intsalled on ...
    >
    > AMD 2500+
    > 512 DDR400
    > SOltek SL-75FRN2-RL
    >
    > it takes like up to a minute to get into windows...
    >
    > It does a distinct pause when it lights up the KB lights.. just sits

    there
    > thinking, the screen flickers sometimes .. like its initialising the

    VGA...

    It's not clear how long you've been at this, but one thing to keep in
    mind is that the default setting in XP is for Windows to attempt to
    optimize boot configuration on its own, and this normally takes several
    runs to get right. While it's "learning", boot times can be pretty slow.

    Otherwise...have a look at your advanced bios settings. Things like a
    Quick Post or Quick Boot option can save time on diagnostic checks you
    don't ordinarily need. In some cases, there is also an option to delay
    startup for some specified time until the hard drive can get going,
    which you may be able to adjust. You can also try specifying the details
    of IDE configuration (assuming you know them) instead of using the auto
    configuration.

    For the most part, these adjustments all involve small incremental
    decreases in boot time, so don't expect too much -- I'd take a good luck
    at your motherboard documentation (and Soltek's web site) for other
    possibilities. In any case, be sure to try just one change at a time to
    cut troubleshooting issues down to size.
     
    Patrick Bold, Oct 31, 2003
    #3
  4. ::Nick::

    T.N.O. Guest

    Peter Huebner wrote:
    > Soltek based machine also takes ages to boot (Athlon XP 2700; brand
    > spanking new install, took twice as long to boot as my own Celeron 1.3
    > Mhz).



    slow PC 1.3 MHz...
     
    T.N.O., Nov 1, 2003
    #4
  5. ::Nick::

    Patrick Bold Guest

    "T.N.O." <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Peter Huebner wrote:
    > > Soltek based machine also takes ages to boot (Athlon XP 2700; brand
    > > spanking new install, took twice as long to boot as my own Celeron

    1.3
    > > Mhz).

    >
    >
    > slow PC 1.3 MHz...


    Nonsense. First of all, because a 1.3 Mhz processor is plenty fast for
    XP. And second of all, because both the Athlon XP 2500 and 2700 run at
    over 2Ghz.
     
    Patrick Bold, Nov 1, 2003
    #5
  6. ::Nick::

    T.N.O. Guest

    Patrick Bold wrote:
    >>slow PC 1.3 MHz...


    > Nonsense. First of all, because a 1.3 Mhz processor is plenty fast for
    > XP.


    I really hope you're joking with that... note it says Mhz, not Ghz

    > And second of all, because both the Athlon XP 2500 and 2700 run at
    > over 2Ghz.


    I know this, whats your point?
     
    T.N.O., Nov 1, 2003
    #6
  7. ::Nick::

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Patrick Bold wrote:
    > "T.N.O." <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Peter Huebner wrote:
    >>> Soltek based machine also takes ages to boot (Athlon XP 2700; brand
    >>> spanking new install, took twice as long to boot as my own Celeron
    >>> 1.3 Mhz).

    >>
    >>
    >> slow PC 1.3 MHz...

    >
    > Nonsense. First of all, because a 1.3 Mhz processor is plenty fast for
    > XP. And second of all, because both the Athlon XP 2500 and 2700 run at
    > over 2Ghz.


    I have just built an Athlon XP2500+ (Barton core) and it runs at 1.826GHz
    (11 X 166MHz) default. I'm not sure on the 2700, I think that one is around
    2GHz.
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, Nov 1, 2003
    #7
  8. In article <3fa41c8e$>, says...
    > Patrick Bold wrote:
    > >>slow PC 1.3 MHz...

    >
    > > Nonsense. First of all, because a 1.3 Mhz processor is plenty fast for
    > > XP.

    >
    > I really hope you're joking with that... note it says Mhz, not Ghz


    ROTFL.

    thanks for pointing that out .... -P.

    --

    Please note munged reply address - delete the obvious ....
     
    Peter Huebner, Nov 2, 2003
    #8
  9. In article <c0Xob.4963$>, ~misfit~@his.desk.com
    says...
    > >
    > > Nonsense. First of all, because a 1.3 Mhz processor is plenty fast for
    > > XP. And second of all, because both the Athlon XP 2500 and 2700 run at
    > > over 2Ghz.


    Nonsense what, Patrick Bold?
    Yes, my Celly is plenty fast enough for XP. I already know that.
    I merely observed that the one Soltek MoBo with a much faster CPU
    that I have observed, seems to need approx twice as long to reach the XP
    login screen as my system - suggesting to me that there is an ISSUE.
    What the issue is, I have no idea. Nor have I made any claims about it.
    How can you tell me my observation is nonsense?!? Were you hovering in
    the background, invisibly?

    >
    > I have just built an Athlon XP2500+ (Barton core) and it runs at 1.826GHz
    > (11 X 166MHz) default. I'm not sure on the 2700, I think that one is around
    > 2GHz.
    > --
    > ~misfit~


    2.13Ghz I believe.

    Why the hell my neighbours' machine should be so slow booting is beyond
    me.
    However, I will do the dickens and work on it pro bono when they
    went and ignored every single damn thing that I told them to look
    out for when buying their new machine.

    I do however have that smug 'told ya so' feeling because I emphatically
    told them to make sure they get a motherboard made by a company starting
    with 'A'.
    ;-)

    -P.

    --

    Please note munged reply address - delete the obvious ....
     
    Peter Huebner, Nov 2, 2003
    #9
  10. ::Nick::

    Jerry Guest

    On Sun, 2 Nov 2003 12:06:59 +1300, "~misfit~" <~misfit~@his.desk.com>
    wrote:

    >Patrick Bold wrote:
    >> "T.N.O." <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Peter Huebner wrote:
    >>>> Soltek based machine also takes ages to boot (Athlon XP 2700; brand
    >>>> spanking new install, took twice as long to boot as my own Celeron
    >>>> 1.3 Mhz).
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> slow PC 1.3 MHz...

    >>
    >> Nonsense. First of all, because a 1.3 Mhz processor is plenty fast for
    >> XP. And second of all, because both the Athlon XP 2500 and 2700 run at
    >> over 2Ghz.

    >
    >I have just built an Athlon XP2500+ (Barton core) and it runs at 1.826GHz
    >(11 X 166MHz) default. I'm not sure on the 2700, I think that one is around
    >2GHz.


    My XP2600 runs at 2.09

    Jerry
     
    Jerry, Nov 2, 2003
    #10
  11. ::Nick::

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Peter Huebner wrote:
    > In article <c0Xob.4963$>,
    > ~misfit~@his.desk.com says...
    >>>
    >>> Nonsense. First of all, because a 1.3 Mhz processor is plenty fast
    >>> for XP. And second of all, because both the Athlon XP 2500 and 2700
    >>> run at over 2Ghz.

    >
    > Nonsense what, Patrick Bold?
    > Yes, my Celly is plenty fast enough for XP. I already know that.
    > I merely observed that the one Soltek MoBo with a much faster CPU
    > that I have observed, seems to need approx twice as long to reach the
    > XP login screen as my system - suggesting to me that there is an
    > ISSUE. What the issue is, I have no idea. Nor have I made any claims
    > about it. How can you tell me my observation is nonsense?!? Were you
    > hovering in the background, invisibly?
    >
    >>
    >> I have just built an Athlon XP2500+ (Barton core) and it runs at
    >> 1.826GHz (11 X 166MHz) default. I'm not sure on the 2700, I think
    >> that one is around 2GHz.
    >> --
    >> ~misfit~

    >
    > 2.13Ghz I believe.
    >
    > Why the hell my neighbours' machine should be so slow booting is
    > beyond me.
    > However, I will do the dickens and work on it pro bono when they
    > went and ignored every single damn thing that I told them to look
    > out for when buying their new machine.
    >
    > I do however have that smug 'told ya so' feeling because I
    > emphatically told them to make sure they get a motherboard made by a
    > company starting with 'A'.
    > ;-)


    I quite like the soltek nForce2 boards. I've built a few systems with them
    recently. I don't know if that one *is* an nForce2 though. The biggest cause
    of windows taking a long time to load I've discovered is to do with network
    cards. It theirs has on-board network and they're not using it try disabling
    it in the BIOS. Might help.
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, Nov 2, 2003
    #11
  12. In article <eT5pb.5541$>, ~misfit~@his.desk.com
    says...
    >
    > I quite like the soltek nForce2 boards. I've built a few systems with them
    > recently. I don't know if that one *is* an nForce2 though. The biggest cause
    > of windows taking a long time to load I've discovered is to do with network
    > cards. It theirs has on-board network and they're not using it try disabling
    > it in the BIOS. Might help.


    Good suggestion. That's the one thing I tried though :) and it didn't
    help *their* machine.

    cheers, -P.

    --

    Please note munged reply address - delete the obvious ....
     
    Peter Huebner, Nov 2, 2003
    #12
  13. ::Nick::

    T.N.O. Guest

    Peter Huebner wrote:
    >>>>slow PC 1.3 MHz...


    >>>Nonsense. First of all, because a 1.3 Mhz processor is plenty fast for
    >>>XP.


    >>I really hope you're joking with that... note it says Mhz, not Ghz


    > ROTFL.
    > thanks for pointing that out .... -P.


    I like to prey on people's inability to read properly :)
     
    T.N.O., Nov 2, 2003
    #13
  14. ::Nick::

    Invisible Guest

    On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 00:28:22 +1300, "~misfit~" <~misfit~@his.desk.com> wrote:

    >
    >I quite like the soltek nForce2 boards. I've built a few systems with them
    >recently. I don't know if that one *is* an nForce2 though. The biggest cause
    >of windows taking a long time to load I've discovered is to do with network
    >cards. It theirs has on-board network and they're not using it try disabling
    >it in the BIOS. Might help.


    I looked at a couple of PCChips boards with 1.1g Durons, they took around
    1:30 to boot XP pro.... after much farting around I changed the (LG)CDROMs from
    secondary slave to secondary master and they now boot in around 20-30 seconds.
    Weird.
     
    Invisible, Nov 2, 2003
    #14
  15. ::Nick::

    T.N.O. Guest

    Invisible wrote:
    > I looked at a couple of PCChips boards with 1.1g Durons, they took around
    > 1:30 to boot XP pro.... after much farting around I changed the (LG)CDROMs from
    > secondary slave to secondary master and they now boot in around 20-30 seconds.
    > Weird.


    Did you have them jumpered to "cable select" or actually set
    master/slave etc?

    I found that having them set to cable select slows the boot time
    considerably.
     
    T.N.O., Nov 2, 2003
    #15
  16. ::Nick::

    Invisible Guest

    On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 09:05:41 +1300, "T.N.O." <> wrote:

    >Invisible wrote:
    >> I looked at a couple of PCChips boards with 1.1g Durons, they took around
    >> 1:30 to boot XP pro.... after much farting around I changed the (LG)CDROMs from
    >> secondary slave to secondary master and they now boot in around 20-30 seconds.
    >> Weird.

    >
    >Did you have them jumpered to "cable select" or actually set
    >master/slave etc?
    >
    >I found that having them set to cable select slows the boot time
    >considerably.


    They were set to slave for some reason.
     
    Invisible, Nov 2, 2003
    #16
  17. ::Nick::

    Enkidu Guest

    On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 01:02:02 +1300, Peter Huebner
    <> wrote:

    >In article <eT5pb.5541$>, ~misfit~@his.desk.com
    >says...
    >>
    >> I quite like the soltek nForce2 boards. I've built a few systems with them
    >> recently. I don't know if that one *is* an nForce2 though. The biggest cause
    >> of windows taking a long time to load I've discovered is to do with network
    >> cards. It theirs has on-board network and they're not using it try disabling
    >> it in the BIOS. Might help.

    >
    >Good suggestion. That's the one thing I tried though :) and it didn't
    >help *their* machine.
    >

    The biggest cause of slow startups that I have come across is DNS. Was
    this other machine ever connected to a network?

    Cheers,

    Cliff
    --

    The complete lack of evidence is the surest sign
    that the conspiracy is working.
     
    Enkidu, Nov 2, 2003
    #17
  18. ::Nick::

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Peter Huebner wrote:
    > In article <eT5pb.5541$>,
    > ~misfit~@his.desk.com says...
    >>
    >> I quite like the soltek nForce2 boards. I've built a few systems
    >> with them recently. I don't know if that one *is* an nForce2 though.
    >> The biggest cause of windows taking a long time to load I've
    >> discovered is to do with network cards. It theirs has on-board
    >> network and they're not using it try disabling it in the BIOS. Might
    >> help.

    >
    > Good suggestion. That's the one thing I tried though :) and it didn't
    > help *their* machine.


    Bugger. Oh well, I don't know what else to suggest other than to check that
    the HDD is working in DMA mode although I can't see it making that big a
    difference. The machines I've put together recently on Soltek boards boot
    into XP in well under 30 seconds. All socket A, nForce 2 though. They don't
    have a SCSI card do they? They can slow down boot times.
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, Nov 2, 2003
    #18
  19. ::Nick::

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Invisible wrote:
    > On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 09:05:41 +1300, "T.N.O." <> wrote:
    >
    >> Invisible wrote:
    >>> I looked at a couple of PCChips boards with 1.1g Durons, they took
    >>> around 1:30 to boot XP pro.... after much farting around I changed
    >>> the (LG)CDROMs from secondary slave to secondary master and they
    >>> now boot in around 20-30 seconds. Weird.

    >>
    >> Did you have them jumpered to "cable select" or actually set
    >> master/slave etc?
    >>
    >> I found that having them set to cable select slows the boot time
    >> considerably.

    >
    > They were set to slave for some reason.


    I've seen similar situations where a drive is set to slave and there is no
    master present. Strange that they were set to slave, factory default for
    just about every drive I've ever bought is master.
    --
    ~misfit~
     
    ~misfit~, Nov 2, 2003
    #19
  20. ::Nick::

    Bret Guest

    On Mon, 3 Nov 2003 11:57:37 +1300, "~misfit~" <~misfit~@his.desk.com>
    wrote:

    >Invisible wrote:
    >> On Mon, 03 Nov 2003 09:05:41 +1300, "T.N.O." <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Invisible wrote:
    >>>> I looked at a couple of PCChips boards with 1.1g Durons, they took
    >>>> around 1:30 to boot XP pro.... after much farting around I changed
    >>>> the (LG)CDROMs from secondary slave to secondary master and they
    >>>> now boot in around 20-30 seconds. Weird.
    >>>
    >>> Did you have them jumpered to "cable select" or actually set
    >>> master/slave etc?
    >>>
    >>> I found that having them set to cable select slows the boot time
    >>> considerably.

    >>
    >> They were set to slave for some reason.

    >
    >I've seen similar situations where a drive is set to slave and there is no
    >master present. Strange that they were set to slave, factory default for
    >just about every drive I've ever bought is master.


    Every CDRom I have bought has been set to slave.
     
    Bret, Nov 2, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. S.Rodgers
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    472
    S.Rodgers
    Dec 12, 2005
  2. Anonymous

    BSOD on WinXP Fresh Install

    Anonymous, Jul 4, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    511
  3. Jimchip

    Re: BSOD on WinXP Pro fresh install.

    Jimchip, Jul 6, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    540
    Jimchip
    Jul 6, 2003
  4. BC

    Doing a fresh XP install

    BC, Nov 9, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    653
  5. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,150
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page