What is your boot time?

[Curt]

Yes, but JoeJoe stopped developing StartRight. I use the gratis r2 Startup Delayer, which I dare to recommend, and we have also been presented with the fine $25 Chameleon Startup Manager.

--

My XP is getting more and more unstable by the minute, so to speak, so now my boot time is around twenty minutes! I really like the combination of eBoostr and the startup delayer, it lets me start many more programs than my ½ GB RAM is supposed to handle.

[f0dder]

Curt: what type of RAM do you have in your system? You can get 2 gigabytes of DDR2-800 RAM for less than DKK400... and less than DKK300 for DDR2-667. Much better spent than the ~DKK200 for the Pro version of eBoostr, imho...

(Oh, and a reinstall of XP might be a good idea if it's so unstable )

[Curt]

Yes, you are of course right on this, f0dder! But the tower can only hold 2x512 MB so I was thinking about doing nothing at all, and wait until I have the money for a new. And for the other problem: I have not been able to get my hands on a CD for a Danish XP Home, and the one time I did all the fancy tricks (UBCD4Win) and reinstalled, it helped nothing! I am not sure if the original OEM CD was too poor, so I was reinstalling the same errors, or if it is some hardware error, but without a proper installation CD the result is so far the same, I can do very little about it. The PC is too "old" (15 months) and too bad.

[f0dder]

Hmmm, "the tower can only hold 2x512mb" - which motherboard do you have? Even 15-month old motherboards should be able to support RAM block sizes > 512meg. But anyway, even adding another 512meg block would help you a lot - I dunno if that would end up more expensive than getting 2x1024meg blocks though, prices of some of the older memory modules have risen because they aren't manufactured anymore (you don't want to buy DDR1 ram today ).

You can't install directly from the old OEM CD? (If you do, make sure you have the SP2 or SP3 full installer lying on a CD/whatever, and unplug your network until the service pack has been installed, and the firewall turned on - otherwise your machine will be infected somewhere between 10 seconds and 10 minutes after install).

[Curt]

- thanks for the advices, f0dder.

I should specify that I don't have any inst'-CD at all; XP came pre-installed without disc.

[f0dder]

Oh, you'll have to find an OEM CD then - and I wonder if that's even legal. It's so damn annoying with those preinstalled systems; most of the time there's a recovery partition (but not always, and then you're SOL). Sometimes, if you're lucky, there's a re-install CD, but it's never a clean XP, there's always all the crapware included >_<.

Pure OEM CDs do exist though, but again - even though you paid for the XP license when you purchased your system, I dunno if it's legal to just grab an OEM CD

[Shades]

@ Curt:
Indeed, it is a shame you don't have a XP installation CD.

There is a method with which you can repair your XP installation without re-installing (almost) all your applications. I once saw this method being described by the legend Fred Langa (and making a personal copy from that information).

Last week that personal copy became personal experience, because it was used to save a crashed system. I can tell you that this method worked beautifully, saving me at least 32 hours not having to install/configure an Oracle database server and uploading several backups from databases.

I believe the article was on the Informationweek website.

Although the following link is not the article I meant, it is very handy to keep around:
http://www.informati...?articleID=185301251

However, if all else fails, I can mail the word document to you.

Ah, you are in luck, the article (with clear instructions and pictures) is still there:
http://www.informati...?articleID=189400897

[f0dder]

Shades: that method should really only be used if you're in a hurry... it can leave many a problems (malware, drivers, hosed windows files (of the type not in %SystemRoot%), et cetera. It's good when you are in a hurry, but it's not a substitute for a reinstall... you're better off with imaging apps or an unattended setup. But yeah, that's more bother

[Curt]

@ Curt:
Indeed, it is a shame you don't have a XP installation CD.

Ah, you are in luck, the article (with clear instructions and pictures) is still there:
http://www.informati...?articleID=189400897

-Shades (May 30, 2008, 10:15 PM)

Thanks for the sympathy, Shades, and for the link. 
Can anyone guess why I had to use IE7 to open the link? Firefox only gave me a blank page!

[Shades]

Again, I should have explained my situation better.

The harddisk from the server made some strange repetative noise for a while and then the machine started to reboot by itself. This was the second harddisk in roughly two weeks, so the conclusion was that the crashing harddisk was the result from another failure.

A decision to replace both harddisk and mainboard was quickly made. I managed to copy the content from the crashing harddisk onto the new one (thank you http://www.hdclone.com ) and connected it to the new mainboard from a different manufacturer.

The new PC would not boot into Windows (as expected ofcourse), so trying the option from mr. Langa could not do me (more) harm. After following the instructions to the letter, this system now not only boots into Windows, it does this very fast (1 minute with quickboot disabled in the BIOS).

Because of all this, I thought the method could work wonders for the slowly booting machine from Curt.

You are right about the necessity from an occasional re-installation f0dder, but I try to postpone that for as long as possible. My day-to-day PC is running for three years without a re-install and I do a lot of software "play-testing" on that PC.

[f0dder]

Ah, new motherboard - that usually means new chipset, and a BSOD about boot device not being available... a repair-"install" might very well fix that, yes

[Curt]

Ah, you are in luck, the article (with clear instructions and pictures) is still there:
http://www.informati...?articleID=189400897

-Shades (May 30, 2008, 10:15 PM)

I was not all comfortable with the small pictures in the otherwise fine instructive article - ("I cannot see which important line the author is referring too, because the pic is too small!") - so I made a version with larger images (and less text) as a supplement. I guess the text in the images shows that the file has been compressed a little too much - sorry:

XPs_No_Reformat,_Nondestructive_Total_Rebuild_...pdf (318.47 kB - downloaded 316 times.)

[CleverCat]

You can delay startups with Win Patrol...

[Curt]

I don't know if anyone else already has given this advice on DC:

Regarding boot time, for multiple cores:

While Vista is loading, only one core is being used. To reduce this boot time, take full advantage of the multiple cores and get the job done quicker. You can force Vista to use all available processors. To do this, please follow this tech tip below:

   1. In the Start Menu Search Box type "msconfig". Click Enter.
         (You can also use this shortcut: Windows Key + R)
   2. Navigate to the Boot tab and click Advanced Options.
   3. Place a checkmark next to the box for Number of Processors.
   4. Choose the number of processors you would like to use in the pull-down menu.
   5. Check the Detect HAL box. Click OK.
   6. Check the box that reads Make All Boot Settings Permanent. Click Apply. Click OK.
   7. The System Configuration window will pop up. Click Yes to confirm.
   8. Restart your computer.

-esupport

http://newsletter.es...081118.html#techtip1

[f0dder]

Curt: that sounds like one of those misinformed tips... unless something has changed significantly in Vista wrt. the bootloader (and some things have, but...) this option is actually only used for reducing the number of cores used. Ie., if you're a developer who want to test how your application runs on a single-core machine and all you have is a quadcore.

Even if Vista indeed only used one core at boot time, it wouldn't help much increasing the number of cores used, since bootup is mostly disk I/O and device-initialization dependent... not much that multiple cores can do to help you with that.

[Curt]

If everything goes well I will check this in real life tomorrow
- this is (supposed to be) my last day with the old XP of mine :-)

But I apologize for apparently bringing a worthless tip! 
- thanks for telling, f0dder!

[f0dder]

Don't apologize, Curt - you're not the one who put this thing on a newsletter

And I'm still not ruling out that things could have been changed with Vista, I just find it extremely unlikely, and even more unlikely that it would be turned off by default.

Anyway, as long as you don't set the number below your actual amount of cores, the "tip" should do no harm.

[Darwin]

Heh, heh... I googled that tip, didn't see anything AGAINST it so tried it. Result? I swear it significantly INCREASED my boot-time, but otherwise, no adverse effects 

EDIT: it occurs to me that on boot I got the "Windows is Applying Updates. Do not power off your computer" (or whatever the wording is) warning, so that most likely explains the increased amount of time for the computer to fire up. The increased time was evident from the BIOS splash screen to the black screen with the Windows emblem in the middle of it...

[f0dder]

Hmmm, really shouldn't increase your boot-time, that sounds pretty weird :-s - is it measurable (with a stop-clock), and is it repeatable? Vista might just have decided to do a boot-time defrag or whatever

Which boot.ini field does it set, btw? /NUMPROC, right?

[Darwin]

  I edited my post while you were adding your comment, f0dder... I'll have to check the boot.ini field that it set and get back to you.

[Darwin]

Hmm... I just checked my boot.ini file and it hasn't changed since I installed Windows (August 6), so I don't know that it is changing that field, which in any event is not present.

[f0dder]

Hmm... I just checked my boot.ini file and it hasn't changed since I installed Windows (August 6), so I don't know that it is changing that field, which in any event is not present.

-Darwin (November 20, 2008, 12:50 PM)

I momentarily forgot that Vista doesn't use boot.ini anymore, but instead the BCD area... thus "bcedit" is used for changing boot settings.

[Darwin]

Ah... OK, I've gone through two reboots to check this out and you're right, f0dder. Applying the settings suggested in the newsletter Curt pointed us to results in [NumProc]=2 being added to the boot configuration. When I removed it and rebooted the line is absent entirely.

If anyone else wants to confirm this (after changing settings in msconfig as outlined above) - run a Command window as administrator (Start - type 'cmd' into the search bar, right click the link that appears and select "Run as administrator", click "continue" and then type "bcdedit" at the prompt and hit enter). You'll need to reboot each time to see a change as any changes made in msconfig require a reboot and are not reflected in the BCD area until after a reboot...

[J-Mac]

Ah... OK, I've gone through two reboots to check this out and you're right, f0dder. Applying the settings suggested in the newsletter Curt pointed us to results in [NumProc]=2 being added to the boot configuration. When I removed it and rebooted the line is absent entirely.

If anyone else wants to confirm this (after changing settings in msconfig as outlined above) - run a Command window as administrator (Start - type 'cmd' into the search bar, right click the link that appears and select "Run as administrator", click "continue" and then type "bcdedit" at the prompt and hit enter). You'll need to reboot each time to see a change as any changes made in msconfig require a reboot and are not reflected in the BCD area until after a reboot...

-Darwin (November 20, 2008, 03:12 PM)

I really need to look into this! My notebook running Vista Ultimate initially had amazing startup and shutdown times. Much faster than anything I had ever seen on XP.

Unfortunately after installing Vista SP1, my start and shutdown times are now much longer. No added software; only the SP1 update. Startup time is moderately longer. It was scary fast before; now it is maybe 45 seconds to a minute - not bad by XP standards, but significantly slower than Vista prior to SP1.

Shutdown is where I am really seeing delays now. Before SP1 it was also scary fast - I mean within seconds after hitting the Shutdown button I could close the lid; all went dark quickly. Now it takes at least a full minute, maybe a bit longer. I'd have to actually time it to be more accurate. Again, that is without anything else new except the Service Pack running.

No idea what changed with SP1 that would cause this, but I miss the lightning fast starts and stops.

Jim

[Darwin]

Well... my OEM install of Vista Sp-1 was like that initially as well. In my case, though, I've installed a fair number of applications so assume that that is the source of the slowdown.