Author Topic: What is your boot time? (Read 80811 times)

Curt · « **Reply #75 on:** November 21, 2008, 06:10 PM »

Well, I have taken my new Vista into use, and so far it is even worse than I feared :-(

And, regarding the subject of this thread, my Vista is slow! The reason could be the two 500 MB ~~discs~~ edited: drives, I don't know. But at each and every Start I will first have to press F12, and wait at least 10 seconds for the next window, where I am to hit Enter, to start booting into the right drive. Only then will Vista begin loading. This will happen at a moderate speed, nothing impressive there, I think, considering that only a handful of programs yet have been installed. The hole procedure is taking about 1½ minute, which I think is very slow, remembering that Brandon can reboot Vista within 25 seconds, and 22% boots in less than 30 seconds.

Maybe I will have learned to like Vista at about the same time Win 7 will be launched, edited: as I learned to like XP at about the same time as Vista was launched...

Darwin · « **Reply #76 on:** November 22, 2008, 02:26 AM »

That's interesting, Curt. Vista is quicker to boot than XP Pro for me... I did mess around with some settings to perk it up -don't remember what I did though! I used this blog posting from Ed Bott as a rough guide, though. I haven't timed my boot time with Vista, it HAS slowed down over time (getting on for five months) but is still brisk. I should take a look at it and see if I can perk it up, but it's well under two minutes (my XP machine is a second under two minutes as reported by BootlogXP) and I am not really that bothered by it.

Curt · « **Reply #77 on:** November 22, 2008, 04:35 AM »

- thanks for link, Darwin. One must admire Bott's persistence to improve on these machines. I am looking forward to read the full story at http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=429

On top of this (small) time issue I told about, there is this other micro detail: there is no hotkey button on my fancy wireless keyboard, to remote-start Vista. There is a 'sleep'-button, and some media player keys, but I will have to (almost) crawl around on the floor, to start the machine. What an annoyance, such a minor detail can be! Well, I guess the exercise may do me good...

Trying to get to learn Vista, is of course a major task for me right now, but I realize that I have made it more difficult for me than necessary because I upgraded to Firefox 3 at the same time - one really doesn't have to make life harder than it already is. So in order to ease the burden, I've installed X-Setup Pro and am tuning Vista into a more familiar XP-ish behaviour. My square brains can only handle so many changes at a time ;-)

Darwin · « **Reply #78 on:** November 22, 2008, 10:00 AM »

Heh, heh - Curt, you linked to the article I was talking about

THAT"S the one I worked my way through. Anyway, not sure what to suggest about the keyboard issue - I suspect that the solution would be to go with a wired keyboard OR, as I do, simply set your computer to go to sleep rather than shutting it down. If you want it to reboot, select restart from the power options first thing in the morning... Alternatively, you could look into whether or not there is some Vista setting or third party utility (I'd check my keyboards driver as a first resort) to see if the wireless connection can be set up to be maintained when the computer is off. I'm not sure what that would do to your battery life, though (although I essentially do this by setting the computer to sleep rather than turning it off, and I get months out of two AAA batteries).

city_zen · « **Reply #79 on:** November 23, 2008, 01:29 AM »

Where was I when this thread started?!?!

I'm sort of a "boot time junkie" so I try to minimize it as much as I can. Not that I reboot very often, but I hate having to *wait* for my PC to start

Anyway, I've just finished reading all this thread and thought about giving my 2 cents on the subject

MS Bootvis, which is not supported by MS since XP was released, can do this for some users, but I have found that it cannot complete its goal if you are running a dual core processor, which I am.
-J-Mac (January 30, 2008, 11:27 PM)

Are you sure about that, Jim? Because I'm running a dual core CPU and Bootvis runs just fine

A few tips that I've found do decrease, in some cases noticeably, startup and shutdown times:

- Check your (Windows) services. You're most likely running more services in Automatic mode than necessary. The ultimate reference site to find out which services are really needed is Black Viper's
- Make sure you boot from your fastest partition and try to keep it small and defragged
- If possible, try to assign your PC a STATIC IP (<- This one really made a difference in my case) instead of letting it get a dynamic one assigned by a DHCP server (probably a router or another PC)
- Defrag your prefetch folder (<- this one also noticeably improved my start up time). The simplest way is to run

[Select]

defrag.exe c: -b

from the Command Prompt (replacing "C:" with your boot drive letter if it's not "C:")
- Use Bootvis to see what's going on during boot time and identify executables and drivers that might be causing unnecessary delays
- Use Autoruns to prevent a number of unneeded programs from running at startup (I mean do you *really* need the "Java online update program" to run on EVERY boot?)

By using all of the above (and maybe a few others that I can't remember now) I've been able to bring my system down to a very fast 45 seconds total reboot time, measured from when I press the green restart button until I can see the desktop wallpaper again (I'm using auto login since I'm the only one using this PC). Not bad

J-Mac · « **Reply #80 on:** November 23, 2008, 03:55 AM »

MS Bootvis, which is not supported by MS since XP was released, can do this for some users, but I have found that it cannot complete its goal if you are running a dual core processor, which I am.
-J-Mac (January 30, 2008, 11:27 PM)
Are you sure about that, Jim? Because I'm running a dual core CPU and Bootvis runs just fine

-city_zen (November 23, 2008, 01:29 AM)

I'll find a reference for you tomorrow. (Late here now - need my beauty sleep!)

But I do know that bootvis is only for XP - never worked on Vista AFAIK.

Jim

f0dder · « **Reply #81 on:** November 23, 2008, 12:28 PM »

On my system, the BIOS part of booting takes up roughly half of the boot time - nothing I can do about that. Never found Windows' boot time to be much of a problem. And unless you have a really sucky DHCP server, you're not going to shave even a second off your boot time... why do people obsess over boot time, anyway? Matters for laptops, but for workstations?

Darwin · « **Reply #82 on:** November 23, 2008, 12:40 PM »

Matters for laptops, but for workstations?
-f0dder (November 23, 2008, 12:28 PM)

With modern notebooks and efficient power management, boot time isn't much of an issue, either...

Shades · « **Reply #83 on:** November 23, 2008, 02:06 PM »

Actually, my BIOS is set up to boot as slowly as possible. Any server I setup/administer does the same, especially if it has multiple harddisks. Although harddisks are fast to spin up and register themselves with the BIOS, they are definitely not created equally.

Sometimes a power supply has also problems to keep up with supplying the juice for all components at boot-time.

A BIOS in slow booting mode solves a lot of problems that may occur during the boot procedure.
Therefore I could not care less about the boot time from a PC.

EDIT:
@f0dder
Do you have by any chance an intel motherboard? I have one and mine takes about 2 minutes just to show the XP loading screen.

city_zen · « **Reply #84 on:** November 23, 2008, 06:41 PM »

unless you have a really sucky DHCP server, you're not going to shave even a second off your boot time
-f0dder (November 23, 2008, 12:28 PM)

Hmm, are you calling my DHCP server "sucky" f0dder?

Anyway, in theory, I'd tend to agree with you on that point, but in practice, I've seen a definite improvement by assigning a static IP instead. Besides, on a home network with just a handful of PC connected, it's not a bad idea to have static IPs for each one

why do people obsess over boot time, anyway?
-f0dder (November 23, 2008, 12:28 PM)

Again, this is very personal. It may not matter to you, but it doesn't mean it can't matter for anyone, right? In my case, when I want to start using my PC, I want to start using my PC *now* or at least in a few seconds, not in 5 minutes. Imagine if each time you're going to use your car (I don't have a car, btw, but the example is good

), you'd have to wait for a few minutes until the car "boots up". To some people it wouldn't matter, but I'm sure others would find it very annoying.

Shades · « **Reply #85 on:** November 23, 2008, 10:20 PM »

You should really use your car in the same way as your computer.

It is very good for the state of the engine that when you start it up you immediately go full throttle for 30 seconds till a minute (the boot-time of your computer)...I can assure you two things, your car repair shop will love the business that you generate and you will have their phone number on speed dial.

city_zen · « **Reply #86 on:** November 24, 2008, 12:14 AM »

You should really use your car in the same way as your computer.
It is very good for the state of the engine that when you start it up you immediately go full throttle for 30 seconds till a minute (the boot-time of your computer)...I can assure you two things, your car repair shop will love the business that you generate and you will have their phone number on speed dial.
-Shades (November 23, 2008, 10:20 PM)

Hmmm $:-\$ , I don't remember writing anything about "full throttle" or about the way I use my PC, what exactly do you mean, Shades?

I'm afraid you may have not got the analogy right, it's not about straining your PC, it's about having it available for use without an unneeded delay.
I'm guessing (please correct me if I'm wrong) that maybe you mean that having a faster boot up time strains your PC hardware during that (brief) moment a lot more than having a "slow" boot up time. If that is actually your statement, I think it's debatable. By watching the output file and charts generated by Bootvis, I can clearly see that neither my CPU nor my HDDs are strained during boot time.

Although harddisks are fast to spin up and register themselves with the BIOS, they are definitely not created equally.
-Shades (November 23, 2008, 02:06 PM)

If your motherboard takes more than a few seconds to detect your HDDs, then it's probably a problem of the motherboard, not of having a boot time that's too fast

Sometimes a power supply has also problems to keep up with supplying the juice for all components at boot-time.
-Shades (November 23, 2008, 02:06 PM)

That's right in some cases, but fortunately not in mine. I may have a "sucky" DHCP server (f0dder dixit

), but I have a good power supply, indeed one of the most underrated and vital components of a PC

4wd · « **Reply #87 on:** November 24, 2008, 01:15 AM »

Although harddisks are fast to spin up and register themselves with the BIOS, they are definitely not created equally.
-Shades (November 23, 2008, 02:06 PM)
If your motherboard takes more than a few seconds to detect your HDDs, then it's probably a problem of the motherboard, not of having a boot time that's too fast
-city_zen (November 24, 2008, 12:14 AM)

Actually, it is more likely to be the HDDs - the HDD signals it's ready to the motherboard only after it's completed it's spin up and self-diagnostics, if any. If the HDD is slow to spin up, (eg. it has a lot of platters), then the motherboard will fail to detect it.

Usually can be fixed by moving the offending HDD to a later scanned interface.

... indeed one of the most underrated and vital components of a PC
-city_zen (November 24, 2008, 12:14 AM)

If it's underrated you should replace it with one with a better rating

nosh · « **Reply #88 on:** November 24, 2008, 02:31 AM »

This thread is going to provide some nice entertainment for people reading it a decade or so later.

I couldn't care less about my PC's boot time, the one device I need to boot ~~fast~~ FAST (my Symbian S60 cell) always seems to wait for my BP to reach near-critical levels first.

CleverCat · « **Reply #89 on:** November 24, 2008, 04:42 AM »

As long as I have my morning cuppa tea in front of me.... a couple extra mins is okay!

city_zen · « **Reply #90 on:** November 24, 2008, 10:26 AM »

... indeed one of the most underrated and vital components of a PC
-city_zen (November 24, 2008, 12:14 AM)

If it's underrated you should replace it with one with a better rating
-4wd (November 24, 2008, 01:15 AM)

Hey, hey!

English is not my native language, so please excuse a certain lack of precision in choosing the right terms every now and then ...

BTW, from Merriam-Webster:
underrated: to rate too low - undervalue
And,
undervalue: to value, rate, or estimate below the real worth

This thread is going to provide some nice entertainment for people reading it a decade or so later.
-nosh (November 24, 2008, 02:31 AM)

I fervently hope so, but I'm not entirely sure about it. Does anyone remember what the boot times of home PCs were about a decade ago? I honestly don't, but I don't think they were much slower than present boot times. Improvements in hardware (SSDs, among others) and maybe also software should make it better in the future, but who knows ...

Darwin · « **Reply #91 on:** November 24, 2008, 11:04 AM »

If it's underrated you should replace it with one with a better rating
-city_zen (November 24, 2008, 10:26 AM)

Hey, hey!

English is not my native language, so please excuse a certain lack of precision in choosing the right terms every now and then ...
[/quote]

Not to fear, cityzen! English IS my first language, and you write better than me...

city_zen · « **Reply #92 on:** November 24, 2008, 07:06 PM »

Not to fear, cityzen! English IS my first language, and you write better than me...
-Darwin (November 24, 2008, 11:04 AM)

Thank you, Darwin.
I'm sure it's not true (you're a very good writer) but it was very kind of you

40hz · « **Reply #93 on:** November 25, 2008, 11:40 AM »

My system boots up somewhere in the time interval it takes for me to get a cup of coffee or tea. And I'm perfectly happy with that. If it booted quicker, I'd probably just sit there and wait for it

Darwin · « **Reply #94 on:** November 25, 2008, 11:52 AM »

I just tested my XP Pro installation - 93 seconds. That's absolutely fine with me! I should test my Vista installation (and then compare that to the same machine with Windows Server 2008 Standard), but I'm using it right now! Will do so later...

Curt · « **Reply #95 on:** November 26, 2008, 02:16 PM »

Well, I have taken my new Vista into use, and so far it is even worse than I feared :-(
-Curt (November 21, 2008, 06:10 PM)

- three (3) days it lasted, that new Vista of mine! Yesterday I simply had to test the offer from Bits du Jour, RollBack Rx Professional:

RollBack Rx Professional
A Virtual Time-Machine!
RollBack Rx's system restore is a complete hard drive system restore utility, incremental backup system, and disaster recovery solution. No data loss, guaranteed!

The price was announced to $28, but turned out to be €28, plus €5 per year, for maintenance. I got annoyed and removed the program again, and told the machine to reboot. This was the last I saw of Vista. I wonder what the terms are for this "No data loss, guaranteed"?!! Their praise said "disaster recovery solution" - but somehow they forgot the "recovery" part, leaving me with a solution of disaster!!

Edited:
Typing this on my "old" XP, which was unstable for almost 2 years but never failed... More than a thousand programs have been in and out ;-)

Curt · « **Reply #96 on:** November 28, 2008, 02:58 AM »

- and now back to the subject!

The Complete Guide to Speeding Up Your PC's Startup
By Gina Trapani, 11:30 AM on Fri Nov 14 2008, 130,181 views

http://lifehacker.co...-up-your-pcs-startup

-lifehacker

Curt · « **Reply #97 on:** December 01, 2008, 05:28 AM »

Well, I have taken my new Vista into use, and so far it is even worse than I feared :-(
-Curt (November 21, 2008, 06:10 PM)

- three (3) days it lasted, that new Vista of mine!

(.....), and told the machine to reboot. This was the last I saw of Vista.

(...) Edited:
Typing this on my "old" XP, ...
-Curt (November 26, 2008, 02:16 PM)

Frankly, Vista is far far better than XP, at least when it comes to Recovery!

It was a little hard to find, but that may be due to the oddness of the Siemens/Toshiba Recovery which I refused to use, but when first I clicked Recover To Previous Setup, or what it may be called in English, there was no problem at all. All the programs are there, except for the sinner, and all of my documents are safe~saved.

Typing this on my new Vista!

Darwin · « **Reply #98 on:** December 01, 2008, 05:31 AM »

Well, I have taken my new Vista into use, and so far it is even worse than I feared :-(
-Curt (November 21, 2008, 06:10 PM)

- three (3) days it lasted, that new Vista of mine!

(.....), and told the machine to reboot. This was the last I saw of Vista.

(...) Edited:
Typing this on my "old" XP, ...
-Curt (November 26, 2008, 02:16 PM)

Frankly, Vista is far far better than XP, at least when it comes to Recovery! It was a little hard to find, but that may be due to the oddness of the Siemens/Toshiba Recovery which I refused to use, but when first I clicked Recover To Previous Setup, or what it may be called in English, there was no problem at all. All the programs are there, except for the sinner, and all of my documents are safe~saved.

Typing this on my new Vista!
-Curt (December 01, 2008, 05:28 AM)

Welcome back, Curt!

Curt · « **Reply #99 on:** December 01, 2008, 05:38 AM »

Thanks, Darwin.

Boot-time is now 2 minutes, (more and more programs! How does this happen?). Not fast.

Poll

What is your boot time?

Author Topic: What is your boot time? (Read 80811 times)