XP Boot up times?

[gtd2000]

Everybody mentions that XP boots so quickly etc etc.

However, having migrated from ME it seems to be about the same time involved.
Am I missing something here - or do u need to "tweak" XP to get superfast boot up times?

I just installed it yesterday so I am completly new to XP and fumbling around in the dark as it were with it 😀

 

[c0rv1d43]

I'll put in my $.02 before someone starts telling what tweaking sites to visit.

On most systems you shouldn't expect WinXP to boot faster than WinME or Win98SE. Most of the exclamations over fast booting are from those of us who were running Windows 2000 or NT 4.0. Not all Win2K and NT machines were really slow to boot, but a lot of them were. My 500 MHz PIII notebook used to take just about 5 minutes to get to the desktop in Win2K. It takes less than a minute under WinXP. That's because the new OS has the ability to load services and device drivers in parallel instead of in a serial manner.

If you're thinking about trying to "streamline" WinXP, do yourself a favor and learn about this OS before you try to "tweak" it. There are dozens of Web sites (if not hundreds or thousands) that promote all sorts of mostly bad advice about turning off services in order to get Win2K and WinXP to boot faster. If you're fresh from a DOS-based Windows you need to learn how this OS works before you start turning off services. Take a look in Task Manager at all of the processes. It looks a lot bigger than the list you'd get in the Close Programs (Tasks List?) dialog in WinME. That's because WinME didn't really show you everything that was running, but also because WinXP is capable of a lot more. Take a look at the CPU Time being used by those processes. The vast majority of them are using next to zero CPU time. They're not hurting you just because they're loaded. And they CAN hurt you if they're not loaded when your system needs them. So don't be too quick to start turning off services. There are a few services that can be turned off to improve the security profile of some systems. That makes sense if you don't need the functionality of those services. Turning off services (most of them) to improve performance is an excercise in silliness. Services don't use CPU time unless they are actually doing something. And if it's memory use that you're worried about, you're better off installing more memory than turning off services to try to reclaim a few MB of RAM.

- Collin

Edit:

BTW, if you really want to optimize boot time you can look for the bootviz.exe utility at the MSKB. HOWEVER, if you decide to try it, be aware that you need to really read the information about proper use of the utility. If you use it improperly you can wreak all kinds of havoc with your system partition. (Bootvis does some aggressive logging to determine response times. If you interrupt the program improperly or try to cancel out of it you can wind up with the logging still running constantly -- and filling up your system partition with log files.)

You can also make sure that all of your device drivers are signed / the latest WinXP-compliant versions available for your devices. Balky or improperly functioning device drivers can cause WinXP to boot slowly.

But it sounds like you're just disappointed that WinXP doesn't boot faster than WinME did on the same machine. I'd say that there's probably nothing wrong with your system if the boot time is approximately the same.

 

[gtd2000]

c0rv1d43

Thanks for your reply 🙂

I am quite happy with the boot times for XP - probably around 30-40 seconds I would guess at the moment? As mentioned before - very similar to ME.

It was just that I am sure I have read of people booting in less than 10 seconds etc - maybe they are stretching things somewhat with that claim?

I have previously changed the start up configuration in 98/ME etc to to allow better use fo system resources. I have also done some mild tweaking for the start up of XP - but only regarding installed programs, e.g. EZCD 5 which was initially loading at boot up after migration to XP.
I would prefer to have the full range of benefits of XP rather than just reducing the OS in order to have a fast boot time 😉

I think I have a bit of a learning curve to climb up with XP, although my initial impression is that it appears to be very similar to 98/ME etc but in a different layout (bear in mind I have only used it for around 1 hour last night!)

Are there any websites that you recommend regarding newbie XP users?

 

[c0rv1d43]

I am quite happy with the boot times for XP - probably around 30-40 seconds I would guess at the moment? As mentioned before - very similar to ME.

That's probably a perfectly respectable boot time for WinXP. It might be slightly faster on systems. Much depends upon the exact hardware on the system. A device or device driver that is slow to respond can really slow down the process.

It was just that I am sure I have read of people booting in less than 10 seconds etc - maybe they are stretching things somewhat with that claim?

Yeah, there are people who claim that their '71 Pinto does the quarter in 12 sec. flat, too. I suspect fibbing. Also, different people have different ways of measuring "boot time". If a machine boots in about a half minute, which is what MS says that a fully comliant machine should do, then I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

I have previously changed the start up configuration in 98/ME etc to to allow better use fo system resources. I have also done some mild tweaking for the start up of XP - but only regarding installed programs, e.g. EZCD 5 which was initially loading at boot up after migration to XP.
I would prefer to have the full range of benefits of XP rather than just reducing the OS in order to have a fast boot time 😉

Wait a minute! Is this an install-over upgrade of WinXP over WinME? If that's the case, then I'm VERY impressed with that boot time! But it's not a bad boot time in any case.

I think I have a bit of a learning curve to climb up with XP, although my initial impression is that it appears to be very similar to 98/ME etc but in a different layout (bear in mind I have only used it for around 1 hour last night!)

Are there any websites that you recommend regarding newbie XP users?

I can't think of any Web sites that would be particularly helpful in describing normal use of the OS. There are lots of specialized sites for information on networking, security, the registry, etc. I suggest just using the OS and reading its help files first when you have questions. The help and support system, particularly when it is allowed to connect to the MSKB, is a very good one. I do recommend doing careful research on security / encryption / services before messing with any of those features in the OS. Those are the items that can get a newbie (or an oldie) into trouble when used injudiciously.

I'll try to list some sites that offer useful information --

http://www.microsoft.com/hwdev/platform/performance/fastboot/default.asp
http://www.annoyances.org/
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?ln=EN-US&pr=kbinfo&
http://www.eventid.net/
http://www.jsiinc.com/reghack.htm
http://www.neowin.net/
http://www.ntbugtraq.com/
http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/windowsxp_tips_ms.asp
http://www.forrestandassociates.co.uk/pcforrest/index.html
http://searchwin2000.techtarget.com/
http://web.ukonline.co.uk/cook/Win2000.htm
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/TechNet/prodtechnol/winxppro/tips/tips.asp
http://www.wugnet.com/
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone/default.asp
http://www.xp-erience.org/
http://www.winguides.com/

AND LAST BUT CERTAINLY NOT LEAST...

http://forums.anandtech.com/faq.cfm

right here at Anandtech.

Enjoy the new OS, and fiddle with it to your heart's content (after making sure your data is backed up). But, before you do anything with security or services just be careful to read up on it and to consider each step carefully.

Oh, and did I mention being certain to back up your data before you do anything radical to the system? 😀

- Collin

 

[gtd2000]

Wait a minute! Is this an install-over upgrade of WinXP over WinME? If that's the case, then I'm VERY impressed with that boot time! But it's not a bad boot time in any case.

Yep - this is an upgrade first to see how well the OS works with my current system. So far all seems to be well 😉
If everything goes smoothly for a month or two then I will format and re-load fresh.

The truth is I was very happy with ME - but memory/resource handling issues were the achilles heel. I'm one of the crowd that had nothing but problems with 98SE but no problem at all with 95/98/ME - weird but true. I hope I'm not in the minority with XP 😉

Thanks for all the info sources - I'll have a good read when I get home from the office tonght 🙂

One thing that confuses me with XP so far is when I am online (using a modem) the connection icon was originally displayed in the system tray (sunday night) - for some reason this has now disappeared (monday night)?
I do have a non-connected networking icon which can be maximised to show all connections available. Any idea how to get the "connected" connection displayed in the system tray?

 

[c0rv1d43]

I'm glad the upgrade is working for you. I'd be willing to bet, though, that you'll see an improvement in lots of little behaviors once you do a clean install of the OS. Microsoft actually did a pretty darned good job of enabling some of the registry settings under WinME to be transferred over to WinXP in the install-over process, but it still isn't perfect. And it actually causes a lot of problems on some systems. On the other hand there's no trouble at all with file complement issues in the install-over -- mostly because the install-over doesn't try to make use of the file complement from the previous OS install. There's one major exception to that, and that would be driver file complement. Fixing an issue with a non-compliant driver carried over from the previous OS install can be a real nightmare, especially when it's mixed with registry issues.

One thing that confuses me with XP so far is when I am online (using a modem) the connection icon was originally displayed in the system tray (sunday night) - for some reason this has now disappeared (monday night)?
I do have a non-connected networking icon which can be maximised to show all connections available. Any idea how to get the "connected" connection displayed in the system tray?

Go into the Properties dialog for you dialup connection. At the bottom General tab page you should see a setting called "Show icon in notification area when connected". Is that checked?

- Collin

 

[BFG10K]

However, having migrated from ME it seems to be about the same time involved.

That in itself is the good thing. Windows ME's footprint is extremely small compared to XP's yet they both booth the same speed because XP is so fast and efficient.

And once you boot the systems the benefits over Windows ME that XP offers become clearly obvious.

 

[gtd2000]

Go into the Properties dialog for you dialup connection. At the bottom General tab page you should see a setting called "Show icon in notification area when connected". Is that checked?

It is now 😉

And once you boot the systems the benefits over Windows ME that XP offers become clearly obvious.

I do certainly feel (I think?) a difference when navigating around my PC compared to ME. However, there is a slight illusion of "slowness" due to the "fading-in" of the windows (not sure how else to describe this?)

One feature that I am finding slightly negative about it when I have more than one yahoo messenger window open they are grouped under one item at the bottom of the screen. Previously individual chat screens were shown at the bottom. I'm sure there will be a way to change the setting though.

So far, overall, XP is looking pretty nifty 🙂

 

[c0rv1d43]

I do certainly feel (I think?) a difference when navigating around my PC compared to ME. However, there is a slight illusion of "slowness" due to the "fading-in" of the windows (not sure how else to describe this?)

If you don't like those "special effects" you can turn them off. Right-click on the desktop, select Properties, select the Appearance tab in the Display Properties dialog, click on the Effects button. In the resulting Effects dialog you can uncheck the item named "Use the following transition effect for menus and tooltips", or you can choose between "Fade effect" and "Scroll effect" with the drop-down selector. Turning off this effect has a fairly substantial effect upon speed on some systems, and almost no effect at all on other systems. The Effects dialog also lets you choose to turn font smoothing on or off, and the method used for font smoothing when it is enabled. Clear Type is a winner on LCDs but probably not an advantage for most CRTs. After making the changes you want just OK your way out of the dialogs.

One feature that I am finding slightly negative about it when I have more than one yahoo messenger window open they are grouped under one item at the bottom of the screen. Previously individual chat screens were shown at the bottom. I'm sure there will be a way to change the setting though.

Right-click on the Taskbar, choose Properties. On the Taskbar tab of the Taskbar and Start Menu Properties dialog uncheck the item named "Group similar taskbar buttons". The buttons won't be "stacked" on top of each other any more.

- Collin