How do you get a laptop that boots up fast? That is full windows?

How do you get a laptop that boots up fast? That is full windows?

What do you look for in a computer?

What determines how fast a laptop boots up? One thing I noticed is that there are programs that automatically pop up or start when I turn on computer and I think has something to do with it.

I turn on my laptop. It is an i3 hp envy ultrabook 4. Takes maybe 4 minutes opening things like skype and other misc programs. Is very slow during that time. Maybe takes 2 more minutes to be at full speed.

From sleep mode it is better. Maybe more like 1 minute to get to stop being sluggish.

I still have to do use restart and shut down all the time though. I don't only use sleep mode. Why? Because when the computer freezes or crashes or doesn't seem to be connecting or installing something, shutting down and restarting sometimes helps and I have been doing it pretty often lately.

I did google this question. There's alot of stuff on google that seems outdated from 2007 and 2008. Some people use this word "connected standby" and I am not sure how it is different from "sleep mode"

 

The short answer in three parts:

Part 1) Replace the current HDD with a Solid State Drive (SSD) - this will speed-up the loading of Windows by a factor of 3-4 times
Part 2) Cull all unnecessary background service programs from your start menu and set them to only load on activation - time saved dependent on quantity and size of services installed
Part 3) Move to Windows 8.1 - the OS kernel Loads a lot faster than Windows 7

Do all three, and your laptop will surprise you...

Dave

Note: Bold indicates typo fix...

 

I'm afraid!

I'm afraid of changing my computer! Opening it up, "cull all unncessary background service programs" <- I'm afraid! I don't know how to do this. Once you change something on your computer couldn't it break your computer? What is "culling"?

3. What are "OS kernel poads" ? I also heard that it is a bad idea to switch to a newer version of windows 8 and it can result in alot of headache with stuff not working.

When you buy a laptop how do you choose a laptop so that it will boot up fast straight out of the box without modifications?

 

Biggest factor in boot time will be the storage drive that you use for the OS; if you want to reduce it, you need to get some sort of SSD (recommend would be Crucial/Plextor/Samsung/Intel for reliability). Everything else falls a distance 2nd, 3rd, etc. in terms of importance, boot-wise. You could buy a laptop with a SSD pre-installed, but you get charged a lot more compared to just installing one yourself aftermarket.

As for messing around with start-up stuff, it's easy to do and won't really hurt all that much (unless you do something incredibly bone-headed). For Windows 7 (and probably Windows 8/8.1), search for "msconfig", open it, go to "Start Up", and deselect any programs you don't need to start running as soon as the computer is turned on. Don't touch anything that relates to the hardware itself (just my suggestion), for example nVidia stuff or whatnot. But if you have something like iTunes set to open at start up, I'd uncheck that. You can also do some other stuff in msconfig to help with boot times, like going to "Boot" and checking "No GUI boot" (which only means you don't waste compute resources showing you the Windows logo at boot). You can also go to "Services" and disable any that you know you don't use (like "Fax"); consult Google if you need any detailed explanations to what each service does and if you should tamper with it.

"Cull" is just a way to say cut back or disable. And I've never heard of "OS kernel poads"; where did you hear about that? But that's besides the point, as you shouldn't be touching anything kernel related in the first place.

Upgrading to a newer OS version *might* leave you with driver issues (say, your laptop might not have a Windows 8 driver for certain hardware you use). However, this almost never is a problem and if you do run into an issue, you generally should be able to use a Windows 7 driver. Though personally I prefer 7 to 8 on a laptop... And speaking of OSes, another way to help reduce clutter and performance issues would be to reinstall a *fresh* copy of the OS you're using. The computer typically comes from the factory with bloatware on it (in your case, anything HP related, possibly Nero, possibly some crappy anti-virus like Norton).

 

The slightly longer answers:

The factors that influence boot-up/application load/shut-down time:

a) The disk read/write speed - slow disk = long boot/fast disk = short boot
b) The number/size of background service programs installed at boot time - many/big = long boot/few/small = short boot
c) The operating system version - Windows 8 faster than earlier versions
d) The "vintage" of the laptop - older systems have slower data bus speeds = long boot/newer have faster bus = short boot

Dave

Hi JH,

This desktop I'm posting this on has an OCZ Vertex 4 256GB SSD and, after initial installation, used to boot in ~20 seconds with Windows 7 Professional. Then I got carried away with utility programs that were auto started and the boot time went out to 55 seconds. Subsequent culling (i.e. removing any unnecessary programs from the start menu) has brought boot time back down to ~20 seconds on same OS.

What I'm getting at is that some folk can get totally carried away when they set up applications with installed services and wind up with a very protracted boot time...

PS: I have 8 x disk drives always on (1 x SSD, 1 x 2.5" 750GB 7200rpm HDD plus 6 x 3TB Seagate ST3000DM001 drives)
I also have another 8 x 3TB Seagate ST3000DM001 drives in three USB 3.0 connected external enclosures.

20 second boot is just for the 8 "always on" drives, but if I power on all three enclosures before switching on the system, the boot time goes out to > 70 seconds as the system checks each of 14 drives...

Dave

 

^^^ Yeah, definitely got to watch out for programs building up on the "auto start" list. Personally, I keep my desktop pretty lean on that front (most of my programs are on my desktop; my laptops/tablet are very, very lean machines), and even with just a 7200RPM mechanical drive I'm getting better boot times than what OP's reporting (I figure it's around a minute and a half or two until the login screen; haven't bothered timing it accurately).

My laptops and tablet all have SSDs in them, and boot times are around 15-25 seconds each, fastest one being the Intel 330 I have in my W520. Someday I might just get around to getting a SSD in my desktop, though for right now I'm not too concerned about boot performance on my gaming machine (since games rarely take advantage of SSDs...).

 

agree with all the above.
laptops vary from £200 - £6000 so the more you spend on a computer the faster it will be.
a SSD compared to a standard spindle drive can make worlds of a difference.
i have a clevo with a western digital drive and it takes 20-25 seconds to fully boot up and be on the forum.
my other clevo (spec below) when new boots and i was on the forum within 12 seconds. its now about 15 seconds as i have 400gb space used up on my ssd.
a lot of programs will load on boot up. some of these you actually dont need as the more you have the slower it will load up.
i use TuneUp Utilities 2014 | Speed Up and Optimize Your PC which cleans up all your unwanted junk. it also has a page to turn off applications on boot up which will keep your laptop in tip top condition.

 

If you are on windows 7, type msconfig in the start menu search bar and go to the list of startup programs. Some will be pretty explicit, other not so much, google them. If you are under Windows 8, the startup entries are in the task manger. Again, some will be pretty explicit, other, less. Make sure you don't disable things like video and sound drivers or thing you want to start when Windows starts.


I'm surprised no one mentioned POST as a factor as well, some laptops will take longer to POST than others. Just in case you didn't know, POST stands for power on self test, it's when you see the HP/Dell/whatever logo and the BIOS is performing a series of hardware check. Depending on what hardware your laptop has, boot order as well as whether secureboot and such are enabled, POST may be faster or slower. My latop likely takes more time to POST than to actually boot Windows 8.

 

Best boot time improvement: SSD with a clean install of Windows in UEFI mode.

 

That does help alot but more to this is RAM expand the RAM and that will give a boost in performance more sooner then SSD or HDD. Also a upgrade in CPU also will help your load and run times as well. So there are more then one way to Skin a Cat.......

Culling isn't necessary just uninstall old un-needed program and check your "Startup" folder and any programs there that doesn't need to start remove the shortcut there. Also uninstall any and all Toolbars they are a waste of HDD space and memory hogs. Also get a smaller A/V program like MSE that isn't memory intensive to run and use so it doesn't hog memory resources to run. So one doesn't have to remove program but get more reliable programs that don't waste HDD space and memory resources to run.

Even more wrong I can't tell people enough...all those so called faster isn't true a W8 next to W7 same setup and hardware will be only couple seconds of difference nothing that really makes going to W8 of any value.

Remember nothing everything requires something new or new hardware to get it faster.

 

as a supplement to other answers..
I would suggest installing a light weight antivirus such as Avast or MSE.
Use a program like Revo uninstaller when removing programs/games because it also removes any registry keys and any files related to those programs.

 

No, don't use MSE. It's known for being really bad these days, and nothing like how it was four years ago.

Goodbye Microsoft Security Essentials: Microsoft Now Recommends You Use a Third-Party Antivirus

Home: AV-TEST - The Independent IT-Security Institute

I fixed my friends laptop last week, his MSE didn't find any of the malware that was present. MBAM found 119 instances, and then Avira found 4 more.

 

SSD is going to be the biggest bang for your buck, plain and simple.

 

HDD's are very old technology, tbh. I'm surprised we've only come so far as we have in this area. HDD's are still the "standard" in computing, and it's 2014.

Imagine taking a record player, the record being where the storage is accessed, and we shrink it down to fit inside your laptop. That's basically what an HDD is. It's a spinning platter that has to wind up to access data. It's very slow and fragile. Some may say "more reliable" in terms of longevity, but I don't think that matters anymore. We have access to flash storage now for a few dollars, and can literally backup everything to flash drives or cloud storage, which is becoming more and more popular. Cloud Storage is sometimes free with the purchase of a computer these days. Longevity isn't as important anymore - speed and accessibility is. An SSD is in a constant state, hence, "Solid State." It's a storage device that stores data on solid-state flash memory. It can be instantly accessed, and there are absolutely no moving parts.

Programs can also cause slow computing. This is usually what causes speed reduction problems.

 

Well MSE is not bad at all, those who dislike it are those who frequently visit sites that are risky and need a program to protect them selves against malicious files. Currently using MSE on a Win7 machine and have never had a single virus problem. There are many antivirus programs that need to update or perform a scan as soon as windows starts up and that might be the main reason for the slow startup. Removing the current antivirus or programs that start up after a boot (through MSCONFIG) and measuring the time it takes to start up could give a clue on what causes the slow start up.

 

Did you see my links? MSE is the worst in that test, and it has been like that for a while now. I used to like it, until reports kept telling me that I shouldn't use it. I actually never had a problem with it, but I'm also quite cautious, and why wait until it happens?
My friend that I was talking about never had any issues for years with his old laptop. Apparently he clicked on ONE bad link on his new one, and after that got messed up with loads of crap. When he asked me to fix it, it seemed to be an easy one at first, but then I realized I'd better reinstall the whole thing, just to be sure.

How can you tell if MSE can't detect it in the first place? I'm not saying that you might have malware on your computer, but it was kind of painful to see MSE finding ONE malware on my friends laptop, and that wasn't until MBAMs scanner was running, which found 119...

Sure, but that's a matter of settings.

Indeed, I usually have about three programs there.

 

Define bad link

I never use those kinds of bad links and thats why I have no isuues with virus, but malwares are a different issue, the bottom line is an antivirus will never keep one safe even if they use those bad links.

 

A bad link can easily be a malicious ad or something similar. You can sometimes find those on entirely legit sites too. All it takes is a moment where you aren't that attentive. Or you could click on a spam link on a forum. I've seen a lot of forums where the spammy posts actually never get taken down, the spammer is banned and then it's left at that.

 

Well, this per their article.

And then they link to themselves. Also there is an update after they claim M$ recommends not to use MSE.

Well self serving internal links then an update essentially negating the headline is just a bit too out there for me.

Edit; there are some links you can click on that will just do you in no matter what. My son in law clicked one of those with AVG a couple of years ago. What a mess is all I can say. While I got him back to running it was a lot of work and I'll again state that in the end no virus scanner etc. can protect the system from the user!

 

Exactly, it's impossible. Hence, no reason to use the worst AV from that test.

The scenario: He clicked one link, the laptop got infected, MSE did nothing, he ended up with a messed up laptop.

The alternative: If he had used a better AV, the laptop would have ended up with just that one malware, which in turn would have gotten removed. Hopefully.

See the difference?

 

@Mats,
If you visit forums of any of those high respected AV you refer to from that test, you will see there are many threads regarding affecting by viruses and malwares, even on some other forums there are daily reports of virus/malware infections, even though those users are using AVs mentioned in that test you refer to, rather than MSE.

See for your self and you'll see there are no super AV!

 

Well, that's what I meant with "hopefully" You totally misunderstood me.

Like my friend I was talking about. He rarely clicks a bad link, from what I can tell it happened once the last four years that got him into real trouble.
But when that happens, he needs an AV that has the best resources to prevent the laptop from getting filled up with crap and become completely. This is where MSE failed.

I've never said anything about a perfect or "super" AV, there are several AVs that are average, but my point is that MSE is way below average.

By your reasoning I don't understand why you use a AV at all. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I don't use one all the time.
Just don't suggest MSE to others, it's not good enough anymore. Honestly, I wish it was.

 

I wish I could accept your reasoning, but the test results you refer to doesn't tell how they came up with the result that some AV are better than others. Unless you can't come up with some scientific facts that one AV is better than other, I think you should keep the comparison for your self and do not confuse others. As for me I never blindly accept what I read or hear, I look for facts.

And by your reasoning I think you seem to be always on alert for a better AV to protect you, so why don't you switch to a tablet or Linux laptop, they are much more safer against virus attacks these days.

 

You know I've always wondered, wouldn't a good imaging software be a possible alternative to an AV program? As long as you reglarly image your HDD/SSD, and keep an offline backup of important data, you're basically immune from 95% of the virus/malware. This is my thought process:

When you have an infection, simply boot off a USB/CD, nuke the entire drive, then copy the good image back. Short of a BIOS virus (like the infamour CIH) this should take care of 95% of the infections. If you wipe the MBR as well (I think DBAN and secure erase on SSD does this?) then that will take care of the pesky few that write themselves to that partition.

I guess the difference is that good AV should prevent said infection in the first place and thus preventing the hassle above. But let's say the machine gets infected anyway, then in that case would it not be better (and potentially much faster) to just wipe the drive clean, then copy the good image back?

 

The site does tell about their test procedures.

I can't keep it to myself, because I didn't make it. The test is linked to all over the net. Your experience is only in your head.

I linked a comparative test to the OP, and in short, all you gave was your personal experience and nothing else:

But at the same time you say:

You contradict yourself, you're giving the OP advice that you wouldn't trust personally.

Why don't you give him some facts? Give us one test that is less than a year old and recommends MSE, scientific or not.

Here's another test, also saying that MSE is under average: http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/avc_factsheet2014_04.pdf

 

The flaw in that idea is your ability or lack thereof to detect the presence of an infection when you create the system image. Clearly, if your system is infected when you create that backup, the image will do you no good... So, no, backups by themselves are no alternative to good practices. And, no, antivirus software by itself, likewise, is no substitute for such practices, such as using limited user accounts and UAC.

 

Well sure. Obviously that will do you no good if the image is bad, but I meant if you kept a known clean image stored safely offline, that could be a good (and potentially quick) fix to any infection you might run into.

For an SSD, I'm inclined to think that secure erasing the drive and then loading a good clean image might almost be superior to dealing with the infection after the fact. I mean you basically get a fresh start without having to worry about whether you've left any remnants or undoing any damage to system files or weird/unexpected errors or BSODs.

Of course all of this is assuming that you image regularly and are confient that the images are clean (which I guess is where the AV/malware scanners come in).

This piqued my interest because I read about Crytolocker recently, and was thinking how easily it could be defeated if people practiced good backup techniques and imaged regularly. I mean who cares if all your data got encrypted and the scumbag is asking for $300 to get it back. Just hit up PartedMagic, secure erase the drive, then reload a good image using your favorite imaging software and call it a day. Probably would take you less than an hour if you have a reasonably sized image.

 

Not going to argue against keeping good backups. It's pretty much common sense and anyone not doing so (at least for important data) is being an idiot imo.

However, it's not a mutually-exclusive thing. You can certainly use both a good AV and backups (and, most importantly, common sense) to protect yourself. While I like to think I have plenty of computer common sense, I still keep a good AV/malware program around since it can provide some nice benefits in addition to simply blocking some threats. For example, I use Malwarebyte's Pro and whenever I'm online, if I go to a bad link that tries to do a drive-by download on me, Malwarebyte's will give me a small pop-up that tells me that the site I'm on just tried to do something to me (and also gives me a source IP address of the attack), which is useful in that it let's me know not to go to that particular site again in the future.

 

Oh I totally agree. Prevention is always better than cure. I have Malwarebytes Pro and MSE on all my laptops, and have offline backups of my important data on an external HDD (for extra analness, the REALLY important data I additionally backup to an external 64GB USB). I keep a working clone SSD on hand, and image once every 2 weeks.

It's just that having dealt with multiple infections over the past couple years, it suddenly occurred to me that it's probably a whole lot faster to go the secure erase-->reimage route (or DBAN-->reimage for HDDs, but that will be significantly slower) than trying to disinfect the machine.