Speed up "Windows loading"?

I don't really have a problem with my boot up time, despite being longer than expected, but maybe if I ask around, I might get some help on improving it.

My laptop "boots up" [Note: not just desktop loaded, but even dock shortcuts and rainmeter on the desktop] in around 48 seconds. It might seem long, but I did a split stopwatch timing of it, just to see which part of my boot up time is the culprit. This is how it breaks down:

Part 1: 0-7.7 seconds: From pressing the power button until the DELL boot up screen disappears
Part 2: 7.7-37.8 seconds: From when Part 1 ends, the Windows XP loading bar/boot up screen until it disappears
Part 3: 37.8-48 seconds: From when Part 2 ends, the "Welcome" screen appearing until all my shortcuts in the dock and my rainmeter widgets [are they widgets? whatever] appear. Basically when the "loading" mouse cursor stops.

Now I don't have a problem with Parts 1 and 3. Part 1 is quite fast [I think] and Part 3 is forgivable [I do have a bunch of programs at startup, like Avira, WordWeb, Windows Defender, Google Updater, WinAmp Agent and of course ObjectDock and RainMeter -- although I do have a semi-Safe semi-Tweaked configuration, BlackViper that is].

So the question is, is there a way for my "Part 2" to be faster? Aside from buying new hardware [SSD, 7200RPM HDD, maybe even RAM] that is. I think having fewer Programs and Services loading at startup only affects my Part 3, or does it?

Thanks!

 

Your assumption regarding steps 2 and 3 and the timing of initializing your start-up programs is not necessarily valid. The transition from step 2 to step 3 is, basically, caused by the GUI having been fully loaded and initialized, and finally getting it's shot at drawing itself to the GPU; however, having the GUI up and ready to go is not a condition predicate for everything else to start loading.

To get a better sense of what's doing what, when, you'll need to set up some detailed boot logging to get a detailed log of everything that goes on at boot time (you'll probably have to run logs for a number of different boot ups to get a sense of how much variation is in the system). Also, keep in mind that detailed boot logging is going to take significant time away from the actual boot process, so the boot process will slow down when you're logging the boot process.

 

Maybe it'd help if I just posted a video of my laptop booting up? The point of the whole detailed description was that the "Windows XP loading" part [the "loading bar part"] of the boot up takes up the longest time in the whole boot up process... That's all

And just how do I do this?

Thanks for the response. More responses would be most welcome.

 

look the xp guide in my sig.

 

In XP, to enable boot logging, you have to add the switch "/bootlog" (w/o quotation marks) to your Boot.ini file, as described in Microsoft KB833721.

You can also find third-party boot log utilities, some of which might be useful to you (I make no suggestions or warranties as I've never used one of them) using this google search.

 

Use Microsoft's bootvis utility to rearrange the boot files for a quicker boot time. From my experience with it, bootvis can make a hell of a difference. Note, however, that it only runs on XP.

 

+1 for BootVis. It is a great app for XP users. It is no longer supported or available from Microsoft. But if you look around it can be easily found. Too bad it was pulled and even more too bad that there is nothing like it for Vista. There is some really good bootlogging in Vista, but it is so cryptic compared to what BootVis gave. ...sigh...

Gary

 

Yeah, I did some of those tweaks, while I skipped some of them [I NEED CLEARTYPE!!]. I'm not into using MinLogon however. I'm not to keen on using another account where I'll have to transfer and rearrange all my stuff...

Is this the Bootvis you're referring to?

Luckily I'm on XP.

 

48 seconds on XP is a great time. Press the power button, smile that you have such a snappy machine, and get a cup of coffee. With that time, Windows will be waiting for you long before you return.


There is a lot going on during the part you are concerned about and there is little you can do to speed it up other than boot vis, defragging and reducing the hardware your computer needs to install drivers for.

In vista, you could use robson to speed things up, but with XP you're kind of limited -- a faster harddrive with 7200 rpm and a larger cache would make a difference.

 

^^ Yeah, that's it.

 

Must be a psychological thing for ScuderiaConchiglia and Bog.

 

COULD make a difference. It is an urban myth that a 7200 rpm drive is automatically faster than a 5400 rpm one. The density of the drive is also a very real factor. A higher density 5400 rpm may actually be faster than a lower density 7200 rpm one. You need to look at the latency and transfer specs to REALLY compare two drives.

Gary

 

That first quote is a heaping load of legal department BS. Yes, the routines it uses are built into XP. However, they are not always invoked in many folks normal operation of a laptop. That is, the machine is never left in an idle state long enough for the automated boot file defrag operation to be invoked. The same is true in Vista. It has the built in functions but they rarely kick in unless you leave the laptop idle for a while. (See the link in my signature line below.)

Back to BootVis. Microsoft, at first, put this "disclaimer" in place and latter pulled the app altogether because some folks really hosed up their machines by twiddling with it. (Note the words "end user" in the warning.) Despite the verbiage, BootVis CAN improve your boot time. It can also give you much needed visibility into what parts of your boot process are particularly slow. This gives you some REAL, rather than anecdotal, evidence of where you might best expend your efforts in finding alternate drivers or apps to speed things up.


Trust me it ain't psychological. In fact BootVis was very helpful in my tracking down some of the info contained in the thread pointed to by the link in my signature line.

Gary

 

FWIW, I actually wrote COULD at first, then changed it to WOULD after looking at his computer, a Dell Vostro 1500 with a 160gb 5400 rpm drive.

Speaking from past experience with the Dell Vostro Line, I can say quite unequivocably that they put the slowest, cheapest drives they can find in there--so, rather than make a big explanation, I changed it to "would"

 

Regarding Bootvis, again, FWIW, I agree with Gary. Useful tool--probably not going to help much with a machine that boots up in under 60 seconds, but useful tool, nonetheless.

 

i think that the boot time for xp is great, you shouldn't worry about it that much

 

Yep, you are absolutely correct. In that particular case it would make a difference.

I just wanted to clarify for someone else that comes along and didn't see the actual specifics of his machine that a 7200 rpm drive is not automatically faster. There is a lot of misinformation on the web and here that make folks believe that they are always faster.

Gary

 

According to MS, it kicks in after only 10 minutes of idle time.

But of course, you can use BootVis to identify other problems, and then work from there.

It is not a tool that will make everything faster instantly though.

 

While my single experience may not categorically say that the "Bootvis effect" is definitely not psychological, I've certainly seen results, improved results, after optimizing my system.

[Sorry wasn't able to save the trace file before optimization, it was overwritten by the new one. ]

Before optimization, Bootvis says my "boot" was "done" [according to the vertical line with the box on top] in 42 seconds, with the "Logon+Service" bar extending a bit further beyond 60 seconds [around 62 seconds, if I may estimate].

Now, after optimization, Bootvis says "boot done" in 34.87 seconds, with the "Logon+Service" bar ending in 49.50 seconds.

But, forgetting about these bars and logs for a moment, I definitely notice how much faster my laptop boots up. And yes, the "Part 2" [see my original post] of my boot is much faster than before. Exactly what I wanted. Thanks a lot to all who helped Will give rep when the 24 hour limit is over.

When I earn enough money, I think I'll be buying a bigger drive, as I've heard these will yield faster performance, is that correct? Having more data squeezed up in a smaller area on the platter makes the bigger drives faster, or so I've heard.

 

Put that one right up there with "the check is in the mail". ...big ol' grin...

Yep, that is what I was driving at. It will let you envoke the "built in" boot file defrag manually. I just wish it would work under Vista.

Gary

 

Density alone, just like RPM alone, is NOT a good measure of performance. You need to specifically look at the transfer rate and the latency. It is pretty obvious what the former is, the latter is a measure of how much time it takes to move the heads from one spot to another. Both affect the performance. Density and RPM together affect the transfer rate. But one drive with a fast transfer rate and a slow latency number may not be as good as one with a slightly slower trasfer rate but a better latency number. There are some good reviews out there that use some real world testing methods that take both number into account.

Gary

 

You could try TuneXP 1.5

http://www.download.com/TuneXP/3000-2086_4-10290929.html?cdlPid=10290928

 

TuneXP, despite its claims, does NOTHING out of ordinary when it comes to defragging the boot files. It claims to invoke some special defrag magic, but it does not. When folks started using it under Vista (ONLY FOR BOOT FILE DEFRAGS, IT IS DANGEROUS FOR OTHER VISTA USES), several of us got into a debate about its effectiveness. To settle the argument, I did some extensive sleuthing to see what it really did. The result was that it tricks the OS into thinking that the OS is idle and then invokes the same defrag utilities that XP would use to defrag the boot files. Because of some other nasty side effects for Vista users, I created a small batch file that does the same thing that TuneXP does, to defrag the boot files.

For those interested there is a long winded article here: TuneXp's defrag routines exposed

TuneXP does some other things for XP users, but should NOT be used by Vista users. The 2nd link in my signature line points to a thread here with details on the simple batch file replacement, usable by both Vista and XP users.

Gary