faster boot up

can anyone tell me what can i do to have a faster boot time on windows and not have anything load up in the beginning that i really dont need

 

win+r>"msconfig"startup tab>uncheck>apply>ok>restart

 

whats safe and unsafe to check, are there things that you really need and not safe to uncheck

 

Post a screenshot and I'll help.

 

Sounds like you need this: http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/59910-services.html

and this: http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/81176-speed-up-performance-vista.html

 

Defragment your boot files.

Also - the only things that aresafe to uncheck are things you added - processes like Adobe Updater...

 

install DOS

 

The best solution I found was to simply not reboot very often. Vista does surprisingly well at remaining stable - the only time I ever need to reboot is when I install updates.

Rather than shutting down my computer, I just put it to sleep or hibernate, depending on the length of time before I need it again.

 

Yes, sleep and hibernate are your friend.

 

It is also safe to uncheck services like error reporting and things like skytel if you don't use it.

I suggest you try a program called Vista Manager. It has a great easy to understand user interface and will help you increase performance and remove unneeded clutter.

If you can spare the money, an SSD would also speed up your boot time considerably.

 

I hibernate. it's supposed to be safer then shutting down some ppl say.

 

How is hibernate "safer" than shutting down. That is not true at all. Shut down, closes everything and turns off the machine. Hibernate saves all activity to the harddrive like apps open, etc. so when you turn it back on, everything is how it was before. If anything, there are equally as safe, but by no means is hibernate safer than shut down.

 

I prefer not to hibernate and have those files written to my SSD.

 

hibernate attemps to write all files, it does really try to tidy things up to avoid problems. You can force this by shutting down your applications before hibernation.

Sounds like you're listening to a few old wives tales regarding hibernate. Perhaps from someone whose knowledge dates back to the Win95 era......

 

Also, read this. That is, assuming you're running XP, as indicated in your sig. The corresponding Vista thread is stickied.

Cheers...

 

hibernate is really useful on portable PC's but sleep is best for Desktop PC's.

 

My method is to go to 'msconfig' and tweak from there. Under 'Services' check
'hide Microsoft services'. Uncheck services you don't need on startup such as updaters, itunes, mobile me, etc and click apply. Under 'Startup Programs' uncheck programs you don't need to start, again, like updaters, itunes, etc. Also under 'Boot', 'Advance' check 'Number of Processors and choose 2, click apply, click 'OK' and reboot.

 

No. It's safer to go to services.msc and disable services from there rather than msconfig.

 

Tweaking Services in Vista isn't too useful - it can give you a tiny boost but that's it.

 

And in Vista, make sure you don't disable anything unless you're sure you want to. Disabling everything without exception will - in all probability - have a negative impact on performance. Disabling stuff like Superfetch, for example, will cause more harm than good.

 

Urban myth. That does nothing to improve boot time, since the default boot is to use ALL processors anyway. A quick Google will point you to threads explaining WHY that option is there.

Gary

 

Agreed, but the crap that both Apple and Adobe add is ridiculous. Why the hell do I want the Adobe and Apple updaters running all the time? Why are these two companies so freakin' arrogant that they think there apps need to check for updates continuously? Why can't they do things like the rest of the civilized world and check for updates at application start? And why does iTunes insist on installing the iPod helper at all when I don't have an iPod? I installed iTunes to use with a usb turntable I purchased, it is required for the turntable software.

Stepping down from my soapbox.

For me it does make sense to CARFULLY disable some services that one is CERTAIN are not necessary.

Gary

 

I agree, but that junk isn't part of the services.

 

I would respectfully disagree on hibernating or sleep options as far as portable pc's are involved.
At least not if you are continuously mobile.
The laptop in both hibernation and sleep modes remains operational to a degree and drains the battery (albeit very slowly), plus it is recommended to completely turn off the laptop if you will carry it in your bag for example from one location to the other on longer travels.

 

Not all configurations of laptops remain partially operational in hibernation mode. It depends both on the model and how it is configured. For example my Sony FZ has wake on lan disabled and exhibits ZERO power loss when hibernated. There are other models of Sony laptops that even with wake on lan disabled still show some power loss when fully powered off. Yes, powered off, not hibernation.

My point is you can't really make a blanket statement about the advisability of using sleep or hibernate.

Gary

 

Well..if you want to look it that way, then when a laptop is turned off, it still drains the battery (albeit very slowly) as well. No matter what, the battery will be drained very slowly whether you connect anything to it.

Hibernate turns off "all" hardware. Sleep on a laptop is the same as hibernate unless you specifically changed it to hybrid sleep.

 

Something else - the turning off for travel refers to the HDD - all non-moving parts couldn't care less if they are moved or not while in operation.

 

Yes there is a debate on choosing 2 processors when booting. It won't do any harm doing it. I find that more RAM boots the comp faster too. I just upgraded my Dell XPS 1530 to 8gigs RAM with Vista Ultimate x64 and it does indeed boot faster.

 

????

If that option is enabled by default then "chosing it" won't change anything.

 

which isn't a problem at all, espencially as you have SLC ssds. it's not like an ssd died yet because of too much writing, actually.

 

Hibernating completely turns off your computer. Proof? do it, take out the battery, the power cord, put all back in, turn it on, and the bios appears like ordinary, afterwards hibernate restores your system.

sleep does drain battery, but hibernates as well for savety when there IS a powerloss. hybrid sleep does so, too but in a different order.

but pure hibernation is completely like powering off your system. all it does is write your ram to disk, and then turns off.

 

it will do harm, as the day you have a quadcore (or a dualcore with hyperthreads), it will not boost as fast anymore as it could, as it's forced to boot with two cores only, then.

it's ONLY FOR DEBUGGING PURPOSES, FOR DEVELOPERS.

there is NO. i repeat: NO use for it for a normal user. NEVER.

 

No, there is no debate. The option is ONLY there to allow you to choose FEWER processors at boot up for debugging and testing. Setting it will not do any harm, nor will it do anything positive. Setting it to the maximum number of processors has ZERO affect.

http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/153125-boot-advanced-options-number-processors.html


Gary

 

If you have a security software, that might slow things a bit as KIS2009 did to my system. ESET SS has made it load faster.

 

Shouldn't happen with Kaspersky - did you run a full system scan once? It speeds up after that.

 

the biggest boost i ever got to boot speed was with tweakxp, used the function where it makes you reboot your computer and it reads every file your computer uses to boot, then it defragmeents them all and puts them in sequencial order. it nearly cut my boot time in half.

Mind you I keep a very clean install too, I have all processes & programs turned off that I dont use.

TweakXP is for Windows XP but this one function works fine for Vista.

I have kinda derived that there are some defrag programs out there that do the same thing or similar, want to say diskkeeper is one of them, but I have not tried it.

 

Completely untrue! I always had superfetch disabled, and it improved performance for me, not to mention RAM usage.
Superfetch, search, and readyboost are the worst ones when it comes to resource usage.

 

Gary once followed that up - all that does is call up a Windows Comman - and Gary offers a bat file to defragment boot files.

...how often had we had that debate on NBR
You save 5 seconds at startup but lose 10 seconds ever time you launch an application...

But then, its your choice...

 

PLEASE. PLEASE. PLEASE. Do not suggest that folks running Vista should load TweakXP on their machines. While the function you mentioned does work on Vista there are others that can crash Vista or worse. TweakXP's claim of doing some special super secret boot file defrag is pure BS.

After there were several problems with folks using TweakXP and it screwing up their system (because they tried some of the OTHER functions), I broke out an XP box and investigated exactly what TweakXP was doing in this boot file defrag. Turns out all it was doing was invoking two simple DOS commands. Nothing more. And those two commands work fine under Vista. So, I wrote up an article on my findings along with a batch file that folks can use to do the same thing without the need for TweakXP at all. And I posted it here on NBR. See my signature line below for a link to the article and batch file.

Gary

 

Too bad you don't understand the whole premise behind the differences in memory management between XP and Vista. If you did, you'd understand why this statement is ridiculous. I have five words for you: "Unused memory is wasted memory".

Gary

 

Great article on How to Defrag and Organize Vista's Boot Files ScuderiaConchiglia .

I will do as you recommend on my desktop that uses conventional HDD's.

Am I correct in assuming this would have little to no effect on a SSD?

 

I can't say for sure as I do not have any SSD drives. But I would think ot would have little to no effect as there is no latency on SSD drives like there is on HDD ones.

Gary

 

I did state not to use any other features didnt I? It is called TweakXP and not TweakVista right?

I said use only that one command, dont get so worked up.

Im glad you have an alternative solution, but mine was fine also. Good test to see who can follow instructions

 

You stole that quote from me

 

When Les was creating the Vista Tips and Tweaks thread there were a few folks who couldn't resist the temptation to try other things in TweakXP and it wreaked havoc. I know you said to only use the one command, but I wanted to be certain that folks realized the danger and that the author of TweakXP's claim to some special defrag was false.

Yes yours is fine as long as folks stay the hell away from the other functions in the app. Mine comes with no such caveats. I guess I don't understand why anyone would continue to suggest the use of TweakXP on a Vista machine when a safer alternative exists.

Gary

 

I knew it came from someone else, hence the quotes around it. But for the life of me I couldn't remember who coined the phrase. To be honest this time next week I probably won't remember again either. ...big ol' grin...

Gary

 

doing the idle-stuff helps a bit for ssd's, too. maybe placebo, maybe not

i do file defrags on my ssd's, too. but only the tiny files with tons of fragments. if have a 1mb file that has 10000 fragments, defragmenting it helps, even just in wasted space.

 

What are you using from Adobe? If it's just the pdf viewer, I'd highly recommend using FoxIt. Does the basic job of viewing PDF files without all the added bloat of Adobe.

 

More than just the PDF reader and even so, I need more than just those basic functions that FoxIt provides.

Gary

 

Fair enough, was just a thought.

For people that only view PDFs such as manuals etc, FoxIt would be my recommended solution over Adobe. It's installed on all my machines with exception to my desktop where I, like you, require more than just reading PDFs.