1. Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

windows xp boot speeds

Discussion in 'General Software' started by exodusprime1337, Jan 5, 2008.

  1. exodusprime1337

    exodusprime1337

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,188 (0.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    342
    I was using and a64 4000 at 3.1Ghz for the longest time and on a kit of ddr400 at 512Mhz at 3,3,3,8 1t i could never even see the loading screen in windows xp it just flashed on started to run the bar across and then go, but now i'm seeing that with my dual core x2 at 3.35 which is faster and running dual core it is a much slower boot, yeah programs and games scream but why is the boot time so slow?? is there something i missed, i have the dual core patch, xp hotfix, amd dual core optimizer, reg tweak, boot.ini mod, and the amd driver?? am i messing something up??
     
  2. ex_reven New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Messages:
    5,225 (1.66/day)
    Thanks Received:
    171
    Maybe you have too much crap trying to startup at startup (lol).
    The more services and apps you run on boot, the longer startup is.
     
  3. erocker

    erocker Super Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    40,385 (12.61/day)
    Thanks Received:
    15,027
    Funny, I just got a sata drive to replace my IDE storage drive, and I replaced my OS2 keyboard with a USB one. My windows startup screen (with the bar) used to take about 6 seconds, now it lasts less than 1 sec. You start using a different keyboard recently too?
     
  4. ntdouglas

    ntdouglas New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2007
    Messages:
    1,026 (0.34/day)
    Thanks Received:
    44
    Location:
    Chicago
    I just installed a 3rd backup hdd and it really increased boot time.:banghead:
     
  5. ex_reven New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Messages:
    5,225 (1.66/day)
    Thanks Received:
    171
    Disable it as a boot device, maybe that will speed it up a lil.
     
  6. Yin

    Yin

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2006
    Messages:
    542 (0.16/day)
    Thanks Received:
    32
    check your bios disable stuff u dont need and empty your prefetch folder
     
  7. exodusprime1337

    exodusprime1337

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,188 (0.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    342
    Hey guys, thanx for the feedback, the keyboard i use is a g15 with an mx518. thiis slowdown is showing with a mere 17-18 boot processes going. on a single core i can boot much faster then i can in dual core. what is making it so slow, overallmy computer is much faster in doing it's work, but it just boots so goddamn slow. not too slow but it could boot faster. Should i uninstall dual core optimizer or the xphotfix or something?? What are your average boot speeds for some of u with a similar situation.
     
  8. francis511

    francis511

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    2,547 (0.82/day)
    Thanks Received:
    271
    Location:
    N.Ireland
    Windows rot... Got a system restore point you can roll back to ??
     
  9. Irish_PXzyan

    Irish_PXzyan

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2006
    Messages:
    2,486 (0.80/day)
    Thanks Received:
    59
    Location:
    Republic Of Ireland
    Sorry OP. But when you say this:
    i have the dual core patch, xp hotfix, amd dual core optimizer, reg tweak, boot.ini mod.

    What are they? iam getting a Quad CPU soon...will I need a quad core patch?? and XP hotfix?? and this reg tweak?? and boot.ini mod??? please...please let me know what these actualy do and why you need them?
     
  10. ex_reven New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2006
    Messages:
    5,225 (1.66/day)
    Thanks Received:
    171
    I'm positive that bootup only uses the one core.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 5, 2008
  11. trog100 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2005
    Messages:
    4,420 (1.29/day)
    Thanks Received:
    237
    boot up only uses a fraction of one core.. its the hardrive u are waiting for..

    with a fresh virgin windows intall i get to windows in about 25 seconds.. i used to do this years ago.. it now takes 2 whole minutes for windows to finish loading.. most of that after the windows screen appears.. CCC.. my firewall.. virus stuff.. all take ages to load.

    basically it does all this just as quick (or slow) with an ancient single core cpu running at half the speed as it does with a super fast overclocked quad..

    my 1.8 gig single core second system boots quicker than my 3.8 gig multi core current system..

    someone needs to re-invent the hardrive.. its the major bottleneck of any current system.. they have gotten bigger but not faster..

    trog
     
  12. mete656 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2008
    Messages:
    1 (0.00/day)
    Thanks Received:
    0
    what is your motherboard?
    in bios settings enable pci ide busmaster support or something like that...
    cant remember the exact name but it was something like that
     
  13. CrAsHnBuRnXp

    CrAsHnBuRnXp

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2007
    Messages:
    5,696 (2.08/day)
    Thanks Received:
    726
    No you wont need a quad core patch (not for Intel anyway) or a hot fix (again not for intel. Im not sure abotu AMD). You wont need to tweak th registry or the boot.ini. The registry tweaking and boot.ini hacks are just to speed up the OS boot process and not necessary to do.
     
  14. imperialreign

    imperialreign New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    7,043 (2.48/day)
    Thanks Received:
    909
    Location:
    Sector ZZ₉ Plural Z Alpha
    without going the route of a clean install of WIN and wiping your harddrive - cleaning the registry, and then running a utility to defrag and compact the registry will really help boot up times.

    also defrag the HDD - use a program that can also defrag the boot sectors, pagefile and all during system bootup. Severelly fragged boot sectors will cripple WIN startup.

    also go through all the crap that XP want's run at startup, and go through the startup folder itself. I'd do this last, as it tends to make the least amount of difference . . .



    agreed . . . and instead of really redesigning it, they'll just keep redesigning the interface. when is the next version of SATA supposed to hit the market?
     
  15. Snipe343

    Snipe343

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2007
    Messages:
    1,002 (0.35/day)
    Thanks Received:
    34
    my 1.2 celeron boots into windows xp in 4 seconds, all i did was diabled all the startup programs and it reduced the time by 20 seconds XD
     
  16. trog100 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2005
    Messages:
    4,420 (1.29/day)
    Thanks Received:
    237
    the interface is not the problem.. the mechanical nature of the device plus the greater amount of data that has to be shifted is the problem..

    solid state is the ultimate answer.. the interface is theoretical.. the oh so slow mechanical hardrive is currently the reality.. platters and heads can only move so fast..

    trog
     
  17. imperialreign

    imperialreign New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    7,043 (2.48/day)
    Thanks Received:
    909
    Location:
    Sector ZZ₉ Plural Z Alpha
    agreed - but all wer really see from HDD manus at this point is higher RPM's and new SATA interfaces. SATA 6.0 is still under development by SATA-IO, 15,000 RPM HDD's are already on the market . . . it's only a matter of time until they've pushed the boundaries of what the materials are capable of - not the technology.
     
  18. trog100 New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2005
    Messages:
    4,420 (1.29/day)
    Thanks Received:
    237
    the vast majority od desktop hardrives have run at 7200 rpm for the last six or seven years.. this aint by accident.. they have gone from 40 gig to 750 gig in size but still go at the same speed..

    games have gone from less than half a gig in size to 6 plus gigs in size.. the data i have stored has gone up from 40 gig to a 1000 gig..

    it aint exactly surprising that i now spend time waiting for my hardrive ..

    take my word for it.. if it was possible to make these things go quicker it would have been done long ago.. whoever did it would make a bloody fortune..

    takes the 52 speed dvd reader.. why has it been 52 for years.. simple.. the plastic would disintegrate (fly apart) if they tried to make them spin faster..

    for the speed to have kept pace with the size.. thngs have to be a little better than your imaginary 15000 rpm future..

    think 20 x 7200.. hmmmm

    trog
     
  19. exodusprime1337

    exodusprime1337

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,188 (0.81/day)
    Thanks Received:
    342
    thanx again guys, see the funny thing i'm still running the same 2 raid 0 drives from my 4000 rig, basically just took out the mb and proc. popped in new mb and processor and reinstalled windows. it's always slower after the 100 or so times i redo windows(i'm the type that redoes windows every 1 or two weeks) and it's just slower, so is it just because a dual core processor is in the computer that it's just going to run slow??
     
  20. keakar

    keakar

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,523 (0.85/day)
    Thanks Received:
    346
    Location:
    just outside of new orleans
    i have never heard this action recommended before, is this something that is safe to do?

    dont you need the uninstall stuff in there?

    i dont want to frack up my windows install
     
  21. AM4A1 New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    84 (0.03/day)
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Location:
    New York, NY
    keakar says thanks.
  22. imperialreign

    imperialreign New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    7,043 (2.48/day)
    Thanks Received:
    909
    Location:
    Sector ZZ₉ Plural Z Alpha
    15000 RPM is on the market, but they aren't cheap: http://www.google.com/products?hl=en&q=15000+rpm+hard+drive+sata&lnk=qsugt

    but, IMO, all out rotational speed isn't the way to go - the faster the HDD turns, the quicker it'll come apart. fFor anything that functions 'rotationally' - the higher the RPM, the more excessive the forces exerted upon the center of the rotating component, leading to quicker wear and a quicker fail rate.

    Take car engines for example - it's not the horsepower you're putting out that will kill a motor, it's RPM's. A 2500hp motor can handle it all day long if built well and running only 2000 RPM.

    I'm just saying I agree that HDDs need to be taken back to the drawign board, that's all.
     

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guest)

Share This Page