Longer startup time on XP

L

[LYL]Homer

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 7, 2004
Messages
4,209
Has anyone noticed in the last few weeks that Windows XP is taking longer to start up?

I have one machine that I installed Windows Search 4.0, one of the optional updates, and that seemed to take forever at startup (about 2 minutes after seeing the desktop) until it was really usable. I uninstalled Windows Search 4.0, but it still seems like it takes about a minute after seeing the desktop until it is usable. I have a Raptor 150 in this machine and up until a few weeks ago it seemed to be usable about 20 seconds after desktop.

The other one is at work and is also an XP box. After the Windows Search 4.0 issue at home I decided not to even bother installing it on this machine. But all of a sudden is seems like this one is taking longer too, despite having a 74gb Raptor in it.

Anyone else notice something similar, and maybe solved it? Or did some crappy Windows Update screw us all?
 
Since you are running XP, you could google yourself a copy of BootVIS and find out what's taking the time up.
 
DeaconFrost said:
Since you are running XP, you could google yourself a copy of BootVIS and find out what's taking the time up.
Click to expand...

That was going to be my suggestion..

as for Vista - NOOOOO that will add 2 minutes on top of the 2-3 minutes you already are seeing.
 
Actually, all three of my Vista x64 boxes boot up faster than when XP was installed on the same systems. You can add my laptop to that list as well, so let's call it four systems. Please stop trying to pass off your personal vendetta against Vista as factual information.
 
DeaconFrost said:
Actually, all three of my Vista x64 boxes boot up faster than when XP was installed on the same systems. You can add my laptop to that list as well, so let's call it four systems. Please stop trying to pass off your personal vendetta against Vista as factual information.
Click to expand...

please stop using your few installs as fact... after thousands of Vista installations under my belt... Vista installs, boots and runs all around slower than XP in any given system with direct comparison on fresh clean installs.
Sure if you compare a 3 year old XP install that has the years of crud and temporary files and so on added to it on a Sempron system compared to a brand new Vista install on a Core2, of course Vista will be faster...
There have been unbiased benchmarks and tests and everything else showing that apples to apples, Vista is 10-30% slower than XP...
and this si why at least 35% of the technical types are moving away from Vista to XP or other operating systems.
http://www.webmonkey.com/blog/One_in_Three_Advanced_PC_Buyers_Dumps_Vista

Now InfoWorld’s analysis of tracking data shows that, of those that install their performance tool, 35% switch away from Vista, most to Windows XP. The data comes from about 3,000 users of Windows Sentinel, a free program that monitors the user’s system and aggregates results.
Click to expand...

Now please take your Windows Me version2 ball and play with it elsewhere
 
Classic. Make an assumption about someone, and then belittle them, because your personal experience means so much more than anyone else's. Classic.
 
This isn't going to turn into one of those threads, so let's just cut it right here.
The OP asked a specific question about his XP boot times. Not Vista, XP. So stick to the topic at hand.
 
Sorry, none of this helps your problems with longer boot times on XP. But I often feel the need to point out FUD when I see it from other posters.

screwballl said:
please stop using your few installs as fact... after thousands of Vista installations under my belt... Vista installs, boots and runs all around slower than XP in any given system with direct comparison on fresh clean installs.
Sure if you compare a 3 year old XP install that has the years of crud and temporary files and so on added to it on a Sempron system compared to a brand new Vista install on a Core2, of course Vista will be faster...
Click to expand...

Frankly, if you have installed thousands of Vista installs and they are booting and running slower than XP, you may want to revisit the image you have been using over and over.

On the Dozens of systems I have set up for friends and families over the past year all of them have booted and run extremely well. My experience has been on really old hardware XP had an edge, on 3 year old hardware they ran about the same and on anything current, Vista was faster.

This system despite not being a new install and having to load a lot of drivers for several USB devices and starting various services and software I use has a boot time of 50 seconds and that includes the time it takes to connect to my wireless network.

There have been unbiased benchmarks and tests and everything else showing that apples to apples, Vista is 10-30% slower than XP...
Click to expand...
Me too! A long time ago before driver issues were fully resolved. Of course, benchmarks done over the past year show that it's clearly not the case.

and this si why at least 35% of the technical types are moving away from Vista to XP or other operating systems.
http://www.webmonkey.com/blog/One_in_Three_Advanced_PC_Buyers_Dumps_Vista



Now please take your Windows Me version2 ball and play with it elsewhere
Click to expand...
Ah yes, the "research" done by Devil Mountain Software, the same folks that claimed XP SP3 was three times faster than Vista SP1.(how did that work out?) It's pretty funny that Vista bashers now are limited to using benchmarks and studies from this particular group of folks.
 
[LYL]Homer;1032915745 said:
But all of a sudden is seems like this one is taking longer too....
Click to expand...


Seems like? Is it or isn't it?

The only XP machine I have still in use here is an older laptop. that is kept updated and well maintained, and no. It hasn't recently suffered some sudden lengthening of startup duration. It fires up just as well as it ever did.


Are you sure this isn't just imagining? You've seen a problem on one machine, and now that you've looked at the others you've noticed that they don't fire up as quickly as they used to? It's only to be expect that a machine's performance under Windows XP will degrade a bit over time after it's been subjected to use and not diligently and regularly cleaned up, and if you haven't really taken much notice previously.....




By the way. That InfoWorld/Sentinal rubbish claiming that 35% of Vista purchasers have downgraded is so ridiculous that it's hilarious. It's about the worst 'research study design' imaginable, and the fact that it's been reported so widely is a sad reflection upon today's IT journalism circles.
 
I agree, something has also happened to my XP boot time. I've been trying to solve the problem in the past few days, but so far I;m at a loss.
 
My Vista boxen all boot up noticeably faster than any XP box ever did, but they all end up taking the same amount of time to be 'useful'. The XP box seems to spend its time booting the actual OS, so that by the time you hit your desktop it's almost ready to go (unless you've got crap loaded up). The Vista box on the other hand seems to take forever continuing to load mystery components once you log in, even on relatively clean installs. So I call it a wash.

(I haven't noticed an XP boot time increase, but I haven't put SP3 on all of them yet.)
 
Nothing mysterious about Vista's boot process: as long as you haven't disabled it, that activity is the SuperFetch RAM cache being repopulated with data, and ReadyBoost also if you're using USB sticks for that purpose. Perfectly normal operation, the way it was intended to be...
 
wildfire99 said:
My Vista boxen all boot up noticeably faster than any XP box ever did, but they all end up taking the same amount of time to be 'useful'.
Click to expand...

On mine I can start 'doing stuff' as soon as desktop appears, and even before it's finished loading startup stuff. (On all of them, that is, except an old single core rig which just doesn't have the grunt to handle that.)

I can't access the internet in net connected applications of course, until it's finished completing network detection, but other than that it's 'usable' before it finishes loading stuff.
 
I put a fresh install of vista 32 on my laptop and vista 64 on my desktop and noticed the lappy boots up faster and is usable, is that because of all the extras I have in my desktop.
 
vista was the worst thing i ever did to a computer, esp my first homebuilt

pure trash, absolutley steaming hot trash

my system as of now is worst/slower, yes slower see the specs and yes it is slower, than my $200 dell vostro, due to, vista
 
dipsetisnice said:
vista was the worst thing i ever did to a computer, esp my first homebuilt

pure trash, absolutley steaming hot trash

my system as of now is worst/slower, yes slower see the specs and yes it is slower, than my $200 dell vostro, due to, vista
Click to expand...

Why would that be? Is your HDD the culprit?
 
i dont know, but it still performs worst than my dell and i completley blame the os as it makes no sense why it should be slower with over $900 in premium parts

whats worse is im oced too dont know the exact specs though, i cant wait to go back to xp
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top