PDA

View Full Version : Vista Ultimate slow boot (sometimes)...


lutikri55
Jul 26, 2007, 01:23 AM
.

efin
Jul 26, 2007, 03:05 AM
I solved that by defragmenting. Sounds too simple, but it really worked for me.

corny
Jul 26, 2007, 08:51 AM
+1 to defragging, I made a thread about general slowness; one defrag later and it was improved greatly.

Destroy
Jul 6, 2008, 08:46 PM
Just came across this info and not sure how many know about this to speed up boot time.

http://www.helpwithwindows.com/WindowsVista/Speed_Up_Windows_Vista_Boot_Time.html

"Speed Up Windows Vista Boot Time


When you have a computer with a recent model CPU, chances are it's a dual-core CPU. Both Intel & AMD have been producing dual core CPU's for a few years now. By default, Windows Vista will only use a single core during boot-up. You can easily change this from the System Configuration utility:

In Vista's Start Search type msconfig & hit the [Enter] key on your keyboard
Once System Configuration has started, select the Boot tab and click the Advanced Options button
Check the Number of processors check box, and choose 2 for the number of processors (Figure)
Click OK twice.
In my testing this reduced my boot-up time around 5 seconds. "

Jokerzwild
Jul 6, 2008, 09:39 PM
Just came across this info and not sure how many know about this to speed up boot time.

http://www.helpwithwindows.com/WindowsVista/Speed_Up_Windows_Vista_Boot_Time.html

"Speed Up Windows Vista Boot Time


When you have a computer with a recent model CPU, chances are it's a dual-core CPU. Both Intel & AMD have been producing dual core CPU's for a few years now. By default, Windows Vista will only use a single core during boot-up. You can easily change this from the System Configuration utility:

In Vista's Start Search type msconfig & hit the [Enter] key on your keyboard
Once System Configuration has started, select the Boot tab and click the Advanced Options button
Check the Number of processors check box, and choose 2 for the number of processors (Figure)
Click OK twice.
In my testing this reduced my boot-up time around 5 seconds. "

Huh... interesting. Might just be placebo but I just did this and it seemed to boot up faster.

Thanks! +1 :cool:

Destroy
Jul 6, 2008, 09:54 PM
Huh... interesting. Might just be placebo but I just did this and it seemed to boot up faster.

Thanks! +1 :cool:

Seems to work for winXP too!!
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/833721/en-us

Greasy
Jul 6, 2008, 10:03 PM
Almost sounds like it's meant for troubleshooting.

/numproc=number
This switch sets the number of processors that Windows will run at startup. With this switch, you can force a multiprocessor system to use only the quantity of processors (number) that you specify. This switch can help you troubleshoot performance problems and defective CPUs.

Either way good find man. Never noticed this before.

caveman-jim
Jul 6, 2008, 10:21 PM
mmm; I don't think this works the way it's being interpreted here; this restricts the total number of procs, not sets them as available; I suspect any speed up in boot times is seen in bypassing the cpu detection portion and using the override instead.

badboy
Jul 7, 2008, 04:36 AM
I read more about the fix.. Some are calling it a hoax and other say it works.

It seems it does work for some people but what it actually does no one knows.

here are some polls about it:

http://winhlp.com/node/151/results

http://winhlp.com/node/152/results

Stingray
Jul 7, 2008, 05:39 AM
Do you have any kind of USB hard drive? When I have my WD 250GB USB drive plugged in it takes about 30 seconds longer to boot.

Hidavi
Jul 12, 2008, 09:53 AM
I had a 2GB DDR2-667 RAM + 1.66GHz Core Duo laptop with Vista Home Premium that booted in 35 seconds.

Now I have a 4GB DDR2-800 RAM + 2.0GHz Core 2 Duo laptop with Vista 64 Ultimate that takes 2 minutes to boot.

I don't think a defrag will fix it since the install is only like 2 weeks old. I guess Ultimate is just a slow booter? Or should defragging fix it anyways? I have a 160GB hdd with only 15GB free and a defrag is going to take forever, but I guess I'll do it overnight...

gamefoo21
Jul 12, 2008, 07:43 PM
I had a 2GB DDR2-667 RAM + 1.66GHz Core Duo laptop with Vista Home Premium that booted in 35 seconds.

Now I have a 4GB DDR2-800 RAM + 2.0GHz Core 2 Duo laptop with Vista 64 Ultimate that takes 2 minutes to boot.

I don't think a defrag will fix it since the install is only like 2 weeks old. I guess Ultimate is just a slow booter? Or should defragging fix it anyways? I have a 160GB hdd with only 15GB free and a defrag is going to take forever, but I guess I'll do it overnight...

Wierd, I'd say you have a driver issue.

*Edit* Download a proggy called JKDefrag, seems to do a really good job. Your windows is probably fragmented into a billion pieces with so little free space. Then re-direct a Sneaker purchase into the a larger harddrive purchase. 8-)

Vista Ultimate boots lickety split on my system:

E4300
Aw9D-Max
4GB Ram
8800GT
X-Fi

Hidavi
Jul 12, 2008, 08:13 PM
I'll follow your advice. Gonna either buy a 7200RPM 250GB interal or an 160GB external to store all my crap.

GravY
Jul 18, 2008, 09:09 PM
not sure if its been mentioned but do you have any external drives hooked up? they slow the start and shutdown quite a bit..

ice
Jul 27, 2008, 10:19 PM
I've noticed my Vista is also taking a long time to boot. It'll take a long time to get by the progress bar, and then sit on a black screen for at least 30 seconds before bringing me to my desktop. As soon as my desktop appears everything is instant, I can't open AIM and Firefox in a single second, but I don't know why it takes so long to get to the desktop.

I defrag every few days, though Diskeeper keeps telling me about VSS being enabled so I'm using some feature that may not do as good of a job or something...

Espíritu_de_América
Jul 27, 2008, 10:45 PM
Just came across this info and not sure how many know about this to speed up boot time.

http://www.helpwithwindows.com/WindowsVista/Speed_Up_Windows_Vista_Boot_Time.html

"Speed Up Windows Vista Boot Time


When you have a computer with a recent model CPU, chances are it's a dual-core CPU. Both Intel & AMD have been producing dual core CPU's for a few years now. By default, Windows Vista will only use a single core during boot-up. You can easily change this from the System Configuration utility:

In Vista's Start Search type msconfig & hit the [Enter] key on your keyboard
Once System Configuration has started, select the Boot tab and click the Advanced Options button
Check the Number of processors check box, and choose 2 for the number of processors (Figure)
Click OK twice.
In my testing this reduced my boot-up time around 5 seconds. "

Great find! It was faster for me too! I'd rep ya but I don't seem to be able to anymore. :(

ice
Jul 28, 2008, 09:50 PM
Can anyone help me diagnose my problem with a slow boot?

badboy
Jul 29, 2008, 02:15 AM
Can anyone help me diagnose my problem with a slow boot?

Vista logs the boot proccess and the shutdown proccess

You can find it here and see if anything is not right:

Open up the Event viewer > Application and service logs > Microsoft > Windows > Diagnostics-Performance > Operational

Here is a nice link that can help everyone with their startup/shutdown problems in vista

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=246

;)

More good links:

http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/71216-boot-information.html

http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/70563-boot-up.html

if this + defrag doesnt help you then nothing will :p

the last 2 links is also the best forum for anything about vista.
Everyone who has vista should bookmark www.vistax64.com
They have lots and lots of tutorials about everything in Vista

The link says x64 but its for both 32bit and 64bit Vista

Spyder
Jul 29, 2008, 09:26 AM
to those having slow boot times, may i recommend using S3 sleep instead of turning off your PC? With S3, your pc will for all intents and purposes, be turned off but when you want to use it, your PC will turn on, be at the desktop and be usable in under 5 seconds. I've stopped using "shut down" since discovering this feature.

badboy
Jul 29, 2008, 09:32 AM
to those having slow boot times, may i recommend using S3 sleep instead of turning off your PC? With S3, your pc will for all intents and purposes, be turned off but when you want to use it, your PC will turn on, be at the desktop and be usable in under 5 seconds. I've stopped using "shut down" since discovering this feature.

Yeah I always use that when I want to turn off my computer.
But sometimes with new graphic drivers and apps I need to restart and I hate slow boots when doing that :bleh:

But mine isnt slow and if it gets slow I know how to fix it :)

The ultimate thing would be getting a good SSD drive :drool:

ice
Jul 29, 2008, 11:05 AM
Thanks for the links. I forgot to check the boot up process logs and whatnot.

Log Name: Microsoft-Windows-Diagnostics-Performance/Operational
Source: Microsoft-Windows-Diagnostics-Performance
Date: 7/29/2008 11:22:36 AM
Event ID: 109
Task Category: Boot Performance Monitoring
Level: Warning
Keywords: Event Log
User: LOCAL SERVICE
Computer: Meef
Description:
This device took longer to initialize, resulting in a performance degradation in the system start up process:
File Name : HDAUDIO\FUNC_01&VEN_10EC&DEV_0888&SUBSYS_147B0000&REV_1000\4&39dda908&0&0001
Friendly Name : High Definition Audio Device
Version :
Total Time : 845ms
Degradation Time : 459ms
Incident Time (UTC) : 7/29/2008 3:20:04 PM





Log Name: Microsoft-Windows-Diagnostics-Performance/Operational
Source: Microsoft-Windows-Diagnostics-Performance
Date: 7/29/2008 11:22:36 AM
Event ID: 102
Task Category: Boot Performance Monitoring
Level: Warning
Keywords: Event Log
User: LOCAL SERVICE
Computer: Meef
Description:
This driver took longer to initialize, resulting in a performance degradation in the system start up process:
File Name : usbccgp
Friendly Name : USB Common Class Generic Parent Driver
Version : 6.0.6001.18000 (longhorn_rtm.080118-1840)
Total Time : 2108ms
Degradation Time : 608ms
Incident Time (UTC) : 7/29/2008 3:20:04 PM



Log Name: Microsoft-Windows-Diagnostics-Performance/Operational
Source: Microsoft-Windows-Diagnostics-Performance
Date: 7/29/2008 11:22:36 AM
Event ID: 100
Task Category: Boot Performance Monitoring
Level: Warning
Keywords: Event Log
User: LOCAL SERVICE
Computer: Meef
Description:
Windows has started up:
Boot Duration : 71752ms
IsDegradation : false
Incident Time (UTC) : 7/29/2008 3:20:04 PM




So I guess it takes me 1m10s to boot up. If it weren't for all that damn waiting it would be 30 seconds probably. The things that it says are "degrading" the boot don't seem to be taking much longer, but it sits there forever.

I'll look at the links after I eat something though.

GravY
Jul 29, 2008, 11:07 AM
to those having slow boot times, may i recommend using S3 sleep instead of turning off your PC? With S3, your pc will for all intents and purposes, be turned off but when you want to use it, your PC will turn on, be at the desktop and be usable in under 5 seconds. I've stopped using "shut down" since discovering this feature.

I use this and its great, computer is off no fans running ect.. push of the button and BAM! Im back to my desktop how I left it.

Stingray
Jul 29, 2008, 05:21 PM
I use this and its great, computer is off no fans running ect.. push of the button and BAM! Im back to my desktop how I left it.

I don´t have that S3 thingie. :confused:

Vista 64 here.

Destroy
Jul 29, 2008, 05:29 PM
What's S3?

thedoug
Jul 29, 2008, 06:15 PM
What's S3?
S3: known as Suspend to RAM (STR) in the BIOS, Standby in versions of Windows through Windows XP and in some varieties of Linux, Sleep in Windows Vista and Mac OS X, although the ACPI specification mentions only the terms S3 and Sleep. In this state, main memory (RAM) is still powered, although it is almost the only component that is. Since the state of the operating system and all applications, open documents, etc. lies all in main memory, the user can resume work exactly where he/she left off—the main memory content when the computer comes back from S3 is the same as when it was put into S3. (The specification mentions that S3 is rather similar to S2, only that some more components are powered down in S3.) S3 has two advantages over S4; the computer is faster to resume than to reboot, secondly if any running applications (opened documents, etc) have private information in them, this will not be written to the disk. However, disk caches may be flushed to prevent data corruption in case the system doesn't wake up e.g. due to power failure.
basically, it turns off the computer leaving only your ram powered, therefore retaining the contents. this allows you to turn your computer back on and (nearly) instantly resume what you were doing when you entered S3.
:runaway:

Hidavi
Jul 29, 2008, 06:48 PM
Yeah, Vista sleep rocks.

ice
Jul 29, 2008, 10:13 PM
One thing I noticed using the "verbose" mode at boot is that it scans my drives for errors during the black screen after the progress bar... How do I disable that?

badboy
Jul 30, 2008, 01:17 AM
I don´t have that S3 thingie. :confused:

Vista 64 here.

Every vista has it just push the turn off button in vista start menu ;)

badboy
Jul 30, 2008, 01:19 AM
One thing I noticed using the "verbose" mode at boot is that it scans my drives for errors during the black screen after the progress bar... How do I disable that?

I think its this: http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/157352-defragment-boot-files-enable-disable.html

Stingray
Jul 30, 2008, 05:05 AM
Every vista has it just push the turn off button in vista start menu ;)

That might not be S3 sleep, it might be S1.

And my sleep doesn´t work, computer wakes up again 10 seconds later. :mad:

Destroy
Jul 30, 2008, 05:42 AM
That might not be S3 sleep, it might be S1.

And my sleep doesn´t work, computer wakes up again 10 seconds later. :mad:


Yes, I tryed Sleep too and it 'shuts down' nice and all but starts back up all by itself less than 20 seconds later. I have no clue why?? :confused:

badboy
Jul 30, 2008, 05:53 AM
That might not be S3 sleep, it might be S1.

And my sleep doesn´t work, computer wakes up again 10 seconds later. :mad:

That is S3 sleep. It shuts down my whole computer. S1 only shuts down some components like monitor and hd but fans and everything else is running.

Hmm I have never experianced that problem that you have

I think some of you hardware is configured to be able to wake up the computer from sleep mode. Like your NIC. Check the device manager and then power management of the nic + other hardware that can do that.

The mouse and keyboard are maybe also configured to wake it up so any movement to those 2 would start the pc back up

Spyder
Jul 30, 2008, 07:47 AM
That might not be S3 sleep, it might be S1.

And my sleep doesn´t work, computer wakes up again 10 seconds later. :mad:

my wife's pc did that. turns out it was the mouse I believe. I just went into device manager, then into the properties of the mouse. in one of the tabs you can uncheck a box saying something like "allow this device to wake the PC". her PC stayed in sleep after that.

as the above poster suggested, try mouse, keyboard, NIC, wireless NIC. those are usual culprits.

Stingray
Jul 30, 2008, 01:27 PM
I tried everything but nothing. :/

Hidavi
Jul 30, 2008, 01:31 PM
Sleep was broken in XP on my last laptop (kept waking up in 2 seconds if it was plugged in) but it works fine on Vista 64 on this one.

As for boot times, by taking too many steps I managed to cut my boot time down from 117 seconds to 93 seconds. Still too much considering my last (and inferior) machine booted Vista 32 in 35 seconds :confused:

ice
Jul 30, 2008, 01:59 PM
I'm still booting around 1m5s or so, but the damn scroll bar takes about 15 scrolls before it does anything. I hear my speaker initialize like what usually happens right before I get to my desktop, and it sits there scrolling for another 5-10 seconds.

There has to be something going on, because on a system like mine it shouldn't take long at all. Granted it IS only a minute, but when you sit and watch it feels like forever and I'm a performance nerd.

I tried the last two links in the other reply, didn't get a chance to mess with the first one. Maybe that'll help.


EDIT: I get 6 scrolls of the progress bar until my speakers "turn on", and then total it's 20.5 scrolls. Bull.

And every time I put my PC to sleep it won't wake back up and I have to reboot.

Stingray
Aug 7, 2008, 04:45 AM
Just came across this info and not sure how many know about this to speed up boot time.

http://www.helpwithwindows.com/WindowsVista/Speed_Up_Windows_Vista_Boot_Time.html

"Speed Up Windows Vista Boot Time


When you have a computer with a recent model CPU, chances are it's a dual-core CPU. Both Intel & AMD have been producing dual core CPU's for a few years now. By default, Windows Vista will only use a single core during boot-up. You can easily change this from the System Configuration utility:

In Vista's Start Search type msconfig & hit the [Enter] key on your keyboard
Once System Configuration has started, select the Boot tab and click the Advanced Options button
Check the Number of processors check box, and choose 2 for the number of processors (Figure)
Click OK twice.
In my testing this reduced my boot-up time around 5 seconds. "

Make Vista Use Multiple Cores to Speed Up Boot Time

This bogus tip made the rounds recently and almost everybody got caught including Lifehacker and big brother site Gizmodo... although commenters called it out quickly on both sides, and the editors updated the posts. (That's yet another reason to always participate in the comments here.)

According to this tip, you were supposed to use MS Config to modify the "Number of processors" drop-down on the Boot tab. The problem is that this setting is only used for troubleshooting and debugging, to be able to determine if there is a problem with a single processor, or for a programmer to test their code against a single core while running on a multi-core system. Windows will use all your processors by default without this setting.

http://lifehacker.com/5033518/debunking-common-windows-performance-tweaking-myths

badboy
Aug 7, 2008, 05:08 AM
Yes but that still worked for some.

Some got faster boot-time
For others nothing changed or they got problems in windows after have done it.

I wouldnt use it but it worked for some people.
There was a poll about it on some site. About 50% got much faster boot times

Stingray
Aug 7, 2008, 08:39 AM
Yes but that still worked for some.

Some got faster boot-time
For others nothing changed or they got problems in windows after have done it.

I wouldnt use it but it worked for some people.
There was a poll about it on some site. About 50% got much faster boot times

Placebo.

badboy
Aug 7, 2008, 08:44 AM
Placebo.

Timed placebo? :bleh:

So the timer also believes it and slows down the time? :p

Stingray
Aug 7, 2008, 09:12 AM
Timed placebo? :bleh:

So the timer also believes it and slows down the time? :p

Linky?

mynakedrat2
Aug 7, 2008, 01:16 PM
you can defrag.exe -b c;/ . that will defrag boot sectors. Also running readyboost helps a lot.

badboy
Aug 7, 2008, 01:18 PM
Linky?

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

Hidavi
Aug 7, 2008, 03:05 PM
I don't really see much of a difference after doing the dual core boot option. Maybe its 3 seconds but if it is its so small an improvemnt that I don't even notice it...

badboy
Aug 8, 2008, 12:30 AM
I don't really see much of a difference after doing the dual core boot option. Maybe its 3 seconds but if it is its so small an improvemnt that I don't even notice it...

Thats why I dont use it as it just works for some and for others it gives problems. If it would work for 90% then I would use it :p

Hidavi
Aug 16, 2008, 01:28 AM
Hey, ice, is there an option in your bios to put SATA in IDE mode? I did that and it took my boot time down from 1 minute and 35 seconds to just 35 seconds.

ice
Aug 17, 2008, 02:11 PM
Hey, ice, is there an option in your bios to put SATA in IDE mode? I did that and it took my boot time down from 1 minute and 35 seconds to just 35 seconds.

I'm not sure, I'll have to check for that when I remember.

Hidavi
Aug 17, 2008, 02:31 PM
wait, no, I found out what it was I did! I resized the Vista partition to make room for XP and ended up breaking the Vista boot sector in the process. I used the Vista CD to repair my boot sector and I believe thats what made the difference because I've since put SATA back in regular mode and it still boots quicker.

I had to put it in IDE mode to install (and run) XP since I was too lazy to find the sata drivers and plug in a floppy drive. Turns out XP isn't so good for gaming in my situation so I stopped using XP altogether and turned the IDE mode off.