Greetings,
Is there a way to have XP startup programs, from a cold or warm boot, in a
fashion a user can designate? I think with all the programs & processes
that get turned on at the initial start up, it's causing the computer to
take longer to boot. Meaning to say that requests are made of the processor
to turn on several things simultaneously and bogs it down. I would like to
have my firewall and AV pgm turned on before other non-urgent processes.
And I would like to see them sent in an order giving time for the preceeding
process to finish loading before going onto the next. Thanks!
B.rgds,
Kevin

Startup Delayer
http://www.r2.com.au/software.php?pa...how=startdelay

JS

"General Mailbox" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:9rwyi.88439$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Greetings,
> Is there a way to have XP startup programs, from a cold or warm boot, in a
> fashion a user can designate? I think with all the programs & processes
> that get turned on at the initial start up, it's causing the computer to
> take longer to boot. Meaning to say that requests are made of the
> processor to turn on several things simultaneously and bogs it down. I
> would like to have my firewall and AV pgm turned on before other
> non-urgent processes. And I would like to see them sent in an order giving
> time for the preceeding process to finish loading before going onto the
> next. Thanks!
> B.rgds,
> Kevin
>

JS wrote:
> Startup Delayer
> http://www.r2.com.au/software.php?pa...how=startdelay
>
> JS
>
> "General Mailbox" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:9rwyi.88439$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Greetings,
>> Is there a way to have XP startup programs, from a cold or warm
>> boot, in a fashion a user can designate? I think with all the
>> programs & processes that get turned on at the initial start up,
>> it's causing the computer to take longer to boot. Meaning to say
>> that requests are made of the processor to turn on several things
>> simultaneously and bogs it down. I would like to have my firewall
>> and AV pgm turned on before other non-urgent processes. And I would
>> like to see them sent in an order giving time for the preceeding
>> process to finish loading before going onto the next. Thanks!
>> B.rgds,
>> Kevin

That will only increase your boot times; better to get ntregopt and run it
against your registry; all it does is rearrange it for best boot times.
Stopping all the parallel operations though is going to consume lots more
time.

You are right it does increase boot time but it also allows you to space out
the points in time that an app loads.
Although I no longer use it at one point in time I did because I had two
apps that clobbered each other most of the time resulting in one of the two
failing to load and run. Spacing them out (adding delay between the two apps
solved this but increased the boot time as you mentioned).

Now I just load one of the two during logon and the other I start manually
after all the other apps have finished loading.

JS

"Poprivet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> JS wrote:
>> Startup Delayer
>> http://www.r2.com.au/software.php?pa...how=startdelay
>>
>> JS
>>
>> "General Mailbox" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:9rwyi.88439$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> Greetings,
>>> Is there a way to have XP startup programs, from a cold or warm
>>> boot, in a fashion a user can designate? I think with all the
>>> programs & processes that get turned on at the initial start up,
>>> it's causing the computer to take longer to boot. Meaning to say
>>> that requests are made of the processor to turn on several things
>>> simultaneously and bogs it down. I would like to have my firewall
>>> and AV pgm turned on before other non-urgent processes. And I would
>>> like to see them sent in an order giving time for the preceeding
>>> process to finish loading before going onto the next. Thanks!
>>> B.rgds,
>>> Kevin
>
> That will only increase your boot times; better to get ntregopt and run it
> against your registry; all it does is rearrange it for best boot times.
> Stopping all the parallel operations though is going to consume lots more
> time.
>

JS wrote:
> You are right it does increase boot time but it also allows you to
> space out the points in time that an app loads.
> Although I no longer use it at one point in time I did because I had
> two apps that clobbered each other most of the time resulting in one
> of the two failing to load and run. Spacing them out (adding delay
> between the two apps solved this but increased the boot time as you
> mentioned).
> Now I just load one of the two during logon and the other I start
> manually after all the other apps have finished loading.
>
> JS
>
> "Poprivet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> JS wrote:
>>> Startup Delayer
>>> http://www.r2.com.au/software.php?pa...how=startdelay
>>>
>>> JS
>>>
>>> "General Mailbox" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:9rwyi.88439$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> Greetings,
>>>> Is there a way to have XP startup programs, from a cold or warm
>>>> boot, in a fashion a user can designate? I think with all the
>>>> programs & processes that get turned on at the initial start up,
>>>> it's causing the computer to take longer to boot. Meaning to say
>>>> that requests are made of the processor to turn on several things
>>>> simultaneously and bogs it down. I would like to have my firewall
>>>> and AV pgm turned on before other non-urgent processes. And I would
>>>> like to see them sent in an order giving time for the preceeding
>>>> process to finish loading before going onto the next. Thanks!
>>>> B.rgds,
>>>> Kevin
>>
>> That will only increase your boot times; better to get ntregopt and
>> run it against your registry; all it does is rearrange it for best
>> boot times. Stopping all the parallel operations though is going to
>> consume lots more time.

ntregopt (sysinternals, now owned by MS) can work that out easily for you.
Basically it optimizes the registry for fastest load sequencing.

HTH
Pop`

Thanks, I'll take a look.

JS

"Poprivet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> JS wrote:
>> You are right it does increase boot time but it also allows you to
>> space out the points in time that an app loads.
>> Although I no longer use it at one point in time I did because I had
>> two apps that clobbered each other most of the time resulting in one
>> of the two failing to load and run. Spacing them out (adding delay
>> between the two apps solved this but increased the boot time as you
>> mentioned).
>> Now I just load one of the two during logon and the other I start
>> manually after all the other apps have finished loading.
>>
>> JS
>>
>> "Poprivet" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> JS wrote:
>>>> Startup Delayer
>>>> http://www.r2.com.au/software.php?pa...how=startdelay
>>>>
>>>> JS
>>>>
>>>> "General Mailbox" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:9rwyi.88439$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>> Is there a way to have XP startup programs, from a cold or warm
>>>>> boot, in a fashion a user can designate? I think with all the
>>>>> programs & processes that get turned on at the initial start up,
>>>>> it's causing the computer to take longer to boot. Meaning to say
>>>>> that requests are made of the processor to turn on several things
>>>>> simultaneously and bogs it down. I would like to have my firewall
>>>>> and AV pgm turned on before other non-urgent processes. And I would
>>>>> like to see them sent in an order giving time for the preceeding
>>>>> process to finish loading before going onto the next. Thanks!
>>>>> B.rgds,
>>>>> Kevin
>>>
>>> That will only increase your boot times; better to get ntregopt and
>>> run it against your registry; all it does is rearrange it for best
>>> boot times. Stopping all the parallel operations though is going to
>>> consume lots more time.
>
> ntregopt (sysinternals, now owned by MS) can work that out easily for you.
> Basically it optimizes the registry for fastest load sequencing.
>
> HTH
> Pop`
>
>