Hello,

It seems Windows XP loads all applications at once during boot.

Maybe this is not smart because this leads to "fragmented" reads from the
harddisk.

(Seeking all over the place)

Maybe it's better to start one application after another.

Just an idea test it to know for sure

Bye,
Skybuck.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 02:12:11 +0100, "Skybuck Flying"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Hello,
>
>It seems Windows XP loads all applications at once during boot.
>
>Maybe this is not smart because this leads to "fragmented" reads from the
>harddisk.
>
>(Seeking all over the place)
>
>Maybe it's better to start one application after another.
>
>Just an idea test it to know for sure
>
>Bye,
> Skybuck.
>

Is there anyway to adjust the sequenc of application, such as
anti-virus, etc during bootup?

Logan
- Jake

"Logan Sacket" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 02:12:11 +0100, "Skybuck Flying"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>It seems Windows XP loads all applications at once during boot.
>>
>>Maybe this is not smart because this leads to "fragmented" reads from the
>>harddisk.
>>
>>(Seeking all over the place)
>>
>>Maybe it's better to start one application after another.
>>
>>Just an idea test it to know for sure
>>
>>Bye,
>> Skybuck.
>>
>
> Is there anyway to adjust the sequenc of application, such as
> anti-virus, etc during bootup?

Don't think so, not since DOS or Windows 3.1 anyways. Then again I don't
know much on how windows does it now with the registry and all that. Then
again I don't notice much slow'ness anyways what with windows using two
cores to load up programs at startup. Suppose four cores would help more as
four programs would be loaded up at once along with drivers etc.

--
Skipai

"Skipai Otter" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Logan Sacket" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 02:12:11 +0100, "Skybuck Flying"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>Hello,
>>>
>>>It seems Windows XP loads all applications at once during boot.
>>>
>>>Maybe this is not smart because this leads to "fragmented" reads from the
>>>harddisk.
>>>
>>>(Seeking all over the place)
>>>
>>>Maybe it's better to start one application after another.
>>>
>>>Just an idea test it to know for sure
>>>
>>>Bye,
>>> Skybuck.
>>>
>>
>> Is there anyway to adjust the sequenc of application, such as
>> anti-virus, etc during bootup?
>
> Don't think so, not since DOS or Windows 3.1 anyways. Then again I don't
> know much on how windows does it now with the registry and all that. Then
> again I don't notice much slow'ness anyways what with windows using two
> cores to load up programs at startup. Suppose four cores would help more
> as four programs would be loaded up at once along with drivers etc.

More cores could actually make it worse.

Suppose there are 1000 cores all trying to read from the harddisk at the
same time.

All trying to read a different part of the harddisk because there are 1000
programs starting up

Ouch nasty situation !

Harddisks can barely handle 100 i/o request per second !

Bye,
Skybuck.

On Dec 16, 6:12*am, "Skybuck Flying" <BloodySh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> It seems Windows XP loads all applications at once during boot.
>
> Maybe this is not smart because this leads to "fragmented" reads from the
> harddisk.
>
> (Seeking all over the place)
>
> Maybe it's better to start one application after another.
>
> Just an idea test it to know for sure
>
> Bye,
> * Skybuck.


Some Startup applications can be delayed with the use of some special
software.
Like this
http://www.r2.com.au/software.php?pa...how=startdelay

windmap wrote:
> Some Startup applications can be delayed with the use of some special
> software.

More work on fast startup (and certainly more scientific than Skybuck's
ideas) has been done on Linux, which now boots in 5 seconds on an EEE PC:

http://lwn.net/Articles/299483/

A SSD certainly has the advantage that you don't need to care about the
order of reads, but with some more work, the prefetch from a hard-disk could
be just as fast (or even faster - the EEE PC's SSD is not really a fast
one).

--
Bernd Paysan
"If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself"
http://www.jwdt.com/~paysan/

"Skybuck Flying" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:e70aa$494b6aaf$d5337e4d$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Skipai Otter" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>
>> "Logan Sacket" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 02:12:11 +0100, "Skybuck Flying"
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Hello,
>>>>
>>>>It seems Windows XP loads all applications at once during boot.
>>>>
>>>>Maybe this is not smart because this leads to "fragmented" reads from
>>>>the
>>>>harddisk.
>>>>
>>>>(Seeking all over the place)
>>>>
>>>>Maybe it's better to start one application after another.
>>>>
>>>>Just an idea test it to know for sure
>>>>
>>>>Bye,
>>>> Skybuck.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Is there anyway to adjust the sequenc of application, such as
>>> anti-virus, etc during bootup?
>>
>> Don't think so, not since DOS or Windows 3.1 anyways. Then again I don't
>> know much on how windows does it now with the registry and all that.
>> Then again I don't notice much slow'ness anyways what with windows using
>> two cores to load up programs at startup. Suppose four cores would help
>> more as four programs would be loaded up at once along with drivers etc.
>
> More cores could actually make it worse.
>
> Suppose there are 1000 cores all trying to read from the harddisk at the
> same time.
>
> All trying to read a different part of the harddisk because there are 1000
> programs starting up
>
> Ouch nasty situation !
>
> Harddisks can barely handle 100 i/o request per second !

Drives with NCQ improve windows startup times. They try and fetch data
when the head is positioned best and thus will only show a speed increase
when an OS tries to access several files at once.
--
Rob