Excessive boot time

[Accomac]

Hello all,

Using XP Pro SP3 with all updates. The machine just recently started
to take a very long time to go from the wall paper to getting icons
and the toolbar on the screen so you can work. I am talking in the
order of 4 minutes or so before anything happens. Once you get past
this delay the machine runs fine and isn't slow doing anything else.
I have not installed any new programs that might be the culprit.

Virus scans reveal nothing wrong, I have no idea what the cause of
this massive delay is.

Can anyone shed any light on a possible cause?

Thank you in advance,

Accomac

 

[SC Tom]

Hello all,

Using XP Pro SP3 with all updates. The machine just recently started
to take a very long time to go from the wall paper to getting icons
and the toolbar on the screen so you can work. I am talking in the
order of 4 minutes or so before anything happens. Once you get past
this delay the machine runs fine and isn't slow doing anything else.
I have not installed any new programs that might be the culprit.

Virus scans reveal nothing wrong, I have no idea what the cause of
this massive delay is.

Can anyone shed any light on a possible cause?

Thank you in advance,

Accomac

Check the event logs and see what may be there causing warnings/errors.

If nothing there stands out, you can always do a clean boot and start there: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310353

Have you added anything new in the way of software, hardware, or updates? Have you tried a System Restore to a point
before the slowness started?

Just a couple of places to start

 

[VanguardLH]

Hello all,

Using XP Pro SP3 with all updates. The machine just recently started
to take a very long time to go from the wall paper to getting icons
and the toolbar on the screen so you can work. I am talking in the
order of 4 minutes or so before anything happens. Once you get past
this delay the machine runs fine and isn't slow doing anything else.
I have not installed any new programs that might be the culprit.

Virus scans reveal nothing wrong, I have no idea what the cause of
this massive delay is.

Use msconfig to disable all startup items (well, most of them since not
all are listed by msconfig so you might consider looking at
SysInternals' AutoRuns). Then test if there is a delay. If not, you
have a startup item that is keeping the computer busy for awhile.

Note that any software that looks for and applies an update can slow
your computer. That includes the anti-virus software. I've found many
of them will impact the responsiveness of your host when they are
updating.

 

[David H. Lipman]

Hello all,

Using XP Pro SP3 with all updates. The machine just recently started
to take a very long time to go from the wall paper to getting icons
and the toolbar on the screen so you can work. I am talking in the
order of 4 minutes or so before anything happens. Once you get past
this delay the machine runs fine and isn't slow doing anything else.
I have not installed any new programs that might be the culprit.

Virus scans reveal nothing wrong, I have no idea what the cause of
this massive delay is.

Can anyone shed any light on a possible cause?

Thank you in advance,

Accomac

Look at ...

1. Not enough RAM.

2. Too many stubs loading at StartUp.

 

[Accomac]

Check the event logs and see what may be there causing warnings/errors.

If nothing there stands out, you can always do a clean boot and start there: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/310353

Have you added anything new in the way of software, hardware, or updates? Have you tried a System Restore to a point
before the slowness started?

Just a couple of places to start

Hi Tom and all who replied,

I removed a program called Garmin Lifetime Updater, that looks for
updates to my GPS. Once that think was removed the boot time is back
to normal.

Thanks again!

Accomac

 

[SC Tom]

Hi Tom and all who replied,

I removed a program called Garmin Lifetime Updater, that looks for
updates to my GPS. Once that think was removed the boot time is back
to normal.

Thanks again!

Accomac

I hate when a company installs an auto-updater with their software. Between QuickTime, Adobe, tomtom, Garmin, etc.,
etc., it would take 20 minutes to boot a PC if all of them were left to run at boot-up >:-(

Glad you found an easy answer!

 

[David H. Lipman]

I hate when a company installs an auto-updater with their software. Between QuickTime,
Adobe, tomtom, Garmin, etc., etc., it would take 20 minutes to boot a PC if all of them
were left to run at boot-up >:-(

Glad you found an easy answer!

Everybody wants to load "their stub".
No different than the old TSR days of DOS.

 

[SC Tom]

Everybody wants to load "their stub".
No different than the old TSR days of DOS.

I hated that, and took care of it also ;-) I don't think they were quite as bad as today's stuff, probably due to size
restrictions of installation floppies and the lack of real web site program downloads (especially with that 9600 baud
modem).

 

[SC Tom]

Lucky you! My first modem, gotten for Christmas in 1986, was 1200
baud. And that was big step up from my friend's 600 baud modem. We
could download 600K from a BBS in an hour - if we were lucky.

The first dial-up connection I used was probably a 600 or slower- it was in 1979 when I was a store manager in Baltimore
and we had to send our daily sales figures to HQ in Detroit by punch tape. That one used a phone coupler. Oh boy,
another late night!!

With the way service was around here in SoCar in the mid '80s, I was lucky to download anything in an hour. With the
slowness of the downloads, plus the constant disconnects, it was maddening. And add to that the fact it was a toll call.
.. . These kids today don't know how sweet they got it ;-)

 

[BillW50]

In

The first dial-up connection I used was probably a 600 or slower- it
was in 1979 when I was a store manager in Baltimore and we had to
send our daily sales figures to HQ in Detroit by punch tape. That one
used a phone coupler. Oh boy, another late night!!
With the way service was around here in SoCar in the mid '80s, I was
lucky to download anything in an hour. With the slowness of the
downloads, plus the constant disconnects, it was maddening. And add
to that the fact it was a toll call. . . These kids today don't know
how sweet they got it ;-)

In the early days 300 baud modems were very common. I probably still
have a few of them including one with the classic cups which locks the
phone's receiver in place. I heard of 150 baud modems too, but I believe
they were actually quite rare. And throughout the history of modems 300,
1200, 9600, and 56k baud were the popular speeds. There was other
speeds, but not quite as popular.

 

[SC Tom]

In

In the early days 300 baud modems were very common. I probably still have
a few of them including one with the classic cups which locks the phone's
receiver in place. I heard of 150 baud modems too, but I believe they were
actually quite rare. And throughout the history of modems 300, 1200, 9600,
and 56k baud were the popular speeds. There was other speeds, but not
quite as popular.

From what I remember from that era, you can add 28.8K to that list. They
were popular for a long (technologically speaking) time. IIRC, the big jump
was from 9600 to 28800 with the 14400 not lasting long at all.

 

[BillW50]

In

From what I remember from that era, you can add 28.8K to that list.
They were popular for a long (technologically speaking) time. IIRC,
the big jump was from 9600 to 28800 with the 14400 not lasting long
at all.

Yes true and the 2400 baud and the 33k something (33.6?).

 

[Char Jackson]

Are you sure it was a 600 baud modem? When I first started playing
around with computers the fastest modem available was 300 bps, then it
jumped to 1200 bps. Later on modem speeds went to 2400, 4800, 9600,
14.4k, 28.8k, 33.6k and finally 56k which is as fast as they could go
due to limitations of the telephone equipment used at the time.

Can 19.2k be added to that list? I had one for awhile back in the day,
but I don't remember the brand.

I had the Commodore 300 baud modem at the time I attended my first
COMDEX show in Las Vegas. One of the vendors, Supra, had super hot
chicks in skimpy outfits handing out pin-on buttons that simply said,
"Speed limit: 2400" to advertise their brand spanking new 2400 bps
modems.

A very minor clarification: the 56k modems can't actually do 56k
because the power required would be above the allowed level and would
cause crosstalk across other cable pairs in the bundle. (IIRC) I think
the best they can legally do is about 53k.

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Can 19.2k be added to that list? I had one for awhile back in the
day,
but I don't remember the brand.

I had the Commodore 300 baud modem at the time I attended my first
COMDEX show in Las Vegas. One of the vendors, Supra, had super hot
chicks in skimpy outfits handing out pin-on buttons that simply
said,
"Speed limit: 2400" to advertise their brand spanking new 2400 bps
modems.

A very minor clarification: the 56k modems can't actually do 56k
because the power required would be above the allowed level and
would
cause crosstalk across other cable pairs in the bundle. (IIRC) I
think
the best they can legally do is about 53k.

I also go back to the 300 baud acoustically coupled modem days...

I agree with both 19.2k and your recollection about the 53k limit
(though I thought it was 57.6k not 56k).

Also, as far as I can recall I never ran across any 4800 baud modems
except for a peculiar IRS line to electronically file income tax
returns many, many years ago. Not only was the baud rate odd, the
data, stop and parity settings were non-standard. Government, go
figure.

 

[Char Jackson]

I also go back to the 300 baud acoustically coupled modem days...

I agree with both 19.2k and your recollection about the 53k limit
(though I thought it was 57.6k not 56k).

I didn't look it up so you're probably right.

Also, as far as I can recall I never ran across any 4800 baud modems
except for a peculiar IRS line to electronically file income tax
returns many, many years ago. Not only was the baud rate odd, the
data, stop and parity settings were non-standard. Government, go
figure.

Lowest bidder, I suppose. Some vendor unloaded a system they couldn't
sell anywhere else.

 

[SC Tom]

I didn't look it up so you're probably right.


Lowest bidder, I suppose. Some vendor unloaded a system they couldn't
sell anywhere else.

Like those $200 hammers and $300 toilet seats . . .