Windows slow on startup

[foulrift]

My computer takes a long time to boot up.It was suggested that I stop some
programs from loading at start up. How do I do this? I don't want to
uninstall,I just want some programs not to load a start up.
Thanks for any help.

 

[sgopus]

start run type in msconfig remove check marks on those you don't want to
load on startup.

 

[db]

well, for one thing you are basing
your assumption on startups.

however, there are a number of
causes that inflict the computer
during startups.

one way to be assured with your
assumption is to boot into safe
mode and see if the computer
performance is better than in
normal mode.

if so, then you can initiate a clean
boot.

----------------

let us know of your findings.

--
db·´¯`·...¸><)))º>
DatabaseBen, Retired Professional
- Systems Analyst
- Database Developer
- Accountancy
- Veteran of the Armed Forces
- @Hotmail.com
- nntp Postologist
~ "share the nirvana" - dbZen

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

My computer takes a long time to boot up.It was suggested that I stop some
programs from loading at start up. How do I do this? I don't want to
uninstall,I just want some programs not to load a start up.
Thanks for any help.

How long is "a long time"? What makes you think that the programs
loading at startup is the problem? I'm not telling you that it's not
the reason it's slow, but I am telling that just making the assumption
that that's the reason is a very poor thing to do.

But to answer your question, here's my standard post on the subject:

First, note that you should be concerned with *all* programs that
start automatically, not just with those that go into the system tray.
Not all autostarting programs manifest themselves by an icon in the
tray.

On each program you don't want to start automatically, check its
Options to see if it has the choice not to start (make sure you
actually choose the option not to run it, not just a "don't show icon"
option). Many can easily and best be stopped that way. If that doesn't
work, run MSCONFIG from the Start | Run line, and on the Startup tab,
uncheck the programs you don't want to start automatically.

However, if I were you, I wouldn't do this just for the purpose of
running the minimum number of programs. Despite what many people tell
you, you should be concerned, not with how *many* of these programs
you run, but *which*. Some of them can hurt performance severely, but
others have no effect on performance.

Don't just stop programs from running willy-nilly. What you should do
is determine what each program is, what its value is to you, and what
the cost in performance is of its running all the time. You can try
google searches and ask about specifics here.

Once you have that information, you can make an intelligent informed
decision about what you want to keep and what you want to get rid of.

 

[foulrift]

How long is "a long time"? What makes you think that the programs
loading at startup is the problem? I'm not telling you that it's not
the reason it's slow, but I am telling that just making the assumption
that that's the reason is a very poor thing to do.

But to answer your question, here's my standard post on the subject:

First, note that you should be concerned with *all* programs that
start automatically, not just with those that go into the system tray.
Not all autostarting programs manifest themselves by an icon in the
tray.

On each program you don't want to start automatically, check its
Options to see if it has the choice not to start (make sure you
actually choose the option not to run it, not just a "don't show icon"
option). Many can easily and best be stopped that way. If that doesn't
work, run MSCONFIG from the Start | Run line, and on the Startup tab,
uncheck the programs you don't want to start automatically.

However, if I were you, I wouldn't do this just for the purpose of
running the minimum number of programs. Despite what many people tell
you, you should be concerned, not with how *many* of these programs
you run, but *which*. Some of them can hurt performance severely, but
others have no effect on performance.

Don't just stop programs from running willy-nilly. What you should do
is determine what each program is, what its value is to you, and what
the cost in performance is of its running all the time. You can try
google searches and ask about specifics here.

Once you have that information, you can make an intelligent informed
decision about what you want to keep and what you want to get rid of.

 

[SC Tom]

==============

foulrift,
You're way out of line there. Ken was not being rude; he's just giving you a
number of viable trouble-shooting options. If you can't see that, then just
read it as if you actually did a search on the net and this is what came up.
Thin skin don't cut it on the web

SC Tom

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Ken FYI the info I got came from local computer store. And also
by the way-I came here with a legit question because I needed
to know how to do this and if you can't reply without a rude
attitudwe then don't answer at all because I don't need that.

I was trying to be helpful. If you think I was being rude,
fine--that's your prerogative. In that case I suggest that you
killfile me so you don't have to read any more replies from me.

Good luck with any problems you have in the future.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

==============

foulrift,
You're way out of line there. Ken was not being rude; he's just giving you a
number of viable trouble-shooting options. If you can't see that, then just
read it as if you actually did a search on the net and this is what came up.
Thin skin don't cut it on the web

Thanks for the kind words, Tom.

 

[Jim]

Nothing rude about it - Ken is one of the best people on this
newsgroup .

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Nothing rude about it - Ken is one of the best people on this
newsgroup .

And thank you for the kind words. too.

 

[Unknown]

You were trying to be helpful, but, in a very rude way.

 

[Unknown]

Perhaps not rude to you because it wasn't directed to you. But suppose it
was?

 

[foulrift]

Perhaps not rude to you because it wasn't directed to you. But suppose it
was?



Then I apologize to Ken and the rest of you. Perhaps I misread Ken's reply and the way in which it was worded. From what I am gathering many of you feel I should not disable programs from the start-up. That being the case would a memory upgrade help any? I only have 384 megs. and was thinking of going higher if my system will take it.

Again please accept the apology of a cranky old man. Bob

 

[Robert Macy]

My computer takes a long time to boot up.It was suggested that I stop some
programs from loading at start up. How do I do this? I don't want to
uninstall,I just want some programs not to load a start up.
Thanks for any help.

My WinXp would take over 4 minutes to boot!

Did a ctrl-alt-del and found svchost.exe was hogging resources,
something about:
SSDP Discovery Service and found it ON ?!

Sorry, don't rmember, but after disabling, or killing useless network
feature, the WinXP now takes normal 20 seconds

 

[Unknown]

Absolutely nothing wrong with removing unused programs from startup.
Suppose for example, you need five programs in memory but only have enough
memory for four. You will then be using virtual memory. (Writing one from
memory to disk,
loading the needed one from disk etc) This takes a lot of time. If however
you don't load
an unneeded program you may have space for the four needed and thus save all
the
virtual memory operations.

 

[Unknown]

PS------More memory would be very very beneficial.

 

[Richard]

[see bottom reply]

Again please accept the apology of a cranky old man. Bob

Hi Bob,

If your system will allow 512 MB, that would be a definite boost. On this
WinXP-pro-SP3 machine, I have 1024 MB RAM, of which Windows sees 1014 MB.
With a 3GHz processor, it is super fast. From computer on, until desktop
appears, less than 30 seconds. Another computer here with WinXP-home-SP3
only has 256 MB RAM, of which Windows sees 224 MB. With a 1.8GHz processor,
and Norton Internet Security, it was slower than a snail on a turtle's
back going the wrong way. After getting rid of Norton, and installing
Avast!, the turtle is trotting now. I'm sure it would benefit from more
RAM, if I were not so slow myself to do something about it.

HTH. (Hope This Helps.
--Richard

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

Then I apologize to Ken and the rest of you. Perhaps I misread
Ken's reply and the way in which it was worded.

Sorry for the late reply; I just saw your message. Thanks very much
for the apology, which is accepted.

From what I am gathering many of you feel I should not disable
programs from the start-up.

No, I don't feel that way at all. Stopping some programs from starting
automatically may be an excellent thing to do, and it may dramatically
improve your performance. But please review what I wrote earlier:
whether it improves performance depend on *which* programs you have
autostarting and stop from autostarting.

That being the case would a memory upgrade help any? I only have
384 megs. and was thinking of going higher if my system will take it.

It *might* help. How much RAM you need for good performance is *not* a
one-size-fits-all situation. You get good performance if the amount of
RAM you have keeps you from using the page file significantly, and
that depends on what apps you run. Most people running a typical range
of business applications under XP find that somewhere around 512MB
works well, others need more. Almost anyone will see poor performance
with less than 256MB. Some people, particularly those doing things
like editing large photographic images, can see a performance boost by
adding even more than 512MB--sometimes much more.

If you are currently using the page file significantly, more memory
will decrease or eliminate that usage, and improve your performance.
If you are not using the page file significantly, more memory will do
nothing for you. Go to
http://billsway.com/notes_public/winxp_tweaks/ and download
WinXP-2K_Pagefile.zip and monitor your page file usage. That should
give you a good idea of whether more memory can help, and if so, how
much more.

Again please accept the apology of a cranky old man. Bob

Accepted.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

If your system will allow 512 MB, that would be a definite boost.

Maybe, maybe not. It depends entirely on what apps he runs (see the
message in this thread I just sent to him).

On this
WinXP-pro-SP3 machine, I have 1024 MB RAM, of which Windows sees 1014 MB.

Two points here:

1. It's not that Windows *sees* only 1014MB, it's that you have
on-motherboard video support instead of a separate video card. So your
video support uses some of your system memory.

2. The difference between 1024 and 1014 is 10MB, which is a very
unusual number for video support. Are you sure that 1014 is correct?

With a 3GHz processor, it is super fast. From computer on, until desktop
appears, less than 30 seconds.

OK, but bear in mind that how long it takes the computer to start is a
very different issue from the speed of the computer while running, and
one being fast doesn't mean the other is. As far as I'm concerned, the
speed while running is *far* more important.

Another computer here with WinXP-home-SP3
only has 256 MB RAM, of which Windows sees 224 MB.

Again, it's not what Windows sees, it's what your on-motherboard video
support uses. In this case it uses 32MB, which is a common number to
see in that situation.

With a 1.8GHz processor,
and Norton Internet Security, it was slower than a snail on a turtle's
back going the wrong way.

Two points here:

1. 256MB is about the lowest amount that's likely to be acceptable,
and decreasing it even slightly for video support is likely to make
its speed unacceptable. 224MB is definitely on the low side.

2. Norton is the worst security software available, and a good part of
its low quality is its bad effect on performance (as you found out).

After getting rid of Norton, and installing Avast!, the turtle
is trotting now.

No surprise, as I said above. However bear in mind that if you
replaced a security *suite* with an anti-virus program, you are now
underprotected with regard to spyware. I strongly recommend that you
also install MalwareBytes Anti-Malware and SuperAntiSpyware.

I'm sure it would benefit from more
RAM, if I were not so slow myself to do something about it.

I'm not as sure as you are, but it's likely that more RAM will speed
you up. As I said to foulrift moments ago in another message in this
thread, how much RAM you need for good performance depends on what
apps you run.

Still, 224MB is a very low number and it's very likely that if you do
more than just play solitaire with it, you can improve your
performance by adding more RAM. I would do so if I were in your shoes.