Boot Delay

[Kernelbugger]

I'm unable to figure out why one of my HDDs takes only two sweeps of the
bullets across the WindowsXP screen during boot up, and another takes up to
15 sweeps. I'm referring to the blue buttons that sweep horizontally right
after POST. I ran fixmbr and fixboot and the number of sweeps was
unchanged. I plan on running boot log to look for the culprit, but I
thought I had it figured because the two-sweep HDD was on SATA port 2 and
the 15 sweeper was on SATA port 5. I swapped which port the drives were on,
and the 15-sweeper now takes only 2 sweeps. Next I cloned the 2-sweeper and
the clone took 15 sweeps to boot on SATA port 2. I'd like a reference to
what Windows XP is doing when it first starts to load after the POST. Or
is that exactly what bootlog will tell me? TIA

Asrock 890FX Deluxe 4, 4-core 3.6 GB CPU, 2x2 MB 1600 MHz RAM, Windows XP
Pro, and HDDs of 500 and 1 TB.

 

[BillW50]

In

I'm unable to figure out why one of my HDDs takes only two sweeps of
the bullets across the WindowsXP screen during boot up, and another
takes up to 15 sweeps. I'm referring to the blue buttons that sweep
horizontally right after POST. I ran fixmbr and fixboot and the
number of sweeps was unchanged. I plan on running boot log to look
for the culprit, but I thought I had it figured because the two-sweep
HDD was on SATA port 2 and the 15 sweeper was on SATA port 5. I
swapped which port the drives were on, and the 15-sweeper now takes
only 2 sweeps. Next I cloned the 2-sweeper and the clone took 15
sweeps to boot on SATA port 2. I'd like a reference to what Windows
XP is doing when it first starts to load after the POST. Or is that
exactly what bootlog will tell me? TIA
Asrock 890FX Deluxe 4, 4-core 3.6 GB CPU, 2x2 MB 1600 MHz RAM,
Windows XP Pro, and HDDs of 500 and 1 TB.

Whoa wait a minute! Sweeps of the bullets across the Windows XP screen?
I think I know what you are talking about and I don't think that counts
for anything. As lots of things can change that and that doesn't mean a
problem. As I think the only purpose is to show it isn't hung up and the
computer is frozen. So any movement means it is still working and
everything is good (or good and slow).

What does help is how long it takes to boot up. Although this is often
misleading as well. Some count when the desktop pops up. Others like
using something else. I like using the time when the disk activity stops
to almost nil and the CPU usage drops to idle. This time is the longest
of the longest of course.

So how long does it take before everything is snappy like you had it
running at idle for 10-15 minutes or so? Then we are getting somewhere.

 

[Kernelbugger]

From power on to the desktop is slightly under one minute. I'm not having
a problem, it's just that I'm a perfectionist. I built the machine.

I can't figure out if one SATA 3 port is faster than another, as it appears,
or what may be the cause. I ran bootlog, and it shows system 13.9 secs,
explorer 6.3 secs, and nusb3mon.exe 7.3 secs. All the other items were
loaded simultaneously it appears, and each took only a few seconds.

 

[BillW50]

In

From power on to the desktop is slightly under one minute. I'm not
having a problem, it's just that I'm a perfectionist. I built the
machine.
I can't figure out if one SATA 3 port is faster than another, as it
appears, or what may be the cause. I ran bootlog, and it shows
system 13.9 secs, explorer 6.3 secs, and nusb3mon.exe 7.3 secs. All
the other items were loaded simultaneously it appears, and each took
only a few seconds.

Oh man! As good as I think I am I might be able to tweak it myself a
hair better (at best a second or two), but why? Even under the fastest
SSD commercially available you still won't break 30 seconds (at least I
don't think I can break that limit).

 

[Paul]

I'm unable to figure out why one of my HDDs takes only two sweeps of the
bullets across the WindowsXP screen during boot up, and another takes up to
15 sweeps. I'm referring to the blue buttons that sweep horizontally right
after POST. I ran fixmbr and fixboot and the number of sweeps was
unchanged. I plan on running boot log to look for the culprit, but I
thought I had it figured because the two-sweep HDD was on SATA port 2 and
the 15 sweeper was on SATA port 5. I swapped which port the drives were on,
and the 15-sweeper now takes only 2 sweeps. Next I cloned the 2-sweeper and
the clone took 15 sweeps to boot on SATA port 2. I'd like a reference to
what Windows XP is doing when it first starts to load after the POST. Or
is that exactly what bootlog will tell me? TIA

Asrock 890FX Deluxe 4, 4-core 3.6 GB CPU, 2x2 MB 1600 MHz RAM, Windows XP
Pro, and HDDs of 500 and 1 TB.

SB850 6 ports SATA3
Marvell SE9123/9120 2 ports SATA3
1 ata133 IDE connector (on Marvell maybe???)

SB850 Databook (PDF page 36)
http://support.amd.com/us/Embedded_TechDocs/44758.pdf

"The SATA controller can operate in three modes:

* All six channels are configured as SATA AHCI mode.

* All six channels are configured as IDE mode. In this configuration,
the SATA controller is configured into two IDE controllers, with the
programming interface of channel 0 to 3 under the first IDE controller,
and that of channel 4 and 5 under the second IDE controller.

* Four channels (channel 0 to 3) are configured as SATA AHCI and
two channels (channel 4 and 5) are configured as IDE mode. In this
configuration, the programming interface of channel 4 and 5 are
under the IDE controller."

*******

It's possible some AHCI code is slower than IDE code, under the
same conditions. Switching ports, might be causing a different
driver to be used (either by the BIOS Extended INT 0x13 read
code, or by a driver in the OS). I don't know how a theory like
this pans out though, with respect to what drivers you could have
installed in WinXP at the same time. Would it tolerate a mix ?
I suppose a browse of Device Manager, might tell you.

Paul

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

In

Oh man! As good as I think I am I might be able to tweak it myself a
hair better (at best a second or two), but why? Even under the fastest
SSD commercially available you still won't break 30 seconds (at least I
don't think I can break that limit).

I don't know about XP, but Windows 7 on a fast SSD boots to the desktop
in under 30 seconds easily, without any performance tweaking. My
production system at work achieves this. Normally I have to log on,
which of course adds to the time, but I tested with auto logon enabled
and got 25 seconds pretty consistently. It's not a particularly
special PC - Dell Optiplex 790, Core i5-2500 at 3.3GHz with 8GB RAM
running Windows 7 Enterprise 64-Bit on a Corsair Force 3 SSD. Our
developers have much more powerful machines, I'm tempted to see what
theirs can do...

 

[BillW50]

I don't know about XP, but Windows 7 on a fast SSD boots to the
desktop in under 30 seconds easily, without any performance tweaking.
My production system at work achieves this. Normally I have to log on,
which of course adds to the time, but I tested with auto logon enabled
and got 25 seconds pretty consistently. It's not a particularly
special PC - Dell Optiplex 790, Core i5-2500 at 3.3GHz with 8GB RAM
running Windows 7 Enterprise 64-Bit on a Corsair Force 3 SSD. Our
developers have much more powerful machines, I'm tempted to see what
theirs can do...

I am glad somebody is buying big and beefy computers... as it makes
older computers much cheaper. And I am glad you like Windows 7 too, as
it keeps Microsoft in business. I've been running Windows 7 since July
2009 and I am very disappointed with it. And three years later I am even
more disappointed than ever.

As I have to dedicate my fastest machines for Windows 7/8 or they are
totally unusable. This too me is a total waste of hardware. Because I
should be dedicating them for high demanding PC games instead of wasting
them for an OS. And my AverMedia TV tuner is flawless under XP even on
my slowest computer, but under Windows 7/8 records and time shifts which
looks more like a slideshow rather than a video. And running it under
Windows 7/8 Media Center is far worse.

So as far as I am concern, Windows 7/8 was a downgrade. As I get far
more work done under XP in far less time. And just because Windows 7/8
delays startup programs which makes the desktop appear faster doesn't
make me feel any better either.

 

[Yousuf Khan]

In

Oh man! As good as I think I am I might be able to tweak it myself a
hair better (at best a second or two), but why? Even under the fastest
SSD commercially available you still won't break 30 seconds (at least I
don't think I can break that limit).

Under Windows 7 on my SSD, it takes 15 seconds to get from BIOS screen
to Welcome screen. The Welcome screen being the start of the Desktop
screen. Altogether from the BIOS to the point where there is no further
disk activity is only about 1 minute for me.

Windows XP should be at least that good too.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Kernelbugger]

I don't know about XP, but Windows 7 on a fast SSD boots to the desktop
in under 30 seconds easily, without any performance tweaking. My
production system at work achieves this. Normally I have to log on,
which of course adds to the time, but I tested with auto logon enabled
and got 25 seconds pretty consistently. It's not a particularly
special PC - Dell Optiplex 790, Core i5-2500 at 3.3GHz with 8GB RAM
running Windows 7 Enterprise 64-Bit on a Corsair Force 3 SSD. Our
developers have much more powerful machines, I'm tempted to see what
theirs can do...

I have made two desktop computers, both with Asrock 890FX Deluxe 4
mobos, both with WindowsXP Pro, and both will boot in about 5 seconds
using a software program provided by Asrock called InstantBoot. So that
beats Win 7 hands down if boot speed is the criteria. However, that's not
my objective in posting the question. I'd like to know why one of the boxes
displays 2 sweeps while the other displays 10 or more sweeps on the
Windows XP splash screen.

 

[Kernelbugger]

By Jove I believe he's got it! ! ! Thank you Paul, for taking the time to
point me
in the direction I should have gone...RTFM!

Many thanks.

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

I am glad somebody is buying big and beefy computers... as it makes
older computers much cheaper. And I am glad you like Windows 7 too, as

Never said I liked it. I keep finding things that frustrate me to no
end, but it is what my company provides so it is what I run here at
work.

That said, once I find add-ons or workarounds to address the
frustrating issues, it isn't all that bad. On the whole, I'd still
prefer XP with some of the actual improvements that Win7 has, like
proper sector alignment and TRIM support for SSDs, a well-supported 64-
bit driver architecture, and so on.

So as far as I am concern, Windows 7/8 was a downgrade.

I certainly would agree about Win8, but I'm more ambivalent about Win7.

And just because Windows 7/8 delays startup programs which makes
the desktop appear faster doesn't make me feel any better either.

For me at least, the system is fully usable as soon as the desktop
appears. I don't see any delayed startup issues - but then, with 4
cores and an SSD, I wouldn't expect to.

--
Zaphod

Adventurer, ex-hippie, good-timer (crook? quite possibly),
manic self-publicist, terrible bad at personal relationships,
often thought to be completely out to lunch.

 

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:17:09 -0700, "Kernelbugger"

I have made two desktop computers, both with Asrock 890FX Deluxe 4
mobos, both with WindowsXP Pro, and both will boot in about 5 seconds
using a software program provided by Asrock called InstantBoot. So that
beats Win 7 hands down if boot speed is the criteria.

Which of course isn't boot speed, but resume speed. But I digress, as
I often do.

However, that's not
my objective in posting the question. I'd like to know why one of the boxes
displays 2 sweeps while the other displays 10 or more sweeps on the
Windows XP splash screen.

Wish I could help you, but I have no specific information that would
help you. However, since the drives are different sizes (and likely
even more different internally) and you are using different SATA ports,
I imagine those play into the difference you see.

--
Zaphod

"So [Trillian], two heads is what does it for a girl?"
"...Anything else [Zaphod]'s got two of?"
- Arthur Dent

 

[Yousuf Khan]

I'm unable to figure out why one of my HDDs takes only two sweeps of the
bullets across the WindowsXP screen during boot up, and another takes up to
15 sweeps. I'm referring to the blue buttons that sweep horizontally right
after POST. I ran fixmbr and fixboot and the number of sweeps was
unchanged. I plan on running boot log to look for the culprit, but I
thought I had it figured because the two-sweep HDD was on SATA port 2 and
the 15 sweeper was on SATA port 5. I swapped which port the drives were on,
and the 15-sweeper now takes only 2 sweeps. Next I cloned the 2-sweeper and
the clone took 15 sweeps to boot on SATA port 2. I'd like a reference to
what Windows XP is doing when it first starts to load after the POST. Or
is that exactly what bootlog will tell me? TIA

Try out the Bootvis utility too:

Step-By-Step: Use BootVis to improve XP boot performance | TechRepublic
http://www.techrepublic.com/article/step-by-step-use-bootvis-to-improve-xp-boot-performance/5034622

Yousuf Khan

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Zaphod Beeblebrox:

For me at least, the system is fully usable as soon as the desktop
appears.

Have you tried opening a directory into another network-attached
device? My desktop seems usable until I try to do that. Then
it's another 30-45 seconds before the network-attached device is
available.

 

[Kernelbugger]

Try out the Bootvis utility too:

Step-By-Step: Use BootVis to improve XP boot performance | TechRepublic
http://www.techrepublic.com/article/step-by-step-use-bootvis-to-improve-xp-boot-performance/5034622

Yousuf Khan

Excellent reply, thank you Yousuf. I had forgotten about Bootvis as a tool.
It should
tell me what the hold up is.

 

[Kernelbugger]

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 11:17:09 -0700, "Kernelbugger"


Which of course isn't boot speed, but resume speed. But I digress, as
I often do.


Wish I could help you, but I have no specific information that would
help you. However, since the drives are different sizes (and likely
even more different internally) and you are using different SATA ports,
I imagine those play into the difference you see.

Say What??? "Which of course isn't boot speed, but resume speed."
Untrue Zaphod. The Asrock 890FX Deluxe 4 with InstantBoot will boot in
about 5 seconds, period. That's from cold to desktop. That's with the
power plug removed for days then reinserted to boot. Can't hardly be
resume if the PC is unplugged for days, eh?

 

[BillW50]

In Kernelbugger typed:

Say What??? "Which of course isn't boot speed, but resume speed."
Untrue Zaphod. The Asrock 890FX Deluxe 4 with InstantBoot will boot
in about 5 seconds, period. That's from cold to desktop. That's
with the power plug removed for days then reinserted to boot. Can't
hardly be resume if the PC is unplugged for days, eh?

How fast does it reboot when you install something or make a change to
the OS and you are notified that you must reboot for the changes to take
effect?

 

[Kernelbugger]

In Kernelbugger typed:

How fast does it reboot when you install something or make a change to
the OS and you are notified that you must reboot for the changes to take
effect?

It boots normally when InstantBoot is turned off, slightly under one
minute. You'd have to see this board to believe it. It even has a digital
readout of the POST code events, 76 of them; of course the readout is
just a blur when it's running POST, but if there's a problem it will stop
on a number for that event so you look it up to know what caused the
stoppage. It's a very nice feature, you'ld love it. The board is also an
overclockers dream.

 

[Char Jackson]

You'd have to see this board to believe it. It even has a digital
readout of the POST code events, 76 of them; of course the readout is
just a blur when it's running POST, but if there's a problem it will stop
on a number for that event so you look it up to know what caused the
stoppage. It's a very nice feature, you'ld love it. The board is also an
overclockers dream.

I had a motherboard with that feature, and I'm sure it's still around
here somewhere. I found the feature to be absolutely worthless. On the
couple of times that the system had a boot issue, the POST code was no
help at all in tracking down the cause. Fortunately, common sense and
experience prevailed.

 

[Paul]

I had a motherboard with that feature, and I'm sure it's still around
here somewhere. I found the feature to be absolutely worthless. On the
couple of times that the system had a boot issue, the POST code was no
help at all in tracking down the cause. Fortunately, common sense and
experience prevailed.

The POST code is a "progress code", rather than an "error code".

I think that design missed a golden opportunity, because you're
absolutely right, the codes themselves are worthless. If you look
at the list of codes, they can't even be used for problem refinement.
They look like somebodies grocery list. Even the BIOS designer
probably can't get any usage from them.

One other hardware guy that used to hang out here, all he
used the POST code for, was go/no-go. If the display said
"FF" or "00", you knew the processor was broken. If it
was any other code, then the processor was running,
and you didn't know any more than that.

In many cases, if you get a code, and go to look it up in
the appropriate listing, it shows as "reserved" and again,
you haven't a clue what it's telling you. The manufacturer
doesn't typically document all the new codes they added.
Some motherboard manuals, have a POST code table in them,
but the table isn't updated with new values for some
of the reserved entries in the table.

Paul