xp splash screen

[Bill Cunningham]

Is there anyway that anyone knows of that you can turn XP's splash
screen off?

Bill

 

[VanguardLH]

Is there anyway that anyone knows of that you can turn XP's splash
screen off?

Bill

That won't speed up the loading of Windows. While that screen is
displayed, Windows is still loading. There is pause on that screen.

If instead of seeing that screen, you could add an option in the
boot.ini file that shows Windows as it loads various modules and start
its enabled services. See http://support.microsoft.com/kb/833721 on the
various boot.ini options. Rather than directly edit boot.ini and figure
out how to add the option, run msconfig.exe and under its Boot tab
enable the "No GUI boot" option.

Note: When viewing the load order screen, the program last shown (most
recently loaded) is not the one that may cause a hang. If there is a
hang during the load of Windows, it is by the next program that got
loaded but is not yet listed in the load screen. Often users have
mistaken the last shown program as the one that hangs Windows but it's
the next one not shown (the program hung Windows so Windows cannot show
what it loadED as it does not show what is loadING). You would have to
use a tool, like SysInternals LoadOrd to see what was loading and hung
after the last one shown in the load screen on Windows startup.

 

[Bill Cunningham]

That won't speed up the loading of Windows. While that screen is
displayed, Windows is still loading. There is pause on that screen.

If instead of seeing that screen, you could add an option in the
boot.ini file that shows Windows as it loads various modules and start
its enabled services. See http://support.microsoft.com/kb/833721 on the
various boot.ini options. Rather than directly edit boot.ini and figure
out how to add the option, run msconfig.exe and under its Boot tab
enable the "No GUI boot" option.

Note: When viewing the load order screen, the program last shown (most
recently loaded) is not the one that may cause a hang. If there is a
hang during the load of Windows, it is by the next program that got
loaded but is not yet listed in the load screen. Often users have
mistaken the last shown program as the one that hangs Windows but it's
the next one not shown (the program hung Windows so Windows cannot show
what it loadED as it does not show what is loadING). You would have to
use a tool, like SysInternals LoadOrd to see what was loading and hung
after the last one shown in the load screen on Windows startup.

That should be interesting to see. Tired of the old progress bar.

Bill

 

[Bill Cunningham]

I get a blank screen then windows says its running in a non-normal mode.

Bill

 

[VanguardLH]

I get a blank screen then windows says its running in a non-normal
mode.

Did you perhaps hit F8 during boot to get into the load menu and then
pick safe mode? Maybe the msconfig option doesn't set the /noguiboot
option that I thought it did but that's what I remember using and what I
read at Microsoft and elsewhere about what /noguiboot does. Take a look
in boot.ini to see if /noguiboot was added. If not, disable the option
in msconfig.exe and manually edit boot.ini to add the /noguiboot option.

Noguiboot does not initialize (load) bootvid.dll which provides basic
video support before Windows gets around to loading the computer's
graphics drivers (onboard video or video card). Since bootvid.dll is
not loaded, bit-mapped graphics cannot be displayed during the boot
process. Maybe your video (onboard or card) doesn't like to operate in
a low-res mode (VGA, 640x480 at only 16 colors) . Does your video card
have multiple outputs? Does your monitor have multiple video inputs?
Which video card output is connected to which monitor input? When cold
booting (complete power off, no hibernate/standby, then power on), do
you see a POST screen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-on_self-test)?
If when booting all you ever see is the Windows loading screens (no POST
screen) then it seems your video out is VGA but you're hooked to HDMI on
the video card and the card doesn't replicate the VGA output on its HDMI
port. Mine does but sometimes it takes a bit of time for my monitor to
auto-detect which input port of its has the video signal to switch to
that one.

Do you have Windows XP at SP2, or later? The noguiboot option only
works on WinXP SP2+.

 

[Bill Cunningham]

Did you perhaps hit F8 during boot to get into the load menu and then
pick safe mode? Maybe the msconfig option doesn't set the /noguiboot
option that I thought it did but that's what I remember using and what I
read at Microsoft and elsewhere about what /noguiboot does. Take a look
in boot.ini to see if /noguiboot was added. If not, disable the option
in msconfig.exe and manually edit boot.ini to add the /noguiboot option.

Noguiboot does not initialize (load) bootvid.dll which provides basic
video support before Windows gets around to loading the computer's
graphics drivers (onboard video or video card). Since bootvid.dll is
not loaded, bit-mapped graphics cannot be displayed during the boot
process. Maybe your video (onboard or card) doesn't like to operate in
a low-res mode (VGA, 640x480 at only 16 colors) . Does your video card
have multiple outputs? Does your monitor have multiple video inputs?
Which video card output is connected to which monitor input? When cold
booting (complete power off, no hibernate/standby, then power on), do
you see a POST screen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power-on_self-test)?
If when booting all you ever see is the Windows loading screens (no POST
screen) then it seems your video out is VGA but you're hooked to HDMI on
the video card and the card doesn't replicate the VGA output on its HDMI
port. Mine does but sometimes it takes a bit of time for my monitor to
auto-detect which input port of its has the video signal to switch to
that one.

Do you have Windows XP at SP2, or later? The noguiboot option only
works on WinXP SP2+.

The option showed on boot.ini and I have x64 Pro with SP2 the highest
there is for it.

Bill

 

[VanguardLH]

...


The option showed on boot.ini and I have x64 Pro with SP2 the highest
there is for it.

Without mentioning the bitwidth of Windows, "Windows XP" means the
32-bit version (x86) for which the latest service pack is 3. There is
no 64-bit version (x64) of Windows XP itself. Windows XP x64 is
actually a crippled version of Windows Server 2003 with the GUI borrowed
from Windows XP. I only used WinXP x64 once and got rid of it as soon
as I could because of all the incompatibilities it had with drivers and
software or no x64 drivers at all for some hardware.

The Microsoft KB article mentions both Windows XP (32-bit) and Windows
Server 2003 (which might include the Windows XP x64 frankenjob). Yet
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff557140(v=vs.85).aspx
says:

This boot parameter is supported only on Windows Server 2003, Windows
XP, and Windows 2000.

The /noguiboot option is supported only on Windows Server 2003 with
SP1 and Windows XP with SP2.

They don't explicitly mention x64 versions of either. Windows Server
2003 came in a 32-bit version, a specialized x64 (AMD64 and EM64T), and
an Itanium processor version. If the bitwidth of the OS is not
mentioned then the assumption is the 32-bit version is specified.

UPDATE:

Oh oh, I just read an article that says the screen remains blank until
Windows completes the boot process (driver loads). I also reviewed the
boot.ini options and I think when I last /noguiboot that I also used
/sos. So perhaps /noguiboot really means just no GUI, not even text
output (stdout), and what I remembered what seeing the driver load
output from from using the /sos option.

In msconfig's Boot tab. the "OS boot information" might be what adds the
/sos option. If not, you'll have to edit boot.ini to add it.

If you still cannot see the driver loads (white on black screen) after
using /noguiboot and /sos, you may have to use the /basevideo option to
force video output to 640x480 16-color VGA mode. As I recall, the
/basevideo option was when a newly installed video driver wasn't working
(blank screen, crashes, hangs).

 

[Bill Cunningham]

Without mentioning the bitwidth of Windows, "Windows XP" means the
32-bit version (x86) for which the latest service pack is 3. There is
no 64-bit version (x64) of Windows XP itself. Windows XP x64 is
actually a crippled version of Windows Server 2003 with the GUI borrowed
from Windows XP. I only used WinXP x64 once and got rid of it as soon
as I could because of all the incompatibilities it had with drivers and
software or no x64 drivers at all for some hardware.

The Microsoft KB article mentions both Windows XP (32-bit) and Windows
Server 2003 (which might include the Windows XP x64 frankenjob). Yet
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff557140(v=vs.85).aspx
says:

This boot parameter is supported only on Windows Server 2003, Windows
XP, and Windows 2000.

The /noguiboot option is supported only on Windows Server 2003 with
SP1 and Windows XP with SP2.

They don't explicitly mention x64 versions of either. Windows Server
2003 came in a 32-bit version, a specialized x64 (AMD64 and EM64T), and
an Itanium processor version. If the bitwidth of the OS is not
mentioned then the assumption is the 32-bit version is specified.

UPDATE:

Oh oh, I just read an article that says the screen remains blank until
Windows completes the boot process (driver loads). I also reviewed the
boot.ini options and I think when I last /noguiboot that I also used
/sos. So perhaps /noguiboot really means just no GUI, not even text
output (stdout), and what I remembered what seeing the driver load
output from from using the /sos option.

In msconfig's Boot tab. the "OS boot information" might be what adds the
/sos option. If not, you'll have to edit boot.ini to add it.

If you still cannot see the driver loads (white on black screen) after
using /noguiboot and /sos, you may have to use the /basevideo option to
force video output to 640x480 16-color VGA mode. As I recall, the
/basevideo option was when a newly installed video driver wasn't working
(blank screen, crashes, hangs).

Ok that's a mint.

Bill

 

[micky]

Without mentioning the bitwidth of Windows, "Windows XP" means the
32-bit version (x86) for which the latest service pack is 3. There is
no 64-bit version (x64) of Windows XP itself. Windows XP x64 is
actually a crippled version of Windows Server 2003 with the GUI borrowed
from Windows XP.

Wow, I never knew this.

I only used WinXP x64 once and got rid of it as soon
as I could because of all the incompatibilities it had with drivers and
software or no x64 drivers at all for some hardware.

Never knew about this.

Do you happen to know if the 64 bit version of win7 or win8 has any such
limitations?

If I'm ever gagged and tied and forced to use win7 or 8, I was thinking
I should get a 64 bit version, because aiui, it would allow the use of
much more than 4 gigs of memory, and that that would mean I could open
more browser tabs without my browser (FF so far) crashing.**

But not if it is anything ike the 64 bit version of XP you have informed
us about.


**I've tried to cut down on the number of tabs I use but I have a monkey
on my back. I really need those tabs, and I'm lucky I don't have to
steal to get money to buy more. I also have started using Noscript as
Mayayana suggested, and that has cut down on crashes a lot, but left me
with questions I will eventually put in a post here.

 

[VanguardLH]

Do you happen to know if the 64 bit version of win7 or win8 has any such
limitations?

Every OS has this. If you slide from a 32-bit Windows to the next
version of 32-bit Windows then often the drivers and software will work
under the new 32-bit version. When you go to 64-bit Windows, you have
to make sure you have 64-bit drivers for ALL your hardware. Drivers
have to match the bitwidth of the OS.

 

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

That won't speed up the loading of Windows. While that screen is
displayed, Windows is still loading. There is pause on that screen.

If instead of seeing that screen, you could add an option in the
boot.ini file that shows Windows as it loads various modules and start

[]
That should be interesting to see. Tired of the old progress bar.

Bill

YANA; it wouldn't be so bad if it _was_ a progress bar.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

As individuals, politicians are usually quite charming, so it is quite hard to
dislike them, but in most cases, it is worth making the effort.
- Mark Williams (UMRA), 2013-4-26

 

[Phantom Post]

Every OS has this. If you slide from a 32-bit Windows to the next
version of 32-bit Windows then often the drivers and software will work
under the new 32-bit version. When you go to 64-bit Windows, you have
to make sure you have 64-bit drivers for ALL your hardware. Drivers
have to match the bitwidth of the OS.

That said, the folks who produce drivers have, for the most part, caught up
to 64 bit. Most current hardware is going to have 64 bit drivers. An
older piece of gear could present problems getting a 64 bit driver.

I had an older Brother printer on 32 bit XP. When I went to 64 bit Win7
(and 8, 8.1) I could never get a driver for it that would let it work on
the network. There was, from Microsoft, a driver that would at least
provide USB connectivity for the printer. New printer (also Brother) a few
months ago and all necessary 64 bit drivers were present and accounted for.
[There's an anecdote for ya (<; ]

 

[Bill Cunningham]

Every OS has this. If you slide from a 32-bit Windows to the next
version of 32-bit Windows then often the drivers and software will work
under the new 32-bit version. When you go to 64-bit Windows, you have
to make sure you have 64-bit drivers for ALL your hardware. Drivers
have to match the bitwidth of the OS.

You know that makes me think. In device manager there are two things the
kernel must not recognize. There must be no dirvers there. SM bus controller
and multimedia controller. My computer originally came with MCE XP and it
was 32 bit and the factory had all the drivers there. My CD-R are now
scratched and I'm using "XP x64 Pro". They call it anyway.

Bill

 

[Paul]

You know that makes me think. In device manager there are two things the
kernel must not recognize. There must be no dirvers there. SM bus controller
and multimedia controller. My computer originally came with MCE XP and it
was 32 bit and the factory had all the drivers there. My CD-R are now
scratched and I'm using "XP x64 Pro". They call it anyway.

Bill

For SMBUS, that would be the chipset driver, which has a whole
bunch of INF files in it.

ICH5CORE.INF

[INTEL_SYS]
%PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_24D3.DeviceDesc% = NO_DRV,PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_24D3

[NO_DRV]
Include=machine.inf
Needs=NO_DRV

[Strings]
PCI\VEN_8086&DEV_24D3.DeviceDesc="Intel(R) 82801EB SMBus Controller - 24D3"

NVSMBUS.INF (for my Nforce2 chipset motherboard)

[NVIDIA_SYS]
%PCI\VEN_10de&DEV_01b4.DeviceDesc% = NO_DRV, PCI\VEN_10de&DEV_01b4

[NO_DRV]
Include=machine.inf
Needs=NO_DRV

[Strings]
PCI\VEN_10de&DEV_01b4.DeviceDesc = "NVIDIA nForce PCI System Management"

Those drivers basically exist, to make the Device Manager look "pretty",
as no actual driver file is required.

Armed with info about what chipset is involved, you can track down
the driver for it, and locate something with "SMBUS" in an INF.

*******

The remaining one will be more fun.

Paul