I'm looking for ways to reduce my reboot time (102 seconds according to this script). I've pruned BIOS routines and startup items, which leaves the bit in the middle.
I realise on HDDs (3 x F3s in RAID0; 6.1 WEI; 350MB/s sequentials) I'll never see the sub-60 second reboot times of SSDs, but I get the feeling Windows is dithering when it hits classpnp.sys (the last driver I see loading).
Since \Windows\ntbtlog.txt has no time stamps I'm testing with safe mode so I can watch the drivers as they load. Everything up to classpnp has no delay, loading about 10 per second, but after this final driver there's ~35 seconds of no HDD activity before a black screen then welcome screen.
Short of unplugging loads of hardware, is there a way I can analyse what it's doing?
Cheers
I realise on HDDs (3 x F3s in RAID0; 6.1 WEI; 350MB/s sequentials) I'll never see the sub-60 second reboot times of SSDs, but I get the feeling Windows is dithering when it hits classpnp.sys (the last driver I see loading).
Since \Windows\ntbtlog.txt has no time stamps I'm testing with safe mode so I can watch the drivers as they load. Everything up to classpnp has no delay, loading about 10 per second, but after this final driver there's ~35 seconds of no HDD activity before a black screen then welcome screen.
Short of unplugging loads of hardware, is there a way I can analyse what it's doing?
Cheers
Normally I wouldn't just link to a site outside of sevenforums, but this is not a shameless plug - there's a very good thread on MSFN's forums on how to use xperf to trace boot time issues (amongst other things) here that you might want to have a look at.
Your computer boots in less than 2 minutes and you are complaining? Why? There's nothing wrong with 102 seconds, especially with a RAID. And besides, longer boot times are no indication of system performance once the system is booted - and that's where it counts.
�� Quote: Originally Posted by cluberti 
Normally I wouldn't just link to a site outside of sevenforums, but this is not a shameless plug - there's a very good thread on MSFN's forums on how to use xperf to trace boot time issues (amongst other things) here that you might want to have a look at.
�� Quote: Originally Posted by Digerati Your computer boots in less than 2 minutes and you are complaining? Why? There's nothing wrong with 102 seconds, especially with a RAID. And besides, longer boot times are no indication of system performance once the system is booted - and that's where it counts.
Wow. I've got a rather "old" setup (admittedly 2x WD Raptor 10K 74GB drives for the OS) that boots in ~45 seconds, from right after the POST to usable desktop. 102 seconds is a long time, even for a single-drive system - sounds like either your filesystem isn't configured for the correct cluster size, or you have a ton of boot drivers, or services starting automatic, etc. 102 seconds isn't "bad", but it's not good either.
Quote:
Doesn't everyone here (this section at least!) strive to get 7 running best as possible?
Once again, performance after the full boot is the key factor in determining system performance. After all, most people only boot once a day, if that.
[QUOTE=Digerati;886546]
Is the raid not in hardware, most motherboards have onboard raid these days, my raid needs nothing, its even visible from a cd boot.
Quote:
. Once again you are setting up a RAID during boot and that is a big thing. .
Is the raid not in hardware, most motherboards have onboard raid these days, my raid needs nothing, its even visible from a cd boot.
Quote:
my raid needs nothing
It does add 10-15s to my boot time, not much I can do about that.
IMHO, if it takes more than one minute to boot after POST, either something is wrong or there are too many processes running at startup. I have yet to see a system capable of running 7 that I couldn't tweak to boot in less than a minute without reducing any of it's functionality
�� Quote: Originally Posted by Digerati Quote:
Doesn't everyone here (this section at least!) strive to get 7 running best as possible?
Once again, performance after the full boot is the key factor in determining system performance. After all, most people only boot once a day, if that.
Quote:
or there are too many processes running at startup.
There is no harm in having many processes run at startup as long as you have the resources (namely RAM) to support them after the boot is complete.
I'm new here and am puzzled why someone would want to wait up to 4 minutes for their system to boot. FYI - my normal boot time 23 seconds as timed by program boottimer.exe. And no it is not an ssd. It's a 5400 RPM HDD (WD2500BEVS).
I'll admit though, I am not well versed with Raid configurations. I just can't imagine troubleshooting program or driver issues with that long of a boot time. I'd pull my hair out. Wait, can't I'm already bald. LOL.
How much time does this add to a single system hdd setup?
I'll admit though, I am not well versed with Raid configurations. I just can't imagine troubleshooting program or driver issues with that long of a boot time. I'd pull my hair out. Wait, can't I'm already bald. LOL.
How much time does this add to a single system hdd setup?
�� Quote: Originally Posted by Laker How much time does this add to a single system hdd setup?
logic - sorry I didn't make my question clearer. When comparing single hdd to multi-hdd setup (Raid), how much time does the Raid configuration add?
Quote:
I'm new here and am puzzled why someone would want to wait up to 4 minutes for their system to boot.
Nobody said that! But what I did say, and what I am saying again is that boot times is NOT an indication of performance. Quote:
Originally Posted by Digerati
Nobody said that! But what I did say, and what I am saying again is that boot times is NOT an indication of performance.
Nobody said that! But what I did say, and what I am saying again is that boot times is NOT an indication of performance."Many systems take 3 or 4 minutes or longer to fully boot and load up everything at start."
Did I misunderstand your meaning? Again I have little experience with RAID set ups but am posing questions to have a better understanding. Does a raid set up add significant time to the booting of an Win7 OS? If so how much time... 10, 30, 60 seconds?
I am having a hard time getting around the aggravation that even a 2+ minute reboot would pose while troubleshooting a system let alone your mentioned 3-4 minutes.
Hmmmm.....my Western Digital Caviar blue 500GB in my desktop computer at work boots into Windows 7 in about 40 seconds. But then, I also don't install a lot of software and such...only what I need. Do you have a lot of stuff installed on your hard drives?
�� Quote: Originally Posted by Laker Quote:
Originally Posted by Digerati
Nobody said that! But what I did say, and what I am saying again is that boot times is NOT an indication of performance.
Nobody said that! But what I did say, and what I am saying again is that boot times is NOT an indication of performance."Many systems take 3 or 4 minutes or longer to fully boot and load up everything at start."
Did I misunderstand your meaning?
So again, I am not speaking about desires. I am merely stating, again, that long boot times is not an indication of performance.
Yes, you have stated your point several times now. I did not nor am I attempting to "twist the meaning of your words".
I am attempting to understand whether a raid set up add significant time to the booting of a Windows 7 OS? If so how much time... 10, 30, 60 seconds? Would you be willing to provide an answer?
I am attempting to understand whether a raid set up add significant time to the booting of a Windows 7 OS? If so how much time... 10, 30, 60 seconds? Would you be willing to provide an answer?
�� Quote: Originally Posted by Digerati Quote:
or there are too many processes running at startup.
There is no harm in having many processes run at startup as long as you have the resources (namely RAM) to support them after the boot is complete.
When I start my computer, I want to decide what applications to run, not have 15 or 20 different things pop up at once and then have to decide which things to shut down before I can do anything useful. I'm also not one of those people who leaves their computer on all day. When I'm not using it, I shut it off, no different than turning off a light or the television when I leave the room. Sometimes I'm in a hurry and just want to get a quick email out before I run off somewhere.. so yeah.. in my opinion, if a computer takes more than a minute to boot, it's too slow, no matter what it's got for hardware.
�� Quote: Originally Posted by Digerati Quote:
my raid needs nothing
And with only 2 drives mine takes less than 10-15 seconds extra to post, takes about 20 for it to recognise the 6 i currently have connected, in different modes, but the modes there are in make no difference to post times, its still 3-4 seconds per drive as it identifies each one.
This seems to be a flaw in that it allows spinup time for each drive on every boot, which is totally not needed, although i have seen that if there has been a bsod and the drives halt, then they do come back on one at a time, so for that, individual waits are needed.
I suppose it all depends on your raid chipset manufacturer, and how much software support it needs/uses as to how much longer it adds to true loading times, not post times.
Quote:
Yes, you have stated your point several times now.
Ummm, yes, but not because I wanted to repeat myself. It was you who were confused. And "twisting" might imply an intentional misrepresentation of what I was saying. I don't believe you were intentionally "twisting" my words around to change my message. That was a poor choice of words on my part. Sorry. I should have used "confused". I trust now you are not. Quote:
I am attempting to understand whether a raid set up add significant time to the booting of a Windows 7 OS? If so how much time... 10, 30, 60 seconds? Would you be willing to provide an answer?
�� Quote: Originally Posted by madtownidiot Most people I know get really annoyed and impatient when their system takes too long to boot
Even if you have nothing extra loading at boot, today's motherboards are MUCH MORE than one piece of hardware. And each of these devices are much more sophisticated too. Integrated devices included with today's motherboards include:
- Chipset - which includes the BIOS itself, plus the CMOS information, plus more
- PATA controller (phasing out but still here)
- SATA controller
- Floppy controller (phasing out, but most boards still have floppy conntrollers)
- USB controller (necessary today for keyboards and mice support) often multiple controllers for 6, 8, or even 10 ports)
- IEEE1394 (Firewire)
- Memory Card Reader
- Network Interface 10/100
- Network Interface 10/100/1000
- Memory Controller (Dual or Triple Channel)
- PCI Bus Controller
- PCIe Bus Controller
- Sound
- Hardware Monitor (to read fan speeds and temps in BIOS)
- If on-board graphics, that must be loaded, if graphics card, the graphics BIOS must be loaded.
Windows 7 has made it better because it makes your computer available for use much earlier than previous versions (even though it is still loading stuff in the back ground). And certainly, if a Windows 7 machine was taking 4 minutes, I would be looking for a bad driver or some other problem. But taking less than 2 minutes to fully boot from a cold start should not be considered "bad".
Once again, if your computer is running fine once it is fully booted, don't worry so much about boot times. Sure, you can trim down what loads at boot, but think about what that means. It means later in the day when you click on something that needs it, you have to wait. Then when you click on something else that needs something else you trimmed, you have to wait again. To me, if I have to wait in the middle of the day, that's annoying.
I would suggest if boot times are that important to you, and if using Windows 7, use Windows 7's "Hybrid Sleep" mode. My machine is ready to go in about 15 seconds, and that includes me fumbling around with my password.
The raid setup on the system in my specs, adds about 10-15 seconds to post time, but cuts the time it takes to boot windows after POST by more than 20 seconds. The point of spending money on RAID 0, quad or six core processors, huge amounts of memory and dual graphics cards is to make your system faster right? Windows doesn't even have to load any drivers for the RAID array. Those were installed before the OS, which sees my two HDDs as a single 3TB HDD divided into 3 partitions. All that extra performance would be wasted if I added another 400-800 MB of applications, gadgets to the overall system load. Where's the progress if it still takes just as long, if not longer, to get on the internet or play your favorite game when you get home from work as it did back in the days of windows 2000 and XP SP1? When you increase the system load in greater proportion than it's capabilities, you're not making it faster, you're making it slower
Quote:
Windows doesn't even have to load any drivers for the RAID array.
@Digerati: I think what madtownidiot is saying is that there are no special drivers that are getting loaded from within Windows to support his RAID configuration which are noticeably slowing down boot times. His RAID system initializes at boot time and as far as Windows is concerned, it's just a single hard drive that it's running from.
@madtownidiot: I get what you are saying about performance. Although, I don't think everybody agrees with the process of tweaking everything to make it even faster @boot, etc. Some people are perfectly happy and content with a slightly slower bootup, but with software and such preloaded and ready to go at a later time. It doesn't mean they are wrong, or incompetent....just different than you. Perhaps they use fancy graphics cards to play games at high resolution and use RAID0 configurations for working with and editing huge video files.
@madtownidiot: I get what you are saying about performance. Although, I don't think everybody agrees with the process of tweaking everything to make it even faster @boot, etc. Some people are perfectly happy and content with a slightly slower bootup, but with software and such preloaded and ready to go at a later time. It doesn't mean they are wrong, or incompetent....just different than you. Perhaps they use fancy graphics cards to play games at high resolution and use RAID0 configurations for working with and editing huge video files.
Quote:
@Digerati: I think what madtownidiot is saying is that there are no special drivers that are getting loaded from within Windows to support his RAID configuration which are noticeably slowing down boot times.
I guess I go with a minimalist approach when setting up a system, making it as quick and light as possible, because the end user probably isn't going to know half of what I know about how to clean and speed it up again when it eventually gets bogged down with new processes, poorly written or badly uninstalled software... And even a system with SSDs in raid 0 will probably slow down as windows 7 grows. XP started out with a minimum req of 64 MB ram, 1.5GB HDD space, and a 233Mhz CPU and ran very well with the recommended hardware or better, but even a bare bones XP SP3 is dog slow on a system with those specs now.. (yes I still have a working PIII box now running xubuntu that makes a pretty good media server for my home network)
I should clarify that I'm talking about when a computer has a newly installed OS, it shouldn't take more than a minute to boot. Believe me when I tell you, that's what people want. I've sold more computers on that point than anything else, mainly laptops to business professionals and college students who've previously owned a factory configured vista or xp machine that took something like 3 minutes to boot and 6 to shut down and are impressed when I show them a slightly newer machine running windows 7 and running snappier than anything you'll find at a big box store.
Instead of having everything run at startup, I advise people to pin the apps they use most often to the taskbar, which then loads them into superfetch after the 1st run. Even games like Crysis 2 start with almost no delay, especially because there aren't 115 other processes already loaded into memory... (or worse... paged but still active).
edit... @digerati, I'm using WD RE4 drives, (the RE stands for RAID Edition) which are configured at the hardware level for RAID 0 and need no additional drivers in windows. R/W speeds are averaging 250 MB/s read and 190 MB/s write
I should clarify that I'm talking about when a computer has a newly installed OS, it shouldn't take more than a minute to boot. Believe me when I tell you, that's what people want. I've sold more computers on that point than anything else, mainly laptops to business professionals and college students who've previously owned a factory configured vista or xp machine that took something like 3 minutes to boot and 6 to shut down and are impressed when I show them a slightly newer machine running windows 7 and running snappier than anything you'll find at a big box store.
Instead of having everything run at startup, I advise people to pin the apps they use most often to the taskbar, which then loads them into superfetch after the 1st run. Even games like Crysis 2 start with almost no delay, especially because there aren't 115 other processes already loaded into memory... (or worse... paged but still active).
edit... @digerati, I'm using WD RE4 drives, (the RE stands for RAID Edition) which are configured at the hardware level for RAID 0 and need no additional drivers in windows. R/W speeds are averaging 250 MB/s read and 190 MB/s write
�� Quote: Originally Posted by madtownidiot I should clarify that I'm talking about when a computer has a newly installed OS, it shouldn't take more than a minute to boot. Believe me when I tell you, that's what people want. I've sold more computers on that point than anything else, mainly laptops to business professionals and college students who've previously owned a factory configured vista or xp machine that took something like 3 minutes to boot and 6 to shut down and are impressed when I show them a slightly newer machine running windows 7 and running snappier than anything you'll find at a big box store.
My work computer running Windows 7 since Jan 4, 2010 and it's pretty much just as fast 8 months later then it was at the start. Of course, I've only loaded what I needed to do my job. That makes a big difference.
Digerati - Confused no, uniformed and curious... YES!
Raid may add an extra 10-30 seconds for the system to boot according to you and others here. Thank you for your answer & apology.
It seems some may not be concerned with boot times due to their regular daily routine. Yet biding time by getting a cup of coffee while your system boots doesn't mesh with most people's expectation of today's technology. Wouldn't you rather have your system boot up in less than 20 seconds? I know I would and think others do too. Why else would 'Instant On' be so thoroughly sought after. 'Hybrid Sleep' being a by product of this search.
Is it an indication of your systems performance? Here we disagree. No, it's not a CrystalDiskMark benchmark. In truth though, it is part of the real world performance. Just consider what is required during a windows install, program or driver troubleshoot - multiple reboots. 20 seconds or less definitely better than 60, 120 or even 240 seconds which is then multiplied during these situations. As madtownidiot mentioned this extended and unneeded time frustrates most people.
Some experts believe that your boot time can be an indicator of your system's health. I'll refer those interested to this thread over at NotebookReview.com. See page 33, post #2: Post your Windows 7 Boot Time (tweaks allowed). By the way this boot time tweaking is good fun and very educational. The person quoted (Les) is an SSD/HDD reviewer. He claims to have been the first to review an SSD on the internet over at NBR. Check him & his articles out if you like: The SSD Review
I'm a firm believer in 'Less is More'. Although this doesn't apply to all circumstances, here it fits. Less applications loading at start up & therefore less time time to boot = more time to use the machine. Programs are loaded as needed just not at start up.
Some may disagree as their computer is used for different purposes or prefer it be run a certain way. Great! That is the fun in optimizing your system to your personal tastes. Let's acknowledge though that most would prefer faster rather than slower & appreciate help to get there.
Raid may add an extra 10-30 seconds for the system to boot according to you and others here. Thank you for your answer & apology.
It seems some may not be concerned with boot times due to their regular daily routine. Yet biding time by getting a cup of coffee while your system boots doesn't mesh with most people's expectation of today's technology. Wouldn't you rather have your system boot up in less than 20 seconds? I know I would and think others do too. Why else would 'Instant On' be so thoroughly sought after. 'Hybrid Sleep' being a by product of this search.
Is it an indication of your systems performance? Here we disagree. No, it's not a CrystalDiskMark benchmark. In truth though, it is part of the real world performance. Just consider what is required during a windows install, program or driver troubleshoot - multiple reboots. 20 seconds or less definitely better than 60, 120 or even 240 seconds which is then multiplied during these situations. As madtownidiot mentioned this extended and unneeded time frustrates most people.
Some experts believe that your boot time can be an indicator of your system's health. I'll refer those interested to this thread over at NotebookReview.com. See page 33, post #2: Post your Windows 7 Boot Time (tweaks allowed). By the way this boot time tweaking is good fun and very educational. The person quoted (Les) is an SSD/HDD reviewer. He claims to have been the first to review an SSD on the internet over at NBR. Check him & his articles out if you like: The SSD Review
I'm a firm believer in 'Less is More'. Although this doesn't apply to all circumstances, here it fits. Less applications loading at start up & therefore less time time to boot = more time to use the machine. Programs are loaded as needed just not at start up.
Some may disagree as their computer is used for different purposes or prefer it be run a certain way. Great! That is the fun in optimizing your system to your personal tastes. Let's acknowledge though that most would prefer faster rather than slower & appreciate help to get there.
�� Quote: Originally Posted by pparks1 In my experience, the slow booting and performance issues almost always start AFTER the end-user spends some time installing a bunch of garbage. Even the factory configured machines are denoted as snappy and fast when brand new...but given time....with all of the crap that people install without giving it a second thought and their new computer slows to a crawl.
and how much of your next years income would you be willing to place on future service packs and windows updates not adding significantly to the initial system load at startup, even if you didn't install any other programs or hardware?
�� Quote: Originally Posted by madtownidiot I agree completely, and that's exactly the reason I like to sell computers with a minimal set of installed programs and a streamlined startup configuration.
�� Quote: Originally Posted by madtownidiot and how much of your next years income would you be willing to place on future service packs and windows updates not adding significantly to the initial system load at startup, even if you didn't install any other programs or hardware?
Quote:
Believe me when I tell you, that's what people want.
Quote:
mainly laptops
Quote:
Instead of having everything run at startup, I advise people to pin the apps they use most often to the taskbar, which then loads them into superfetch after the 1st run.
Quote:
Many folks have cameras, card readers, external drives, printers, email programs, PDA devices, various security programs including AV, AS, FW programs, HW monitors, special mouse and keyboard programs, dual monitors, networked/mapped drives, etc. that start at boot.
I have to correct myself from something I said earlier. I said it takes about 15 seconds to bring my system out of hybrid sleep mode - I was wrong. I counted this time, and it took less than 8 seconds.
Quote:
edit... @digerati, I'm using WD RE4 drives, (the RE stands for RAID Edition) which are configured at the hardware level for RAID 0 and need no additional drivers in windows. R/W speeds are averaging 250 MB/s read and 190 MB/s write
�� Quote: Originally Posted by Laker Digerati - Confused no, uniformed and curious... YES!
�� Quote: Originally Posted by pparks1 In my experience, the slow booting and performance issues almost always start AFTER the end-user spends some time installing a bunch of garbage. Even the factory configured machines are denoted as snappy and fast when brand new...but given time....with all of the crap that people install without giving it a second thought and their new computer slows to a crawl.
So the problem is not so much what they install, but how they install it. Folks should ALWAYS use the custom install option and PAY ATTENTION to each and every prompt, check box, and option and make sure only the program you want is being installed. And that is not just for free or shareware programs either. You should use the custom install for ALL program installs.
XP sp3 adds at least 200-250 MB to the memory/page load over the initial version of xp, which is pretty significant.... then there's the incredible bloat that comes with each new version of office and IE.. what's it going to take to run IE 9 or office 15 when it arrives? Can't do anything about that.. and you can't tell people not to install a bunch of garbage either, cause they just don't listen... it's a given that an operating system and it's programs will expand to fill all available resources (and then some), but I still think it's a good idea to provide the best possible starting point
@ digerati... yes there is a raid controller in dev manager, but it works perfectly without my having to install any further applications and the extra drivers that come with them. Same with my graphics controller. I installed the drivers but not the ati control panel that came with it.
.... and amen about the damn toolbars that come with almost everything you download, unfortunately most users aren't savvy enough to know that..
ccleaner is a great app, but not quite thorough enough, because windows won't allow ccleaner to alter protected system files. I manually clear everything ccleaner does and then some by booting linux from a flash drive. for example, system volume information is not a necessary folder in anything besides the OS and program partition... and getting rid of it on the 1.5 TB media partition that holds my (1340GB) music and movie collection can free up as much as 30 GB without causing any problems.
@ digerati... yes there is a raid controller in dev manager, but it works perfectly without my having to install any further applications and the extra drivers that come with them. Same with my graphics controller. I installed the drivers but not the ati control panel that came with it.
.... and amen about the damn toolbars that come with almost everything you download, unfortunately most users aren't savvy enough to know that..
ccleaner is a great app, but not quite thorough enough, because windows won't allow ccleaner to alter protected system files. I manually clear everything ccleaner does and then some by booting linux from a flash drive. for example, system volume information is not a necessary folder in anything besides the OS and program partition... and getting rid of it on the 1.5 TB media partition that holds my (1340GB) music and movie collection can free up as much as 30 GB without causing any problems.
Quote:
@ digerati... yes there is a raid controller in dev manager, but it works perfectly without my having to install any further applications and the extra drivers that come with them
�� Quote: Originally Posted by Digerati I agree - sort of. There are many great programs out there that some folks feel should be on every computer. CCleaner may be one of them - it is certainly on all of mine.
�� Quote: Originally Posted by Digerati So the problem is not so much what they install, but how they install it. Folks should ALWAYS use the custom install option and PAY ATTENTION to each and every prompt, check box, and option and make sure only the program you want is being installed. And that is not just for free or shareware programs either. You should use the custom install for ALL program installs.
�� Quote: Originally Posted by Digerati ... just another reason why Windows 7 is the best Windows yet.
Concerning CCleaner, I assume you are referring to the registry cleaner portion. I like it simply because it is not very aggressive, as opposed to others that find 900 "problems". But it is the crud cleaning I like it for - though I generally recommend Windows own Disk Cleanup in the same breath - in part because it will clean out old restore points too, but also because it is already there.
Blinkin' heck, what have I started
Regarding RAID, it most certainly does load drivers despite appearing as a single "hard drive" to Windows. I've used arrays for the OS for about 5 years, and when ghosting to a new one but forgetting to put drivers in place, you'll most definitely get the dreaded 0x0000007b inaccessible boot device STOP error. Trick is to pop the new card in before swapping the old one out, boot normally, point it to the necessary drivers, then make a fresh ghost for migration.
Out of interest, I dusted off a ps2 keyboard from the shelf, killed off all SATA burners and USB ports in BIOS, and shaved about 20 seconds off - course that's a pretty crippled system so they got re-enabled pretty quick.
Hybrid sleep is a good suggestion, sadly this Razer mouse loses my bind preferences when it resumes, other than vanilla left/right.
Think I just have to accept that many of the dead quick times from that thread must be systems with the minimum of hardware connected and virtually nothing in startup.
Regarding RAID, it most certainly does load drivers despite appearing as a single "hard drive" to Windows. I've used arrays for the OS for about 5 years, and when ghosting to a new one but forgetting to put drivers in place, you'll most definitely get the dreaded 0x0000007b inaccessible boot device STOP error. Trick is to pop the new card in before swapping the old one out, boot normally, point it to the necessary drivers, then make a fresh ghost for migration.
Out of interest, I dusted off a ps2 keyboard from the shelf, killed off all SATA burners and USB ports in BIOS, and shaved about 20 seconds off - course that's a pretty crippled system so they got re-enabled pretty quick.
Hybrid sleep is a good suggestion, sadly this Razer mouse loses my bind preferences when it resumes, other than vanilla left/right.
Think I just have to accept that many of the dead quick times from that thread must be systems with the minimum of hardware connected and virtually nothing in startup.
�� Quote: Originally Posted by Echo147 Blinkin' heck, what have I started
Think I just have to accept that many of the dead quick times from that thread must be systems with the minimum of hardware connected and virtually nothing in startup.
Think I just have to accept that many of the dead quick times from that thread must be systems with the minimum of hardware connected and virtually nothing in startup.
�� Quote: Originally Posted by madtownidiot exactly right... and why I disagree with some who say startup time is no indication of performance.. to the contrary, if you ignore the time it takes for POST and eliminate as many software and hardware variables as possible, you end up with what I consider a reasonably accurate benchmark.
Quote:
why I disagree with some who say startup time is no indication of performance..
I'm not up to speed until I start my 2nd cup of coffee, but after that, I'm running full speed all day long - not trying to be sarcastic, but is that any different?
I load my PDA's hotsync manager, MailwasherPro spam blocker, and all my security software, dual monitor manager, and have a Quicklaunch toolbar fully loaded that starts at boot, CoreTemp, and a local weather gadget - surely they slow boot times - does that mean my performance is bad? Some graphics card BIOS and drivers take longer to install than others, does that mean the longer one will have poorer performance?
Boot times are affected in a large part by loading hardware drivers. Loading files and programs (which requires disk access) always takes longer than opening the same - which requires RAM access (and maybe PF - which is faster than loading from scratch).
Nothing in startup vs everything needed in startup means nothing in terms of performance after the system has booted - assuming there are no errors with the drivers of services that start - and also assuming there is not a bunch of junk loaded that is never needed - like adobe or java update checkers, or the like.
If you can find a link that shows "boot times affects performance", please post it. I would like to read it.
digerati.. I don't think you're even trying to understand what I'm saying.. most of the people who post fast boot times do so with a minimum of peripherals attached and a bare OS with minimal startup items. And I never stated that boot times affect performance, but by removing as many variables as possible (including cleaning and defragging the HDD after a few power cycles) and only considering the time it takes to load windows (ignoring the time it takes for BIOS to decide it's time to start loading the OS), you can get a pretty good base indication of how fast a computer really is. I take into consideration what hardware is installed too.. A raid array, a TPM, multiple video cards, etc are of course going to take a bit longer to initialize, but even so, there's no reason a system with an i7 and SSD and 12 GB of RAM for example should take two minutes or more to boot.. there's a word for that... bloat. You are obviously correct in stating that it takes longer to cold start an app than it does to open one that's already running in the background, but as I've said before, increasing the system load in greater proportion than it's capabilities is actually making it slower. No different than with a car... if you put a 426 hemi in a fully loaded dumptruck towing a backhoe, the engine is still just as powerful as when it was in the Cuda, but it's pretty obviously not going accelerate as quickly, and only a moron would compare them in a drag race...and because I don't have 95 other background processes running at the moment, it takes all of 10 seconds for crysis 2 to load. It takes much longer with all startup items checked off.. I don't want java, itunes, my AV or windows itself to decide it's time to start updating or an IM to pop up while I'm in the middle of a game, nor am I going to check my outlook. I only sync my Ipod 1 in about 10 times when I connect it... all the other times I'm just charging it. I have a printer, but I don't use it every day...most software manufacturers set things to run at startup by default so the user won't forget they exist, not because it's necessary make the program work. My firewall and AV still load the core processes without loading the interface, and they work just fine. My monitor works even though I disabled the ATI control panel, and when I connect a 2nd monitor, that works too.. are you beginning to see my point? It's my personal preference, and you have yours..
�� Quote: Originally Posted by madtownidiot digerati.. I don't think you're even trying to understand what I'm saying.. most of the people who post fast boot times do so with a minimum of peripherals attached and a bare OS with minimal startup items. And I never stated that boot times affect performance,
�� Quote: Originally Posted by madtownidiot and why I disagree with some who say startup time is no indication of performance..
�� Quote: Originally Posted by Digerati �� Quote: Originally Posted by madtownidiot digerati.. I don't think you're even trying to understand what I'm saying.. most of the people who post fast boot times do so with a minimum of peripherals attached and a bare OS with minimal startup items. And I never stated that boot times affect performance,
�� Quote: Originally Posted by madtownidiot and why I disagree with some who say startup time is no indication of performance..
�� Quote: Originally Posted by [B echo147][/B]Think I just have to accept that many of the dead quick times from that thread must be systems with the minimum of hardware connected and virtually nothing in startup.
�� Quote: Originally Posted by madtownidiot exactly right... and why I disagree with some who say startup time is no indication of performance..
�� Quote: Originally Posted by madtownidiot to the contrary, if you ignore the time it takes for POST and eliminate as many software and hardware variables as possible, you end up with what I consider a reasonably accurate benchmark.
Now I am totally confused. I did not "conveniently" leave it out, it did not, and still does not change the meaning - to me anyway. It appears to me you are saying, "I disagree with some who say startup time is no indication of performance.."
Is that not true?
Is that not true?
We're both right, you just don't see it. and the second part of my statement makes all the difference in the world. Comparing boot times between two computers without eliminating as many software and hardware variables as possible 1st is pretty moronic, and really, to some people, a slow boot time can be a deal breaker no matter what's inside the case.
Yes, you mentioned earlier I was confused when the truth seems to be that you are. I think you are being intentionally obtuse so as to not concede the point. The point of: While boot times do not affect performance they can be considered an indicator of system performance.
Have never had a Win7 install that started up in less than 20-30 seconds, possibly because I only allow AV and gadgets to start with computer, run CCleaner and Auslogics defraggers monthly, google all Event Viewer errors to resolution.
If I had a startup delay I would create a boot log and monitor closely the Diagnostics-Performance log to see what is hanging.
I would try install without the RAID as Win7 is somewhat allergic to RAID.
If I had a startup delay I would create a boot log and monitor closely the Diagnostics-Performance log to see what is hanging.
I would try install without the RAID as Win7 is somewhat allergic to RAID.
Wonder what would happen if I put an ssd in my old dell laptop.. the bios takes all of 4 seconds when nothing else is attached, and it boots in about 30 seconds with a spinning HDD
�� Quote: Originally Posted by madtownidiot We're both right, you just don't see it.
�� Quote: Originally Posted by Laker The point of: While boot times do not affect performance they can be considered an indicator of system performance.
I am not going to debate "what ifs". Two identical machines, setup identically, with the same programs set to load at start should take the same amount of time to boot. I assume we agree on that.
But by you guys saying boot times is an indicator of performance, that suggests if User A chooses to have Outlook run at startup, thus adding 10 seconds to his boot times, suddenly his machine is now somehow less of a performer than the otherwise identical machine where User B waits to load Outlook until after it boots.
That's what you guys are saying! That is, User A loads Outlook at boot, therefore User B's machine is a better performer. That's just not right.
Now if you guys want to keep saying that, then I am saying you are wrong. Whether I choose to load Outlook at boot or not is no more an indication of performance than whether I choose a 22" or a 24" inch monitor. Or a silver case or a black case. Declaring boot times is a deal breaker is an invalid argument for you are then not talking about identical machines setup identically.
And to that - if I take two identical motherboards, RAM and graphics cards, and put an Intel i5 2.66GHz on one board, and an i7 2.8GHz CPU on the other, but load up the start options on the i7 - it would be sad day if the buyer chose the i5 thinking (or worse yet, was led to believe) he was getting the better machine with the i5 simply because it booted faster.
Quote:
While boot times do not affect performance they can be considered an indicator of system performance.
You are saying boot times do not affect performance. And you are saying boot times are (or can be considered) an indicator of performance.
You don't see a conflict there?
According to the first half of your statement, if I load up my start options, thus making it take longer to boot, it does not affect performance. But by the 2nd half of your statement, those longer boot times indicate something about system performance - it can only be make it better, worse, or remain the same. You said it does not affect it, that only leaves it remains the same.
Having programs load at boot, or as needed from the taskbar after boot is simply a matter of personal preference - NOT performance. If a buyer thinks otherwise (again with 2 identical machines) then that's the sales "pitch", not the truth.
.....speeeeeaking very slowwwwlyyyyy so you can underrrrrstaaaaand.....
every system has a quantifiable limit to it's resources... memory, hdd space, cpu and gpu processing capacity, etc, which when used, even by idle processes, detracts from the available resources for other applications. So without qualification, the more processes and services are running the slower it's going to be. And yes, if you have a system with a 2.8GHz i7 and 4 GB ram loads 90+ processes at startup vs a system with a 2.4GHz i5 and 4 GB RAM that's running less than 40 (about the difference between a factory installed os and a user installed os from a retail disk), the i5 system will probably run faster with everyday use and will definitely allow you to check your email from a cold startup in less time (a very important consideration for most of my business and student customers). And I wouldn't let an i7 system that booted slower than a 4 year old dell out the door by the way, nor would I try to sell the weaker system on the merit that it boots faster
However, if both are running the same number of processes at startup, everything else will be faster in the i7 system. but exaggerating my statements to ridiculous proportions in an attempt to contradict what I'm saying only makes you look ridiculous. for someone who has a microsoft MVP tag, you don't sound very professional
every system has a quantifiable limit to it's resources... memory, hdd space, cpu and gpu processing capacity, etc, which when used, even by idle processes, detracts from the available resources for other applications. So without qualification, the more processes and services are running the slower it's going to be. And yes, if you have a system with a 2.8GHz i7 and 4 GB ram loads 90+ processes at startup vs a system with a 2.4GHz i5 and 4 GB RAM that's running less than 40 (about the difference between a factory installed os and a user installed os from a retail disk), the i5 system will probably run faster with everyday use and will definitely allow you to check your email from a cold startup in less time (a very important consideration for most of my business and student customers). And I wouldn't let an i7 system that booted slower than a 4 year old dell out the door by the way, nor would I try to sell the weaker system on the merit that it boots faster
However, if both are running the same number of processes at startup, everything else will be faster in the i7 system. but exaggerating my statements to ridiculous proportions in an attempt to contradict what I'm saying only makes you look ridiculous. for someone who has a microsoft MVP tag, you don't sound very professional
Digerati - What he said should suffice. Please stop trying to 'twist', 'manipulate' & 'exaggerate' the opposing idea to suit your own view point.
All points of view expressed here have influenced my view on Startup time and I don't believe any are incorrect.
Previously I would have considered a one-minute Startup Time a performance problem in itself. Now I would be more inclined to offer options if Users wanted more items to start with computer.
Thanks.
Previously I would have considered a one-minute Startup Time a performance problem in itself. Now I would be more inclined to offer options if Users wanted more items to start with computer.
Thanks.
Quote:
.....speeeeeaking very slowwwwlyyyyy so you can underrrrrstaaaaand.....
Please stop trying to 'twist', 'manipulate' & 'exaggerate' the opposing idea to suit your own view point.
Please stop trying to 'twist', 'manipulate' & 'exaggerate' the opposing idea to suit your own view point.
Quote:
And I wouldn't let an i7 system that booted slower than a 4 year old dell out the door by the way
90+ processes at startup vs ... less than 40
90+ processes at startup vs ... less than 40
So since you feel it necessary to attack me personally and to fabricate scenarios to meet your viewpoints, instead of providing links or supporting evidence, I'm done here.
Gregrocker - I wholeheartedly agree that all viewpoints are valid regarding acceptable boot times. Some may want to load many/all programs they want or will use at start up. It's your machine configure it to your liking. As I stated earlier:
Unfortunately Digerati felt the need to not just disagree amicably or have an honest discusion. He rather seemed inclined to use examples that clearly did not relate to the proposed idea. The idea that 'While boot times do not affect performance they can be considered an effective indicator of system performance'. BUT only when run with minimal (bare bones) services & processes running at start up.
I do not think (and believe madtownidiot would agree) that users system's are performing poorly just because he/she likes to load many/all programs at start up. Even if it may take 2 minutes that idea is not what is being espoused. Compare systems 'run with minimal services & processes running at start up'. The key point that was missed. Here is when boot time comparisons becomes valuable for problems are now readily apparent and therefore more easily corrected. If you have an X25-M ssd and boot at 30 seconds compared to your friend's 20 seconds with a 5400 rpm hdd, you know there's a problem.
I will say I am disappointed with the outcome of this discussion. Especially as I have come to learn that this forum is one of the most informative, accurate & genuinely helpful communities on the net.
Quote:
"Some may disagree as their computer is used for different purposes or prefer it be run a certain way. Great! That is the fun in optimizing your system to your personal tastes."
I do not think (and believe madtownidiot would agree) that users system's are performing poorly just because he/she likes to load many/all programs at start up. Even if it may take 2 minutes that idea is not what is being espoused. Compare systems 'run with minimal services & processes running at start up'. The key point that was missed. Here is when boot time comparisons becomes valuable for problems are now readily apparent and therefore more easily corrected. If you have an X25-M ssd and boot at 30 seconds compared to your friend's 20 seconds with a 5400 rpm hdd, you know there's a problem.
I will say I am disappointed with the outcome of this discussion. Especially as I have come to learn that this forum is one of the most informative, accurate & genuinely helpful communities on the net.
�� Quote: Originally Posted by gregrocker All points of view expressed here have influenced my view on Startup time and I don't believe any are incorrect.
Previously I would have considered a one-minute Startup Time a performance problem in itself. Now I would be more inclined to offer options if Users wanted more items to start with computer.
Thanks.
Previously I would have considered a one-minute Startup Time a performance problem in itself. Now I would be more inclined to offer options if Users wanted more items to start with computer.
Thanks.
Quote:
Unfortunately Digerati felt the need to not just disagree amicably or have an honest discusion. He rather seemed inclined to use examples that clearly did not relate to the proposed idea. The idea that 'While boot times do not affect performance they can be considered an effective indicator of system performance'. BUT only when run with minimal (bare bones) services & processes running at start up
With all due respect, Laker, apparently you expect me to prove an negative (like trying to prove unicorns don't exist). Amicably? When I don't concede boot times are an indication of performance, you accuse me of being "intentionally obtuse".
I repeatedly asked you guys nicely to show ANY, just one link of supporting evidence to show that boot times are "an indication of performance" but neither of you did. I looked!!! Did you? I Googled! I Binged. All I could find is how to decrease boot times, but NOTHING on that being an indication of performance.
So I ask again, please show us a link, just one will do, to a site that tested computers and reports that boot times is indeed, or not, an indication of performance.
I'm not being amicable? I asked nicely, "Please explain if it takes 3 or 4 minutes to boot, but once booted, runs great, how is that an indication of performance?" But neither of you did, and instead, you guys accused me of not trying to understand.
Amicable? How is, ".....speeeeeaking very slowwwwlyyyyy so you can underrrrrstaaaaand....." an amicable or professional response?
My 1st example was with "identical" hardware and setup, the only difference was the 2nd computer loaded just 1 program at startup. My second example was with "identical" hardware, except an i7 instead of an i5. The response was another "personal" attack on me with accusations of, "exaggerating my statements to ridiculous proportions in an attempt to contradict what I'm saying only makes you look ridiculous. for someone who has a microsoft MVP tag, you don't sound very professional", and then, with a "by the way" we are told, "And I wouldn't let an i7 system that booted slower than a 4 year old dell out the door" and "90+ processes at startup vs ... less than 40".
I speak of identical, or near identical, and you (collectively) talk of i7s and 4-year old Dells. I speak of 1 extra process, you talk of 40 vs 90, and race cars vs dump trucks. But I get accused of exaggeration to "ridiculous proportions".
Not once was I disrespectful to either of you. I asked "please" to provide supporting evidence but got ignored. When someone does not agree with you, you attack, not the issues, but the person, then accuse them of not being professional.
And now you say I'm not being honest and not amicable? Please read through this thread again and see what the truth is.************
Quote:
The key point that was missed. Here is when boot time comparisons becomes valuable for problems are now readily apparent and therefore more easily corrected.
Well, my take on boot times is that they only tell one side to a story that is many sided. I've had a fairly fast computer for just over a year now. It's solid as a rock, performs great, stays very cool and has handled everything that I have thrown at it flawlessly for me.
When I first stated with the machine, I went with a Seagate 7200.12 1TB hard drive as my boot device. While it was fast, I eventually changed over to an 80GB Intel X-25M G2 drive and this gave my box a serious kick in the pants performance wise.
However, even with the SSD, my machine is not the fastest booting machine in the world. It sits for about 7 seconds before the monitor comes out of sleep and it takes another 15 seconds to get completely through the BIOS. So, it's about 22-23 seconds from a power on before it even has a chance to start loading windows. From that point, it boots into Windows in about 13 seconds. Thus I have around a 40 second boot time all things considered. I've seen others with machines that boot in 20-25 second range which are clearly faster than me.....but I'm not certain those machines once at the desktop would really be doubling up the performance that I get.
When I first stated with the machine, I went with a Seagate 7200.12 1TB hard drive as my boot device. While it was fast, I eventually changed over to an 80GB Intel X-25M G2 drive and this gave my box a serious kick in the pants performance wise.
However, even with the SSD, my machine is not the fastest booting machine in the world. It sits for about 7 seconds before the monitor comes out of sleep and it takes another 15 seconds to get completely through the BIOS. So, it's about 22-23 seconds from a power on before it even has a chance to start loading windows. From that point, it boots into Windows in about 13 seconds. Thus I have around a 40 second boot time all things considered. I've seen others with machines that boot in 20-25 second range which are clearly faster than me.....but I'm not certain those machines once at the desktop would really be doubling up the performance that I get.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét