fed up w/slow win2k boot

[Tommunist]

win2k takes a long-ass time to boot on my system (which is a pretty fast system otherwise). People have told me to check the registry. I have no clue how to do this. I don't really know a lot about windows so treat me like i don't know anything. it is slow every step of the way for the most part... the black screen with the bar across the bottom that fills up takes a long time. the screen that says win2k pro takes a long time as well. it actually sits for about a minute when the blue bar is full and i see IDE activity flick on a couple of times a second. once it shows my desktop and starts loading preferences, network settings, etc, it isn't too bad. any help would be appreciated. thanks.

my specs...
AXP 1800+
asus a7v333
asus geforece 4 ti 4400
GTXP soundcard
512 MB of PC2700
asus cd drive
plextor cdrw drive
WD 60 gig ATA 100 7200 rpm hard drive

*** 😎 Duff Man says a lot of things, OH YEAH!!! 😎 ***<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by tommunist on 07/31/02 10:17 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Toejam31]

There are several possible reasons for a slow boot in Win2K, and just as many possible solutions.

For example:

<A HREF="http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;q242518&" target="_new">Long Pause During Windows Startup Process</A>

<A HREF="http://www.rojakpot.com/Other_Articles/Win2K_Tips/DHCP_QuickBoot/DHCP_QuickBoot.htm" target="_new">How To Disable DHCP At Start Up</A>

<A HREF="http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;Q298583&" target="_new">Slow Boot or Error Messages in Windows 2000 After Installing Roxio Easy CD Creator 5.0</A>

<A HREF="http://www.practicallynetworked.com/support/slow_win2k_boot.htm" target="_new">Slow Win2000 Boot with PCI adapter</A>

<A HREF="http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;q274349&" target="_new">Computer with Large Number of Partitions Starts Slowly</A>

Links that contain information that you might find useful:

<A HREF="http://www.tweak3d.net/tweak/winstartupnew/" target="_new">Windows XP / 2000 Startup Tweak Guide</A>

<A HREF="http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;Q281770&" target="_new">How to Perform Clean-Boot Troubleshooting for Windows 2000</A>

<A HREF="http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;q315396&" target="_new">HOW TO: Troubleshoot Startup Problems in Windows 2000</A>

Personally, I would use a program like <A HREF="http://mlin.net/StartupCPL.shtml" target="_new">Startup Control Panel</A> to limit the programs that load during the boot. Running old, or out-dated programs can slow the boot process, or even lock up the system. I would also install the latest drivers for all the hardware, including the mainboard chipset <A HREF="http://www.viaarena.com/?PageID=2" target="_new">drivers</A>. I would make sure that the correct UDMA/DMA settings were enabled for the IDE channels in the Device Manager. Next, I would manually edit the Administrative <A HREF="http://snakefoot.fateback.com/tweak/winnt/services.html" target="_new">Services</A>. I would also run a full CHKDKS scan on the hard drive (My Computer\Drive Letter ... Right-click\Properties\Tools\Error-checking\Check Now ... <i>Both</i> check boxes selected), and use a program like <A HREF="http://www.executive.com/diskeeper/diskeeper.asp" target="_new">Diskeeper</A> to move the file directories to the top of the system partition with a Boot-Time Defragmention Run. I'd also thoroughly defrag the partition with the same utility.

I'd check in the Event Viewer logs for possible device conflicts and errors. Control Panel\Administrative Tools\Event Viewer, Application and System. The great majority of errors observed in these logs are searchable at the <A HREF="http://support.microsoft.com/" target="_new">Microsoft Knowledge Base</A>.

If you haven't done so, installing the latest <A HREF="http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/downloads/servicepacks/sp2/default.asp?FinishURL=/downloads/release.asp?ReleaseID=29424&area=search&ordinal=27&redirect=no" target="_new">Service Pack</A> and patching the operating system with Windows Update can fix many errors.

Last, but not least, running the system with a heavy-duty power supply can speed up the system, especially if your current PSU is underpowered. Minimum, recommended specifications for an AMD system and a GeForce video card:

+3.3v line = 20A
+5v line = 30A
Combined +3.3v/+5v available power = 165W

Please take note, these are the bare <i>minimum</i> requirements that are recommended, and more is better. If you wish to see what your current PSU provides, you may have to open the case and take a look for yourself.

Toejam31

<font color=red>First Rig:</font color=red> <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=17935" target="_new"><font color=green>Toejam31's Devastating Dalek Destroyer</font color=green></A>
<font color=red>Second Rig:</font color=red> <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=15942" target="_new"><font color=green>Toey's Dynamite DDR Duron</font color=green></A>
__________________________________________________________

<font color=purple>"Some push the envelope. Some just lick it. And some can't find the flap."</font color=purple>

 

[jlanka]

what he said

<i>It's always the one thing you never suspected.</i>

 

[Guest]

P = UI

<=>

P = (3.3v x 20A) + (5v x 30A) = 216 Watts



i've plugged my home blower to my case ... dunno what happen ... that works?!?

 

[Toejam31]

This is a common error among newer users, and at first glance, doesn't appear to be mathematically correct, which can be confusing. But the specifications I posted were <i>not</i> a mistake. Furthermore, I was not describing the specifications for a particular unit, but the lowest acceptable specifications that should be used as a guideline when shopping for <i>any</i> PSU, regardless of the manufacturer, or the total advertised wattage.

<b>+3.3 V / +5 V Combination Maximum</b>: The maximum amount of total power, in watts, that the power supply can provide simultaneously for the combination of the +3.3 V and +5 V signals. This is an upper limit that constrains any maximum load levels for either of the +3.3 V or +5 V signals individually.

<A HREF="http://www.pcguide.com/ref/power/sup/outputPower-c.html" target="_new">Output Power</A>

Toejam31

<font color=red>First Rig:</font color=red> <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=17935" target="_new"><font color=green>Toejam31's Devastating Dalek Destroyer</font color=green></A>
<font color=red>Second Rig:</font color=red> <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=15942" target="_new"><font color=green>Toey's Dynamite DDR Duron</font color=green></A>
__________________________________________________________

<font color=purple>"Some push the envelope. Some just lick it. And some can't find the flap."</font color=purple>

 

[slickstaa]

ouch.
hehe


<font color=blue> "You can observe a lot just by watchin'." </font color=blue>

 

[Guest]

i dont believe this source of information. it has 2 years retard, it speaks about 486DX2 66 (well, OK, ok, only 10 years retard ). i think a site refreshment is needed. i am not sure the guy knows what are the 2.03 ATX specifications with the add-on 12v connector for the P4. LoL


i've plugged my home blower to my case ... dunno what happen ... that works?!?

 

[Guest]

P = UI

<=>

P = (3.3v x 20A) + (5v x 30A) = 216 Watts

LoL


i've plugged my home blower to my case ... dunno what happen ... that works?!?

 

[Toejam31]

i dont believe this source of information. it has 2 years retard, it speaks about 486DX2 66 (well, OK, ok, only 10 years retard ). i think a site refreshment is needed. i am not sure the guy knows what are the 2.03 ATX specifications with the add-on 12v connector for the P4. LoL

Well, no one said you have to believe it, corsair, even if it happens to be true. Just because the information is somewhat out-of-date doesn't mean that it is no longer valid. I wouldn't have directed you to the link, if that was the case.

The individual who originally wrote the article may not have been familiar the ATX 2.03 specifications at the time, but I'm pretty hip.

Let's examine a specific PSU, just for laughs. Any PSU will do, but I'm going to illustrate using the component in my main system, just because I can get to the link fairly quickly.

I have an Enermax <A HREF="http://www.enermax.com.tw/products/switch-main.htm" target="_new">EG651P-VE FMA</A>, which has a total output rated at 551W.

The maximum output rating for the +3.3v line is 40A.
"" "" "" "" +5v line is 46A.
"" "" "" "" +12v line is 24A.
"" "" "" "" -5v line is 1A.
"" "" "" "" -12v line is 1A.
"" "" "" "" +5vsb line is 1.8A.

The combined available power for the combined +3.3v/+5v line is 300W.

According to your math,

P = (3.3v x 40A) + (5v x 46A) = 362W.

But ... the specifications for the PSU show only a maximum of 300W as being available for the combined lines!

So what's up with that, hmmm?

If the information in the article, is incorrect, perhaps you'd like to advance a working hypothesis on why the ratings for the PSU are listed as such ... and why the article is no longer valid for a device with a modern standard, like <A HREF="http://www.formfactors.org/developer/specs/atx/atx12vPSDGV1.pdf" target="_new">ATX 2.03</A> (with the ATX12V extension). You might notice that the specifications were first released to the public in February of 2000, so it isn't exactly new, either.

I'm all ears!

See ya!

Toejam31

<font color=red>First Rig:</font color=red> <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=17935" target="_new"><font color=green>Toejam31's Devastating Dalek Destroyer</font color=green></A>
<font color=red>Second Rig:</font color=red> <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?rigid=15942" target="_new"><font color=green>Toey's Dynamite DDR Duron</font color=green></A>
__________________________________________________________

<font color=purple>"Some push the envelope. Some just lick it. And some can't find the flap."</font color=purple>