whats the big deal with boot times?

[MalevolentEvil 0]

I mean.....why is everyone so antsy about boot time? 2 minutes? or 1:15? or 0:45?

i mean isnt it developed from the NT kernal which is designed for stability meaning....NO NEED TO REBOOT....

I just got off a 4 month up time. turn on power management so the monitor goes off after five minutes and the HD's spind down after ten.

I'm sorry, but I dont see the sense in whining about a minute or 2...

its more aggrivation then you need, and what is 2 minutes????

if your turning your computer on to play at a lan, then use that two minutes to go stock up on snacks and soda before everyone else gets them at their regularly scheduled reboots, being as you wont haveto

otherwise JUST SIT TIGHT geesh

I've had my say....

 

I myself experience 4 minute boots. from the power going on. till explorer finishes rendering the desktop and systray and everything is loaded.

 

SBLive Utils, WinVNC, winamp agent, AIM, MSN messenger, Attune (dunno what it is, or what it does, or where i got it, and I'm too lazy to kill it), Weatherbug (nifty weather app so you dont leave your dorm room dressed inappropriately for the day, includes forcasts and windchills :-p), ICQ, Real Media **** , G6 FTP Server, Seti@Home client.

 

winamp also opens up and starts playing Mr. Rogers theme song.

 

 

sooo all in all, i guess the lesson here is, stop and smell the roses. you might as well, cuz nothing is as sweet as win2K, remind yourself of that.

[DeadCats 0]

Huh?

 

I've been in these forums for a little while, and it seems like it's been some time since we've seen an "Annoyed w/Win2K Boot Time" header.

 

I'm not. Sure, it may be a minor inconvenience needing to reboot on some software and/or hardware installation, but that's really nothing much.

 

So, what's your point?

 

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

"Being married to a programmer is like owning a cat. You talk to it but you're never really sure it hears you, much less comprehends what you say." -DeadCats, 1999

[MalevolentEvil 0]

not neccasarilly in this board, or even this forum. but EVERYWHERE...at school or work...

"oh, you ahve win2K? does yours take 3 minutes to boot? i mean geesh thats sooooooo long and I'm to impatient to wait, i cant waste that one minute of my life waiting for one of the best OS's made to boot up."

 

then I tell them my record boot times, 4 minutes, 5 minutes, i just installed a controller card earlier today, took the boot time up to 6 minutes (actually 5:57, timed). :-) I'm so proud. that shuts them right up.

[BladeRunner 0]

It always makes me laugh when those threads appear, haven't read one for a while.

I think there was quite a long one a while back along the lines of:

With my SB Live! it takes 3 minutes to boot my PC, without it I can boot in about 1:30.

 

I never bothered to participate in those threads, I think that is just really sad.

I don't care if my machine takes 1 minute or 10 minutes to boot.

My Win2k box runs 24/7 and simply doesn't need re-booting, so why should I care how long it takes to re-boot?

My Win2k servers at work take an age to re-boot, what with the RAID controllers and everything, they have only had a handful of re-boots (most of them during their test stages before going live) the time it takes really shouldn't matter to anybody.

[jdulmage 0]

in this guy's case, no offense, but would you please...shut.. the.. hell.. up!

 

The reason why most people like fast boot times, is because a large portion of Windows 2000 users use this as their servers. I work for a web hosting company and they use Windows 2000 Server. Now, what if they have to reboot the servers? when the servers are not fully booted, there is no web host. They need them to boot as fast as possible. And there are a lot of people out there that'll agree with me on that. Second, a boot time being fast is always good, especially when you have those mishaps and errors. You want to be able to get out of there, reboot and get the system up again as fast as possible, especially when it's important. Why do you think Whistler has like a 10 second boot time on my system? If boot time wasn't a concern in the computer world, the need to cut the time would not have taken place.

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by jdulmage (edited 22 January 2001).]

[ThC 129 0]

yes but he is talking about end-users here i think. I agree though after going back to 2k i miss my whistler boottimes but i can live with the time it takes to boot because i dont reboot at all. So there is a need and not a need for fast boottimes but people just like whining about things even if the boot time was like power on GUI fullyusable people would still ***** because people are never fully satisfied.

[hteles 0]

Hi.

 

I don't like to ofend anyone, but in my case i dual-boot Win2k & Beos.

If i boot first to BeOs, and then to Win2k

to Play GL Quake World, it seems that it takes forever. No ofense

 

Best Wishes

 

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

Asus CUSL2 Mobo 1003, PIII 800EB, Elsa Geforce 2 Mx, 32MB, SB LIVE! VALUE, 256Mb PC133 CAS3, Quantum Fireball lct10 10,IntelPro/100+, AHA2940u, 8x SCSI DVD-ROM, HP CD-WRITER+ 9300

*********************

BeOS5 Pro

Win2k Pro sp#1 DX8

[erichui 0]

ok, when u consider saying that u have win2k running 24hours a day, then fine, but it doesn't have anything to do with us, people are just asking support for faster boot time, whats wrong with that????

if u say u don't mind the boot time of 2 mins, i do, and i think many people do, when they have a very fast system, and like jdulmage said, people wants their computer to boots up as fast as possible.

u say u don't boot your system for few months, but there might ppl who don't leave their system on hour, and uses win2k, and pls don't ask them to use win9x or shits like that becuase using win2k is for stability and SPEED, for my case, i personally thinks that win2k runs programs and stuff faster than winme, and games runs as fast as they do for my case(i am using geforce). so if ppl who don't mind to boot your system for 2 or 10 mins, fine, but don't say we whining just of that. because 2 mins seems to be lots of time to me for booting.

[BladeRunner 0]

The thing is.

Don't you have more pressing things to worry about rather than how long it takes for a PC to boot up?

I mean, what are you going to do in those two minutes while you wait?

You can go and grab a coffee, that's a great way of starting the day.

You could open some mail, saves you time later, get those cirulars binned.

Surely sitting there with a stop watch and then bashing your head on the table because you have wasted 3 minutes of your life wating for your machine to boot-up is a bit of a waste.

Getting as many mhz out of a CPU as possible I can understand.

Tweaking things so that memory access is that little faster, yes.

Tweaking the OS so that things run that bit faster, go for it.

But caring how long a PC takes to boot.....I'm sorry, but in my eyes that is bordering on sitting on a railway station at the weekend and getting upset because you missed the engine number on a train.

[Cynan 0]

FYI: Attune comes with GetRight I believe.

 

--Cynan.

[DosFreak 2]

Dunno how you guys build your systems but from P200's to Dual P3-933's my boot times are under or around a minute. Guess it must be my perfect touch.

[erichui 0]

ok, the thing is my old system whihc have a celeron 466 and 192mb ram boots much faster than my amd 1ghz with 256mn ram and a faster harddrive, i beleive i might be caused by the netowrking of my ADSL PPPoe

[Mike Zamarocy 1]

Isn't it kinda funny though??? How as much things change and IMPROVE(????), the more they seem to CIRCLE BACK???

 

Some years back, I got the job of replacing ALL the old IBM XT's in our company! YES!!! I SAID XT's. These boat anchors were still working after all these years, too!!! Well, you could go out and eat breakfast off campus before one of these would bootup.

 

Then we got the IBM model 330's with a 486 in them and Windows 3.1 (and that was a battle up against the OS/2 guys!!!). It booted up quite a bit faster than an XT!!!! Then on to Pentium, Celrons, PII, PIII, etc, etc, as well as on to Win95 then 98.

 

Well, after we replaced nearly everything for Y2K with all new equipment and W98, I got a call to fix a pc in one office. Guess what??? It was a IBM PS/2 Model 55SX - meaning it was a 386!!!! And it had WFW 3.11 on it as well - all SUPPOSEDLY NOT Y2K COMPLIANT! Well, all I had to do was change the date, and both the 386 and WFW 3.11 worked FINE! Just not the Gov software we needed to use.

 

But what am I getting at here???? This 386, which should have been considered a slooooooow CPU by today's standards (1ghz++++), booted up sooooo FAST, and into WFW 3.11, that it made my head spin!!!!

 

So, as I said way above, here we now have superfast PC's, but we have reverted back to XT boot times - WOW!

[clutch 1]

Well, my PC boot times aren't that long (about 1 to 1.5 min). However, for true servers, expect slow boot times. Why? Well, you have a longer hardware POST than usual (SCSI controllers, Array checks, etc) plus you have Netlogon activity (SAM/AD verification and update, DHCP zone authorization, DNS sync, etc). Servers take longer to boot, period. The more you're serving, the longer it takes. If server boot time is THAT critical, then go to clustering. God help you if you have to bring up an entire cluster all at once tho...

 

 

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

Regards,

 

clutch

[BladeRunner 0]

Thats just it.

A slow boot time normally indicates that your machine is doing a lot of things prior to actually launching the OS.

My Win2k servers at work have to go through RAID controllers, network cards etc.

Not to mention broadcasting around to the rest of the Win2k network that they are back and available, DNS up[censored] etc the list goes on.

The great thing is that the Win2k servers require re-booting so rarely.

My current 'main server' is now at 60 days up time, OK not amazing, but I see no reason on the horizon why it should need re-booting for some time.