BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 6d, 6h, 26m | CPU: 46% | MEM: 2123MB of 4355MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 PostPost subject: Windows 2000 Boot-Up time        Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:07 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:38 am

Posts
544

Location
USA

Favourite OS
Mac OS Classic
is there a way to speed up boot up time?

it gets kinda annoying waiting 1:30 to go from POST to desktop

w00t, i made 100 posts +1


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:14 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:47 pm

Posts
172
My system boots pretty quick for what it's worth (an old K6-2 @ 400 MHz with 144 MB of RAM).

I've disabled unneeded services with Start > Run > "services.msc".
I have very few startup items.
Visual effects are off.
I keep my disk defragmented often.

And of course, adding more memory is a good thing to do, too - adding a 64 MB stick on another old box I've got made it a little faster.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:51 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:38 am

Posts
544

Location
USA

Favourite OS
Mac OS Classic
ill give the services thing a go

windows 2000 has visual effects?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 8:05 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
He means the stuff that can be turned on or off in Display Properties' Effects tab.

Other than that, the essential points have been mentioned. Strip out unnecessary services, tidy up the autostarts, have at least 128 MB of RAM (upgrading from 96MB gave my old box a huge speed boost).


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:49 am 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
Using the Ntdetect and Ntldr (be sure to replace both of them at the same time) from Windows XP/2003 (preferably 2003 as it's newer) will remove the small delay when booting where there is that white bar where it says something like "starting Windows 2000" (just before the boot screen appears).

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:49 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Tue Nov 28, 2006 11:39 pm

Posts
149
In addition to everything else, I would disable uneeded devices in Device Manager. Also if you can get a license use XPlite (http://www.litepc.com/xplite.html) it supports both XP and 2000 and start removing more stuff, thus speeding it up.

In XP drivers are loaded all at once, while 2000 they load one after the other, significantly slowing it down.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:16 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
idontknow wrote:
In XP drivers are loaded all at once, while 2000 they load one after the other, significantly slowing it down.

I think that's why using Ntldr and Ntdetect from newer versions speeds it up slightly, as they make them load all at once on 2000 too.

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:00 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
idontknow wrote:
In XP drivers are loaded all at once, while 2000 they load one after the other, significantly slowing it down.

I think that's why using Ntldr and Ntdetect from newer versions speeds it up slightly, as they make them load all at once on 2000 too.

I've also read 2000 loads the whole registry into RAM when booting whereas XP only loads the necessary hives and dynamically loads others when required, so this could be another reason XP boots faster than 2000.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:02 pm 
Reply with quote
Administrator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am

Posts
12392

Location
Merseyside, United Kingdom

Favourite OS
Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate x64
I always found 2000 slow to boot but unbelievably reliable so maybe a boot up time trade off is worth the reliability.

_________________
Image

BetaArchive Discord: https://discord.gg/epK3r6A


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:14 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Andy wrote:
I always found 2000 slow to boot but unbelievably reliable so maybe a boot up time trade off is worth the reliability.

Yes, I agree. It could be bothersome on a notebook but then there's standby and hibernation.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:17 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:38 am

Posts
544

Location
USA

Favourite OS
Mac OS Classic
does anyone have those files from 2003?

is that allowed?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:26 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
It should be allowed, 2003 is available from MS as a free trial so you could always download that and get them that way.

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 4:30 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Vista Ultimate R2 wrote:
It should be allowed, 2003 is available from MS as a free trial so you could always download that and get them that way.

Downloading only the SP2 (or even SP1) for 2003 is enough to get the files, just extract the file with WinRAR or the /x switch. :)


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 6:58 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:38 am

Posts
544

Location
USA

Favourite OS
Mac OS Classic
id use 2k3 but its not a very good desltop os

ill dl sp2

thatnks for the info


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:02 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
inxsfan92 wrote:
id use 2k3 but its not a very good desltop os

ill dl sp2

thatnks for the info

Server 2003 can be quite a good desktop OS even though it's not intended to be used as such if configured correctly. My impression is that it feels faster than XP then.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:09 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:56 pm

Posts
599

Location
Vienna, Austria
It is way faster than XP, even if you use it for both, server and desktop stuff...


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 7:49 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:38 am

Posts
544

Location
USA

Favourite OS
Mac OS Classic
can it have wmp11?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:06 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Posts
3557
Yes, but I don't know if it installs without any modifications.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:20 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:38 am

Posts
544

Location
USA

Favourite OS
Mac OS Classic
hmm

maybe i shoud just install xp pro?


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 9:51 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Tue Nov 28, 2006 11:39 pm

Posts
149
inxsfan92 wrote:
hmm

maybe i shoud just install xp pro?


You probably should, with that hardware it should run well, just disable services and startup tasks. I run XP on much weaker hardware (of course those are all nLited installations).


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:43 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:38 am

Posts
544

Location
USA

Favourite OS
Mac OS Classic
i installed xp pro

pretty darn fast after a good few tweaks

thanks for your help guys


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:26 am 
Reply with quote
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:03 am

Posts
1115

Location
Germany
idontknow wrote:
In addition to everything else, I would disable uneeded devices in Device Manager. Also if you can get a license use XPlite (http://www.litepc.com/xplite.html) it supports both XP and 2000 and start removing more stuff, thus speeding it up.


it's better to use nLite because you don't need to buy a new tool and all files are removed from CD, so the install time is shorter

_________________
"Theory is when you know something, but it doesn't work. Practice is when something works, but you don't know why. Programmers combine theory and practice: Nothing works and they don't know why."


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 5:09 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Posts
2393
empireum wrote:
Yes, but I don't know if it installs without any modifications.

They only have downloads for XP and XP x64 - I tried various methods that I could find a while ago to try to get it to install on 2003 but none of them seemed to work (Datacentre 2003 R2 SP2). Do you know of one that does? (I tried this just now but upon trying to install wmfdist11.exe was told that I had the wrong version of Windows, while browsing to the folder where wmfdist11.exe extracts its files to, editing the update.inf for it and trying it then opens the hotfix installer but then it complains that the integrity of update.inf couldn't be verified)

_________________
Image


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:16 pm 
Reply with quote
Donator
Offline

Joined
Sun May 13, 2007 12:42 am

Posts
2404
Quote:
I've also read 2000 loads the whole registry into RAM when booting whereas XP only loads the necessary hives and dynamically loads others when required, so this could be another reason XP boots faster than 2000.


Windows 2000 only loads the system hive during the Text Mode Boot. It loads the rest dynamically during the graphical boot phase.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject: Re: Windows 2000 Boot-Up time        Posted: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:12 pm 
Reply with quote
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:57 am

Posts
400
inxsfan92 wrote:
is there a way to speed up boot up time?

it gets kinda annoying waiting 1:30 to go from POST to desktop

w00t, i made 100 posts +1


How about this? Let's push the ON button on my computer. Good. Now go make some coffee. I guarantee you when you get back, Windows 2000 will actually START loading.

400 Mhz Intel Celeron
256MB RAM

It's never done this before 2007 for some reason. It's not Windows 2000, it's the BIOS or something! Every day, the boot POST time increases a second. :S I seriously cannot wait for my iMac or a new computer at least.

_________________
Since January 2005, I've been in the Operating Systems Prototype Community. I've enjoyed learning more these past four years about the development of the Windows and Macintosh operating systems, as well as learning of new user-based projects that optimize system performance.


Top  Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2018

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS