Windows 2000 Boot-Up time

Discuss Windows 2000, NT, XP and Windows Server 2000, 2003, SBS 2003.
inxsfan92
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 544
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:38 am
Location: USA

Windows 2000 Boot-Up time

Post by inxsfan92 »

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

missingno
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 173
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 9:47 pm

Post by missingno »

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.

inxsfan92
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 544
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:38 am
Location: USA

Post by inxsfan92 »

ill give the services thing a go

windows 2000 has visual effects?

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

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).

Vista Ultimate R2
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Post by Vista Ultimate R2 »

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

idontknow
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 11:39 pm

Post by idontknow »

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.

Vista Ultimate R2
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Post by Vista Ultimate R2 »

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

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

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.

Andy
User avatar
Administrator
Posts: 12629
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:47 am
Location: United Kingdom
Contact:

Post by Andy »

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

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

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.

inxsfan92
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 544
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:38 am
Location: USA

Post by inxsfan92 »

does anyone have those files from 2003?

is that allowed?

Vista Ultimate R2
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Post by Vista Ultimate R2 »

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

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

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.

inxsfan92
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 544
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:38 am
Location: USA

Post by inxsfan92 »

id use 2k3 but its not a very good desltop os

ill dl sp2

thatnks for the info

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

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.

Ludacris
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 601
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 10:56 pm
Location: Vienna, Austria
Contact:

Post by Ludacris »

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

inxsfan92
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 544
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:38 am
Location: USA

Post by inxsfan92 »

can it have wmp11?

empireum
Donator
Posts: 3557
Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 5:00 pm

Post by empireum »

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

inxsfan92
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 544
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:38 am
Location: USA

Post by inxsfan92 »

hmm

maybe i shoud just install xp pro?

idontknow
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 149
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 11:39 pm

Post by idontknow »

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).

inxsfan92
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 544
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2007 2:38 am
Location: USA

Post by inxsfan92 »

i installed xp pro

pretty darn fast after a good few tweaks

thanks for your help guys

Luckie
User avatar
Donator
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 8:03 am
Location: Germany

Post by Luckie »

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."

Vista Ultimate R2
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 2393
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 10:06 pm

Post by Vista Ultimate R2 »

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

Kenneth
Donator
Posts: 2407
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 12:42 am

Post by Kenneth »

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.

ddrmaxromance
User avatar
FTP Access
Posts: 400
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2006 1:57 am

Re: Windows 2000 Boot-Up time

Post by ddrmaxromance »

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. 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.

Post Reply