Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
 |
 |
 |
hi
i've just finished installing windows xp pro w/ sp2 on my desktop computer(it was a clean install), and i've installed all the latest drivers. i haven't installed ANY programs yet.
now, it takes about 30 seconds to get from post beep to my login prompt, and over all responsiveness of it seems hampered. it just feels like windows is not running as fast as it could.
also, it's a P4 1.5ghz with 512mb of ram, and a 7200rpm 8mb cache WD harddrive: how can windows xp take this long to boot? i've seen it all over the place that windows xp boots faster, but it clearly doesn't.
i remember with windows me i went from post to desktop in about 7 seconds.
can i make windows xp run this fast?
if i can, how?
if i can't, why not?
Toshiba M50-MX2:
Celeron M 1.5GHZ 1MB L2
512 DDR2 PC4200 RAM
60GB 5400RPM HDD
DVD+/-RW CDRW DVD-RAM
Well,Windows Me takes about 300-400MB of disk space.Win xp takes about 1.5GHZ of disk space.It takes xp 4 to 4.5 times as long to load.That proves a mathematical assumption.May be another reason.I am sure someone will respond.
0 
...it takes about 30 seconds ...
i remember with windows me i went from post to desktop in about 7 seconds.
If bootup time is more important than getting a stable but far superior operating operating, all you need to do is dump XP and go back to ME.
i_XpUser
0
I'm primarily a W98SE user but all XP's I've used have taken way longer to boot. I suspect it's all the magic features XP has on board (ME is a tiddler by comparison).
I suspect more RAM would help but see what a "real" XP person says tho.
DerekW
0
No plm Derek - BTW I don't get spencer - why does bootup time really matter. What's his beef?
i_XpUser
0
XPUser
30s seems fair to me. What's more to the point is the massive boot delays due to stacks of unnecessary piffle that most shop bought machines are saddled with. Often needs trimming back.
You know the sort of thing, the reason the hidden system tray feature was invented LOL.
I suppose it's true to say that with 9x & ME you have to reboot from time to time in order to keep the thing running sweetly. With XP I get the impression that you only boot once (mostly) so boot time probably matters less.
DerekW
0
First of all, with all due respect, pretend Microsoft forgot to confuse things on that foggy day and Windows ME never really happened it was all just a bad dream ,it's easier that way.If you go back to the future,go to Windows 98 se.
0
Street1
I accept the thrust of your point in #7 but I've been given to understand that there are ways of taming ME that so that it runs quite well.
DerekW
0
Yes, this seems to be the "apples vs oranges" thread.
ME gets a bad rap - mainly from folks who've either never used it or don't know what they're doing (or perhaps both?)
Too many variables to make any scientific comparison, although in general it seems to me that XP boxes finish the startup process far more quickly than 9x - but that's pretty subjective
I agree; Computing.Net participants need to proofread
0
My teacher once said"You can't add apples and oranges."She was wrong.It equals fruit.Windows Me like the Yugo car,developed it's own reputation from it's users.
0
Was that your grade 8 teacher?
I gather that means you meet both of the aforementioned criteria
I agree; Computing.Net participants need to proofread
0
No it was in the 3rd grade Mrs Bernstein. My number one critic.I have never personally met a criteria.What do they look like an objective?
0  |
 Slow after standby
|
limit pf usage + other qu...
|
This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |
