RESTART time - measured

Core Duo @ 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM, Vista Home Premium

BEGINNING and ENDING state:
Desktop, no apps running, four accessories in tray including
Avast!, "free" cursor with no hourglass

Five trials, all within 2-3 seconds of 2:05. Desktop and tray
appear at 1:32-34, but the cursor has an hourglass for another
half minute or so.

Is this about right? Is there any way I can improve this speed?

Thanks!

notaguru wrote:
> Core Duo @ 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM, Vista Home Premium
>
> BEGINNING and ENDING state:
> Desktop, no apps running, four accessories in tray including Avast!,
> "free" cursor with no hourglass
>
> Five trials, all within 2-3 seconds of 2:05. Desktop and tray appear at
> 1:32-34, but the cursor has an hourglass for another half minute or so.
>
> Is this about right? Is there any way I can improve this speed?
>
> Thanks!



For the record --

With wireless and Bluetooth OFF, I gained about five seconds.

"notaguru" <notaguru-> wrote in message
news:fca81c$blp$...
> Core Duo @ 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM, Vista Home Premium
>
> BEGINNING and ENDING state:
> Desktop, no apps running, four accessories in tray including Avast!,
> "free" cursor with no hourglass
>
> Five trials, all within 2-3 seconds of 2:05. Desktop and tray appear at
> 1:32-34, but the cursor has an hourglass for another half minute or so.
>
> Is this about right? Is there any way I can improve this speed?
>
> Thanks!


Sounds about right. I haven't timed my restart time on any of my Vista
boxes, so that's just a SWAG. I hafta ask, though, why are you concerned
with improving restart start-to-finish speed? Do you restart many times a
day? If so, why?

Lang

Lang Murphy wrote:
> "notaguru" <notaguru-> wrote in message
> news:fca81c$blp$...
>> Core Duo @ 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM, Vista Home Premium
>>
>> BEGINNING and ENDING state:
>> Desktop, no apps running, four accessories in tray including Avast!,
>> "free" cursor with no hourglass
>>
>> Five trials, all within 2-3 seconds of 2:05. Desktop and tray appear
>> at 1:32-34, but the cursor has an hourglass for another half minute or
>> so.
>>
>> Is this about right? Is there any way I can improve this speed?
>>
>> Thanks!
>
>
> Sounds about right. I haven't timed my restart time on any of my Vista
> boxes, so that's just a SWAG. I hafta ask, though, why are you concerned
> with improving restart start-to-finish speed? Do you restart many times
> a day? If so, why?
>
> Lang


Sorry, I thought it was obvious. RESTART is a combination of
SHUTDOWN and POWER-ON. Historically I've used RESTART as a
benchmark when seeking to accelerate those two functions, which
are especially important on a laptop.

Those are similar time for me, in addition my system is sluggish until the
anti-virus sweep is complete which takes about 20 minutes (I can pause that
however).

With the improvements made in power handling in VISTA I would recommend that
you consider Hibernate when shutting down unplugged and Sleep with hybrid
sleep enabled when shutting down plugged in.

VISTA behaves much better than XP did in regard to long periods without a
hard restart.

Michael

"notaguru" <notaguru-> wrote in message
news:fcafna$r3a$...
> Lang Murphy wrote:
>> "notaguru" <notaguru-> wrote in message
>> news:fca81c$blp$...
>>> Core Duo @ 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM, Vista Home Premium
>>>
>>> BEGINNING and ENDING state:
>>> Desktop, no apps running, four accessories in tray including Avast!,
>>> "free" cursor with no hourglass
>>>
>>> Five trials, all within 2-3 seconds of 2:05. Desktop and tray appear at
>>> 1:32-34, but the cursor has an hourglass for another half minute or so.
>>>
>>> Is this about right? Is there any way I can improve this speed?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>> Sounds about right. I haven't timed my restart time on any of my Vista
>> boxes, so that's just a SWAG. I hafta ask, though, why are you concerned
>> with improving restart start-to-finish speed? Do you restart many times a
>> day? If so, why?
>>
>> Lang
>
>
> Sorry, I thought it was obvious. RESTART is a combination of SHUTDOWN and
> POWER-ON. Historically I've used RESTART as a benchmark when seeking to
> accelerate those two functions, which are especially important on a
> laptop.

Michael wrote:
> Those are similar time for me, in addition my system is sluggish until
> the anti-virus sweep is complete which takes about 20 minutes (I can
> pause that however).
>
>
which antivirus? I use NIS2007 and it has no impact on either of the 2
Vista laptops it's installed on. However, on my XP machine, I recently
installed NIS2007, but had to remove it due to it interfering with
opening programs far too long after the PC is restarted, due to constant
HDD activity coming from NIS2007. weird how the same program reacts
differently on the 2 OS's, huh? I went back to Norton Corporate on the
XP machine, which allows me to start programs unimpeded after just a few
moments from bootup.

Dave

notaguru;450354 Wrote:
> Core Duo @ 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM, Vista Home Premium
>
> BEGINNING and ENDING state:
> Desktop, no apps running, four accessories in tray including
> Avast!, "free" cursor with no hourglass
>
> Five trials, all within 2-3 seconds of 2:05. Desktop and tray
> appear at 1:32-34, but the cursor has an hourglass for another
> half minute or so.
>
> Is this about right? Is there any way I can improve this speed?
>
> Thanks!

Hi NotAGuru,

You can speed up the times a bit safely with these tutorials.

http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/70563-boot-up.html

http://www.vistax64.com/tutorials/70567-shutdown.html

Shawn


--
brink

*There are no dumb questions, just the people that do not ask them.*
_http://www.Vistax64.com (\"http://www.Vistax64.com\")_
*Please post feedback to help others.*

"notaguru" <notaguru-> wrote in message
news:fcafna$r3a$...
> Lang Murphy wrote:
>> "notaguru" <notaguru-> wrote in message
>> news:fca81c$blp$...
>>> Core Duo @ 1.83GHz, 2GB RAM, Vista Home Premium
>>>
>>> BEGINNING and ENDING state:
>>> Desktop, no apps running, four accessories in tray including Avast!,
>>> "free" cursor with no hourglass
>>>
>>> Five trials, all within 2-3 seconds of 2:05. Desktop and tray appear at
>>> 1:32-34, but the cursor has an hourglass for another half minute or so.
>>>
>>> Is this about right? Is there any way I can improve this speed?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>> Sounds about right. I haven't timed my restart time on any of my Vista
>> boxes, so that's just a SWAG. I hafta ask, though, why are you concerned
>> with improving restart start-to-finish speed? Do you restart many times a
>> day? If so, why?
>>
>> Lang
>
>
> Sorry, I thought it was obvious. RESTART is a combination of SHUTDOWN and
> POWER-ON. Historically I've used RESTART as a benchmark when seeking to
> accelerate those two functions, which are especially important on a
> laptop.


That is different, as far as I'm concerned. Mainly because when I shut down
a seat, I hit the shutdown button and walk away. I don't sit there watching
the seat shutdown. So, personally, shutdown could take 20 minutes and I
wouldn't care. Unless, of course, I wanted to start the seat up in that 20
minute window. Whatever...

So... the only metric that would interest me would be the power on time.
And, honestly... speeding up the power on time by 5 seconds, or even 30
seconds, hardly seems worth the effort involved to achieve that improvement.
But that's just my personal opinion and is not meant as an indictment of
those who -do- strive to achieve power on time improvement.

All that said... good luck with your quest.

Lang

"Lang Murphy" wrote
news:25782092-FAD2-4CAD-8119-...
> That is different, as far as I'm concerned. Mainly because when I shut
> down a seat, I hit the shutdown button and walk away. I don't sit there
> watching the seat shutdown. So, personally, shutdown could take 20 minutes
> and I wouldn't care. Unless, of course, I wanted to start the seat up in
> that 20 minute window. Whatever...
>
> So... the only metric that would interest me would be the power on time.
> And, honestly... speeding up the power on time by 5 seconds, or even 30
> seconds, hardly seems worth the effort involved to achieve that
> improvement. But that's just my personal opinion and is not meant as an
> indictment of those who -do- strive to achieve power on time improvement.
>
>
Agreed. My old '98 on a P2 restarted slow enough I could hit the restroom,
refill my coffee cup, and still wait for it. Either it takes me much too
much longer to get there and back, or Vista restarts too fast. ;-)

<> wrote in message
news:%...
> "Lang Murphy" wrote
> news:25782092-FAD2-4CAD-8119-...
>> That is different, as far as I'm concerned. Mainly because when I shut
>> down a seat, I hit the shutdown button and walk away. I don't sit there
>> watching the seat shutdown. So, personally, shutdown could take 20
>> minutes and I wouldn't care. Unless, of course, I wanted to start the
>> seat up in that 20 minute window. Whatever...
>>
>> So... the only metric that would interest me would be the power on time.
>> And, honestly... speeding up the power on time by 5 seconds, or even 30
>> seconds, hardly seems worth the effort involved to achieve that
>> improvement. But that's just my personal opinion and is not meant as an
>> indictment of those who -do- strive to achieve power on time improvement.
>>
>>
> Agreed. My old '98 on a P2 restarted slow enough I could hit the restroom,
> refill my coffee cup, and still wait for it. Either it takes me much too
> much longer to get there and back, or Vista restarts too fast. ;-)
>


Ha! Funny... maybe a bit of both? ;-)

Lang