Just thought I would report the effect of running Bootviz on an Averatec
C3500 Tablet PC (AMD XP-M 2200+, running at 1.67 GHz with XP Tablet 2005
[SP2]).

Before:
Core boot = 76.8 seconds
Full boot = 140.8 seconds (

After:
Core boot = 62.2 seconds (19% improvement)
Full boot = 121.8 seconds (13% improvement)

I don't understand why MS says that running Bootviz won't improve boot
times...

It is already built into Windows XP Pro, which is the operating system for
Tablet PCs.
--
Chris H.
Microsoft Windows MVP/Tablet PC
Tablet Creations - http://nicecreations.us/
Associate Expert
Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone


"gfwalker" <gfwalker@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:C8396782-4D9C-482D-9D15-ED0F7DC43FD0@microsoft.com...
> Just thought I would report the effect of running Bootviz on an Averatec
> C3500 Tablet PC (AMD XP-M 2200+, running at 1.67 GHz with XP Tablet 2005
> [SP2]).
>
> Before:
> Core boot = 76.8 seconds
> Full boot = 140.8 seconds (
>
> After:
> Core boot = 62.2 seconds (19% improvement)
> Full boot = 121.8 seconds (13% improvement)
>
> I don't understand why MS says that running Bootviz won't improve boot
> times...
>
>
>
>

From time to time I get situation that after reboot not all programs
autostart, or icons does not appear at systray.
After I run Bootviz everything works ok.

I heard that WindowsXP makes same optimization as Bootviz at idle. But one
my computer is every day idle, the other is never idle. And both have same
problem with autostart. That I can solve only with Bootviz.


"Chris H." <winxpnews********.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:uxXsRuI1EHA.304@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> It is already built into Windows XP Pro, which is the operating system for
> Tablet PCs.
> --
> Chris H.
> Microsoft Windows MVP/Tablet PC
> Tablet Creations - http://nicecreations.us/
> Associate Expert
> Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
>
>
> "gfwalker" <gfwalker@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C8396782-4D9C-482D-9D15-ED0F7DC43FD0@microsoft.com...
>> Just thought I would report the effect of running Bootviz on an Averatec
>> C3500 Tablet PC (AMD XP-M 2200+, running at 1.67 GHz with XP Tablet 2005
>> [SP2]).
>>
>> Before:
>> Core boot = 76.8 seconds
>> Full boot = 140.8 seconds (
>>
>> After:
>> Core boot = 62.2 seconds (19% improvement)
>> Full boot = 121.8 seconds (13% improvement)
>>
>> I don't understand why MS says that running Bootviz won't improve boot
>> times...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

Chris, I understand that's the official MS position. But how do you explain
the boot time improvement? I've been running XP on Tablet PCs for more than
2 years (actually since before they were announced), and I've never seen XP
do any "self improvement" of boot times. I would like someone to explain the
discrepancy, without simply restating the official MS position (as given at
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system...t/bootvis.mspx).
Clearly, based on my observed data, the statement that "Bootvis.exe cannot
.... alter a system's boot ... performance" is wrong.

Geoff Walker
Walker Mobile, LLC
www.walkermobile.com




"Chris H." wrote:

> It is already built into Windows XP Pro, which is the operating system for
> Tablet PCs.
> --
> Chris H.
> Microsoft Windows MVP/Tablet PC
> Tablet Creations - http://nicecreations.us/
> Associate Expert
> Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
>
>
> "gfwalker" <gfwalker@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:C8396782-4D9C-482D-9D15-ED0F7DC43FD0@microsoft.com...
> > Just thought I would report the effect of running Bootviz on an Averatec
> > C3500 Tablet PC (AMD XP-M 2200+, running at 1.67 GHz with XP Tablet 2005
> > [SP2]).
> >
> > Before:
> > Core boot = 76.8 seconds
> > Full boot = 140.8 seconds (
> >
> > After:
> > Core boot = 62.2 seconds (19% improvement)
> > Full boot = 121.8 seconds (13% improvement)
> >
> > I don't understand why MS says that running Bootviz won't improve boot
> > times...
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

I don't even attempt explain what Microsoft does, Geoff. 8-) If it works
for you, fine. Personally, I think the same results can come from a good
defrag (using a non-Microsoft tool like Raxco's PerfectDisk 7.0) and user
supervision of what is loading at boot-up. A lot of people on Tablet PCs
don't disable the dial-up modem, when they never use it, for instance,
causing unnecessary things to be loaded. My boot times are faster than what
you listed as "after." 8-)
--
Chris H.
Microsoft Windows MVP/Tablet PC
Tablet Creations - http://nicecreations.us/
Associate Expert
Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone


"gfwalker" <gfwalker@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:A31BEE9A-F027-4768-BAB6-16710785AE67@microsoft.com...
> Chris, I understand that's the official MS position. But how do you
> explain
> the boot time improvement? I've been running XP on Tablet PCs for more
> than
> 2 years (actually since before they were announced), and I've never seen
> XP
> do any "self improvement" of boot times. I would like someone to explain
> the
> discrepancy, without simply restating the official MS position (as given
> at
> http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system...t/bootvis.mspx).
> Clearly, based on my observed data, the statement that "Bootvis.exe cannot
> ... alter a system's boot ... performance" is wrong.
>
> Geoff Walker
> Walker Mobile, LLC
> www.walkermobile.com
>
>
>
>
> "Chris H." wrote:
>
>> It is already built into Windows XP Pro, which is the operating system
>> for
>> Tablet PCs.
>> --
>> Chris H.
>> Microsoft Windows MVP/Tablet PC
>> Tablet Creations - http://nicecreations.us/
>> Associate Expert
>> Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
>>
>>
>> "gfwalker" <gfwalker@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:C8396782-4D9C-482D-9D15-ED0F7DC43FD0@microsoft.com...
>> > Just thought I would report the effect of running Bootviz on an
>> > Averatec
>> > C3500 Tablet PC (AMD XP-M 2200+, running at 1.67 GHz with XP Tablet
>> > 2005
>> > [SP2]).
>> >
>> > Before:
>> > Core boot = 76.8 seconds
>> > Full boot = 140.8 seconds (
>> >
>> > After:
>> > Core boot = 62.2 seconds (19% improvement)
>> > Full boot = 121.8 seconds (13% improvement)
>> >
>> > I don't understand why MS says that running Bootviz won't improve boot
>> > times...
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>

Daniel,

Hmmmm, interesting. I also have the "some programs don't autostart"
problem. However, I have 5+ PCs (all different brands), and the problem only
appears on one of them. Since they all are running the same OS (XP Pro), my
only conclusion so far has been that the problem is hardware/BIOS related.
But I've never tried running Bootviz as a solution to the problem. I'll try
it.

BTW, the exact symption I'm seeing is that all of the autostart programs
almost always appear in TaskManager, but there's no icon in the tray for some
of them (average = 2 out of 5). If I try to run one of the programs again
manually, nothing happens because it's already running in TaskManager. I
have to manually "end the process" in TaskManager for each program that
didn't completely start and then manually restart it. That always works.
One of the utilities I use (Open+ from www.capio.cc) is programmed to wait
four seconds after being started before putting itself in the tray, and it
NEVER fails to start. I asked the programmer why he put in the four second
delay, and he said it was specifically to avoid the "some programs don't
autostart" problem. I'm considering experimenting with using a batch file to
autostart each of the programs, where the batch file will include a time
delay program.



"Daniel Danilin" wrote:

> From time to time I get situation that after reboot not all programs
> autostart, or icons does not appear at systray.
> After I run Bootviz everything works ok.
>
> I heard that WindowsXP makes same optimization as Bootviz at idle. But one
> my computer is every day idle, the other is never idle. And both have same
> problem with autostart. That I can solve only with Bootviz.
>
>
> "Chris H." <winxpnews********.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:uxXsRuI1EHA.304@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
> > It is already built into Windows XP Pro, which is the operating system for
> > Tablet PCs.
> > --
> > Chris H.
> > Microsoft Windows MVP/Tablet PC
> > Tablet Creations - http://nicecreations.us/
> > Associate Expert
> > Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
> >
> >
> > "gfwalker" <gfwalker@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> > news:C8396782-4D9C-482D-9D15-ED0F7DC43FD0@microsoft.com...
> >> Just thought I would report the effect of running Bootviz on an Averatec
> >> C3500 Tablet PC (AMD XP-M 2200+, running at 1.67 GHz with XP Tablet 2005
> >> [SP2]).
> >>
> >> Before:
> >> Core boot = 76.8 seconds
> >> Full boot = 140.8 seconds (
> >>
> >> After:
> >> Core boot = 62.2 seconds (19% improvement)
> >> Full boot = 121.8 seconds (13% improvement)
> >>
> >> I don't understand why MS says that running Bootviz won't improve boot
> >> times...
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
>

Chris,

I use Diskkeeper v8.0 from Executive Software, which is a good non-MS
defragger. I have it set to run automatically using its "Set it and forget
it" feature. I have never seen boot time improvement due to defrag. Running
performance improvement, yes.

I very carefully supervise what's loaded in the background at startup -- I
agree with you that it's a critical aspect of overall system performance.
The absolute best utility I have seen to manage startup loading is "Startup
Control Panel" by Mike Lin (www.mlin.net) -- and it's free.

Regarding boot times, I wonder what effect Bootviz would have on your boot
times. Have you ever tried running it? In any case, comparing our boot
times is not meaningful unless we compare CPU speed & HDD speed, etc. By
using Bootviz I have observed that depending on the particular combination of
CPU and HDD, sometimes the overall boot is CPU-limited and sometimes it's HDD
limited. For example, I tried it on a friend's 2.53 GHz desktop that had a
really low-end HDD (5400 rpm) and Bootviz clearly showed that almost all of
the boot was HDD-limited. On the Averatec (AMD 2200+, equivalent to 1.67
GHz), Bootviz shows that except for the first 20 seconds, the boot is clearly
CPU-limited.

Anyway, it's an interesting tool to experiment with and learn things from...


"Chris H." wrote:

> I don't even attempt explain what Microsoft does, Geoff. 8-) If it works
> for you, fine. Personally, I think the same results can come from a good
> defrag (using a non-Microsoft tool like Raxco's PerfectDisk 7.0) and user
> supervision of what is loading at boot-up. A lot of people on Tablet PCs
> don't disable the dial-up modem, when they never use it, for instance,
> causing unnecessary things to be loaded. My boot times are faster than what
> you listed as "after." 8-)
> --
> Chris H.
> Microsoft Windows MVP/Tablet PC
> Tablet Creations - http://nicecreations.us/
> Associate Expert
> Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
>
>
> "gfwalker" <gfwalker@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:A31BEE9A-F027-4768-BAB6-16710785AE67@microsoft.com...
> > Chris, I understand that's the official MS position. But how do you
> > explain
> > the boot time improvement? I've been running XP on Tablet PCs for more
> > than
> > 2 years (actually since before they were announced), and I've never seen
> > XP
> > do any "self improvement" of boot times. I would like someone to explain
> > the
> > discrepancy, without simply restating the official MS position (as given
> > at
> > http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system...t/bootvis.mspx).
> > Clearly, based on my observed data, the statement that "Bootvis.exe cannot
> > ... alter a system's boot ... performance" is wrong.
> >
> > Geoff Walker
> > Walker Mobile, LLC
> > www.walkermobile.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Chris H." wrote:
> >
> >> It is already built into Windows XP Pro, which is the operating system
> >> for
> >> Tablet PCs.
> >> --
> >> Chris H.
> >> Microsoft Windows MVP/Tablet PC
> >> Tablet Creations - http://nicecreations.us/
> >> Associate Expert
> >> Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
> >>
> >>
> >> "gfwalker" <gfwalker@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> >> news:C8396782-4D9C-482D-9D15-ED0F7DC43FD0@microsoft.com...
> >> > Just thought I would report the effect of running Bootviz on an
> >> > Averatec
> >> > C3500 Tablet PC (AMD XP-M 2200+, running at 1.67 GHz with XP Tablet
> >> > 2005
> >> > [SP2]).
> >> >
> >> > Before:
> >> > Core boot = 76.8 seconds
> >> > Full boot = 140.8 seconds (
> >> >
> >> > After:
> >> > Core boot = 62.2 seconds (19% improvement)
> >> > Full boot = 121.8 seconds (13% improvement)
> >> >
> >> > I don't understand why MS says that running Bootviz won't improve boot
> >> > times...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
>
>

I have used Diskeeper 8 and recently version 9; however, after switching to
Perfect Disk 7 from Raxco - my boot times HAVE defintely increased!
Diskeeper did great for me, but after using the trial of version 7 from
Perfect Disk - I was convinced that Perfect Disk did something "more."
What more I do NOT know but it did make a more difference. Oh...I did buy
it immediately and replaced by Diskeeper 9.



"gfwalker" <gfwalker@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7DDAA7C5-048C-4B24-873E-73A6EF817BC5@microsoft.com...
> Chris,
>
> I use Diskkeeper v8.0 from Executive Software, which is a good non-MS
> defragger. I have it set to run automatically using its "Set it and
> forget
> it" feature. I have never seen boot time improvement due to defrag.
> Running
> performance improvement, yes.
>
> I very carefully supervise what's loaded in the background at startup -- I
> agree with you that it's a critical aspect of overall system performance.
> The absolute best utility I have seen to manage startup loading is
> "Startup
> Control Panel" by Mike Lin (www.mlin.net) -- and it's free.
>
> Regarding boot times, I wonder what effect Bootviz would have on your boot
> times. Have you ever tried running it? In any case, comparing our boot
> times is not meaningful unless we compare CPU speed & HDD speed, etc. By
> using Bootviz I have observed that depending on the particular combination
> of
> CPU and HDD, sometimes the overall boot is CPU-limited and sometimes it's
> HDD
> limited. For example, I tried it on a friend's 2.53 GHz desktop that had
> a
> really low-end HDD (5400 rpm) and Bootviz clearly showed that almost all
> of
> the boot was HDD-limited. On the Averatec (AMD 2200+, equivalent to 1.67
> GHz), Bootviz shows that except for the first 20 seconds, the boot is
> clearly
> CPU-limited.
>
> Anyway, it's an interesting tool to experiment with and learn things
> from...
>
>
> "Chris H." wrote:
>
>> I don't even attempt explain what Microsoft does, Geoff. 8-) If it
>> works
>> for you, fine. Personally, I think the same results can come from a good
>> defrag (using a non-Microsoft tool like Raxco's PerfectDisk 7.0) and user
>> supervision of what is loading at boot-up. A lot of people on Tablet PCs
>> don't disable the dial-up modem, when they never use it, for instance,
>> causing unnecessary things to be loaded. My boot times are faster than
>> what
>> you listed as "after." 8-)
>> --
>> Chris H.
>> Microsoft Windows MVP/Tablet PC
>> Tablet Creations - http://nicecreations.us/
>> Associate Expert
>> Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
>>
>>
>> "gfwalker" <gfwalker@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:A31BEE9A-F027-4768-BAB6-16710785AE67@microsoft.com...
>> > Chris, I understand that's the official MS position. But how do you
>> > explain
>> > the boot time improvement? I've been running XP on Tablet PCs for more
>> > than
>> > 2 years (actually since before they were announced), and I've never
>> > seen
>> > XP
>> > do any "self improvement" of boot times. I would like someone to
>> > explain
>> > the
>> > discrepancy, without simply restating the official MS position (as
>> > given
>> > at
>> > http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system...t/bootvis.mspx).
>> > Clearly, based on my observed data, the statement that "Bootvis.exe
>> > cannot
>> > ... alter a system's boot ... performance" is wrong.
>> >
>> > Geoff Walker
>> > Walker Mobile, LLC
>> > www.walkermobile.com
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > "Chris H." wrote:
>> >
>> >> It is already built into Windows XP Pro, which is the operating system
>> >> for
>> >> Tablet PCs.
>> >> --
>> >> Chris H.
>> >> Microsoft Windows MVP/Tablet PC
>> >> Tablet Creations - http://nicecreations.us/
>> >> Associate Expert
>> >> Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> "gfwalker" <gfwalker@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:C8396782-4D9C-482D-9D15-ED0F7DC43FD0@microsoft.com...
>> >> > Just thought I would report the effect of running Bootviz on an
>> >> > Averatec
>> >> > C3500 Tablet PC (AMD XP-M 2200+, running at 1.67 GHz with XP Tablet
>> >> > 2005
>> >> > [SP2]).
>> >> >
>> >> > Before:
>> >> > Core boot = 76.8 seconds
>> >> > Full boot = 140.8 seconds (
>> >> >
>> >> > After:
>> >> > Core boot = 62.2 seconds (19% improvement)
>> >> > Full boot = 121.8 seconds (13% improvement)
>> >> >
>> >> > I don't understand why MS says that running Bootviz won't improve
>> >> > boot
>> >> > times...
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>

BTW, when you defrag with Perfect Disk - use the option to defrag and
optimize - not just the plain defrag.



"JJ" <jj@stokes.net> wrote in message
news:uZpLLtN1EHA.1392@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
>I have used Diskeeper 8 and recently version 9; however, after switching to
>Perfect Disk 7 from Raxco - my boot times HAVE defintely increased!
>Diskeeper did great for me, but after using the trial of version 7 from
>Perfect Disk - I was convinced that Perfect Disk did something "more."
>What more I do NOT know but it did make a more difference. Oh...I did buy
>it immediately and replaced by Diskeeper 9.
>
>
>
> "gfwalker" <gfwalker@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:7DDAA7C5-048C-4B24-873E-73A6EF817BC5@microsoft.com...
>> Chris,
>>
>> I use Diskkeeper v8.0 from Executive Software, which is a good non-MS
>> defragger. I have it set to run automatically using its "Set it and
>> forget
>> it" feature. I have never seen boot time improvement due to defrag.
>> Running
>> performance improvement, yes.
>>
>> I very carefully supervise what's loaded in the background at startup --
>> I
>> agree with you that it's a critical aspect of overall system performance.
>> The absolute best utility I have seen to manage startup loading is
>> "Startup
>> Control Panel" by Mike Lin (www.mlin.net) -- and it's free.
>>
>> Regarding boot times, I wonder what effect Bootviz would have on your
>> boot
>> times. Have you ever tried running it? In any case, comparing our boot
>> times is not meaningful unless we compare CPU speed & HDD speed, etc. By
>> using Bootviz I have observed that depending on the particular
>> combination of
>> CPU and HDD, sometimes the overall boot is CPU-limited and sometimes it's
>> HDD
>> limited. For example, I tried it on a friend's 2.53 GHz desktop that had
>> a
>> really low-end HDD (5400 rpm) and Bootviz clearly showed that almost all
>> of
>> the boot was HDD-limited. On the Averatec (AMD 2200+, equivalent to 1.67
>> GHz), Bootviz shows that except for the first 20 seconds, the boot is
>> clearly
>> CPU-limited.
>>
>> Anyway, it's an interesting tool to experiment with and learn things
>> from...
>>
>>
>> "Chris H." wrote:
>>
>>> I don't even attempt explain what Microsoft does, Geoff. 8-) If it
>>> works
>>> for you, fine. Personally, I think the same results can come from a
>>> good
>>> defrag (using a non-Microsoft tool like Raxco's PerfectDisk 7.0) and
>>> user
>>> supervision of what is loading at boot-up. A lot of people on Tablet
>>> PCs
>>> don't disable the dial-up modem, when they never use it, for instance,
>>> causing unnecessary things to be loaded. My boot times are faster than
>>> what
>>> you listed as "after." 8-)
>>> --
>>> Chris H.
>>> Microsoft Windows MVP/Tablet PC
>>> Tablet Creations - http://nicecreations.us/
>>> Associate Expert
>>> Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
>>>
>>>
>>> "gfwalker" <gfwalker@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>> news:A31BEE9A-F027-4768-BAB6-16710785AE67@microsoft.com...
>>> > Chris, I understand that's the official MS position. But how do you
>>> > explain
>>> > the boot time improvement? I've been running XP on Tablet PCs for
>>> > more
>>> > than
>>> > 2 years (actually since before they were announced), and I've never
>>> > seen
>>> > XP
>>> > do any "self improvement" of boot times. I would like someone to
>>> > explain
>>> > the
>>> > discrepancy, without simply restating the official MS position (as
>>> > given
>>> > at
>>> > http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system...t/bootvis.mspx).
>>> > Clearly, based on my observed data, the statement that "Bootvis.exe
>>> > cannot
>>> > ... alter a system's boot ... performance" is wrong.
>>> >
>>> > Geoff Walker
>>> > Walker Mobile, LLC
>>> > www.walkermobile.com
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > "Chris H." wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> It is already built into Windows XP Pro, which is the operating
>>> >> system
>>> >> for
>>> >> Tablet PCs.
>>> >> --
>>> >> Chris H.
>>> >> Microsoft Windows MVP/Tablet PC
>>> >> Tablet Creations - http://nicecreations.us/
>>> >> Associate Expert
>>> >> Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> "gfwalker" <gfwalker@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>> >> news:C8396782-4D9C-482D-9D15-ED0F7DC43FD0@microsoft.com...
>>> >> > Just thought I would report the effect of running Bootviz on an
>>> >> > Averatec
>>> >> > C3500 Tablet PC (AMD XP-M 2200+, running at 1.67 GHz with XP Tablet
>>> >> > 2005
>>> >> > [SP2]).
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Before:
>>> >> > Core boot = 76.8 seconds
>>> >> > Full boot = 140.8 seconds (
>>> >> >
>>> >> > After:
>>> >> > Core boot = 62.2 seconds (19% improvement)
>>> >> > Full boot = 121.8 seconds (13% improvement)
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I don't understand why MS says that running Bootviz won't improve
>>> >> > boot
>>> >> > times...
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

8-) Geoff, unless you were to have identical machines, with identical
loading programs, drivers and services, and run one system with and another
without using the program, you wouldn't be able to compare at all. Each
machine, even identical in hard drives and CPUs, will probably give
different results.

I ran a couple tests just for fun on my Toshiba M200 running the Pentium M
(Centrino) 1.5 MHz and a gig of RAM. It is too lengthy to list the nearly
40 items in my Startup folder, plus the items like OneNote 2003 Quick
Launch, PlanPlus, KilpFolio, etc., etc.

I have an 11.7 GB C: partition, with roughly 1.5 GB free, and an "X:"
storage partition with 2.16 GB free (need to do something. 8-)

From cold startup (power up with button) to functional desktop, including
loading screen (F11) for Acronis True Image and typing in my password, I am
at 61-63 seconds. It works for me, without using BootVis.
--
Chris H.
Microsoft Windows MVP/Tablet PC
Tablet Creations - http://nicecreations.us/
Associate Expert
Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone


"gfwalker" <gfwalker@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:7DDAA7C5-048C-4B24-873E-73A6EF817BC5@microsoft.com...
> Chris,
>
> I use Diskkeeper v8.0 from Executive Software, which is a good non-MS
> defragger. I have it set to run automatically using its "Set it and
> forget
> it" feature. I have never seen boot time improvement due to defrag.
> Running
> performance improvement, yes.
>
> I very carefully supervise what's loaded in the background at startup -- I
> agree with you that it's a critical aspect of overall system performance.
> The absolute best utility I have seen to manage startup loading is
> "Startup
> Control Panel" by Mike Lin (www.mlin.net) -- and it's free.
>
> Regarding boot times, I wonder what effect Bootviz would have on your boot
> times. Have you ever tried running it? In any case, comparing our boot
> times is not meaningful unless we compare CPU speed & HDD speed, etc. By
> using Bootviz I have observed that depending on the particular combination
> of
> CPU and HDD, sometimes the overall boot is CPU-limited and sometimes it's
> HDD
> limited. For example, I tried it on a friend's 2.53 GHz desktop that had
> a
> really low-end HDD (5400 rpm) and Bootviz clearly showed that almost all
> of
> the boot was HDD-limited. On the Averatec (AMD 2200+, equivalent to 1.67
> GHz), Bootviz shows that except for the first 20 seconds, the boot is
> clearly
> CPU-limited.
>
> Anyway, it's an interesting tool to experiment with and learn things
> from...