Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.newusers (
More info?)
Hi Ken - great response.
"If it ain't broke - don't fix it."
Dave
"Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:%23nQAGliLFHA.3616@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> In news:utBcLQhLFHA.1884@TK2MSFTNGP15.phx.gbl,
> Dave B <djbahb@dcwis.com> typed:
>
>> Couldn't agree more boot time is a non event other than a good time
>> to fill the coffee cup. Situation here, tho, is interesting. I have
>> 2 nearly identical comps on a LAN, one with many more aps than the
>> other.
>
>
> When you say "many more apps," do you mean more apps starting
> automatically at boot time, or just more apps installed? The latter makes
> no difference to boot time, but the former can make a big difference.
> Here's my standard response on programs starting automatically:
>
>
> On each program you don't want to start automatically, check its Options
> to see if it has the choice not to start. Many can easily and best be
> stopped that way. If that doesn't work, run MSCONFIG from the Start | Run
> line, and on the Startup tab, uncheck the programs you don't want to start
> automatically.
>
> However, if I were you, I wouldn't do this just for the purpose of running
> the minimum number of programs. Despite what many people tell you, you
> should be concerned, not with how many of these programs you run, but
> which. Some of them can hurt performance severely, but others have no
> effect on performance.
>
> Don't just stop programs from running willy-nilly. What you should do is
> determine what each program is, what its value is to you, and what the
> cost in performance is of its running all the time. You can get more
> information about these with at http://castlecops.com/StartupList.html. If
> you can't find it there, try google searches and ask about specifics here.
>
> Once you have that information, you can make an intelligent informed
> decision about what you want to keep and what you want to get rid of.
>
> --
> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
> Please reply to the newsgroup
>
>
>
>
>> The simpler of the two boots in half the time. (Come to
>> think of it, the slow one is the host. Does that make a difference?)
>>
>> Just wondered.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>> "Ken Blake" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
>> news:%23SEbxuXLFHA.3336@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
>>> In news:e$h%23OAULFHA.1528@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl,
>>> Dave B <djbahb@dcwis.com> typed:
>>>
>>>> I have a pretty full comp, and a lot of icons on the Quicklaunch
>>>> bar. It does take this comp a while to boot up. Do these icons
>>>> actually use significant resources even if they represent programs
>>>> that are not really open.
>>>
>>>
>>> No.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Much office discussion about this,TSRs, etc.
>>>>
>>>> There is also the question, from a resource standpoint, are they any
>>>> different than having an icon on the desktop?
>>>
>>>
>>> No. They are just shortcuts, and it doesn't really matter where those
>>> shortcuts are located.
>>>
>>> Regarding how long it takes for your computer to boot, my personal
>>> view is that the attention many people pay to how long it takes to
>>> boot is unwarranted. Assuming that the speed is otherwise
>>> satisfactory, it may not be worth worrying about. Most people start
>>> their computers once a day or even less frequently. In the overall
>>> scheme of things, even a few minutes to start up isn't very
>>> important. Personally I power on my computer when I get up in the
>>> morning, then go get my coffee. When I come back, it's done booting.
>>> I don't know how long it took to boot and I don't care. --
>>> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
>>> Please reply to the newsgroup
>>>
>>> On the other hand if your computer is generally slow, there may be
>>> issues you should address. If that's the case, post back for more
>>> help. --
>>> Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
>>> Please reply to the newsgroup
>
>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram