Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Problem with XP Boot up method after switch to NTFS

Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 4:29:16 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

I did a switch to NTFS from FAT32 about a month or two ago and since then
have noticed a strange, annoying problem. Most of Windows XP does now no
longer boot during the splash screen; it now boots after the GUI has
loaded! I see 'Welcome' on my screen (displayed since I have no other user
accounts than administrator and guest) for about seven seconds, which is
about six-and-a-half seconds longer than in FAT32, and this new bootup
procedure indeed delays displaying of the Taskbar, and causes some of my
program that have Notification icons like SoundMAX (my AC'97's mixer
program) and iTouch Configuration (the program which makes onscreen
displays with my multimedia keyboard) to not load! In summary, my system,
from GUI load to full usage takes 2-3 minutes, whereas under FAT32 it took
about 30 seconds (the rest of the time was spent in the splash screen).

Needless to say this is a BIG inconvenience, not knowing when I can use my
dang computer, and I've lived with it for two months, but now I'd like to
solve it as it's driving me crazy.

I would appreciate it if people could reply to this in my e-mail; send any
suggestions to (a riddle to fool the spammers):

exaxzxyxcxhxexexzxex1 at cox.net and take out the x's in my handle.

Thank you SO much in advance. I really appreciate it.
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 8:12:52 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Do start->run->cmd [enter]

then

chkdsk

ignore any errors. What does it report the cluster size as being?

--
Walter Clayton - MS MVP(WinXP)
Associate Expert
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
http://www.dts-l.org
http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/fileversion/d...|


"EazyCheeze" <eazycheeze1@idbealunatic.tohavespam> wrote in message
news:Xns953E93C20DC0eazycheeze1idbestupi@207.46.248.16...
>I did a switch to NTFS from FAT32 about a month or two ago and since then
> have noticed a strange, annoying problem. Most of Windows XP does now no
> longer boot during the splash screen; it now boots after the GUI has
> loaded! I see 'Welcome' on my screen (displayed since I have no other user
> accounts than administrator and guest) for about seven seconds, which is
> about six-and-a-half seconds longer than in FAT32, and this new bootup
> procedure indeed delays displaying of the Taskbar, and causes some of my
> program that have Notification icons like SoundMAX (my AC'97's mixer
> program) and iTouch Configuration (the program which makes onscreen
> displays with my multimedia keyboard) to not load! In summary, my system,
> from GUI load to full usage takes 2-3 minutes, whereas under FAT32 it took
> about 30 seconds (the rest of the time was spent in the splash screen).
>
> Needless to say this is a BIG inconvenience, not knowing when I can use my
> dang computer, and I've lived with it for two months, but now I'd like to
> solve it as it's driving me crazy.
>
> I would appreciate it if people could reply to this in my e-mail; send any
> suggestions to (a riddle to fool the spammers):
>
> exaxzxyxcxhxexexzxex1 at cox.net and take out the x's in my handle.
>
> Thank you SO much in advance. I really appreciate it.
Anonymous
August 7, 2004 9:36:25 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"Walter Clayton" <w-claytonNO@SPmvpsAM.org> wrote in news:uTC8prLfEHA.3612
@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl:

> Do start->run->cmd [enter]
>
> then
>
> chkdsk
>
> ignore any errors. What does it report the cluster size as being?
>

111997115 KB total disk space.
84453680 KB in 184319 files.
74136 KB in 11706 indexes.
0 KB in bad sectors.
269119 KB in use by the system.
65536 KB occupied by the log file.
27200180 KB available on disk.

4096 bytes in each allocation unit. <- Here, I believe.
27999278 total allocation units on disk.
6800045 allocation units available on disk.
Related resources
Anonymous
August 8, 2004 12:42:50 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Yes, that's the cluster size. Generally, after a fat to NTFS conversion the
cluster size is 512B rather than 4K. That can cause a hefty performance hit
relatively speaking.

Have you defragged since the conversion?

--
Walter Clayton - MS MVP(WinXP)
Associate Expert
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
http://www.dts-l.org
http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/fileversion/d...|


"EazyCheeze" <eazycheeze1@idbealunatic.tohavespam> wrote in message
news:Xns953EC7D6084F3eazycheeze1idbestupi@207.46.248.16...
> "Walter Clayton" <w-claytonNO@SPmvpsAM.org> wrote in news:uTC8prLfEHA.3612
> @TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl:
>
>> Do start->run->cmd [enter]
>>
>> then
>>
>> chkdsk
>>
>> ignore any errors. What does it report the cluster size as being?
>>
>
> 111997115 KB total disk space.
> 84453680 KB in 184319 files.
> 74136 KB in 11706 indexes.
> 0 KB in bad sectors.
> 269119 KB in use by the system.
> 65536 KB occupied by the log file.
> 27200180 KB available on disk.
>
> 4096 bytes in each allocation unit. <- Here, I believe.
> 27999278 total allocation units on disk.
> 6800045 allocation units available on disk.
Anonymous
August 8, 2004 12:42:51 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"Walter Clayton" <w-claytonNO@SPmvpsAM.org> wrote in
news:uTMygCOfEHA.3520@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl:

> Yes, that's the cluster size. Generally, after a fat to NTFS
> conversion the cluster size is 512B rather than 4K. That can cause a
> hefty performance hit relatively speaking.
>
> Have you defragged since the conversion?
>

Yes, many times.
Anonymous
August 8, 2004 1:40:11 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

Generally only one defrag is necessary immediately after a conversion
followed by a wait of a few days then a final defrag. Excessive defragging
can cause performance hits.

I'm mulling a couple of potentials, however once the machine is up and
running how does it feel relatively speaking?

--
Walter Clayton - MS MVP(WinXP)
Associate Expert
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
http://www.dts-l.org
http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/fileversion/d...|


"EazyCheeze" <eazycheeze1@idbealunatic.tohavespam> wrote in message
news:Xns953ECAC11E78Eeazycheeze1idbestupi@207.46.248.16...
> "Walter Clayton" <w-claytonNO@SPmvpsAM.org> wrote in
> news:uTMygCOfEHA.3520@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl:
>
>> Yes, that's the cluster size. Generally, after a fat to NTFS
>> conversion the cluster size is 512B rather than 4K. That can cause a
>> hefty performance hit relatively speaking.
>>
>> Have you defragged since the conversion?
>>
>
> Yes, many times.
Anonymous
August 8, 2004 1:40:12 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

"Walter Clayton" <w-claytonNO@SPmvpsAM.org> wrote in
news:o oTyjiOfEHA.3204@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl:

> Generally only one defrag is necessary immediately after a conversion
> followed by a wait of a few days then a final defrag. Excessive
> defragging can cause performance hits.
>
> I'm mulling a couple of potentials, however once the machine is up and
> running how does it feel relatively speaking?
>

Quite well, as much as I'd expect. Of course I have a little difficulty
judging when's the best time to start computing, but after that, I don't
have any real dragging. Smooth sailing, only it's quite bumpy launching, as
I've said.
Anonymous
August 8, 2004 2:54:38 AM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics (More info?)

OK. That tends to rule out some potentials.

It's been a lllooonnnnggg time ago since I did a fat to NTFS conversion and
that was on a partition less than a 10th of size you did. Looking at the
numbers though you went from a 32K fat32 cluster to 4K cluster. Typically,
the 4K cluster will yield better performance due to the fact that it matches
the hardware page size on x86 platforms and typically reduces the amount of
data being read from HD surface. Random consideration: for pure sequential
processing larger clusters tend to outperform smaller clusters. During
system initialization, once the system optimization routines have kicked in
after a few days, the larger cluster can be of benefit during system
initialization.

However, placement of some of the on surface HD structures for NTFS can be
different and less than optimal when doing an in place conversion, in
particular the MFT (master file table) and if that is fragmented or
positioned incorrectly you can take performance hits, especially during
startup when the OS is still buffering things ups.

What tool are you using to defrag? If the MS supplied defrag be aware that
it does not defrag the MFT. It takes 3rd party defraggers and even then not
all will defrag the MFT. As an option, and judging by the amount of data you
currently have this will take a while, you can back up the drive format it
as NTFS then reload it.

--
Walter Clayton - MS MVP(WinXP)
Associate Expert
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
http://www.dts-l.org
http://support.microsoft.com/servicedesks/fileversion/d...|


"EazyCheeze" <eazycheeze1@idbealunatic.tohavespam> wrote in message
news:Xns953ED9365B892eazycheeze1idbestupi@207.46.248.16...
> "Walter Clayton" <w-claytonNO@SPmvpsAM.org> wrote in
> news:o oTyjiOfEHA.3204@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl:
>
>> Generally only one defrag is necessary immediately after a conversion
>> followed by a wait of a few days then a final defrag. Excessive
>> defragging can cause performance hits.
>>
>> I'm mulling a couple of potentials, however once the machine is up and
>> running how does it feel relatively speaking?
>>
>
> Quite well, as much as I'd expect. Of course I have a little difficulty
> judging when's the best time to start computing, but after that, I don't
> have any real dragging. Smooth sailing, only it's quite bumpy launching,
> as
> I've said.
!