Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Programs in XP take long time to Start Up

Tags:
  • Windows 98
  • Microsoft Word
  • Microsoft
  • Windows XP
Last response: in Windows XP
Share
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 1:34:02 PM

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

I've noticed recently that programs on Windows XP Professional are taking
longer to load. For instance, Microsoft Word 97, on Windows 98, opens quite
quickly. When you press Ctrl+O or File>Open, it is done promptly and opens
the diologue box right away.

In Windows 2k, running Word 2003, it takes longer to open the program, and
its Open Diologue Box.

In Windows XP, it takes a very long time to do the above tasks.

It seems that most applications are like this in XP. Is there a reason for
this? Is there a way to close down some less frequently/required features of
XP so it opens programs more quickly?

Thanks!
--
Richard Parke
Technical Consultant
Buchanan Family Medical Center

More about : programs long time start

Anonymous
June 8, 2005 2:06:31 PM

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

Are the computers you're comparing of simliar power? Because you're
comparing an operating system that's far more complex, along with a program
that's far more complex. If everything else remains the same, of course the
programs are going to take longer to come up.

Matt Gibson - GSEC
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 2:16:07 PM

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

I realize that the software 2003 is more complex than 97 as well as XP vs.
98. I've heard that it is possible to turn off certain functionalities in XP
that might not be used as often... that would take less memory...is this the
case? Would upgrading memory help the situation?
--
Richard Parke
Technical Consultant
Buchanan Family Medical Center


"Matt Gibson" wrote:

> Are the computers you're comparing of simliar power? Because you're
> comparing an operating system that's far more complex, along with a program
> that's far more complex. If everything else remains the same, of course the
> programs are going to take longer to come up.
>
> Matt Gibson - GSEC
>
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 2:38:26 PM

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

Upgrading memory (to a certain point) always helps. XP should have at least
512MB for running smoothly

Same with upgrading your CPU, I wouldn't run anything less than a 1Ghz PIII.

Matt Gibson - GSEC

"buchananfamilymed" <buchananfamilymed@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:8F324C03-7E1D-47D3-BB3E-E7765945A17A@microsoft.com...
>I realize that the software 2003 is more complex than 97 as well as XP vs.
> 98. I've heard that it is possible to turn off certain functionalities in
> XP
> that might not be used as often... that would take less memory...is this
> the
> case? Would upgrading memory help the situation?
> --
> Richard Parke
> Technical Consultant
> Buchanan Family Medical Center
>
>
> "Matt Gibson" wrote:
>
>> Are the computers you're comparing of simliar power? Because you're
>> comparing an operating system that's far more complex, along with a
>> program
>> that's far more complex. If everything else remains the same, of course
>> the
>> programs are going to take longer to come up.
>>
>> Matt Gibson - GSEC
>>
>>
>>
Anonymous
June 8, 2005 7:58:43 PM

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

In news:8F324C03-7E1D-47D3-BB3E-E7765945A17A@microsoft.com,
buchananfamilymed <buchananfamilymed@discussions.microsoft.com>
typed:

> I realize that the software 2003 is more complex than 97 as
> well as
> XP vs.
> 98. I've heard that it is possible to turn off certain
> functionalities in XP that might not be used as often... that
> would
> take less memory...is this the case? Would upgrading memory
> help the
> situation?


Upgrading memory might very well help. How much do you have?

Nobody can tell you exactly how much memory you need for good
performance, because that depends on the apps you run.

You get good performance if the amount of RAM you have keeps you
from using the page file, and that depends on what apps you run.
Most people running a typical range of business applications find
that somewhere around 256-384MB works well, others need 512MB.
Some people, particularly those doing things like editing large
photographic images, can see a performance boost by adding even
more--sometimes much more.


--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup



>> Are the computers you're comparing of simliar power? Because
>> you're
>> comparing an operating system that's far more complex, along
>> with a
>> program that's far more complex. If everything else remains
>> the
>> same, of course the programs are going to take longer to come
>> up.
>>
>> Matt Gibson - GSEC
!