Tweaking boot time (classpnp.sys?)

madtownidiot said:

We're both right, you just don't see it.

Laker said:

The point of: While boot times do not affect performance they can be considered an indicator of system performance.

How? Show ANY link or study that shows where boot times are an indication of performance. All it shows me is boot times. Do slow boot times affect game play? Frames per second? How fast Word can spell check a document? How fast IE can download a webpage? How fast I can copy files?

I am not going to debate "what ifs". Two identical machines, setup identically, with the same programs set to load at start should take the same amount of time to boot. I assume we agree on that.

But by you guys saying boot times is an indicator of performance, that suggests if User A chooses to have Outlook run at startup, thus adding 10 seconds to his boot times, suddenly his machine is now somehow less of a performer than the otherwise identical machine where User B waits to load Outlook until after it boots.

That's what you guys are saying! That is, User A loads Outlook at boot, therefore User B's machine is a better performer. That's just not right.

Now if you guys want to keep saying that, then I am saying you are wrong. Whether I choose to load Outlook at boot or not is no more an indication of performance than whether I choose a 22" or a 24" inch monitor. Or a silver case or a black case. Declaring boot times is a deal breaker is an invalid argument for you are then not talking about identical machines setup identically.

And to that - if I take two identical motherboards, RAM and graphics cards, and put an Intel i5 2.66GHz on one board, and an i7 2.8GHz CPU on the other, but load up the start options on the i7 - it would be sad day if the buyer chose the i5 thinking (or worse yet, was led to believe) he was getting the better machine with the i5 simply because it booted faster.

While boot times do not affect performance they can be considered an indicator of system performance.

Sorry - an after thought.

You are saying boot times do not affect performance. And you are saying boot times are (or can be considered) an indicator of performance.

You don't see a conflict there?

According to the first half of your statement, if I load up my start options, thus making it take longer to boot, it does not affect performance. But by the 2nd half of your statement, those longer boot times indicate something about system performance - it can only be make it better, worse, or remain the same. You said it does not affect it, that only leaves it remains the same.

Having programs load at boot, or as needed from the taskbar after boot is simply a matter of personal preference - NOT performance. If a buyer thinks otherwise (again with 2 identical machines) then that's the sales "pitch", not the truth.

.....speeeeeaking very slowwwwlyyyyy so you can underrrrrstaaaaand.....
every system has a quantifiable limit to it's resources... memory, hdd space, cpu and gpu processing capacity, etc, which when used, even by idle processes, detracts from the available resources for other applications. So without qualification, the more processes and services are running the slower it's going to be. And yes, if you have a system with a 2.8GHz i7 and 4 GB ram loads 90+ processes at startup vs a system with a 2.4GHz i5 and 4 GB RAM that's running less than 40 (about the difference between a factory installed os and a user installed os from a retail disk), the i5 system will probably run faster with everyday use and will definitely allow you to check your email from a cold startup in less time (a very important consideration for most of my business and student customers). And I wouldn't let an i7 system that booted slower than a 4 year old dell out the door by the way, nor would I try to sell the weaker system on the merit that it boots faster
However, if both are running the same number of processes at startup, everything else will be faster in the i7 system. but exaggerating my statements to ridiculous proportions in an attempt to contradict what I'm saying only makes you look ridiculous. for someone who has a microsoft MVP tag, you don't sound very professional

Digerati - What he said should suffice. Please stop trying to 'twist', 'manipulate' & 'exaggerate' the opposing idea to suit your own view point.

All points of view expressed here have influenced my view on Startup time and I don't believe any are incorrect.

Previously I would have considered a one-minute Startup Time a performance problem in itself. Now I would be more inclined to offer options if Users wanted more items to start with computer.

Thanks.

.....speeeeeaking very slowwwwlyyyyy so you can underrrrrstaaaaand.....

Please stop trying to 'twist', 'manipulate' & 'exaggerate' the opposing idea to suit your own view point.

Whatever. It seems instead of providing links and justifications all either of you can do is attack on a personal front. And you call me unprofessional?

And I wouldn't let an i7 system that booted slower than a 4 year old dell out the door by the way

90+ processes at startup vs ... less than 40

Talk about twist and exaggerate to suit a viewpoint! I never said anything of the sort, as anyone else reading can clearly see.

So since you feel it necessary to attack me personally and to fabricate scenarios to meet your viewpoints, instead of providing links or supporting evidence, I'm done here.

Gregrocker - I wholeheartedly agree that all viewpoints are valid regarding acceptable boot times. Some may want to load many/all programs they want or will use at start up. It's your machine configure it to your liking. As I stated earlier:

"Some may disagree as their computer is used for different purposes or prefer it be run a certain way. Great! That is the fun in optimizing your system to your personal tastes."

Unfortunately Digerati felt the need to not just disagree amicably or have an honest discusion. He rather seemed inclined to use examples that clearly did not relate to the proposed idea. The idea that 'While boot times do not affect performance they can be considered an effective indicator of system performance'. BUT only when run with minimal (bare bones) services & processes running at start up.

I do not think (and believe madtownidiot would agree) that users system's are performing poorly just because he/she likes to load many/all programs at start up. Even if it may take 2 minutes that idea is not what is being espoused. Compare systems 'run with minimal services & processes running at start up'. The key point that was missed. Here is when boot time comparisons becomes valuable for problems are now readily apparent and therefore more easily corrected. If you have an X25-M ssd and boot at 30 seconds compared to your friend's 20 seconds with a 5400 rpm hdd, you know there's a problem.

I will say I am disappointed with the outcome of this discussion. Especially as I have come to learn that this forum is one of the most informative, accurate & genuinely helpful communities on the net.

Unfortunately Digerati felt the need to not just disagree amicably or have an honest discusion. He rather seemed inclined to use examples that clearly did not relate to the proposed idea. The idea that 'While boot times do not affect performance they can be considered an effective indicator of system performance'. BUT only when run with minimal (bare bones) services & processes running at start up

Amicably? Please, where did I attack you? Where was I dishonest?

With all due respect, Laker, apparently you expect me to prove an negative (like trying to prove unicorns don't exist). Amicably? When I don't concede boot times are an indication of performance, you accuse me of being "intentionally obtuse".

I repeatedly asked you guys nicely to show ANY, just one link of supporting evidence to show that boot times are "an indication of performance" but neither of you did. I looked!!! Did you? I Googled! I Binged. All I could find is how to decrease boot times, but NOTHING on that being an indication of performance.

So I ask again, please show us a link, just one will do, to a site that tested computers and reports that boot times is indeed, or not, an indication of performance.

I'm not being amicable? I asked nicely, "Please explain if it takes 3 or 4 minutes to boot, but once booted, runs great, how is that an indication of performance?" But neither of you did, and instead, you guys accused me of not trying to understand.

Amicable? How is, ".....speeeeeaking very slowwwwlyyyyy so you can underrrrrstaaaaand....." an amicable or professional response?

My 1st example was with "identical" hardware and setup, the only difference was the 2nd computer loaded just 1 program at startup. My second example was with "identical" hardware, except an i7 instead of an i5. The response was another "personal" attack on me with accusations of, "exaggerating my statements to ridiculous proportions in an attempt to contradict what I'm saying only makes you look ridiculous. for someone who has a microsoft MVP tag, you don't sound very professional", and then, with a "by the way" we are told, "And I wouldn't let an i7 system that booted slower than a 4 year old dell out the door" and "90+ processes at startup vs ... less than 40".

I speak of identical, or near identical, and you (collectively) talk of i7s and 4-year old Dells. I speak of 1 extra process, you talk of 40 vs 90, and race cars vs dump trucks. But I get accused of exaggeration to "ridiculous proportions".

Not once was I disrespectful to either of you. I asked "please" to provide supporting evidence but got ignored. When someone does not agree with you, you attack, not the issues, but the person, then accuse them of not being professional. And now you say I'm not being honest and not amicable? Please read through this thread again and see what the truth is.

************

The key point that was missed. Here is when boot time comparisons becomes valuable for problems are now readily apparent and therefore more easily corrected.

Once again, with all due respect, Laker, this key point was not missed at all. This topic was NEVER about troubleshooting problems. In fact, it was mentioned several times specifically that we were talking about a system that had ZERO problems with drivers or services loading, or with the system running normally once the boot completed. I agree 100% that when troubleshooting problems, looking at the boot process is a key area to focus on. And troubleshooting boot problems would be a good topic of discussion, for another thread - unless the OP wants to go there.