Member Avatar for kaninelupus

For those of us using Dual or Quad core CPU's there is a neat little way to boost start-up time. By default, Windows will only use a single processor to load-up Windows... but it doesn't have to be that way.

Hit Winkey+R and type in msconfig (and of course hit "enter"

Go to the Boot tab, and select your OS. Go to the Advanced Options button and click on it (yes I know I'm dummying this down, but saves silly questions later).

Check the Number of Processors option, and use the drop-down box to select all available processors (in my case a measly 2!!).

Boot times should now be much quicker.

NB: You can also use msconfig to trim down the start-up app (who really need Acrobat and QuickTime to be running the second you load up Windows??). You'll of course find this ability on the startup tab.

Happy hunting :)

  • 4 Contributors
  • 10 Replies
  • 502 Views
  • 1 Month Discussion Span
  • Latest Post Latest Post by kaninelupus

Dani AI

Generated

A quick reality check and a practical troubleshooting path that complements the suggestions already posted by , , and .

The "set number of processors" tweak is mainly a diagnostic/test option rather than a guaranteed speed-up. Early boot work is often serialized by firmware and driver initialization, so forcing CPU counts usually gives inconsistent results (which explains the mixed timings reported above). The bigger wins come from finding which driver, service or device is delaying the transition from POST to an interactive desktop.

A concise troubleshooting workflow:

  1. Record a baseline: measure power-on to logon prompt and to usable desktop (three runs, take the average).
  2. Clean-boot test: hide Microsoft services in msconfig, disable non-Microsoft services, reboot and re-measure. If that helps, re-enable items in small groups to isolate the offender.
  3. Boot logging: enable Windows boot logging (creates C:\Windows\ntbtlog.txt) and inspect for drivers that fail or take long to initialize. Remove or update problematic drivers.
  4. Examine system logs for boot-time errors or long driver/service times (check System/Application logs around boot time).
  5. Firmware and POST: enable quick/fast boot in BIOS, disconnect unused USB/peripherals during POST, and update motherboard firmware. Notebooks skip many checks by design; desktops usually probe more devices, which adds time.
  6. Hardware: migrating the OS from a mechanical HDD to an SSD typically yields the largest real-world reduction in boot time.

Cautions and practical tips: avoid permanently forcing CPU counts as a first-line fix. For delays after login (desktop present but unresponsive), focus on delayed services, cloud-sync and AV products; try deferring or removing heavy startup items with Autoruns or a staged re-enable. If experimentation makes boot worse, revert the change and rely on the clean-boot isolation steps above.

Recommended Answers

All 10 Replies

Member Avatar for dgecker507

While you're in there, tick the checkbox 'no gui boot' to remove the green bar and have a beautiful blue background to remove a second or so of boot time. Good Look! I missed that option

Member Avatar for Andrew Wiggin

Not bad suggestions, and deep down, i know they should make things faster. But, I didn't notice any change. In fact I timed it, and the original boot.ini won by 5 seconds - time from power to log in prompt.

Member Avatar for dgecker507

my boot is 31 secs now. im gonna enable gui boot and retest then disable 2nd core and retest again

Member Avatar for crunchie

I got a quad so will try this out when I get home. Boot time at present is about 2 minutes (though I have yet to actually time it).

Member Avatar for kaninelupus

I got a quad so will try this out when I get home. Boot time at present is about 2 minutes (though I have yet to actually time it).

OMG - is that Vista pre-SP2?? Have been 100% on Win7 (although dual-boot config) since RC1 release, but heard SP2 puts boot times close Win7... which really is super-fast. Maybe that's just hyperbole then :-/

- as has been noticed, the No GUI boot in Vista - while looking prettier - actually increased boot time; thus the reason the same setting in Win7 is simply a blank boot screen.

Member Avatar for dgecker507

Not bad suggestions, and deep down, i know they should make things faster. But, I didn't notice any change. In fact I timed it, and the original boot.ini won by 5 seconds - time from power to log in prompt.

Ok so yes the actual time to login is a couple of seconds (yes about 2 seconds on my computer) shorter after ticking the original boot config checkbox, HOWEVER my desktop was now useless for about 15 to 20 seconds while i waited for vista to kick services in one after another. (after another) Before, my desktop was not put on hold for more than 5 seconds. How much is windows 7 again? haha

Member Avatar for crunchie

Vista SP1. About 2 seconds faster with all 4 cores.

Member Avatar for kaninelupus

Vista SP1. About 2 seconds faster with all 4 cores.

MS must have refined this in Win7 then... mind you, the new OS has far greater cohesiveness/collaboration btwn CPU & GPU than Vista, so that'll enhance boot times right off the bat.

To compare (bearing in mind have move frm Vista x86 to Win7 x64 - both Ultimate), with identical apps loading at start up - except for AV which is Symantec Endpoint (corporate AV) in Vista, and Comodo in Win7:

  • Vista (admittedly SP1) - 2mins+ till usable desktop
  • Win7 - 20 secs till usable desktop.

Wireless connectivity:

  • Vista - 1-1.5 mins
  • Win7 - 5 seconds!

And this is running x64 Win7 on only 2GB or RAM - upgrading to 4GB shortly, so mind boggles at how that will speed things up :) Now admittedly these stats may change if updated Vista to SP2, but given the Win7 performance levels, I really see no reason to use Vista ever again.

Member Avatar for crunchie

I should have stated that the time is 1 minute to the time that the desktop is loaded, but all startup programs such as AV etc. are still loading. Probably an extra 15-20 seconds more.
Half of my boot time is taken up with the bios post :(.
Running my quad at the moment @ 3.6GHz with 4Gb RAM. Boot time hardly changes even when running @ 3.9-4.0GHz.
Had W7 on dual boot a few months ago and it was quite faster to load.

Edited by crunchie because: n/a
Member Avatar for kaninelupus

I should have stated that the time is 1 minute to the time that the desktop is loaded, but all startup programs such as AV etc. are still loading. Probably an extra 15-20 seconds more.
Half of my boot time is taken up with the bios post :(.
Running my quad at the moment @ 3.6GHz with 4Gb RAM. Boot time hardly changes even when running @ 3.9-4.0GHz.
Had W7 on dual boot a few months ago and it was quite faster to load.

I think Vista had a few of Achilles' heels that especially effected boot-times:

  • The major being that due to "big enterprise" reaction to original Vista (then Longhorn) builds, Vista as a concept got plonked on top of XP architecture to a large extent - thus many of the performance issues all round.
  • Vista was the first OS to use a randomised process load order, so I imagine has been refined in the newer OS.
  • From memory, Vista also the first (Windows at least) OS to option process loading to either "at startup" or "delayed - at startup", so again imagine refined in Win7.

Am not going to try and steer thread to a Win7 V's Vista posting, but certainly is interesting seeing the comparisons real-time.


NB: Off topic I know, but your response reminded me of a question that have had for a while now. Why does one go though the whole BIOS POST on a PC - especially a custom built PC - but not on a notebook?? Am sure there's a logic reason, but never been privy to it :)

Be a part of the DaniWeb community

We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.