Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2005 18:01:57 +0100 From: Philip Nienhuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [LIB] Cryptic Message at Boot - W2K
Matt Hanson wrote: > > Date: Sat, 22 Jan 2005 22:02:44 -0800 (PST) > From: Matt Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [LIB] Cryptic Message at Boot - W2K > > --- Philip Nienhuis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Does installing the Service Pack 4 result in the same slow shut > > > > > down? Or is this only happening to me? > > > > > > > > Don't know. > > > > ISTR shutdown/boot times were also quite long w/ SP3. > > > > > > Ah... so you've not yet gone to SP4 yet Philip? Wonder what people are > > > seeing that have installed it. > > > > Yes, I have SP4 on both Dutch and English W2K. > > Okay... I'm a but confused here You >do< have SP4 installed. Do you have > it installed on a standard, non-stripped down installation? My copy of W2K Yes. I had SP4 applied to an already existing (Dutch) W2K-SP3, but due to problems with its NT-VDM I had to reinstall W2K; so I reinstalled it with SP4 slipstreamed into it. (The NT-VDM (Virtual DOS Machine) problem in my case related somehow to Netscape 4.79, Win2K kept on producing 500 - 1000 VDM-scratch files per hour, finally choking the partition with the %TEMP% directory. Since SP4 I never experienced similar problems.) > came with SP3 as part of it. And when 1st installed, it shut down fairly > quickly. I think the main problem is that Win2K (& NT, XP, ...) upon shutdown checks and/or rewrites large parts of the registry to disk. So the challenge is to keep the registry small (saves boot-up time too). Initially the registry is some 10 MB or so, but soon it'll grow and grow. I got a message once that the (still default) maximum registry size (18 MB IIRC) was too small and I had to increase it. I suspect over time a lot of junk is collected inside, so a reg clean-up program may help out a lot. Never tried it though. > Don't imagine installing SP4 will ever speed things up. I wonder if some > Windows specialist may know how to speed up the shut down process. Seems > if I haven't made any chanages to the OS during a session, it doesn't need > to check for changes. Turning that process off might speed things up. Well it may not speed up but it will fix a lot of security leaks and holes. And as I said a couple of postings ago, it does increase stability, especially with legacy (16 bit) programs. P.
