Why is a fresh install of Windows XP faster?

[adrianlondon]

I'm asking this because I like to believe I know what I'm doing when it comes to general PC support type issues.

I have an X41 laptop, and am really pleased with it. Once booted up, it runs well (1GB of RAM) and I believe the bootup is slow-ish due to the 1.8" HD, which is really slow.

I have removed all the apps I don't want and pared down everything I don't need from all the run-at-startup type places.

It is, as far as I'm concerned, a nice clean O/S and is running well.

However, it seems to be common concensus on here that only a frresh install of XP makes the machine run at its best.

Why? What am I missing?

[K0LO]

Measure your machine's boot time as follows:

1. Temporarily disable Windows password so that machine goes directly to the desktop when booting.
2. Reboot machine.
3. Start timing when Windows splash screen appears.
4. When the Windows desktop appears, hit CTRL-ALT-DEL to display Task Manager.
5. Stop timing when CPU Usage drops to zero (idle)

On my X41T the measured start time was 5 minutes as-delivered by the factory. It decreased to 200 seconds after much tweaking. But after a fresh install it decreased to 60 seconds.

If you're happy with your current boot-up time then why bother? A fresh install is a lot of work. But I wasn't willing to accept a boot-up time of 3 - 5 minutes.

I have XP Tablet Edition, so you should get better results from XP Pro without the tablet extensions.

[jdhurst]

<snip>
However, it seems to be common concensus on here that only a frresh install of XP makes the machine run at its best.
Why? What am I missing?

You are not missing anything because it simply is *not* true. It is just different. The basic preload starts fast if certain "goodies" are not enabled. Been there, done that, many times over.

So what goodies:
1. Access Connections takes a while to start, but I like and use Access Connections. If someone else doesn't want it - fine
2. I like and use Symantec Client Security Corporate. Takes a while to start and that's fine with me. Please don't confuse this with Norton Retail.
3. Netscreen VPN adds to startup. Most people won't have this.
4. Cache Sentry Pro takes a long time to start, but then my cache is always clean and subsequent daily performance is very fast.

Those are the big hogs, but I like what I use and use what I like, so I am patient with startup.

There is another issue that sometimes gets missed. My machine takes about 4 minutes to start up completely. Once started, it runs for hours on end very quickly. I want performance - I don't care about startup because it is invisible in all the other daily startup activities (first cup of coffee prime amongst them).
... JD Hurst

[adrianlondon]

Thanks for the comments so far.

There's no way my machine goes from power off to logged on and totally idle in 60 seconds. If a fresh install does that then fantastic, but ... how does it do that? As I said before, what exactly does the IBM install of XP do that I don't know about?

I'm pretty sure I know exactly which "goodies" (using yoour word if I may, jdhusrt!) I have loading.

I have Access Connections because I love it. I have zone alarm - that can take a while to kick in. I sometimes use checkpoint VPN, but when I'm not using it for a while the services are disabled.

As I say, I'm pretty sure if I reinstall Windows XP and put back all the apps I like, I'll be back to exactly what I have now.

It's that potential 60 second bootup that intrigues me!

I do agree with you jdhust in that I don't boot up often; I hibernate; it's just that - oh, how to explain - I'm a bit geeky and don't like the thought that there's "stuff" going on that I'm not aware of.

[mhca]

The reason why I decided to do a fresh install was that I had long wanted to know exactly what had and what had not been installed.

There are a lot of IBM apps that I didn't use and although you uninstall them they might leave traces or a maybe some mess in the registry.

But I believe it isn't much to win except for the thought of a freshly installed Windows where old junk isn't conflicting with newly installed.

Also I had a lot of space free'd up by totally formatting the C-drive during install.

I agree with you on that the slow boot time is due to the 1.8" harddisk ([censored] it took a while to format that ). I don't believe that my boot time is anything exciting compared to before my reinstall but anyways I am satisfied with this clean system.


Update:
My system takes approximately 100-120 seconds to boot but then it has also connected to the wireless network and asked for my fingerprint for password manager when in Windows.
And I also have power-on and harddisk password enabled in bios which I had to scan my finger once for.

[K0LO]

Adrian:

Actually, it's a 45 sec bootup from a fresh WinXP Tablet Edition installation. It stretched to 60 sec after installing all of my apps and utilities.

You can probably get a good idea of what to expect by temporarily turning off the apps that aren't part of WXP Pro (Access Connections, Zone Alarm, Antivirus, VPN, etc) and measuring. If the result is close to 60 sec then a fresh install won't help the startup time at all.

mhca's comments are correct. After using your machine for a while and installing and uninstalling software, the registry grows larger and the machine's startup and shutdown times increase (Windows Arthritis). You can certainly fix that with a fresh install.

[jdhurst]

Adrian:
<snip>
mhca's comments are correct. After using your machine for a while and installing and uninstalling software, the registry grows larger and the machine's startup and shutdown times increase (Windows Arthritis). You can certainly fix that with a fresh install.

I see this frequently in here. There is no such thing as Windows Arthritis so far as I know. It most assuredly does not happen to me (and one of my machines runs 24x7 non-stop whilst the other shuts down daily). I think the real "crap" that causes problems is what users install. I use my machines carefully and only installed paid-for, supported software with some tiny exceptions. The paid-for stuff is not crap (or I wouldn't use it) and I don't see my registry bloating up at all.

FWIW, three ways to keep trivial bloat away from the registry:
1. Use CacheSentry Pro. Best tool there is to keep cache under control. Did you know that Explorer sets cache for over 1Gb out of the box? I set my Explorer cache for 80Mb and then further curtail it with CacheSentry Pro to 20Mb. The Pro version is cheap and highly effective.
2. Run CheckLinks occasionally - this removes dead links.
3. Clear your MRU occasionally - in Start properties.

I use Registry First Aid occasionally. It fixed a problem for me once without rebuilding, so I do like it. I have mixed feelings whether registry cleaners are really that good. That said, if I run the three steps above and then run Registry First Aid, there is very little for it to pick up (generally lost temp file links to installs I have run because I delete temp files frequently).
... JD Hurst

[K0LO]

I think the real "crap" that causes problems is what users install.

Boy, I'll second that! I haven't rebuilt my desktop machines in a couple of years and they're just as quick as the day that I installed Windows on them.

My son's machine.....that's another story. Despite parental advice, he's always installing, playing with and then removing software. Some of the stuff falls into the "crap" category and the uninstall routines don't remove all of their "crap" from the registry. Consequently, I have to rebuild his machine about once every 6 months.

[dsigma6]

got crap? use crapcleaner!

i know its not going to make a huge difference, but it can clear up a lot of garbage.

[christopher_wolf]

There is some stuff that can be done.

First, make sure you have a decent amount of RAM; 1GB is great.

Second, a clean and mostly empty primary HDD is what Windows likes the best. By clean, I mean that *everything* Windows wants to pre-fetch/cache is in exactly the first and right place Windows goes to check for it; primarily, that is to keep Windows from searching for the stuff during boot and slowing things down. Also, defragment not only your HDD online, but also the pagefile, hibernation file, and system registry; that does wonders for suspend/resume times and boots. Second, clean out all the programs you don't need and make sure you really *have* to have something before installing it; also, if there is a tiny application alternative that you can unzip and drop in a folder instead of installing and changing reg settings for with an install shield/wizard, use that instead. You can also use Microsoft Bootvis to help optimize boot times.

Next up, disable any startup service or system service that you don't explicity or implicitly need. Either via msconfig or the admin service control program.

Setup a tight schedule for defragmenting, both online and offline and cleaning your system.

HTH

[mhca]

Next up, disable any startup service or system service that you don't explicity or implicitly need. Either via msconfig or the admin service control program.

I have done a bit of disabling system services at my workstation. I used a guide on Majorgeeks for advice. In there it said "do not use msconfig for disabling services. Go to Start, Run and write services.msc". I think this is because msconfig will not then use the "Normal startup" option but I don't know if this will actually matter at all for performance at boot.

Also, defragment not only your HDD online, but also the pagefile, hibernation file, and system registry

What do you mean by defragment the HDD online / offline and how do you defragment the pagefile, hibernation file and the system registry?



All the other stuff you wrote... seems I pretty much agree about that. I hate to install new software because I need some smart application for converting pictures to eps and can't find anything really good in first try.

[GomJabbar]

I am not an expert on this issue, but AFAIK, the Windows registry does tend to grow as you add and remove programs. The larger it is, the slower your boot up time. A fresh install of Windows gives you the smallest registry footprint possible.

Also I have read in the past (before XP) that even when you delete something from the registry, it is not really deleted, but rather marked as do not read. So deleting things from the registry may not cause it to reduce in size. I do not have time just now to research and see if this is (still) the case.

I notice this type of behavior in my e-mail program (Netscape 7.2). My inbox file, read file, sent file, trash file, etc keep growing in size no matter how many e-mails are actually in the folder. I recently created a temporary folder and moved my read mail to that folder, deleted the read mail file, then transferred the read mail from the temp folder back to the read mail folder. This allowed the read mail file to be a more reasonable size. I did the same thing to my other mail folders.

At least some database programs exhibit this behavior. They have a command for rebuilding the database, which removes the extraneous information in it; shrinking it in the process. I know of no command to do this with the Windows registry, although there may be a program that does this somewhere.

[jdhurst]

I don't think registry size makes a huge difference. I agree it can grow, but I am working with years old installs of Windows on my Laptop and Desktop and boot times are roughly what they always were.

Then, yesterday, I got an upgrade to Registry First Aid to V5. It can now defrag and compress the registry. So I tried it on my Laptop (which I turn off each evening). It did compress the registry - some hives by a lot. Nonetheless, boot time is about the same.

I really think the "goodies" (Access Connection, Symantec Corporate, Cache Sentry, etc.) take most of the time and for good reason (in my opinion). ... JD Hurst

Note - as I think about it, clearly a fast drive (7200prm) aleviates boot time problems, and I have been using a fast drive for years now.

[BikerMike]

If you compressed the registry in the same sense that a zip file is compressed, any gain from a smaller size may be offset by the need to read it through a decompression filter of some kind.

[Kyocera]

There is also some index.dat files in most Windows Os's that grow and grow. I was kind of amazed to read about these:

Index.dat are files hidden on your computer that contain all of the Web sites that you have ever visited. Every URL, and every Web page is listed there. Not only that but all of the email that has been sent or received through Outlook or Outlook Express is also being logged. The file names and locations depend on what version of Internet Explorer you have. If you are running IE version 4.0 or above, the file name is "index.dat". Microsoft has not supplied an adequate explanation as to what these files are for or why they have been hidden so well.

According to Microsoft, these files are used to cache visited Web sites to help speed up the loading of Web pages in Internet Explorer. Obviously this cannot be the case because when you clear the Temporary Internet Files the "index.dat" files remain behind and continue to grow. If you delete or clear the Temporary Internet Files, there is absolutely no need to index the URL cache because those files no longer exist.

There are some non-freeware tools to get rid of these files, and some freeware to allow you to read the files but not delete them.

[dsvochak]

There are some freeware tools which will delete index.dat files, CCleaner being one.

They don't always work. It seems to be related to installation of odd items. For example, I've got ffdshow installed on a desktop and it won't delete index.dats. Uninstall ffdshow and Ccleaner works fine.

[mhca]

There are some freeware tools which will delete index.dat files, CCleaner being one.

They don't always work. It seems to be related to installation of odd items. For example, I've got ffdshow installed on a desktop and it won't delete index.dats. Uninstall ffdshow and Ccleaner works fine.

Hasn't been a problem for me. I am using both CCleaner 1.31.325 and ffdshow both latest versions.
http://www.filehippo.com/download_ccleaner/

[dsvochak]

I just recently updated to Ccleaner v 1.30.310 and now there's a newer version. I'll give it a try.

Thanks for the information.

[jdhurst]

If you compressed the registry in the same sense that a zip file is compressed, any gain from a smaller size may be offset by the need to read it through a decompression filter of some kind.

I don't think the registry was actually compressed in that sense, just reduced in size and defragmented. I am quite happy with this latest version. ... JD Hurst

[jdhurst]

There is also some index.dat files in most Windows Os's that grow and grow. I was kind of amazed to read about these:

Index.dat are files hidden on your computer that contain all of the Web sites that you have ever visited. Every URL, and every Web page is listed there. Not only that but all of the email that has been sent or received through Outlook or Outlook Express is also being logged. The file names and locations depend on what version of Internet Explorer you have. If you are running IE version 4.0 or above, the file name is "index.dat". Microsoft has not supplied an adequate explanation as to what these files are for or why they have been hidden so well.

According to Microsoft, these files are used to cache visited Web sites to help speed up the loading of Web pages in Internet Explorer. Obviously this cannot be the case because when you clear the Temporary Internet Files the "index.dat" files remain behind and continue to grow. If you delete or clear the Temporary Internet Files, there is absolutely no need to index the URL cache because those files no longer exist.

There are some non-freeware tools to get rid of these files, and some freeware to allow you to read the files but not delete them.

This is the point of Cache Sentry and I use the Cache Sentry Pro version. I maintain the cache at 20Mb and right now my index.dat file is 1.4Mb. I think Cache Sentry does a good job, and it is right up there with Perfect Disk in my mind for keeping a machine clean and running well. ... JD Hurst

[BikerMike]

I just took a look at the Cache Sentry Pro website, but they describe it as a tool for managing Internet Explorer. If you use Firefox, would there be any advantage to using it? I don't know enough about Firefox to know if it has a cache in need of managing, or if it also contributes to index.dat file bloat. Anyone?

[K0LO]

Cache Sentry Pro looks like a nice app. But if you just want to control the size of the cache you can do it without any extra software:

1. Internet Explorer -- Tools>Internet Options>General Settings (under Temporary Internet Files area)> Amount of Disk Space to Use -- set to 50 MB or 20 MB or whatever you prefer.

Also for IE, set it to automatically clear the cache upon exit:
Tools>Internet Options>Advanced>Empty Temporary Internet Files folder when browser is closed (in the Security area near the bottom of the list). *Note -- if you're on a slow internet connection you might not want to clear the cache so often.

2. For Firefox -- Tools>Options>Privacy>Cache -- set to desired size.

To automatically clear Firefox's cache:
At the bottom of the dialog box, click on the "Settings" button, make sure "Cache" is checked off (under Private Data) and check off "Clear Private Data When Closing Firefox". Be sure that you really want to clear the other items that are checked off.

[jdhurst]

Doing it manually works, but (i) I don't like clearing cache on exit. I like it at a steady state of 20Mb of most recent stuff; (2) the manual way doesn't manage Index.dat whereas Cache Sentry does, and (iii) it is silent and automatic (I like that). I think it works only for IE. ... JD Hurst

[K0LO]

(2) the manual way doesn't manage Index.dat

Which Index.dat file are you referring to JD? There are 16 of them on my C: drive. Each is a database. The largest is in C:\Documents and Settings\{my user name}\Cookies, which is 0.32 MB.

Of the ones indexing the Temporary Internet Files (one for each user profile), after clearing the cache the associated Index.dat file shrinks to only 32 kB. I'm pretty sure it would grow to the size of the cache setting (I have my cache size set to 50 MB), but it shrinks again as soon as the cache is cleared.

I think the previous poster's description of the function of the Index.dat files is incorrect, at least for Windows XP Pro and IE6.