Windows ME Startup Question

OK I wish to make Windows ME startup faster. I have alredy used MSCONFIG and disabled all my startup crap that I do not use and have uninstalled all the Windows programs I do not need.

I know that Microsoft has a tool called Bootvis.exe that sppeds up Windows XP boot time by 50% but does anyone know of a program that will kick my Windows ME into overdrive and make it boot faster?

And please no spyware programs if it can be helped. I just hate waiting 4 mintues to use my laptop. I used to be used to using my computer in 30 seconds when the old 500 mhz machine was around but it finally died.

So anyone have some ideas? Thanks!
6,655 views 27 replies
Reply #1 Top
If you upgraded your ram, that would improve for sure. But software, that's a diffrent issue. You already disabled your start up programs. A site to check out, you might find what you want here ->http://www.winguides.com/
Reply #2 Top
Hmm I recall a program that basically replaces microsoft's own startup for windows, and starts programs one a time, using timed delays.

How does delays make boot faster? It's simple really. Windows's own starts all programs at once, and while the programs start up, they all compete for cpu, hd read, whatever, slowing down each other. If they start up one a time, boot would be faster.

Too bad I can't remember name or downloaded it
Reply #3 Top

Probably the best thing you could do would be to really ditch 'ME' and switch to 98 s/e....then if needed try 98-lite to get rid of a lot of bloat related to IE.

Seriously though, ME is genuinely not the greatest OS version ever created, but rather one of the worst....

Reply #4 Top
yup what Jafo says, ME = Meltdown Edition

I have not see but maybe three computers it operated on, and that was before installing any applications!
Reply #5 Top
Helping out at a computer shop...we tried and tried to make ME behave and install correctly.....after 3 hours we got it working perfectly...in Win98...
Reply #6 Top
Kona could use 98 lite on ME also. Don't know how ME qualitatively differs from 98 (except for system restore) but I actually recall a few users claiming it was superior and more stable than W98. Mostly I don't see many positive comments about it, though. Glad I didn't get the urge to upgrade to it when it came out.



Powered by SkinBrowser!
Reply #7 Top
Resource conflicts and their handling...I think that was the problem...along with flakey drivers and a System Restore that was like Norton's crash protection....the very source of the problem, not the cure...
Reply #8 Top
I 'upgraded' from Win95 (on floppies!) to WinME .... it was 'better' but not much.
Four minutes to boot sounds a bit much all the same ..
Reply #9 Top
Hi,
I'm running WinMe on a Pentium3 450 with 128meg of ram and it take's 65 seconds to boot, would be quicker but for my slow ata33 hard drive

I don't think there is a program for WinMe to make it boot faster, however you could get a freeware program called Startup Manager http://f2.org/archive/software/startupmgr.html

I've been using version 1.1 for a couple of years now, it tell's you what program's are been run at startup and allows you to disable them, very handy.
You could give it a try and disable a few programs to see which is causing the long bootup time, if you need the program just re-enable it, easy.

Also checkout this site http://www2.whidbey.com/djdenham/Uncheck.htm it tells you what some of the startup programs are and what they do.

Hope this is of some help to you
Reply #10 Top
Depending on the type of hardware you have. I would suggest you maybe getting XP. But they are right, ME is the worse OS that was made. I had so many hardware issues with it. But I would suggest you changing your OS to 98SE or XP. Ok, I added more stuff
Reply #11 Top
I have been using Win ME for almost a year, and have been "online" with it since last December, much of which time I spent here at WC.
Except for a couple of small problems easily fixed, I have to say that Win ME has treated me pretty well so far.
However, I am saving up for XP in order to take advantage of the cool stuff from Stardock, but until then, I am happy with ME.
Startup is pretty quick, but I do use "Z-AutoStart Manager" that allows me to choose what I want at startup.
As fas as resource conflicts ect, I haven't had them and I use a lot of stuff.
So, to all you Win ME users, take heart, it is still a decent OS as long as you work "with it".




Powered by SkinBrowser!
Reply #12 Top
The only problem I ever had with ME was inept users
Reply #13 Top
My wife uses ME, and watching it lock-up, kick her off the web, and generally do aggravating things to her, I'd have to say it's a wonderful OS..... NOT.  



Powered by SkinBrowser!
Reply #14 Top
If you upgraded your ram, that would improve for sure. But software, that's a diffrent issue. You already disabled your start up programs. A site to check out, you might find what you want here


Can't upgrade I am maxed out at 128.

Depending on the type of hardware you have. I would suggest you maybe getting XP. But they are right, ME is the worse OS that was made. I had so many hardware issues with it. But I would suggest you changing your OS to 98SE or XP. Ok, I added more stuff


I have windows XP Pro on disk but my little Dell latitude cp can not handle it
Reply #15 Top
128 Meg of Ram, you poor guy.

/me feels sorry for you.



Powered by SkinBrowser!
Reply #16 Top
booting, what is that? let me see, when was my pc for the last time down... ehm... time ago with a lightning storm... back to vacation, solution: dont shut your pc down
Reply #17 Top
Its kinda hard to stay on with WindowsMe Styl. Something always comes along and makes it unstable

Now XP on the other hand...13 days is my max and i ran the heck out of it



Powered by SkinBrowser!
Reply #18 Top
How about changing how your computer is being used? I found this tip in a Magazine when I had WinME.

Right click on my computer, click properties. then click performace, then "file system", then where it says "desktop" change it too "network server".




Powered by SkinBrowser!
Reply #19 Top
I found this from Microsoft. It talks about improving boot up times for Windows ME http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/hwdev/archive/newPC/fast-boot.mspx



Powered by SkinBrowser!
Reply #20 Top
Kona something sounds seriously not right about that boot. Even if your exagerating by a minute, thats just not right.
below is a copy paste from Si Sandra note the I am using a triple boot with win98/winxp and RH Linux yes on a p233 notebook with 96mb of ram
My boot is 70 sec. using XP

SiSoftware Sandra

Processor
Model : Intel(R) Pentium(R) MMX
Speed : 234MHz
Performance Rating : PR234 (estimated)
Type : Standard

Mainboard
Bus(es) : ISA PCI PCMCIA CardBus USB
MP Support : No
MP APIC : No
System BIOS : SystemSoft Version R1.20
Mainboard : MiTAC 5033
Total Memory : 95MB EDO SDRAM

Chipset 1
Model : Intel Corporation 82439TX 430TX System Controller
L2 External Cache : 512kB Pipeline-Burst Write-Back
Front Side Bus Speed : 1x 66MHz (66MHz data rate)
Total Memory : 96MB EDO SDRAM
Memory Bus Speed : 1x 66MHz (66MHz data rate)

Physical Storage Devices
Removable Drive : Floppy disk drive
Hard Disk : TOSHIBA MK1517GAP (14.1GB)
Hard Disk : Generic STORAGE DEVICE USB Device
CD-ROM/DVD : TOSHIBA DVD-ROM SD-C2502 (CD 24X Rd) (DVD 3X Rd)

Logical Storage Devices
1.44MB 3.5" (A:) : N/A
Win98 (C:) : 4.0GB (3.6GB, 89% Free) (FAT32)
CD-ROM/DVD (D:) : N/A
Winxp (E:) : 9.9GB (7.6GB, 77% Free) (NTFS)
Removable (F:) : 18.6GB (12.0GB, 64% Free) (FAT32)

Operating System(s)
Windows System : Microsoft Windows XP Professional Version 5.01.2600 Service Pack 1





Powered by SkinBrowser!
Reply #21 Top
I am sick of ME. It does boot better now but it lags and locks up sometimes.

Thinking of switching to Windows 98.

Your thoughts?

I am running:
233 pentium
128 mb RAM
Reply #22 Top
Here is my tech crap from sandra:

SiSoftware Sandra

Computer System
Manufacturer : Dell
Name : DELL233P128R-ME

Processor(s)
Model : Intel(R) Pentium(R) MMX
Speed : 234MHz
Performance Rating : PR234 (estimated)
L2 On-board Cache : 512kB pipeline-burst write-back

Mainboard and BIOS
Bus(es) : ISA PCI PCMCIA CardBus USB SMBus/i2c
MP Support : No
System BIOS : Dell Computer Corporation A16
Mainboard : Dell Computer Corporation Latitude CP M233ST
System Chipset : Intel Corporation 82439TX 430TX System Controller
L2 External Cache : 512kB pipeline-burst write-back
Front Side Bus Speed : 1x 66MHz (66MHz data rate)
Installed Memory : 128MB EDO
Memory Bus Speed : 1x 66MHz (66MHz data rate)

Video System
Monitor/Panel : Default Monitor
Adapter : NeoMagic MagicGraph128XD

Physical Storage Devices
Disk Drive : GENERIC IDE DISK TYPE55
Disk Drive : GENERIC NEC FLOPPY DISK
CD-ROM/DVD : TEAC CD-224E

Logical Storage Devices
Hard Disk (C:) : 3.8GB (1014MB, 26% Free) (FAT32)
CD-ROM/DVD (D:) : N/A

Peripherals
Serial/Parallel Port(s) : 2 COM / 1 LPT
USB Controller/Hub : Intel 82371AB/EB PCI to USB Universal Host Controller
USB Controller/Hub : USB Root Hub
USB Controller/Hub : Microsoft MSN(tm) DSL 1000 Modem USB Interface
PCMCIA/CardBus Controller : PCMCIA Card Services
PCMCIA/CardBus Controller : Texas Instruments PCI-1131 CardBus Controller
PCMCIA/CardBus Controller : Texas Instruments PCI-1131 CardBus Controller
Keyboard : Standard 101/102-Key or Microsoft Natural Keyboard
Mouse : PS/2 Compatible Mouse Port

MultiMedia Device(s)
Device : Crystal WDM Audio Control Registers
Device : Crystal WDM Audio Codec
Device : Microsoft Kernel System Audio Renderer
Device : Microsoft Kernel Audio Mixer
Device : Microsoft Kernel DRM Descrambler Filter
Device : Microsoft Kernel GS Wavetable Synthesizer
Device : Microsoft Kernel Audio Splitter
Device : Microsoft Kernel DLS Synthesizer

Communication Device(s)
Device : Xircom Modem 56-GlobalACCESS

Operating System(s)
Windows System : Microsoft Windows Me Ver 4.90.3000
DOS Sub-System : Microsoft MS-DOS Ver 8.00 A

Network Adapter(s)
Networking Installed : No
Adapter : Dial-Up Adapter
Adapter : Microsoft MSN(tm) DSL 1000 Modem

I want to install mandrake linux and Windows 98? would that be better or worse than ME?
Reply #23 Top
Kona, ANYTHING is better than ME. I would go back to 98 myself, even running 2000 would be real slow with those specs.
Reply #24 Top
I did a bios flash about a wek ago. Dell claims it can handle 256 megs of EDO RAM now.... hmmmm wonder if I should just install my 40 gig hd and buy some RAM and a DVD/CD RW drive from dell and put XP back on.....
Reply #25 Top
Pentium 233 MHz or faster processor
For PCs without Microsoft Windows, or PCs with Windows 95 or earlier
128 MB RAM

---


That is the minimum requirements for Windows XP Home Edition. You PC barely meets them, I would not recommend using XP. It would be very sluggish and just not enjoyable. I've seen what 2000 can do to a 266 K6-2, XP can only be worse. If it's possible try get a new PC altogether. If you are strapped for cash, you are better off using Win98, IMO.