Icons load slow in XP...

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 12:31 am

I've had this problem since Win2k actually, but up until now it really hasn't bothered me a great deal. When I'm using the navigation in windows, and I'll go to a folder to run applications etc...well, sometimes it hesitates a little before all the program names and icons appear in the folders.

This makes it particularly annoying when scrolling through to the folder you want as each ones hangs while it loads the icons. Then, after you've done it a couple times, it is almost like everything is cached and you can browse through the folders just fine.

I use WindowBlinds, but this happens even while using the default XP theme. I have all but 4 XP Visual Effects disabled, like menu shadowing and stuff, thinking that this might help, but it doesn't.

This seems to happen a lot when Windows first boots up or after my cpu has been on for a while and I haven't used the start menu in a while.

I have a 1.0ghz P3 with 512mb of ram and a 256mb GeForce FX card, so I don't think thats a problem. It still did this when I had my GF4 64mb card. So it seems to be OS related...

There was something icon related in the registry I remember something about a long time ago, but as far as I remember it was adjusted to the proper setting advised by a performance tweaking website when I installed 2K originally. I had hoped XP would improve it, but it is doing the same thing.

Any ideas?

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 1:12 am

Get a faster hard drive.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 2:32 am

heh, the HD is fine smartass

BUBBALOU · Post by **BUBBALOU** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 6:26 am

Run BootVis see what is eating up your resources at boot time

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:55 am

It isn't just after bootup though, and it doesn't always happen. The disk doesn't spin up to load anything, so I know it isn't the HD, plus everything else loads just fine. PC boots up quickly enough and everything.

All the resource eating things I have disabled anyways, as far as startup apps & services etc...are concerned, and bootvis doesn't show anything hogging resources during bootup.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 11:24 am

Well, I used the bootvis optimization utility, then I deleted the IconCache.db file in C:\Documents & Settings\Local Settings\Application Data\" under my main user and all seems to be well so far...actually turned all the Xp visual effects back on and everything seems smooth as silk.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 1:34 pm

Make sure "Do Not Cache Thumbnails" is checked.

Do you have photoshop 6 installed? By default, it will display a thumbnail of the image as the icon, but thats a simple matter of turning it off.

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Mon Feb 02, 2004 10:35 pm

I think it's your CPU. From memory - the minimum spec for XP is a 650MHz CPU. Running XP on a 650 is about as bad as running Win98 on a Pentium 133 - horrible.

So, my thinking is that your poor CPU just isn't feeding the Operating System fast enough to make XP run like it *should* on a processor that's more than 3.4 times faster than your current one.

I run XP at home and at work - and my work box is definitely quicker at rendering icons and so forth than the home box. Home = 1.4GHz T-Bird. Work = 2.2 GHz Hyperthreaded P4. Both with 1GB of RAM.

Avder · Post by **Avder** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 12:50 am

Your work box probably also has a faster hard drive.

I agree with whoever said that its that hard drive. Hard drive speed is quite critical as when you bring each files icon representation into view, windows scans the file to see if it has an icon embedded into it, and if so it loads it. If not, it checks the file association for the icon to load for that file type.

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 9:29 am

The problem was only native to the start menu as far as like the start programs icons etc....

Since I deleted the IconCache.db file there have been no problems whatsoever. When browsing through folders in Windows Exporer there were never any problems, likewise when I was openning things up from other programs there were no problems, especially from photoshop or any other image viewer.

Mobi, our old cpu that I gave to my Mom once I got this box was a P166 o/c 184mhz with 128mb of RAM runs win98se just fine.

This machine since I've used 2K on it and now XP runs everything 100% better then it ever did with Win98se on it, not to mention the stability advantages of these two operating systems and the file system stability of NTFS over Win98 & FAT32. If it was the harddrive EVERYTHING would have been groggy, which wasn't the case at all. Like I already mentioned, I bootup faster, applications open and run smoother, it was just the start menu that apparently was trying to cache everything constantly.

I appreciate everyones suggestions though.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 1:49 pm

Mobius:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Here's What You Need to Use Windows XP Professional
* PC with 300 megahertz or higher processor clock speed recommended; 233 MHz minimum required (single or dual processor system);* Intel Pentium/Celeron family, or AMD K6/Athlon/Duron family, or compatible processor recommended
* 128 megabytes (M

of RAM or higher recommended (64 MB minimum supported; may limit performance and some features)
* 1.5 gigabytes (G

of available hard disk space*
* Super VGA (800 Ã? 600) or higher-resolution video adapter and monitor
* CD-ROM or DVD drive
* Keyboard and Microsoft Mouse or compatible pointing device<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/ ... ysreqs.asp

XP ran smooth on my old Duron 700 box. Even when it only had 256MB of RAM. (ran half a gig till the board's EEPROM fried) And for the record, Win98 runs just fine on a 133MHz system. Hell, it ran fine on a 486DX4 100 with a whopping 32MB of RAM. Next time Mobi, try to do some research instead of shooting your mouth off.
Windows 98 System Requirements

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>The following list describes the minimum hardware requirements for Windows 98:
* A personal computer with a 486DX 66 megahertz (MHz) or faster processor (Pentium central processing unit recommended).
* 16 megabytes (M

of memory (24 MB recommended).
* A typical upgrade from Windows 95 requires approximately 195 MB of free hard disk space, but the hard disk space may range from between 120 MB and 295 MB, depending on your computer configuration and the options that you choose to install.
* A full install of Windows 98 on a FAT16 drive requires 225 MB of free hard disk space, but may range from between 165 MB and 355 MB, depending on your computer configuration and that options that you choose to install.
* A full install of Windows 98 on a FAT32 drive requires 175 MB of free hard disk space, but may range from between 140 MB and 255 MB, depending on your computer configuration and the options that you choose to install.
* One 3.5-inch high-density floppy disk drive.
* VGA or higher resolution (16-bit or 24-bit color SVGA recommended).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Warlock · Post by **Warlock** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 2:04 pm

yeah

my server is a dual P2 400 1GB of ram and its running 2003 Enter thats NT5.2 FYI and it runs damn smooth took some time to install but once that was done it runs fine, hell iv gotten XP to run on my AMD 350 K6-2 128mbs and it ran fine there to.

look into stuff befor u start posting Mobius

oh yeah and also my 2nd server is a dual Pent Pro 233 with 512mb thats running W2kAS and it runs at just fine to with no probs and both my servers are allways doing heavy work rendering jobs

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 4:45 pm

Hmmmm. Well, for you @#$!ers that like waiting forever - sure - go ahead and install 98 on a 100MHz 486, and XP on a 233MHz Pentium. But here in the REAL WORLD - that is a recipe for the most frustrating experience imaginable.

I have a LOT of experience with 98 on slow boxes: my Dad runs 98 on 3 x 133MHz Pentiums, 1 x 166MHz laptop and they both suck donkey **** - and I should know, because I did the installs.

Obviously, you and I have different ideas about what constitutes "running fine". You don't mind twiddling your thumbs - whereas my time is MONEY, and my money says "Get the sh!t on the screen NOW".

As to the work/home machine's hard drives: they are identical, and even use the same ATA100 controllers.

Warlock · Post by **Warlock** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 5:14 pm

SLOW HAHAHAHAHAHA

the D233 takes 4min to boot up
the D400 takes 6min to boot up

thats counting from a cold boot through the mem check and decting all the scsi drive and every thang

Tyranny did u check for viruses and spyware if some one allready sed this sorry i kinda skimed the post

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 5:25 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Mobius:
 Hmmmm. Well, for you @#$!ers that like waiting forever - sure - go ahead and install 98 on a 100MHz 486, and XP on a 233MHz Pentium. But here in the REAL WORLD - that is a recipe for the most frustrating experience imaginable.

I have a LOT of experience with 98 on slow boxes: my Dad runs 98 on 3 x 133MHz Pentiums, 1 x 166MHz laptop and they both suck donkey **** - and I should know, because I did the installs.

Obviously, you and I have different ideas about what constitutes "running fine". You don't mind twiddling your thumbs - whereas my time is MONEY, and my money says "Get the sh!t on the screen NOW".

As to the work/home machine's hard drives: they are identical, and even use the same ATA100 controllers.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hate to break it to you Mobi, but its not that slow. 98SE loaded in about 45 seconds on that 486 believe it or not. The only thing that was slow was the POS Cirrus Logic VLB video card that was in it. Not that it matters a whole hell of beans since the machine was sold some time ago. Hell, 98SE booted up in about the same time when my mother ran an AMD K5-133 with the same ammount of RAM.

Here's a neat little tidbit. That motherboard that the 486 box had supported 64MB of RAM.

Talk about overkill.

Just conceed already Mobi. I already proved you wrong not only with the actual system specs, but with real world facts.

kurupt · Post by **kurupt** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 6:25 pm

i have a box here with XP on it, 600mhz celeron, 128mb of pc2100, 60gb 7200rpm hard drive, and a v3

slow as ****!

Tyranny · Post by **Tyranny** » Tue Feb 03, 2004 8:34 pm

no virii or spyware, I scan regularly with norton and regularly with ad-aware 6, spybot - search & destroy, spyware blaster, and routinely clean out unnecessary registry entries.

I've already said the issue was resolved though

lol