Win XP Professional and Home Editions.

Takes a long time to load everything in my system tray (unfortunately, all
apps are necessary). I was led to believe that this is at least partially
due to all apps trying to load at the same time.

Assuming this is true, is there a way of delaying or controlling how this
apps are sequentially loaded.

Thank you for any help.

Best regards,
John Ciccone

John Ciccone wrote:

You can do it with a batch file, using a command line "sleep" utility,
or (the easier way) with a GUI utility like the freeware Startup
Delayer:

http://www.snapfiles.com/reviews/Sta...tartdelay.html
http://www.r2.com.au/

For applications.
To start applications sequentially create a shell script something like this
and place it in your \Startup directory.

-------------mystartup.cmd-------------
start "" "D:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\OFFICE11\outlook.exe"
start "" "D:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\OFFICE11\word.exe"
start "" "D:\Program Files\Microsoft Office\OFFICE11\excel.exe"
---------------end file------------------

For services.
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;193888
http://support.microsoft.com/default...b;en-us;115486

--

Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"John Ciccone" wrote:
| Win XP Professional and Home Editions.
|
| Takes a long time to load everything in my system tray (unfortunately, all
| apps are necessary). I was led to believe that this is at least partially
| due to all apps trying to load at the same time.
|
| Assuming this is true, is there a way of delaying or controlling how this
| apps are sequentially loaded.
|
| Thank you for any help.
|
| Best regards,
| John Ciccone
|
|
|

John Ciccone wrote:


I doubt very much that changing how they are loaded will make any
perceptable difference in how long it takes.

But if you want to try, instead of loading them individually, load them from
a batch file, starting each one from a Start command using the /wait
parameter.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

It would depend on what was loading. Some applications, as I'm sure you
know, grind the CPU while loading, especially the first load after a
reboot. It might be more effective to single out the problematic one(s)
and delay them alone (and not the others), or even start them manually.

The /wait parm will make only the first application run, and nothing
else in the script will run at all, until that application was closed
(that's what the script would be /wait[ing] for).

The START commands, as shown in your quoted text below, will run in
rapid succession, with essentially no delay. To introduce a delay,
you'd need to use one of the many "sleep.exe" command line utils
available, or NirCmd's "wait" parameter (http://nirsoft.net). Or, use
the PING trick:

start "" <path>
ping -n 5 127.0.0.1 >nul
start "" <path>

Where the "-n 5" introduces a fixed 5-second pause before the second
START command is run.

Dave Patrick wrote:

null wrote:


As I said, I doubt it. But if you can try it and provide some statistics as
to the results, I'd like to see them.



You're right, of course. Sorry, I was thinking of something else.

--
Ken Blake - Microsoft MVP Windows: Shell/User
Please reply to the newsgroup

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

I'm neither going to argue nor provide statistics. My point is that
sometimes it can be beneficial--not necessarily faster overall, but
sometimes merely more convenient--to allow fast-loading applications to
start first, and delay the launching of those applications that bog the
CPU when they run. Sometimes the difference is just a placebo, yes.

I wasn't expecting a delay. Only to make them sequential.

--

Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"null" wrote:
| The START commands, as shown in your quoted text below, will run in
| rapid succession, with essentially no delay. To introduce a delay,
| you'd need to use one of the many "sleep.exe" command line utils
| available, or NirCmd's "wait" parameter (http://nirsoft.net). Or, use
| the PING trick:
|
| start "" <path>
| ping -n 5 127.0.0.1 >nul
| start "" <path>
|
| Where the "-n 5" introduces a fixed 5-second pause before the second
| START command is run.

"John Ciccone" <johnrc@NOSPAMsympatico.ca> wrote in
news:OvMPOVlYGHA.4060@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl:

How many apps are loading ? Are you absolutely they are all really
necessary ?

They'll be sequential only in a strictly pedantic sense, and not in a
useful one, since the commands will execute within microsoconds of each
other.

Sorry, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but the OP did ask for a way
to introduce a delay.

Dave Patrick wrote:

Sorry but the OP asked for sequential.

--

Regards,

Dave Patrick ....Please no email replies - reply in newsgroup.
Microsoft Certified Professional
Microsoft MVP [Windows]
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

"null" wrote:
| They'll be sequential only in a strictly pedantic sense, and not in a
| useful one, since the commands will execute within microsoconds of each
| other.
|
| Sorry, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but the OP did ask for a way
| to introduce a delay.