Very Slow boot up

The first time I run SL (each day) it takes 3 mins to open. It opens the world, im still in my birthsuit, and then it locks up, and the computer starts making noises as if its working. After 3-4 mins it returns back to normal and loads everything.
My specs:

2ghz
512 rdram
gf3 ti200 (not for long)

Wow. Nothing of that nature has yet to happen to my WinXP system when entering the Client of SL. The LONGEST it has taken me to click the Shortcut and be fully immersed into the world was on the order of 30 seconds, and that is not common. Usually it is shorter.

One thing I DO notice is the 'rough' start when opening up the Client. I know it is a Beta and not highly polished in starting up its code. But I thought I would mention the different observation.

I start up SL with its Desktop shortcut. It blanks the screen for a second and the IMMEDIATELY pops back to the Desktop AS IF it were going to Abort the attempt. Three seconds later.. the screen blanks out again. Whew. TWO SECONDS LATER.. Bam.. back to the Desktop! Oy. So I wait and yes, the THIRD time the screen goes to black, and in about two seconds I do get the Login Screen. Then the LOADING.. PRECATCHING ...INVENTORY Green Bar comes up. Whew. Saved!!

This happens every time, so I assume it is non-destructive in any way to the system.

My experience is similar to Yegor's...it takes me 2.5 minutes to get in on initial start-up...pre-catch and inventory are slow to load in, but once the UI appears, I'm usually good to go. About 25% of the time, though, my inventory fails to load, but I still have full functionality. When this happens, I just log out and reload, which takes about 30 sec.

Kira, what you've described sounds weird..popping in and out like that upon load sounds awfully scary... But < 30 seconds from desktop to in-world...now that would be sweet What kind of machine do you have?

I have a P4 2.4 Ghrtz processor, 512 ram, Win XP pro, Raydeon 9000, dsl connection.

J

Kira: That sounds like an issue with your video drivers and / or directX. What version of directX are you using? What version of your video drivers?

I am using DirectX 9.x whichever Windows XP 9 version is the latest. Also NVidia 41.09 Drivers for my GeForce4 /Ti4600 card. Resolution is 1024X768 at 16Bits depth.

Again, it only takes UP to 30 seconds to get into the game at this moment, so time is not an issue as it seems to be for some others. But this 'Flashing back' and forth to the Desktop a couple of times during Client loading was the only unusual thing I have noted.

First: I dunno how SL treats DX9. I'm still using 8.

Second: "1024X768 at 16Bits depth." I can think of no reason why someone with your vid card would go 16bit color. I have a Geforce2go 16mb laptop card, and I always use 32 bit. And this is my guess as to why it flickers for you. It probably tries to use the desktop res settings find woah, needs 32 bit and tries again - only maybe not quite that smoothly. I would really recommend setting it to 32 bit color.

DX8 is history. Plain and simple.

If SL is to be written well enough for general player use, they should have already been working on DX9 operability by now. Not necessarilly using all the graphic optimization 'Features' of DX9... but at least the realization that all WinXP users have it installed already, or will soon be upgrading to it. Microsoft will see to that!

As for Color Depth issues. The reason my machine is stuck on 16Bit is sadly because a couple of other games I play on it, such as Sims TSO, actually demand only 16Bit depth, and frown on the higher setting. Sad, but I have to comply. And yes, I am too lazy to swap it back and forth each time I run a different game.

As to whether this alone might explain the flashing in and out to the Desktop when loading the Client... I dunno. I suppose tonight would be a good way to test for that, as I can set the machine to 32Bit Depth, and reboot. Then see if there is any difference.

DX8 is not history. DX9 is *not* anywhere near standard yet, and I wouldn't expect games to require it for close to another year, or more. It does not come with winXP, and in fact it isn't even on Windows Update yet, which is a bit unusual but a hint that even MS knows it isn't time for DX9 to hit mainstream.

I doubt I will ever upgrade to DX9 on this system, any game requiring DX9 will not run on a 16mb Geforce2go laptop. In fact, almost none of the special DX9 features are supported even by your Ti4600. Gotta get a radeon or wait for the FX for that. Even today it is rare to find a game that requires a Geforce 3 and none require a Geforce 4.

Unlike DX8 which implemented some new API calls which could be put in drivers for older cards, DX9 is almost soley new fancy hardware API calls which the only way a driver would be able to implement them on an older card is software support. And that gets ugly and slow very quick.

As for DX9 operability, DX9 should be fully backward compatable to DX8. Meaning if they make it for DX8 it should run perfect on DX9 systems. And there is no way they should make it require DX9 because most likely then it wouldn't even run on your video card.

I'm not saying there won't be a time when DX9 is required and DX8 is worthless. I'm just saying that time ain't now.

heh, not to get in between you to, but I think your troubles well be better resolved in 32-bit color..that is if you consider them roubles. I fyou ever try to run SL in windowed mode, you will find that it crashes on startup if you try to run it in les than 32-bit. And I've run it on both Direct x 8 & 9, and not problems from either.

BBC

I think you are right BBC.

I think the nvidia drivers come with a quick res change utility that sits in the taskbar and lets you change resolution and color depth with a couple clicks. Maybe that would help.

I just grabs this from the other post that is speaking about the same thing, this is IF you have XP... well most XP users.
#1
Your computer seems to lock up... but it doesn't! Is your HD going nuts? Because there is a bug with SL, that all WinXP users have. For some reason WinXP reads your entire HD the first time you log into SL after a boot up. What i'm telling you is that if it's is reading your HD while doing this.... let it go! I have to do this every night! I start SL and leave my computer for 5 mins because it locks up. But then comes back (it takes to long and the SL servers timeout, so all you have to do is exit and reload SL)

#2
If your HD is not going nuts check your Cache setting... another bug with XP. Sl locks up when cache is set to 1000megs

I certainly Hope DX9 didn't come with WinXP, since XP was in the Public's hands over a year before DX9 was even made available for downloading. ;P

Which BTW, we had DX9 all our WinTel graphic workstations as late as Dec. 16th (delivered on CD no less!) after the pretest of DX9 a couple of weeks earlier. All worked flawlessly. And yes, Microsoft will not Consider DX9 a 'Windows Update' site candidate for about 90 Days after its release as they must give time for graphic card makers to work out last minute changes over the pre-test versions THEY have had to work with for a few months now. MS wants to give the card-makers time to test and release THEIR graphic drivers which are 'Certified' to run with DX9. Most have already done that. But the process is slow. Same problem they had when DX8 went through ITS distribution cycle two years earlier. MS doesn't want ANYone stating they released something ahead of the curve. But we ALL knew it was coming fast.

Still it hasn't stopped thousands of End-Users from Downloading and installing DX9 right from their own MS DirectX9 Home Page. The Download Page has been operational since December 18th Three days after we got them on CD. I remember it being one of our last 'Install' projects before the Holiday Break.

Yes, I know it is all 'backwards' compatible with the older series. MS may own the World, but they are not stupid. We can rest assured KNOWING that if the Linden Gang wants to be a real Player in the graphics gaming field for years to come.. they will not be resting on the developments of the Past. They should already be looking to take advantage of the hardware-call features of DX9 today, or get Left in the Dust tomorrow. My money is on them.

Yes, yes of course. This all stemmed from my comment which was just a way of saying I don't have DX9 so I have no way of knowing if that could be causing it. As you have said it isn't released on Windows Update to give manufacturers time to make the right drivers. So it is possible that could have been an issue. BBC however has verified this is probably not the issue.

DX8 and DX9 are very different in their form of upgrade. DX8 was playing catch up to hardware. It implemented a set of APIs that generally made using hardware features currently available on most cards easier. Thus with the right drivers most everyone benefits. DX9 is basically the opposite. It was created with the future in mind, offering a standard API for future hardware to live up to. I can remember no cards that were marketed as DX8 cards, but radeon markets theirs as a DX9 card and nvidia markets the FX as a DX9 card.

Of course Linden Labs should be working to include DX9 features. If for no other reason than they can make stunning graphical effects. They should not be making it mandatory though because that would -severely- limit the number of people who could play. The exception, which is possible, would be if there are a few obscure "DX8 like" API calls which they felt they had to use. By DX8 like I mean they don't require advanced hardware (beyond a Geforce 2).

In any case such a move would prevent me from playing on my current system. I don't see games comming out that require DX9 until 2004, or Q4 2003 at the earliest. I could be wrong though. Even EQ2, which looks absolutly stunning and takes advantage of many DX9 features and won't come out til probably 2004, only requires a 'DirectX 8 compliant' card. Which includes a standard GeForce I believe, or maybe as much as a GeForce 2.

Oh and don't get me started on if MS is stupid. I would end up writing a dissertation on their business strategies including X-Box, Linux and Government. Did you know they lose money in -every- division they have except windows and office? I mean they don't even break even on any of their other ventures. And as far as windows, they break even at ~$45 a copy. Anything above that is profit, paying for their mistakes in other divisions.

BTW... Never got to mention the Result of switching over to 32Bit Depth mode and trying to log on to SL!

Here it is.... *Drum Roll* heard in the room:

Running SL in 32Bit-Mode DID remove ONE of the switches Back to the Desktop. *yay!*
In other words, it became the following routine (and we did this three times to be sure, after rebooting to 32Bit mode):

Hit the Shortcut... Screen Blanks out. (5 seconds)
Screen jumps BACK to Desktop (5 Seconds)
Immediately the Screen JUMPS from that Desktop TO the Login Screen. No more blanking out a Second Time.
We Log in as normal, and our happy Muse Av is standing in full dress all within fifteen seconds from the start of the Login Procedure.

So all in all, switching over to 32Bit Video mode.. stopped ONE of the Blankouts to Black.. AND shaved off 5 seconds of program load up time to get into SL. It now completes the login within 25 Seconds.. instead of 30. Yay!

Cool.

My followup question would be: do you play in a resolution other than 1024*768?

No. That has been the ipso-facto setting for my 21" InterGraph 107A, for three years now and I am quite comfortable with that setting. So far, no games have balked at the monitor settings.. but SOME older games DO insist on changing it to an 800x600 environment for the duration of the game-play. Luckily, the monitor switches back to the preferred mode after logging out of the game(s) in question.

Heh 1024*768 is where I play too. I just thought if it was flickering to change color depth it might be flickering to change resolution too.

The reason I do not believe this is the case, is easily because SL recognizes there is more to video life than 800x600 and happily allows you higher settings in its preferences page.

On another note.. laaaaa! I wonder if having my monitor Refresh Rate at 85 Hertz has something to do with it.

Any of you techie-gurus know if it matters?

I play in window mode. My desktop resolution is 1280x1024. Do you think it slows me down?

I run SL in full window mode at 1280 X 1024 resolution, with my refresh rate set at 85...

Yesterday, I fiddled with some of my settings, i.e., increased the cache size, virtual memory, etc...and lo and behold, it cut my intitial start-up time to like 30 seconds. The only thing, though, it froze up and my computer took a dump...it actually shut off, and had to completely restart, as if I pressed the power button. Got back in, there were no problems. Just wondering if this was a one-off event, or the result of messing w/ my settings??

Just seemed kinda weird, that's all...

J

We've currently got a couple of issues with startup time, especially on Windows XP.

It turns out that, for some reason, Windows XP likes to read our ENTIRE cache file that we create when we write to it for the first time, even though we didn't ask for it - this means that it's usually reading an entire 200MB file on startup.

We're trying to figure out a way to get XP to stop doing this, but in the meantime, making sure that your hard drive is defragmented should be a good way to make sure that the hit is lessened.

Note that it doesn't matter how much RAM you have - this happens even on my 1 GB machine at home!

- Doug

Doug: I would be happy to send you any diagnotstic files or specs on my machine if it would help because I am running winXP pro and SL does not read the entire cache file on load. I have the cache set to the largest possible (1GB?) and I would deffinatly notice if it tried to read through all of that.

Yup, I certainly do NOT notice any such long cache-reads here myself with WinXP. Everything is very quick to get in-game at this time.

nview.exe file east up like 150mbs of physical memory! I got 512mbs, and when I run SL for a long time, and open an image editor (fireworks) I cometimes get a WinXP popup saying that I got no more memory! Weird......