Windows 7 Forums
Welcome to Windows 7 Forums. Our forum is dedicated to helping you find support and solutions for any problems regarding your Windows 7 PC be it Dell, HP, Acer, Asus or a custom build. We also provide an extensive Windows 7 tutorial section that covers a wide range of tips and tricks.


Windows 7: Windows 7 boots slower than Vista, says study.

12 Oct 2009   #41
Etihtsarom

7 Prof
 
 

When has SystemMechanics mattered?


My System SpecsSystem Spec
.
12 Oct 2009   #42
Lee

Win 7 Pro x64, VM Win XP, Win7 Pro Sandbox, Kubuntu 11
 
 

Somebody get me a "Gun" then find that "Messenger."
My System SpecsSystem Spec
13 Oct 2009   #43
Night Hawk

W7 Ultimate x64/W10 Pro x64 dual boot main build-remote pc W10 Pro x64 Insider Preview/W7 Pro x64
 
 

The only part of that entire article that holds any real merit is seen with just about every version of Windows since 9X.

Quote:
iolo also said its tests indicated that Windows 7's startup times, like Vista's, degrade over time. After several "commonly-used" applications have been installed on a new Windows 7 box, for instance, its boot time -- again, as measured by the company -- slows to two minutes, 34 seconds, an increase of 64%.
Over an even more extended span, Windows 7's boot times get more sluggish than that: By the end of a simulated two-year period, Windows 7's startup times increased more than 330%.
As for the so called "simulated" 2yr. period that leaves plenty of room for doubt however! For some who are constantly making changes, multibooting OSs, or custom installing Windows it's likely that 2yrs. becomes an exaggerated figure since Windows will likely be reinstalled several times in that period of time.

For moderate users who check the mail, browse the web, shop online, and do nothing else they'll likely have one installation last upto 3-4yrs. on average before an upgrade. By then the next newer version of Windows will be out.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
.

13 Oct 2009   #44
stew2

 

-1

Does everybody here really not care about boot times? In an average day i probably switch on the pc about 3 times and probably reboot it once. Thats 4 times a day i watch it boot. Id probably switch it off even more if it booted up in say 5 seconds.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
13 Oct 2009   #45
fakeasdf

Win 7 Pro x64 x 3, Win 7 Pro x86, Ubuntu 9.04
 
 

Quote   Quote: Originally Posted by stew2 View Post
-1

Does everybody here really not care about boot times? In an average day i probably switch on the pc about 3 times and probably reboot it once. Thats 4 times a day i watch it boot. Id probably switch it off even more if it booted up in say 5 seconds.
I care about boots, but I doubt the validity of the source in the article. My boot times are significantly faster than Vista and XP.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
13 Oct 2009   #46
Paarkhi

Windows 8.1u1 x64
 
 

Windows 7 boots faster for me and happy with it, not going back to vista ever in my life for anything.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
13 Oct 2009   #47
Night Hawk

W7 Ultimate x64/W10 Pro x64 dual boot main build-remote pc W10 Pro x64 Insider Preview/W7 Pro x64
 
 

Once 7 is on and the RC is finally at some point that drive will likely see either the 32bit 7 or Vista on it since Vista will die with this build when the time comes. The next build will be 7/Linux/Virtualization and likely 8 beta!

From everything seen from the beta releases until now I strongly have to disagree with the article that Vista boots up faster since I had Vista and XP on until the summers months! First hand side by side comparison sums it up!
My System SpecsSystem Spec
13 Oct 2009   #48
djfirestorm

Windows 7 (Build 7068)
 
 

I don't even need to read any comments, tune up sites, modders, hackers, tech reviews, or whoever else THINKS they know all there is about computers...BS. That company has some F'd up software for the record. I am constantly fixing computers that software bunks. Makes me money at least lol. Anyways, FLAT OUT NO! Just a pipe dream to all those suckers that believed in Vista and believe the Turtle will one day evolve into a Cheetah...sorry kids, W7 is faster in every way, just move on and get off Vista already...it was a pushover! Quick buck to finish developing W7 properly...that's all Vista was.
My System SpecsSystem Spec
13 Oct 2009   #49
Night Hawk

W7 Ultimate x64/W10 Pro x64 dual boot main build-remote pc W10 Pro x64 Insider Preview/W7 Pro x64
 
 

You wouldn't want to hear the reverse opinions I get from people who skipped over XP from 2000 Pro and now are actually reluctant at 7 since they found Vista to be what they wanted "nice and secure" over previous versions!

As far as performance values here I have to give 7 a nice edge from actually testing ti from the beta stage until the RCs and VERY soon the retail 7. Remember at first I had two previous versions(XP, Vista) also running on the same hardwares with almost all of the same programs and startups to simply say enough of the other two! 7 proved itself here without too much difficulty!
My System SpecsSystem Spec
13 Oct 2009   #50
swarfega

Windows 7 Professional 64-bit
 
 

No, Windows 7 isn't slower than Vista, even at booting up

Quote:
The manufacturer of a Windows maintenance toolkit featured on our Fileforum told CNET's Ina Fried last week that it believes boot times for Windows 7 are typically slower than boot times for Windows Vista. Iolo Technologies told Fried that it gauged the amount of time required for the CPU to reach a "true idle state."

As many veteran Windows users already know, the operating system doesn't actually boot to an "idle state" -- it's not DOS. Since that time, Iolo has been characterizing the time it stops its stopwatch as the time that the CPU is "fully usable," which seems rather nebulous.
The discussion over whether this means Win7 is slower was declared moot today by TG Daily's Andrew Thomas, who wrote, "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: I put it to you that there are no occasions when the boot time of a PC is important in any way whatsoever."

Unfortunately, there is one situation where the boot time of a PC is important: It affects the public's perception of whether the PC is actually faster, and thus better. And as we have seen with Vista, an operating system that was by all scientific measures much more secure than Windows XP, the perception that it was less secure -- by virtue of its highly sensitive behavior -- was as bad, if not worse, from the public vantage point as being insecure to begin with.
The public at large typically perceives the boot sequence of a computer as the period of time between startup and the first moment they're asked to log in. Betanews tested that interval this afternoon using an external stopwatch, and our triple-boot test system: an Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600-based computer using a Gigabyte GA-965P-DS3 motherboard, an Nvidia 8600 GTS-series video card, 3 GB of DDR2 DRAM, and a 640 GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 hard drive. Both Vista and Win7 partitions are located on this same drive.

The interval we tested is between the pressing of Enter at the multi-boot selection screen, and the moment the login screen appears. While the tools I used for timing were an ordinary digital stopwatch and my eyeballs, I will gladly let everyone know that I use these same tools to test qualifications at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, and my measurements vary from those at the Timing & Scoring booth usually by about 0.05 seconds.

In tests of what I'll call the "perceived boot interval" on the same machine, Windows 7 posted a five-boot average time of 24.214 seconds. Windows Vista, booting from the exact same machine and the exact same disk (just a different partition) posted an average of 36.262 seconds -- just about 50% slower. Exactly how much time is required for a Windows-based system to start idling down and doing relatively nothing -- the "fully usable" state that Iolo is looking for -- typically varies wildly depending on what drivers are installed, and what startup applications may be running. On a well-utilized XP-based system (and we have a truckload of those), that time may officially be never.

However, it's worth noting that in a separate test conducted by ChannelWeb's Samara Lynn this afternoon, she discovered that boot times for a system running Windows 7 with Iolo's System Mechanic software installed were typically slower than for the same system with System Mechanic not installed. This may be because System Mechanic was authored with Vista in mind -- which could explain a lot of things about Iolo's own evaluation.

source
My System SpecsSystem Spec
Reply

 Windows 7 boots slower than Vista, says study.




Thread Tools




Similar help and support threads
Thread Forum
Windows 7 boots with Windows Vista boot screen
hello, I have installed windows 7 Home Premium on a Medion akoya E1210 PC. The screen resolution is 1024X600, and i know that windows 7 boot screen does't support that. But is there not anyway to force windows to boot with the normal boot screen? thanks thomas please ignore some spell...
Graphic Cards
Windows 7 slower than XP/Vista?
I have a problem with a game, Zuma Deluxe. It runs fine on my computer when I have Vista, XP or W2K installed, but when I run the game on Windows 7, it stutters wildly. Same computer, same cards, nothing is changed hardware wise, except the hard disk, which I doubt would make the game stutter. Is...
Performance & Maintenance
Win 7 slower than Vista? :S
Just went back to Vista32bit for a while... everything is so much faster! Is it just my experience? or is Win7 actually slower? :sarc:
General Discussion
Windows 7 running slower than Vista
Here is it, it is possible, my windows 7 laptop has all it programs rated higher than on my vista desktop computer. I have the latest Java and Flash-player, but for games like Gaia booty grab and runescape it runs slower. My browsing is way faster, but for games it runs slower.
Gaming
No, Windows 7 isn't slower than Vista, even at booting
No, Windows 7 isn't slower than Vista, even at booting up | Software News - Betanews
News
Let's face it: Windows 7 copies files slower than Vista
This is my first complain thread, everything else I love about Windows 7. The look, the performance, the compatibility, etc. However, numerous people have said that copying files takes much longer and it's true from what I am seeing. I wanted to copy 4gb of information on a UBB and it took more...
General Discussion


Our Sites

Site Links

About Us

Find Us

Windows 7 Forums is an independent web site and has not been authorized, sponsored, or otherwise approved by Microsoft Corporation. "Windows 7" and related materials are trademarks of Microsoft Corp.

Designer Media Ltd

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 16:47.
Twitter Facebook Google+ Seven Forums iOS App Seven Forums Android App