Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
"Windows 7 does not boot faster" - CNet
- Thread starter js81
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My Win7Pro boots in around 15-20 seconds (guess) - that's much faster then Vista did on the same computer.
I will check later today and time it accurately.
I will check later today and time it accurately.
Wow, does and SSD make THAT much difference? That's crazy! I had an HP Mini with the crappy Sandisk pSSD and it sucked... but then again, it was a $300 netbook.
Yeah, a good SSD like the Intels can make that much of a difference. The problem is there is a wide range of performance in SSDs, so you really have to shop around and check out a bunch of reviews.
Personally, I don't mind if Win7 has a bit longer boot times. It feels much faster in everyday use. My Vista machine isn't a slouch (Core 2 Quad, 8GB RAM, ATI 4850 1GB), and I still get that stupid spinning blue circle when opening apps or doing everyday tasks. Win7 is much faster in everyday usage.
If you don't know what "win-rot" is, then you obviously haven't used any version of Windows (post 95, at least) for any amount of time. Win-rot (sorry if that's not a correct term) is the phenomenon that occurs to Windows desktops over time. (Yeah, it occurs to Macs, too, just not to as extreme as sense.) They continually get slower.. and slower....... and slower............ (not just at booting, either).
Oh, and you state that it could be the result of "heaps of services and apps..." Not necessarily. It seems that Windows (Vista and XP, particularly) can do this even if there are basically NOTHING loading on startup (had this issue with a friend of mine's HP the other day - had to do a complete reinstall to fix it, even though I had "cleaned and disinfected" the machine with several different programs).
Granted, my Macs aren't as quick today as when they were freshly installed, but the effect isn't as pronounced. (Note that the boot times that are recorded for my iMac and Macbook are both with old installs of Leopard that were upgraded to Snow. I'll try to remember to test my Windows XP boot times on both those machines when I get home.)
Oh, and BTW, I am a systems repair professional and have been doing such part-time for about 10 years...And I am quite familiar with "win-rot."
Not to be rude, but being a "systems repair" person hardly qualifies anybody as an authority on what slows down systems over time. Some people here are programmers and engineers and actually write software etc. As far as "win rot" there is no magic in computing. It's not that hard to keep a system running smoothly, unless you're a complete idiot that fills up your PC (or Mac) with junk. My OSX machines are no faster at starting up than Windows, and Mac fanboys trying to bash MS on this point are being incredibly childish. There are so many things that Windows absolutely smokes OSX on, it would be better to just enjoy the OS you like and leave it at that.
TennisandMusic, I am a programmer and haven't installed anything new on this machine (Windows XP) in a long time... yet it is noticeably slower now than it was after I set it all up. Maybe you can tell me the trick to speeding it up? It isn't disk fragmentation because I scheduled defrag to run every night.
Can I respectfully say that turning off your computer when it is not being used uses less energy and is a simple and small thing that we can all do to lessen our impact on the environment.
For this reason I believe that fast boot times are very important and can encourage more people to fully shut down their computers when they are not being used.
For this reason I believe that fast boot times are very important and can encourage more people to fully shut down their computers when they are not being used.
I give a damn. Trouble shooting a computer requires A LOT of rebooting. A shorter boot time = less aggravation, especially when you have to reboot a least dozen times.
At least it's better than the old Mac System 6/Windows 3.1 days. Turn on you computer. Take a bathroom break. Comeback and wait another 30 seconds for the computer to finish booting. Load up an application. Take a 5 minute coffee break while the app loads. Those were the days.
My work PC takes so long to become responsive, I HAVE to make a brew to kill time once I've logged on and that usually takes 2 minutes or so to get to the password prompt. Once there, I drink a good few sips of it before I can actually do anything and it's only set to load the company home page on start up too so once that loads, there's about a minute of unresponsiveness when I open outlook and they're web based database.
I start at 8.30 and typically don't "start" till 8.40 - 8.45am. They're all network booting systems though but it still makes my G4 seem faster when I get home and it's about a minute from start up chime to desktop.
I start at 8.30 and typically don't "start" till 8.40 - 8.45am. They're all network booting systems though but it still makes my G4 seem faster when I get home and it's about a minute from start up chime to desktop.
Thank you.
While I'm not an environmentalist, I agree 100% on this point. There is no need in wasting more energy than we have to. At least sleep the darned thing.
Yepper. Anything I have to wait on is aggravation... so yeah, whether its "responsiveness" or "boot time," it doesn't matter to me. I want it to be quick. And once its quick, I wanted it quicker...
MythicFrost,
There are several new features within Windows 7. To learn more about how the operating system was designed with every user in mind as well as to see how it can meet your needs, please go here: http://bit.ly/7b1cY
Jessica
Microsoft Windows Client Team
There are several new features within Windows 7. To learn more about how the operating system was designed with every user in mind as well as to see how it can meet your needs, please go here: http://bit.ly/7b1cY
Jessica
Microsoft Windows Client Team
Well, MS sold NTFS while prematurely claiming it wasn't fragmentable... oops...
MS sold Vista hyping up WinFS and DirectX 10... WinFS was quickly dropped, and DX10 has proven to be a total sham. (It was helped to sell due to "artist renditions" of "Flight Simulator X" using directX 10. Some artist's digital PAINTING. I'm surprised there's no class action lawsuit... Even MS couldn't wiggle out of that one; the evidence against them is significant.)
http://cybernetnews.com/directx-9-vs-directx-10-is-the-vista-upgrade-worth-it/
(the claim, back when Vista was new and the "gotcha!" wasn't released yet)
http://www.flightsimdaily.com/fsx/fsx-sp2dx10-set-to-disappoint
The harsh reality. One of many. Some sites and images found whle web searching show what FSX under DX10 truly looks like. Definitely misadvertising, to say the very least.
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/244646-33-bioshock-dx10-benchmark
One of many benchmarks (made by users or pro agencies) that readily shoot down any claims DX10 would be a vast improvement over DX9. Indeed, one or two benchmarks on the internet show DX10 to be SLOWER when pitted head to head...
Going back to the OS/2 days, and other instances, vaporware and bait'n'switch keep alternatives from flourishing while allowing them to cobble and hack together products that are, purportedly, used in professional environments.
Er, people really should NOT click on those site aliasing services, which purportedly make typing in URLs easier, unless they want a much higher chance of their computers getting infected with a virus. (Even Macs are not immune, despite being magnitudes safer...) There is no legitimate excuse to use these aliasing sites. I don't know just who is hosting the link this middleman-site is pointing to, and it's far easier to infect an alias host site with malware as opposed to going to the legitimate news site directly.
Please use a proper URL. I refuse to trust those sites.
http://blog.trendmicro.com/tinyurl-phishing-becoming-popular/
One site of MANY proving my claim.
Or perhaps there are a good deal of people with common sense on these forums... If anyone is a troll, it is you.
A lot of us use both systems and I see no trolling in this thread.
It's because you're not bashing on M$ like a good mac fan boy would!
Vista was sold with the guise "Unused RAM is wasted RAM", which doesn't explain why the following system would only have Vista using 1.8GB:
* Asus P5Q Deluxe
* Intel Q9650 (9x400MHz = 3.6GHz)
* 8GB DDR2-800 RAM (CL 4-4-4-10)
* WD Velociraptor 300GB
* WD Black 1TB
* nVidia GTX260 (overclocked to match GTX280 performance)
* Sound Blaster X-Fi Fatal1ty Titanium
* Vista Ultimate 64-bit
With both drives half-full, it was 1.8GB RAM that Vista used. There was plenty of RAM left over to be used, not being wasted. XP used a piddling 400MB by comparison and XP was faster in every single benchmark except for a couple calculating programs that were native 64-bit. (Even then, there is no way Vista should have been slower for ANY benchmark. OSes should be better written. Not sloppily adding features that may or may not work.)
I never believed that claim once I saw real-life stats. A bunch of hacks scribbled up Vista's development over those 5 years, and we paid. Big-time. (pre-sp1 was so bad, I lost data because of it too... )
And when it became crystal clear DX10 + FSX was a total fraud... never mind that, when Expression Media 2 was released and I complained about a justified bug, they told me to wait for the next version (so I have to spend another $300 for another suite upgrade that'll come out in 18~24 months?! What sort of dilettante tin pot organization is this? Most companies providing this level of so-called service would be destitute... no customer should be treated like that. EVER. )
I don't turn off my computers.
Lucky you. I have to or my parents will make me start paying for power.
And Windows 7 does boot much faster.
I tested my Vertex 60GB Win7 boot time two days ago - stupid me didn't write it down - still as far as I remember it was 27sec from bios to usable desktop with logon password (I type slow).
I guess, if I didn't have a password the boot would be ~20sec.
Depending on your system, SATAI/II, IDE/AHCI, post screen length and password or not - Win7 should need between 25-45sec for a cold start from the moment the ON button is pushed to a usable desktop.
I guess, if I didn't have a password the boot would be ~20sec.
Depending on your system, SATAI/II, IDE/AHCI, post screen length and password or not - Win7 should need between 25-45sec for a cold start from the moment the ON button is pushed to a usable desktop.
That's what I've seen as well. Win7 (64bit) is loading in ~45s. or so, and that's with a hardware RAID card loading as well (firmware + PCIe bus test).
Very good point.
No truth in advertising, so they can come up with anything they want (US at least). No, it certainly isn't simple.
But some do manage it quicker than others. Linux distros (down to Ubuntu-64 atm) load faster for me than anything else I've used.
Macs?
Maybe MacOS is booting faster then the average Win PC.
Windows on a "Mac" boots similar then Windows on a PC.
Win7 on a SSD is almost as fast as MacOS on a SSD when it comes to booting - but MacOS seems to boot a little faster, if that is what you meant.
Mine uses about that much at idle (around 1.6-1.8GB RAM). 64 bit is more RAM hungry than 32 bit. I have actually seen 32 bit Vista use less that 1GB of RAM, but you have to turn off all the Aero stuff, and some other fluff. As an excercise in futility, right after Vista came out, I installed it on a Celeron 2.4 gHz machine with 1GB (although it may have been 1.5, I forget). It was painful.
Part of the problem with Vista was that first off, it was supposed to be revolutionary. They were going to put in an entirely new file system, get rid of the registry, etc. After a couple of years of development, they realized that stuff wasn't going to work, and their corporate customers balked at breaking back compatibility. So, it got rushed to make it to market in a reasonable time. Vista is what we got.
Wirelessly posted (Nokia 5800 Tube XpressMusic : Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.4; U; Series60/5.0 Nokia5800d-1/21.0.101; Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 ) AppleWebKit/413 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/413)
Thanks for not drinking any of the kool-aid. These times don't seem right to me,and only seem to me that any other results they collect are probably going to be off too.
zumajoe said:
Thanks for not drinking any of the kool-aid. These times don't seem right to me,and only seem to me that any other results they collect are probably going to be off too.
Perhaps you should get a little more in-depth knowledge on Vista memory management and learn what it does before you spew misinformed nonsense around?
Uh oh, I clicked it... it went straight to the microsoft site though? or is that not the point?
Kind Regards