Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Study: Vista Startup Time is Faster Than Win 7

Last response: in News comments
Share
October 9, 2009 5:51:27 PM

isn't the selling point that it is designed to start up faster from sleep mode, not a cold boot?
Score
2
October 9, 2009 5:51:54 PM

Makes perfect sense.....



...that a company who makes it's living selling crapware that's supposed to speed your startup times says the newest version of windows is slow and needs their stuff.
Score
27
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
October 9, 2009 5:58:40 PM

my win 7 astartup and vista starup actually switched. it takes longer to get to the desktop using win7 but being able to use my desktop once its shown is almost instant whereas vista I always had to wait an extra 2 minutes before I could even use a browser.
Score
9
October 9, 2009 5:58:52 PM

I may be in the minority but I just don't care about the speed it takes my computer to boot up (within reason obviously). My concern is will it run smoothly once booted. I dont have an issue in either regard after running the Win7 RC for a couple of months. Much better than Vista.
Score
5
October 9, 2009 6:00:24 PM

that's a good point. Startup time is also extremely important to me...Considering I restart my win 7 pc about once ever two or 3 days.... I also like the lack of details regarding what processes were running, or how many. my current win 7 box has 58 processes after startup, including pidgin, outlook, media monkey, steam, and avg. I remember making a note that after a clean install I had 35 processes running. I have never done a side by side comparison, but after using Vista x64 ultimate since it was released, I find win 7 to startup significantly faster, especially the startup programs. It is usable for me as soon as the desktop appears. Usable is a relitive and subjective term though.
Score
5
October 9, 2009 6:03:13 PM

not true, have use win 7 since beta and I can say that it have never toke more than a minute to fully load y my old c2d 6550 4gb ram an 750gb hd and 2x gt9600. who knows how much crapware have the installed
Score
0
October 9, 2009 6:05:37 PM

Don't know what these "experts" are talking about.

Even with Win7RC, my notebook boots faster than any Vista I've ever seen. Hell, even a P3-512mb boots faster than vista with a dualcore/3GB RAM. Freash install, months later.

In terms of benchmarking computations... Win7 is still slower than XP (still has much of the vista bloat), but doing rendering, etc - is not so much a big deal. But transferring data, opening programs, windows, accessing data *IS* important as its something we can see.

Most people wouldn't notice the difference between a dual core and a quad core.
Score
3
October 9, 2009 6:08:05 PM

It starts up faster for me on my core2duo and especially on my Pentium 4. it also runs a lot more efficient on my P4 than vista ultimate did on that one. I notice a big difference.
Score
0
Anonymous
October 9, 2009 6:09:18 PM

nicklasd87I find win 7 to startup significantly faster, especially the startup programs. It is usable for me as soon as the desktop appears. Usable is a relitive and subjective term though.

I get the same results on both my desktop (64-bit) and my laptop (32-bit). Both my systems botup very quickly and are usable as soon as the desktop appears.
Score
1
October 9, 2009 6:21:48 PM

duckmanx88my win 7 astartup and vista starup actually switched. it takes longer to get to the desktop using win7 but being able to use my desktop once its shown is almost instant whereas vista I always had to wait an extra 2 minutes before I could even use a browser.


Hit the nail on the head there, Vista may present you with a desktop quickly but it's sure as heck not done 'starting up' yet.

Also, I'll happily suffer through a longer start up time if it means that when the system is running, running and loading programs will be faster.

Honestly, I start/restart the system once or twice a day max, that startup time is the least of my problems.
Score
1
October 9, 2009 6:24:55 PM

How long will you have a brand new computer? That boots fasters on vista then win7 *assuming this article is correct*.. Now how long will you have 3-6 mounth old computer that boots up faster then vista..

IMO Win7 wins this race.
Score
0
October 9, 2009 6:25:32 PM

I smell cattle and manure. My Win 7 64bit Release Candidate boots relatively quickly still, even after installing anti-virus, games, and other garbage on it. It still is more responsive, and smoother running than my Vista 64bit install, with the same hardware.

Besides, I'd say iola has a bias and a profit to make off the results. I'd rather read something along these lines from a 3rd party, non-profit making organization that does several tests on several different machines, with Vista and Win 7 (Release version). And I'm talking old machines, new machines, Intel, AMD, etc. Let's talk real world tests.
Score
1
October 9, 2009 6:28:06 PM

As someone said on the Maximum PC post of this story, and I agree with them:

"I would take these study results with a grain of salt, as the company in question makes system optimizer software among others."
Score
3
October 9, 2009 6:30:28 PM

Unless I am missing something, what is th ebig deal with startup time. I shut my computer down about 4 times last year. Do that many people still start up their computers, daily?
Score
-1
October 9, 2009 6:30:29 PM

This article seem empty.
There is so many variables... hardware used: cpu(s)... video card(s).. ram... ram clocking... os 32-64bits... harddrive.. hd controler(s)...

So some machine COULD load slower... but some other WOULD load extremely faster!

So they found machine(s) where Win7 run slower than Vista.. so what ?!?
Score
1
Anonymous
October 9, 2009 6:31:09 PM

hmm....Vistas time to a blue screen is also faster compared to Win 7
Score
3
October 9, 2009 6:35:47 PM

who cares? if you turn your computer off and on every day, then you have more important things to worry about.. like your HDD.
Score
-2
Anonymous
October 9, 2009 6:35:54 PM

I have a Dell XPS m1530 Core 2Duo T9300 with 128G Samsung SSD and Vista 64 boots up to logon in 20 seconds and another 10 and I'm in IE for a total of 30 seconds. With the Windows 7 RC, it's 15 seconds to logon and another 5 to IE for a total of 20 seconds. That makes Windows 7 33% faster bootup on my box.
Score
5
October 9, 2009 6:43:27 PM

same here, sometimes the loading screen takes longer, sometimes its just a few seconds, but once i type in my password on the login screen my sidebar and all the gadgets pop right up and my AV and other startup programs are all loaded. My CPU usage graph spikes up for a second or two and then it's done loading everything and idles. Performance on my desktop is noticeably better than vista, and my netbook runs it better than XP sometimes.

someone must not know how to use msconfig is all i can figure.
Score
0
October 9, 2009 6:49:21 PM

I dont know why but I kind of like Vista, and I have the regular 32bit version. I dont have any problems with it, I still use XP with my netbook and frankly I like Vistas interface better. I have delt with all the warning prompts, and besides that Vista is handy and i have 4Gigs of RAM and a 2.8GH C2D to make sure my PC wont slow down. This will be good until I get a true next gen PC which will be in a year or 1.5yrs.

I hate how the marketing of Microsoft just ditched Vista and held on to XP until its dying breath(still going strong on the netbook and older pc front) and waited for WIN7. They made it seem like Vista was the one that was shunned and was being replaced. In truth its not and we will see alot more Vista machines now.
Score
-1
October 9, 2009 6:50:24 PM

I guess the public who have been using Win7 disagree with these inhouse tests... LMAO.... FAIL!

Come on, admit it... Microsoft actually did good!.... hehe
Score
3
October 9, 2009 7:19:58 PM

I don't know whose ass they pulled that data from, but it's just rubbish.

I've actually timed my start-up, from the moment I pressed the power button to the moment the cpu no longer spiked. 1:26 seconds on a medium-spec machine (C2Duo E4500, 4Gb RAM, 7200RPM WDC, GeForce 9800GT), on a two month-old Windows 7 installation.

I have no idea what systems they did their benchmarking on, but it seems that my Win7 installation, running Avira Antivir and other 'common-used software' on startup, has a faster time to desktop than a fresh install, and that's something I simply refuse to believe.
Score
1
October 9, 2009 7:36:15 PM

Ever since the beta of Win7 my boot and use of Windows has been faster than Vista. ( both x64 ) So this article makes me wonder.. And im a person that also formats often so I really am weirded out with this. Anyhow.. I rarely even ever restart my PC and I have to say that Windows 7 are just shitloads of times better and faster than Vista in any other bit from Vista eitherway so I really wouldnt care much personally.
Score
0
October 9, 2009 7:54:29 PM

come on, that's all nonsense iolo saying, 7 is GREAT.
really, almost everyone that tried it know it's faster even in boot time.
NEXT!
Score
0
October 9, 2009 8:00:14 PM

I have to say that I've seen the same things as this report states.

I get fast time to desktop, and slow after that. Win7 takes a significant amount of time just to get a network connection established. I notice the same thing coming out of sleep mode where Win7 takes a while and, e.g. Firefox will be unusable for maybe 20 or 30 seconds after sleep, where as it was available almost instantly on Vista.

Once it's up and running it seems fine, though Call of Duty takes about 3 times longer from the time the splash screen comes up until the program actually starts.

Note that I'm also a person who reformats / reinstalls often - at least once every 8 months. And currently have a lot less running on my Win7 install than I had going on my last vista install...

I've also disabled firewall and have no anti-virus running, so I don't know why Win7 takes so damn long to establish a network connection after a reboot. Perhaps because my MB has two nics, and it's trying to setup nic 1 before nic 2 (which is where the cable is right now) - think I'll try switching the cable and see if it helps...

Cheers,
CList
Score
-3
October 9, 2009 8:03:03 PM

I think I can see where they are coming from but in my case with a MSI GT627 both OS's are pretty funtional within seconds of reaching the desktop. I didn't check where the ativity was coming from after the second times and these aren't clean installs by any means at this stage. Both OS's has a number of updaters and such running.

Windows 7 36 seconds from boot options to desktop
Windows 7 1:43 until near idle activity

Vista 56 seconds from boot option to desktop
Vista 1:29 until near idle activity
Score
-1
October 9, 2009 8:04:48 PM

... what a fruit? ... ok... maybe the start-up time better, but working with vista suck's so much! ... i got aspire 8530g... windows vista was on that machine just for 2 or 3 hours... installing, finding, copying stuff takes much longer... network setup is a pain in the a$$... with 7? It work's for me... ok, there is some stuff an comparability issues, but the benefits evens it out.. and i get the licensed copy, when it comes out...
Score
0
October 9, 2009 8:21:27 PM

...just for the record I tried swapping my cable to NIC #1 and disabling NIC #2 in the BIOS. When I get my Win7 desktop my network connection is "unavailable", it just took 80 seconds (1:20) from the time the desktop came up until the network connection was available. That seems crazy to me. Never had that issue with Vista (using the same router obviously).

I have to say that I find the user experience in Win7 to be very similar to Vista. I can't understand why so many people who have these big gripes with Vista think Win7 is so much better... but then again, I didn't use Vista until SP1 was out...

Cheers,
CList
Score
-1
October 9, 2009 8:23:36 PM

...oh yeah, I should mention that I'm using an EVGA MB, and a Core i7 920 clocked to about 3.3GHz... anyone else notice Win7 taking this long to attach to a network?
Score
-1
October 9, 2009 8:57:32 PM

I can also confirm that the load times for Win 7 are nowhere close to 2 min, both in mi Laptop (a middle end-machine) and my desktop (high-end) the boot time is about 45 sec to 1 min and the computer is ready to use almost as soon as the desktop is showed in the screen(s)... so in short, my opinion is that those "experts" don't know what they're talking about.
Score
0
October 9, 2009 9:14:32 PM

I'm still getting Windows 7 becuase of Direct X 11
Score
0
October 9, 2009 9:43:57 PM

blackpanther26I'm still getting Windows 7 becuase of Direct X 11


But to use DX11, you'll need a DX11 GPU....
Score
-1
October 9, 2009 9:45:25 PM

i concur with BS article. Ditch the crapware. I get 38 seconds from after post to desktop on an OC'd Pentium E2160 (3.0ghz)/4gb ddr2 800 (950mhz).
Score
1
October 9, 2009 9:55:35 PM

iolo I don't believe your lies!
Score
1
October 9, 2009 10:19:40 PM

Quote:
Windows 7 boot times slow down dramatically with the addition of common-used software


Now thats something Linux can never do.
Score
2
October 9, 2009 10:58:37 PM

Been using w7 7100 since 7057 expired, still boots fast. About 1min or so to usable desktop.
Score
0
October 9, 2009 11:13:18 PM

Why shutdown? Just sleep...zzzzz
Score
0
October 10, 2009 1:14:46 AM

haha been saying this all along and getting voted down each time i mention it - finally someone makes an article on it

on an old ancient system with little system resources and crappy components it runs alot quicker then vista, with a new system with ample resources (because microsoft made it lighter - less caching/prefetching) it ends up being slower
Score
2
October 10, 2009 1:46:37 AM

Yea this aticale strikes me as odd because When I switched back from 7 back to vista.Vista takes longeri n my opinion.

Both Vista and 7 I installed were the ultimate x64 versions
Score
0
October 10, 2009 2:49:01 AM

kingnoobeHow long will you have a brand new computer?

^This.

Most people never reformat, so a PC that boots faster in the worst case or even normal scenario is what you want. Can you notice the difference between 1 and 1.5 minutes? Yes, probably. Can you notice the difference between 1.5-2 minutes and 5 minutes? Hell yes! This study is FUD for marketing purposes.

Of course you could get an SSD and enjoy usability in approximately 20-30 seconds on an un-tuned machine. :D 
Score
0
October 10, 2009 2:54:37 AM

mlauzon76But to use DX11, you'll need a DX11 GPU....

Buy one?
Score
0
Anonymous
October 10, 2009 3:14:42 AM

I take XP any time over Vista!
My XP laptop boots twice as fast as my wife's Vista one, despite her having a 400Mhz faster processor, and twice the RAM,and 66Mhz faster ram too!
Score
2
October 10, 2009 4:22:59 AM

Huh. Well I am not too sure really what they did to test it because my Windows 7 install is pretty much at near idle when the desktop appears (I have the performance Widget up). I have Steam, ATI CCC, and MSE running at start up and the second the desktop appears they are up and running.

Steam used to take a while to load after appearing on the desktop with Vista but is useable right away with 7.

Kinda wish I could set around testing a OS to try to push my new software and get paid good instead of working crappy dead end jobs all the while knowing more than that said person.
Score
0
October 10, 2009 5:57:42 AM

kiss my ass.

My computer, has 2 exactly the same hdd, Raptor 150 gb. and Dual boot windows on each drive, Windows Vista Ultimate, and 7 Ultimate.

Windows 7 starts and usable at LEAST 2 minutes faster than Vista.

Oh yes they both have the same amount of "start-up" ware installed (cuz I need them)

Soon Im going to Format the Vista drive :) 
Score
0
October 10, 2009 6:12:53 AM

doesn't windows 7 boot background programs later on in the boot process so as to speed up usability and thus making it boot faster. This in turn would work against the benchmark being used in this test.

Personally, Vist x86 seemed to boot faster than my 7 x64. I haven't timed it and I don't plan on going back to test the difference. I really don't care but the inner workings of the os are more interesting and important in a test like this.
Score
0
October 10, 2009 10:20:44 AM

well i think if anyone wants a 1 sec start up, they should use MS-DOS !!

really... what's the big deal with this "Start up time" competitions?!

if u want to use a real OS with full features, you have to wait for about 60-90 seconds...

it is funny to see when press and media cant find a real problem with windows 7, they try to bash it with these sort of things!

"1:34 vs 1:06 on a brand new machine" (!!!) so much information about the test, what a reliable study !
Score
-1
October 10, 2009 11:22:02 AM

this is not true. i have a laptop with 256 SSD with a 2ghz cpu and it boots win7 in 15sec every time.
Score
0
October 10, 2009 5:01:11 PM

for a system that's been running for a few months, win 7 now starts up (usability yes yes..) faster than when I ran XP. My win7 installation now has same amount of crapware and stuff installed as my old XP installation. XP used to take about 2.5 minutes, whilst this is a lot faster than that: 1:37. (both excluding bios stuff, so as soon as i see windows logo showing up.
Score
0
!