Best offers
|
Windows 7 Home Premium Upgrade from... | $79.99 STAPLES More info |
|
Office 2007 Home and Student (Full... | $105.73 Royaldiscount.com More info |
|
Windows Anytime Upgrade Windows 7... | $139.99 STAPLES More info |
|
Windows 7 Professional (Upgrade) | $89.99 STAPLES More info |
|
Office 2007 Professional (Academic) | $123.94 Royaldiscount.com More info |
Benchmarking Windows 7: Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger?
Often hailed as the solution to Windows Vista performance problems, we wanted to know just how much better Windows 7 really is. We put one of our most recent test platforms through its paces to find out, benchmarking raw performance and responsiveness. Read More
-
Tom's Definitive Linux Software Roundup: Communications Apps
This is the second part of our Linux Software Roundup. Part one covered Internet Apps. Today we'll be looking at Communications Apps. This includes personal information managers, email clients, instant messengers, VoIP software, and IRC clients. Read More
-
How To: Windows XP Mode In...Ubuntu Linux?
Windows 7's XP Mode has already convinced many users who sat out for Vista to go out and upgrade. But will they buy the right version of Windows 7 to get XPM? You do know you can get the same XP functionality from a Linux distribution for free, right? Read More
Partners
The Games selection
kids :
Bob
Throw bubbles so as to make the ones that appear in the game disappear. For this, use the Right / Left arrow keys to duck or move about, and the...
|
crazy :
PC Breakdown
What is worst than a Fatal Error occuring during a game you did not save? Unleash your rage at your PC in this game. Blow it to pieces, it feels so...
|
Sponsored links
Study: Vista Startup Time is Faster Than Win 7
Next news- Email |
- Print |
- Comments (67) |
- Share
O RLY?
Even if Windows 7 isn't proven by benchmarks to be the fastest, bestest version of Microsoft's operating system yet, it certainly feels a lot better. We'd use it over Windows Vista any day of the week, but new findings show that it's not the performance king – at least not yet.
Sure, there have been many tweaks under the hood to make it better than Windows Vista, but it seems that boot time is actually longer in Windows 7 – at least according to a certain standard.
LA-based iolo technologies, makers of System Mechanic PC tune-up software, sent Tom's Hardware some of its findings after spending time with Windows 7.
Windows 7 starts up slower than Vista (1:34 vs 1:06 on a brand new machine), when the actual time to usability is considered. While Windows 7 shows its desktop relatively quickly (time to desktop hovers around 40 seconds for fresh installations), its time to usability, defined as the length of time it takes for the computer to become fully usable, with CPU cycles no longer significantly high and a true idle state achieved, is significantly longer.
Windows 7 boot times slow down dramatically with the addition of common-used software and for a 0-3 month-old machine measure 2:34 (that’s a minute longer than out of the box).
The newer OS seems to keep its composure better after some real-world use, perhaps signalling a design that's better suited to perform for most computer owners.
Windows 7 only beats Vista start-up times on 3-month-old and 6-month-old machines, otherwise trailing the older version significantly.
Stay tuned early next week when iolo technologies will reveal more of its Windows 7 performance findings. We'll have the coverage first hand.
Source : Tom's Hardware US
Sponsored links
Related forums topics
- Phenom II X4 920 and Gigabyte GA-M57SLI-S4 REV 2
- How to i change from 32 bit to 64 bit on athlon x2 64 bit
- Does this sound like a bad CPU?
- Question related to electricity?
- CPU stuttering under windows 7
- E6400 Overclocking Advices !
- AMD System Overclocked - Won't Boot Now...?
- Ati Tool
- Help With First i7 Overclock:
- Gigabyte Easytune6 question
- Bootup prior to Vista status screen very slow
- GA-EX58-UD5 and G.Skill DDR3-1600 6GB issue?
- Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD4P Restart Problems
- Ganging up on the i7/x58
Related articles
-
The application load benchmark shows clearly that the newer drive provides better performance, regardless of its capacity or rotation speed. The gaming benchmark involves handling lots of smaller files, hence the 7,200 RPM Spinpoint T166 is more suitable here. However, the two other drives were not designed to host applications requiring maximum performance. The Windows Vista startup benchmark might be relevant for those who intend to run one of the three drives as a system drive. Clearly, the older Spinpoint T166 with its 7,200 RPM is the quickest; however, the F2 EG is close behind. And the winner is the Spinpoint F2 EG, which delivers the best overall HDD score in PCMark Vantage.
-
There are a number of different scenarios where a small, light, low-power nettop would be ideal. Be it a PC in the kitchen or a Web-browsing/word processing machine in some other common area of the house, the concept of an easy-to-reach terminal that doesn’t need to be super-quick makes sense. This is one of the usage models we’ve seen Ion nudged into and, if you think you’ll really use it for that purpose (and that purpose exclusively), you might actually enjoy using the Atom/IGP combination. Push it too hard, though, and you’ll quickly find yourself frustrated. We’ve been there with the Shuttle X27; it isn’t fun. Case in point: I’m accustomed to installing Windows Vista with SP1 for benchmarking, and then running a complete suite of patches (that’s the downloading and installation) via Windows Update in 20-30 minutes. When I saw this machine sit on the install for a single patch (.NET, I believe it was) for ten minutes, I knew that I was dealing with a different class of hardware than the stuff we’re used to testing in the Tom’s Hardware lab. Ion Under Windows 7 RC In fact, because we knew going into this review that Vista’s weight is in many cases overwhelming for Intel’s Atom processor, we did all of our benchmarking under the Windows 7 release candidate. Boot times were certainly better, and application start-up did seem more responsive. But it was pretty obvious when we would ask the system to do more than it could handle. Multi-tasking, for instance, was not pleasant. It was only natural to sit there, waiting for a DVD decoder to install, grow impatient, and hustle off to the Control Panel to check power settings, simultaneously hitting the processor even harder. Here’s the short of it. When it comes to running multiple apps at the same time, compressing/decompressing large archives, and yes, even transcoding, CPUs are still very much deciding factors in resulting performance. I’d be fine browsing recipes online in the kitchen, answering email on a hallway terminal, or word processing from bed. But more intensive applications will certainly call for a quicker CPU. After all, Atom was conceptualized as an engine for mobile Internet devices—if it were too fast, it’d cannibalize Intel’s desktop-oriented offerings. Thus, even in Windows 7, you’ll want to scale back your expectations of a pint-sized mini-ITX platform with an Atom processor—even if it does show up backed by Nvidia’s impressive IGP chipset.
-
As already mentioned, all hard drives in this roundup utilize perpendicular recording technology to increase data density. Eventually, this also has an impact on performance, as data transfer rates usually increase as you increase the storage density. At the same time, we have observed that access times seem to be increasing. Obviously, precise head positioning is becoming an issue, because it simply takes time. However, overall I/O performance doesn't suffer from this, as all the new drives typically outperform older models even though their average access time is slightly longer. All hard drive manufacturers are switching to Serial ATA interfaces; some utilizing SATA/300 speeds, others like Western Digital stick to SATA/150. If you analyze our power consumption results in our Interactive 2.5" HDD Charts, you will realize that drives with SATA interfaces require slightly more energy than their UltraATA counterparts, and that SATA/300 also requires slightly more power than SATA/150. Since 2.5" drives cannot even saturate 50% of the SATA/150 bandwidth of 1.5 Gb/s (150 MB/s), we don't see any point in deploying 3 Gb/s interfaces, because the only difference it makes is the increased power draw. Luckily, SATA/300 drives can also be operated at SATA/150 speeds. The new generation of 2.5" hard drives based on perpendicular magnetic recording yields maximum capacities of up to 250 GB per drive, or cost-efficient single-platter hard drives at 120 GB capacity. The reason why so many notebooks still are being equipped with 80 GB 2.5" drives is the fact that 80 GB is the per-platter capacity of mainstream 2.5" drives. We expect the hard drive mainstream for 2.5" drives to be 120 GB at 5,400 RPM before the end of the year. In addition to mainstream devices, there will still be 2.5" 7,200 RPM drives for performance users. The maximum capacity today is 160 GB; 200 GB drives at 100 GB per 2.5" platter are already on the horizon (e.g. Samsung SpinPoint M100). And let's not forget about hybrid hard drives, either: Although this will remain in the upper mainstream for the time being, all drive manufacturers will sooner or later release new products that come with a built-in flash memory of 256 MB or more. Hybrid hard drives will improve startup performance of Windows Vista and are expected to increase battery runtime of notebooks by up to 10% by stopping a drive's spindle drive and using the Flash memory for as long as possible.
isn't the selling point that it is designed to start up faster from sleep mode, not a cold boot?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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?
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 ?!?
hmm....Vistas time to a blue screen is also faster compared to Win 7
who cares? if you turn your computer off and on every day, then you have more important things to worry about.. like your HDD.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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
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
... 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...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lY0_yIQM8Y&feature=fvw
Well this video and a lot of other people are saying different about windows 7. As other said we don't know where they go there data from but they need to redo and with out any of there programs.
...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
...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?
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.