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.
...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.
...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.
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.
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.
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.
IMO Win7 wins this race.
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.
"I would take these study results with a grain of salt, as the company in question makes system optimizer software among others."
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 ?!?
someone must not know how to use msconfig is all i can figure.
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.