Microsoft Aims Windows 7 to Boot in 15 Seconds

We can all relate to one common ground no matter which operating system we are running on our personal computers these days, and that is the amount of time that it takes to boot it up. Some of us tech savvy individuals regularly see blazing fast boot times on our personal computers, however the average consumer is not so lucky.

Prefab systems out of the box regularly see longer boot times out of the box, and this is something that Microsoft appears to be concerned with. Microsoft takes the user experience seriously, and being able to walk to your kitchen and at least start a pot coffee while waiting for your desktop to arrive on the screen is not a good user experience.

Although not specifically a projected boot time of 15 seconds, Microsoft has said the following:

“« “For Windows 7, a top goal is to significantly increase the number of systems that experience very good boot times. In the lab, a very good system is one that boots in under 15 seconds.

Boot time is meant to reflect when a machine is ready and responsive for the user. It includes logging in to the system and getting to a usable desktop. It is not a perfect metric, but one that does capture the vast majority of issues. On Windows 7 and Vista systems, the metric is captured automatically and stored in the system event log.” »”

Of course at this point we have no idea what their specs are for a ‘very good system’, however it does look as though they have set some sort of internal bar for development when it comes to boot times. This is a good development bar when compared to what end users currently get with Windows XP and Vista however.

Although there are not any target boot times mentioned for either operating system by Microsoft, they both vary in start-up times greatly. Two main factors in boot time are hardware and software. More specifically, what the end user has in the way of drivers and system services over and above the defaults.

I have seen Windows Vista boot in 28 seconds, and I have seen it boot in 280 seconds. The same goes for Windows XP as well. I have a Windows XP system at home that goes from power button to desktop in 9 seconds, but I also had a notebook that went from power button to desktop in 62 seconds. I keep my systems relatively clean and in some instances, tweaked a little.

Nonetheless, Windows 7 leaves a lot to the imagination at this point and a lot of hopes and dreams, both from the consume side and from the developer side. I would assume more details are to follow in the coming months.

  • i have a system that goes to power button to windows in like 40 seconds... on a SSD as well...

    35 seconds of that is the motherboard post and stuff and the other 5 is the windows loading screen
  • Niva
    That last comment is right on the money. I wish laptops sold with a windows CD, not an image CD which includes a bunch of other crap on it.
  • V3ctor
    D_KuhnThe single biggest problem with "Consumer" PC boot times is all the crapware that gets preloaded onto them. I bought a cheap Gateway system from Best Buy about 3 months ago for a little project at work. Normally I immediately reimage any new machine to get rid of all that crap but in this case I did a quick experiment. I booted the machine and measured the time it took to get to various stages of startup... here's the results:CRAPWARE Vista Home Start-up:MS Logo - 0:18Cursor - 0:38Login Screen - 1:04Desktop - 1:28 secWelcome Dialog - 2:20Sidebar - 3:50Time to the last startup app popup - 4:20Shut-down47 secTHEN I reformatted the drive and with a clean Vista image:Clean Vista Business install:MS Logo - 0:14Cursor - 0:29Login - 0:45Desktop - 0:59Welcome Screen - 1:00Sidebar - 1:07Everything loaded - 1:07Shutdown - 14 secSo a cheapo $500 laptop boots 4x faster without all the crap that Gateway spooges all over Vista before you ever see it... no wonder most folks buying a new system think Vista is garbage.Same here... bought a notebook from Toshiba and it took 1:30 just to be erady (desktop). Now it does it in 49sec as i push the power button... all the pc's are full of crap, blame on the vendors...
  • one-shot
    I am going to agree that OEMs put way to much BLOATware on a pc. My first laptop was a Gateway..I'd hate to admit. I've since then learned my lesson. I just installed Vista 64 last week and it boots just as fast as my XP Pro did. I can't really tell a difference so far in loading times.
  • grieve
    D_Kuhn --> Nailed it! Thats why we build our own machines.
  • nemo888
    ,...and Microsoft always delivers on their new OS features. This is just marketing masquerading as journalism.

    Instead of just regurgitating MS press releases why not do some research and print a real story?
  • kittle
    Ditto on the OEM bloatware. Although the corporate world here isnt a whole lot better. Most people where I work dont shut their PCs down at nite because it takes so long for them to start back up.

    I remember getting some compaq laptops (yes that was a while ago) to setup for a company i worked for. It took 1.5 HOURS to start the first time. But after spending a week with some disk imaging software i could unpack a new laptop, and hand to the end user fully configured and ready to go in 15min.
  • neodude007
    I hope they also plan on making RAID0 the standard in every desktop by the time WIndows 7 comes...HA. There are so many other issues involved in boot times its not even funny. My PC can install XP in 5 mins, and it takes like 2 mins to boot it....
  • invisik
    well the crap they put in the computer i believe reduce cost.
  • nitrous9200
    I had a woman come into our shop last week with a cheapo Compaq laptop that had a Celeron M, 512MB RAM and Vista Home Basic. She hated Vista so her son installed XP and then (for some strange reason) installed OS X Leopard. When I got it, I reinstalled Vista and added 512MB RAM. It flew! It was as fast as some of my desktop machines. So yes, blame it on the manufacturers for loading crap on to their computers and giving Vista a bad rap. Is it really worth a few dollars in cost savings which might make your potential customer look to another brand? I wouldn't think so.