Skip to main content

Study: Vista Startup Time is Faster Than Win 7

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.

  • kyeana
    isn't the selling point that it is designed to start up faster from sleep mode, not a cold boot?
    Reply
  • Scotteq
    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.
    Reply
  • duckmanx88
    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.
    Reply
  • fooldog01
    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.
    Reply
  • nicklasd87
    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.
    Reply
  • tomasf
    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
    Reply
  • belardo
    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.
    Reply
  • rooket
    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.
    Reply
  • 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.
    Reply
  • invlem
    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.
    Reply