Windows 7 called slower than Vista

T

Tassidar

Expert Member
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
1,427
Reaction score
0
Location
Leeds, UK
According to iolo's tests, Windows 7 starts up 42% slower than Vista -- one minute, 34 seconds versus one minute, six seconds -- on a brand new machine when the time trials are run to the point where the machine is usable, at least by iolo's standards.

iolo also said its tests indicated that Windows 7's startup times, like Vista's, degrade over time. After several "commonly-used" applications have been installed on a new Windows 7 box, for instance, its boot time -- again, as measured by the company -- slows to two minutes, 34 seconds, an increase of 64%.

Over an even more extended span, Windows 7's boot times get more sluggish than that: By the end of a simulated two-year period, Windows 7's startup times increased more than 330%.
Click to expand...

http://www.pcworld.com/article/173441/windows_7_called_slower_than_vista.html?tk=rss_news

Experiences so far?
 
Last edited:
My experience is windows 7 boots twice as fast as vista.

My windows 7 install boots the same as it has always done. Strange that article goes against just about every other review on the net.
 
killadoob said:
My experience is windows 7 boots twice as fast as vista.

My windows 7 install boots the same as it has always done. Strange that article goes against just about every other review on the net.
Click to expand...

Tru that, my boot time hasnt changed after so many installs. Just disable programs running on start up.
 
They must have a **** computer if it takes them almost 2 minutes to start up. Im in windows after 40sec max. Probably less than that but just haven't timed it.
 
Windows 7 boots faster than XP and Vista.
Start-up programs load faster and the machine is usable much quicker than XP or Vista
 
I take it this is confined only to boot time which is not exactly the pinnacle of measures, but I have never had a Win7 boot take longer than a Vista boot. Ever.
 
I've got more running on my desktop at the moment, but it's usable in a comparable time to what my Vista was. And this is from a install of the RC shortly after it was made available.

The time to get to the initial login screen feel MUCH shorter.
 
Rofl.
Freshly installed WIN7 boots in under 30 sec on my Home Setup. (fresh install)
Quite a few heavy apps installed( CS4 Suite, Visual Studio 2008 etc... 5-8 Games installed (All on OS drive). It now boots in 32 sec. Vista would have stopped halfway and puked some blue screens wih all that installed :D
 
Tassidar said:
Experiences so far?
Click to expand...

Windows XP boot on Atom 1.86 with 64GB Toshiba SSD - 15 sec.
Mac OSX Leopard boot on Quad Core Intel Xeon with Intel X25M 160GB Gen2 SSD - 10 sec.

Ok my Mac on a 7200RPM drive used to boot up in about 25-30sec but that's an ancient install,
I originally had Tiger than upgraded over Tiger to Leopard and have many apps running including Adobe CS4 Bridge, iBurst, QS, etc at startup.

This laptop here - Windows XP Pro SP3 with an almost full 5400 RPM 80GB Toshiba HDD - 300MB free - it's a 1.6GHz ULV C2D CPU takes under a minute to boot XP to full utility. I have an AV, SpyBot, Comodo Firewall Pro, FDM, Skype, VoipCheap, Creative Sync Manager, iBurst, and many other applets running at startup. I could probably cut that by half if I freed 5GB of space, defragged and removed much of this junk. When bigger Intel X25M drives come out I'll put the 160GB into the Toughbook to get 10 sec boot times, and get a bigger drive for the Mac. :)
 
Last edited:
Link added.

Interesting. So either these results are totally biased or none of you are noticing the extra time.

Note that 64 bit also was acknowledged to boot faster that Vista.

Windows 7 does seem to start faster than Vista, said iolo, with its time-to-the-desktop measured as around 40 seconds. But iolo measured startup as the point where the computer is "fully usable," with a low load on the processor.
Click to expand...

I'm looking forward to 7 being released, and I hope that my two main concerns (as oft repeated on this forum) are addressed:
1. Security
2. Performance degradation over time.

Speaking of which, how many of you use reg cleaners and defrag regularly in Windows and does this help much?

I found that XP experienced massive performance drops over time.
 
WTF
By the end of a simulated two-year period, Windows 7's startup times increased more than 330%
Click to expand...

I want to get hold of their supplier. I thought I was one of the first in SA and I have only had it for a month or so.
 
im running win7 on a Dell D630 with 2GB RAM. it is WAAY faster than Vista. So im not sure about that test...
 
PeterCH said:
Windows XP boot on Atom 1.86 with 64GB Toshiba SSD - 15 sec.
Mac OSX Leopard boot on Quad Core Intel Xeon with Intel X25M 160GB Gen2 SSD - 10 sec.

Ok my Mac on a 7200RPM drive used to boot up in about 25-30sec but that's an ancient install,
I originally had Tiger than upgraded over Tiger to Leopard and have many apps running including Adobe CS4 Bridge, iBurst, QS, etc at startup.

This laptop here - Windows XP Pro SP3 with an almost full 5400 RPM 80GB Toshiba HDD - 300MB free - it's a 1.6GHz ULV C2D CPU takes under a minute to boot XP to full utility. I have an AV, SpyBot, Comodo Firewall Pro, FDM, Skype, VoipCheap, Creative Sync Manager, iBurst, and many other applets running at startup. I could probably cut that by half if I freed 5GB of space, defragged and removed much of this junk. When bigger Intel X25M drives come out I'll put the 160GB into the Toughbook to get 10 sec boot times, and get a bigger drive for the Mac. :)
Click to expand...

Sorry troll i did not see a mention of mac in this thread nor is anything related to mac.

There is a mac forum use it.
 
killadoob said:
Sorry troll i did not see a mention of mac in this thread nor is anything related to mac.

There is a mac forum use it.
Click to expand...

Oh keep quiet you teenage kid. I'm giving comparisons so people can see what other system start up times are like.

This isn't your personal forum.

It is interesting though that my original Tiger OSX install from 2006, upgraded to Leopard is still relatively fast compared to what it was before.
 
PeterCH said:
Oh keep quiet you teenage kid. I'm giving comparisons so people can see what other system start up times are like.

This isn't your personal forum.

It is interesting though that my original Tiger OSX install from 2006, upgraded to Leopard is still relatively fast compared to what it was before.
Click to expand...

Nobody asked for other system boot up times. The topic compares Vista with win7. Just another MAC fanboi grab to derail this thread into some more FUD!
 
No but if you looked at the thread title it clearly says vista vs windows 7, nor did i see anyone asking about mac or windows xp.

So try keep on topic or go away.
 
Poll maybe? I have found 7's boot times to be perfectly acceptable. Definitely faster than XP and about the same as Vista which I also found perfectly acceptable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X