killadoob
Honorary Master
Maybe so but i remember my xp pc went from being a dog to a speeding bullet in 1 hour 
.
.-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: How much money are you willing to pay for a smartphone?
Windows 7 called slower than Vista
- Thread starter Tassidar
- Start date
Abe, I can testify that I've had those kind of slow downs in XP over a similar period and I have seen it on other computers, so it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect the same from Vista. However, I am guilty of seldom defragging my HDD and I don't use system optimizers.
I truly hope it's not the case.
Abe
Expert Member
Time until the system is usable. I have 4GB of RAM which the 64bit Windows 7 is making better use of then the 32bit XP so that would undoubtedly be helping.
Thats where I have a problem. Windows speed is determined by a number of factors including the fragmentation of the drive and what software is installed. I could quite easily create a simulation that slows down XP by 1000% over the course of 2 years.
The biggest problems is the bloat that is now accompanying applications. Almost every application you install now sticks something in the startup of the system. Even applications such as MS Office and Open Office which have no realistic right to stick something there, are doing it in the name of "fast-start" or whatever they call it. Anti-virus software that used to only scan files on the drive as they were loaded are now scanning network packets, hooking into browsers and a host of other things. Skype has become a whole platform for running other applications. Quite often, even applications that are uninstalled, still leave hooks and DLL's on the system.
This is a problem with the application vendors (including MS with their bloated monster called Office) rather then the OS.
Take a look at my answer above. Defragging will help (http://www.filehippo.com/download_defraggler/) but ultimately it's the apps you put on the OS that are your downfall.
I install only the software I really need on my PC. Development stuff is installed in a VM and I test software first in a VM before using it on my host PC. My system has never slowed down considerably other then when I first installed Office.
lame. do techies have computer startup races?
in my opinion you boot your computer what? once a week?
has my life ever depended on my computer booting up 2 seconds faster or slower.
sensationalism really. and the lap dogs you are eat it all up
in my opinion you boot your computer what? once a week?
has my life ever depended on my computer booting up 2 seconds faster or slower.
sensationalism really. and the lap dogs you are eat it all up
Kloofvreter
Honorary Master
Idiot.
lame. do techies have computer startup races?
in my opinion you boot your computer what? once a week?
has my life ever depended on my computer booting up 2 seconds faster or slower.
sensationalism really. and the lap dogs you are eat it all up
Actually, in my experience, boot up time has a fairly strong correlation with system performance afterwards, perhaps because the number and size of apps that are loaded at start-up remain loaded for most of the time spent running the OS, so no, it's not lame, and obviously it needs to be taken into account with other performance measures.
What is, however, very lame, is your extremely arrogant attitude. No, most of use aren't lap dogs, and we do have rational thought. And who are you to judge us?
Now learn some manners before you post again - while you may be new on the forum, it would serve to remember that your kind of attitude isn't appreciated.
killadoob
Honorary Master
I will second that.
Boot time is not important as such but if a pc boots fast it will generally run fast, if it boots slow ............. i am sure you get the point
Pyro
Expert Member
I will second that.
Boot time is not important as such but if a pc boots fast it will generally run fast, if it boots slow ............. i am sure you get the point
Generally, a PC boots faster if it is faster. An operating system that boots faster isn't necessarily faster.
I had an old linus setup that booted blisteringly fast, but it loaded just about nothing at boot. After boot it was also damn slow because it didn't enable DMA transfers on the drives.
Also even if two kernels are mostly the same, but the one loads extra libraries at bootup, it might boot faster but actually have more libraries loaded when the programs want them, resulting in faster usage. On the flipside it might run other apps slower if they do not use the shared libraries, since it tied up more memory it first has to swap out.
Heck one system might even boot up slower because it's got a wonky driver that takes long to initialise a piece of hardware, but then the hardware is already initialised when programs start using it.
Bootup time does NOT mean a system would run faster. That's like saying a car that accelerates faster to 100km/h will have a higher top speed. Yes, it's possible, but it's not a fact.
killadoob
Honorary Master
Hmmm yet to see a slow loading pc run fast, yet to see a fast loading pc run slow.
Strange i guess.
Strange i guess.
Hey Slootvreter calling me an idiot is one thing, but have you yourself ever said anything intelligent on this forum - never.
I will second that.
Boot time is not important as such but if a pc boots fast it will generally run fast, if it boots slow ............. i am sure you get the point
So that means a Celeron with an SSD which boots faster than an 8 core computer will also be faster. Nice logic.
Interesting point. If you look at the boot process, especially on Win7, you will see that the CPU runs at full capacity for most of the boot process. So I would say that the 8 core would in fact boot quicker than the Celeron in this case....
killadoob said that excess RAM does not speed up disk access in bootup in another thread.
True, if you have very little free space it also boots, reads, slower.
Why is everything so clumsy? Is this the only way to do it? It seems like a patchwork of tricks done to solve problems (AV hooks in Firefox for example).
A redesign from the beginning is surely what MS should do.
The vendors work within the parameters of the operating system. The operating system allows them to work this way - it is as much a vendor problem as a Microsoft one. Imagine a country where the traffic cops did not mind if you were speeding or driving drunk or driving without a license. Imagine a drunk driver crashes a car, and does serious damage. Now, who do you blame? The drunk driver for being irresponsible? Sure. However, the blame also lies with the traffic dept which permitted and even created the constrains for this behaviour - Windows has a /system directory, it has a startup group, it has a registry - any program can read and write to that - even the /system directory can be read and written to by any rogue app.
In SA we have a lot of crime. Do we just blame the criminals or the politicians for being easy on them and permitting them to act illegally?
Going back to my OSX installation, I have the same install from 2006 and it has lots of apps and some even start up with the computer. We don't see the problem there, the system is still very responsive and starts up almost as fast as it did initially. Why are UNIX bases OS'es so much better in handling this? Is it the registry? Is it the common /system32 system directory?
You also prolly keep your drives with a reasonable amount of free space. That limits fragmentation too.
Good advice, thanks.
It may not be the case. My Atom 1.86/SSD boots in just under 15 sec and it's a weaker CPU than a Celeron, but either way it's no 8 core monster - running a 7200RPM drive though.
killadoob
Honorary Master
Peter sadly you do not grasp how much of a difference a ssd makes. What celeron are you speaking about exactly?
I would love to see a celeron with an ssd go up against say a q9550 without an ssd and only a 7200rpm, i think it may be close.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf_QS3mZsyU&NR=1[/ame]
Check how that ssd rapes the 7200rpm drive by 30 odd seconds booting. Booting does not use much cpu power, your hdd is the thing slowing down a pc when booting, the bottleneck is the hdd not the cpu and celeron cpu's are pretty fast these days so i will see if i can find something regarding this.
I would love to see a celeron with an ssd go up against say a q9550 without an ssd and only a 7200rpm, i think it may be close.
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf_QS3mZsyU&NR=1[/ame]
Check how that ssd rapes the 7200rpm drive by 30 odd seconds booting. Booting does not use much cpu power, your hdd is the thing slowing down a pc when booting, the bottleneck is the hdd not the cpu and celeron cpu's are pretty fast these days so i will see if i can find something regarding this.
Last edited:
I run two SSDs kiddo. They're both faster than your models too.
In fact you're the one who still believes an OS SSD makes a speed difference to general computer performance.
An SSD only speeds up the boot and shutdown and program load. The actual program working if the data is not on an SSD is not affected. I told you this before.
I'll repeat again,
I own two SSDs
a TOSHIBA 64GB,
and an Intel X25M Gen2 even faster than that.
Both boot up very fast - OSX boots up in about 10 sec, XP boots up in 15 sec and less. Apps also start fast. But an SSD is no CPU, where a CPU and a GPU are needed an SSD will not help.
What you said here http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/showthread.php?p=3233591#post3233591 is rubbish if we don't use the same boot medium - ie compare a i7 with a HDD vs a Celeron with a HDD not a Celeron with an SSD vs an i7 with a HDD. The Celeron will boot faster but it will be a slower computer in other respects still.
Last edited:
killadoob
Honorary Master
Peter i do not care who has better what but i would like to see you run this benchie and then post it for me please.
I will not comment again on ssd's until i see you have bench marked and posted your results.
I am waiting, 1 mb download and the test takes 20 seconds. You should be able to get it on this forum soon i think.
Sadly peter people upgrade their cpu's for more speed but they do not realize that a faster hdd would give more speed than a cpu upgrade. If you could do both you have a winner. A celeron with a ssd would run a pc pretty darn fast.
You brought the celeron with ssd into this chat not me, i was comparing apples with apples til you brought up a celeron with an ssd and then you Fed because you thought a celeron with an ssd would be slow.
Hdtach peter is the programs name. Will upload a higher res pic now. Waiting for yours dude.
I will not comment again on ssd's until i see you have bench marked and posted your results.
I am waiting, 1 mb download and the test takes 20 seconds. You should be able to get it on this forum soon i think.
Sadly peter people upgrade their cpu's for more speed but they do not realize that a faster hdd would give more speed than a cpu upgrade. If you could do both you have a winner. A celeron with a ssd would run a pc pretty darn fast.
You brought the celeron with ssd into this chat not me, i was comparing apples with apples til you brought up a celeron with an ssd and then you Fed because you thought a celeron with an ssd would be slow
.Hdtach peter is the programs name. Will upload a higher res pic now. Waiting for yours dude.
Last edited:
I am Penguin
Executive Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2009
- Messages
- 7,712
- Reaction score
- 38
Surely this depends on the ram size, The SSD use the same operating structures simulated as a very fast hard drive so the paging file will be on the SSD (RAM) thus the PC in general will be much faster during operation of any application when it needs data from the paging file. The only time the above argument have any value is when the RAM is so big that the Application and data all resides in ram completely thus no disk access is needed by the application during any time, thus again then the argument is flawed as then it depends solely on the speed of the ram access, processor (CPU) and GPU.
