Well you know I think that the average user understand the boot up scenario.
the more crap you add to your PC the longer it will take to become usable.
All of those little dormant services being energized.
Hell a clean install of Windows 7 on a Dell 530s with 4 gig takes about 40 seconds.
Add Office 2007 and messenger then Adobe etc, you add about another minute or so.
A lot of it is the auto update on software being in the background.
You should of saved hard drive space and bandwidth on this article.
Study: Windows 7 can boot more slowly than Vista
Summary
According to one software company, the new operating system can take longer to get started than Windows Vista in many cases.
Topics
Although Windows 7 has been praised for loading and shutting down faster than prior versions, according to one software company, in many cases the new operating system can take longer to get started than Windows Vista.
Iolo Technlogies, which sells PC tune-up software, said its lab unit found that a new machine running Windows 7 takes one minute and 34 seconds to become usable, as compared to one minute and six seconds for Windows Vista. Iolo said it measured not the time it takes for the desktop to appear — which can be as little as 40 seconds on a fresh installation of Windows 7 — but rather the time it takes to become fully usable, "with CPU cycles no longer significantly high and a true idle state achieved".
See also: Windows 7: Special Report
Read more on "Study: Windows 7 doesn't boot faster " from CNET News.
Talkback Most Recent of 75 Talkback(s)
-
algzdnet8th Oct 2009 -
shadfurman8th Oct 2009 -
RE: Study: Windows 7 can boot more slowly than Vista
That's not a fair comparison anyway. Windows 7 is
designed to stagger the boot process more fully than
windows Vista, just because the system takes longer to
become fully idle doesn't mean that overall, the cpu
and hard disk usage isn't low enough to launch
applications far faster.
A more suitable test would be to set *insert browser
of choice* to run at startup, and then restart the
computer. I'm betting that Windows 7 would be
consistently faster, since services that may be needed
are started far later than the ones that ARE needed
for apps to launch, especially software as simple as a
web browser. That's the whole point, and one which
Iolo clearly missed.
Alan Burns8th Oct 2009 -
Exactly!
Since when does the CPU going idle mean a system is usable. This is Iolo twisting the testing methology to help sell there product.
planruse8th Oct 2009 -
That Makes No Sense
Starting applications before Windows is idle make you feel like things are going faster, but the total time to get going is the same as if you waited.
tomonroad8th Oct 2009 -
Sorry, you're wrong
I used Vista 64 bit and Win7 64. With Vista, it was true, that I had to wait quite a while to start a program, because if I clicked on it too early, it'd just stall as the rest of windows was being booted up.
With Win7, you can start a program virtually at the same moment that the desktop appears and start actually using it. The program doesn't hang as it continues loading the rest of the boot up apps like it does with Vista and XP.
Drakaran8th Oct 2009 -
Partial Boot Typical Marketing Lie
The reason you have to wait until idle, is you do not know which application will require what service. Face partial boots are just another typical M$ marketing lie, ohh look how fast windows boots but, the underlying truth is now it takes far longing for aplications to start up that require basic services that have not started yet and, this is even made worse as the application has to continually try to complete starting while it waits for a missing service to actually load up, which is now slowed down by an application trying to call on it.
rtb9th Oct 2009 -
That would be worse.
I believe a test comparing the amount of time until a browser becomes fully functional on the web would give even worse results for Windows 7; especially if you run USB wireless.
While the machine would boot quickly, you would still be waiting for your USB bus, network drivers, and other necessary components to pre-load.
The fact remains that Windows 7 should not allow access to the desktop until all system devices become available. If you are benchmarking the boot process, it should be based on the time it takes the PC to become fully functional and not the time until the desktop becomes visible.
Socratesfoot8th Oct 2009 -
I strongly disagree
What if, for example, the first thing I want to do is fire up a word processor? Why do I need the USB ports for that? Or the TCP/IP stack? As long as the hard drive is available and I've got the CPU cycles, why should I have to wait?
Substitute just about any non-web app for the same result.
Also remember that most computers built today are dual core (excluding netbooks, naturally) so this whole boot issue is pretty lame to begin with.
Personally I haven't rebooted my Vista Ultimate system at home in over a month. Even when I do it takes like 30 seconds to become active. Big deal.
It wakes up from an (almost completely) powered down sleep in about 4 seconds. Even with a wireless keyboard/mouse it takes about 6.
Why are boot times interesting again?
wolf_z8th Oct 2009 -
Re: I strongly disagree
My experience is pretty much the same as yours.
bb_apptix8th Oct 2009 -
I agree
Boot time means Nothing. my windows 7 PC
never shutdown. It goes to sleep in 10
minutes on in activities and wakes up in 4 seconds plus however long it takes me to
enter the password and hit enter. So why
does a boot matter nowadays anyways?
rbettencourt@...8th Oct 2009 -
Because...
your word processing files may be on a USB drive or on the network (a pretty common occurrance, I'd say). Seeing a pretty dekstop or application and being able to use that pretty desktop or application are two far different things.
jasonp@...8th Oct 2009 -
c'mon...
Well, what if it isn't? Are you going to force the rest of us to wait for the USB bus or network to become active before we can fetch our word processing files from our hard drive?
ckl_888th Oct 2009 -
RE: Study: Windows 7 can boot more slowly than Vista
All I care about is the time it takes me to boot up and
get any particular program running. In that respect, 7
is much faster than my old XP or Vista on the same
machine in my house.
nothingness8th Oct 2009 -
Why is so much emphasis being put on boot time?
Seriously. It's something that's done once maybe twice a day. While I can understand trying to reduce boot times there appears to be a disproportionate amount of effort being placed on it. It seems not a day goes by where we don't hear something about boot performance. If you want your computer to start fast then put it to sleep.
ye8th Oct 2009
Talkback - Tell Us What You Think
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
Facebook Activity
