RSSNo, Windows 7 isn't slower than Vista, even at booting up
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published October 12, 2009, 5:31 PM
The manufacturer of a Windows maintenance toolkit featured on our Fileforum told CNET's Ina Fried last week that it believes boot times for Windows 7 are typically slower than boot times for Windows Vista. Iolo Technologies told Fried that it gauged the amount of time required for the CPU to reach a "true idle state."
As many veteran Windows users already know, the operating system doesn't actually boot to an "idle state" -- it's not DOS. Since that time, Iolo has been characterizing the time it stops its stopwatch as the time that the CPU is "fully usable," which seems rather nebulous.
The discussion over whether this means Win7 is slower was declared moot today by TG Daily's Andrew Thomas, who wrote, "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury: I put it to you that there are no occasions when the boot time of a PC is important in any way whatsoever."
Unfortunately, there is one situation where the boot time of a PC is important: It affects the public's perception of whether the PC is actually faster, and thus better. And as we have seen with Vista, an operating system that was by all scientific measures much more secure than Windows XP, the perception that it was less secure -- by virtue of its highly sensitive behavior -- was as bad, if not worse, from the public vantage point as being insecure to begin with.
The public at large typically perceives the boot sequence of a computer as the period of time between startup and the first moment they're asked to log in. Betanews tested that interval this afternoon using an external stopwatch, and our triple-boot test system: an Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600-based computer using a Gigabyte GA-965P-DS3 motherboard, an Nvidia 8600 GTS-series video card, 3 GB of DDR2 DRAM, and a 640 GB Seagate Barracuda 7200.11 hard drive. Both Vista and Win7 partitions are located on this same drive.
The interval we tested is between the pressing of Enter at the multi-boot selection screen, and the moment the login screen appears. While the tools I used for timing were an ordinary digital stopwatch and my eyeballs, I will gladly let everyone know that I use these same tools to test qualifications at the Indianapolis Motor Speedway, and my measurements vary from those at the Timing & Scoring booth usually by about 0.05 seconds.
In tests of what I'll call the "perceived boot interval" on the same machine, Windows 7 posted a five-boot average time of 24.214 seconds. Windows Vista, booting from the exact same machine and the exact same disk (just a different partition) posted an average of 36.262 seconds -- just about 50% slower. Exactly how much time is required for a Windows-based system to start idling down and doing relatively nothing -- the "fully usable" state that Iolo is looking for -- typically varies wildly depending on what drivers are installed, and what startup applications may be running. On a well-utilized XP-based system (and we have a truckload of those), that time may officially be never.
However, it's worth noting that in a separate test conducted by ChannelWeb's Samara Lynn this afternoon, she discovered that boot times for a system running Windows 7 with Iolo's System Mechanic software installed were typically slower than for the same system with System Mechanic not installed. This may be because System Mechanic was authored with Vista in mind -- which could explain a lot of things about Iolo's own evaluation.
LETS SAY IT TOOK 5 SECS TO BOOT UP. WOULD IT REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE? IT WOULDNT MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO ME AT ALL.
Score: -2
|Booting Windows 7 is faster than vista, however rebooting windows 7 is about the same as Vista. Forever. Takes forever to shut everything down. Probably now Windows fault, but programs still aren't up to par with Windows Vista let alone 7 . So my opinions haven't changed. You'll switch to Windows 7 maybe if you have XP but you probably won't switch if you didn't have a problem with Vista.
Score: -1
|25s boot, to desktop on a 3+year old laptop PC, min specs and a slow hard drive, it can only get faster from there ;P http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUemDmOFcMg
Score: 1
|I honestly don't give a crap if the thing takes even 10 mins to boot, as long as I don't have to do it more than twice a week... All other times -- hibernate or standby... And even if I was FORCED to have the thing boot along for 30 mins, I'd just go do some housework and come back. You ain't that impatient that a few SECONDS matter, are ya, ppls???
Score: -3
|Nice.
Now try using that same rationale on your CEO.
"Aw shucks, boss...it's only 30 minutes. Just go do some coke in the bathroom and screw the Intern!" (then twiddle your thumbs for 29 minutes...)
Yeah...that'll work wonders. ;)
Score: -1
|CEOs actually work for their incompetency bonuses, tool?
Score: 0
|Try to make sense.... I know it's hard, but please?
Score: 0
|That hot intern story actually sounds like a pretty good reason to add more items to the startup process hmmmmm hmmmmmmm hmmmmmmm
Score: -2
|Thank you for setting the record straight Beta News. It's upsetting how many news sites just posted Iolo's findings without even considering their validity.
Their "results" were completely ridiculous from the beginning.
Score: 0
|I can't get over the silly nonsense people carry on over boot times.
For heaven's sake people, it's a boot.
It'll take a few minutes.
Get over it.
If it takes five minutes, then you have reason to complain. If you don't like it, Then Leave The PC On 24/7.
I do.
Holy Crap!
Score: -4
|Boot times should take 45 seconds...max. if it takes more than that on modern hardware...something is wrong.
Score: 0
|Yeah, but not what you're thinking, tool......
Score: -2
|"The public at large typically perceives the boot sequence of a computer as the period of time between startup and the first moment they're asked to log in."
Thanks for speaking for the "public." I think many would disagree and think of it as to when they have actual control of the computer on their desktop. Since consumers vastly outnumber corporate desktops, they are far more likely to have a single sign-on and likely not even have a login prompt. Vista and 7 load services at the same time, but that doesn't necessarily make much of a difference.
You could invest $150 in a SSD and shave significant time off your boot for an old XP system, (in my tests a boot of 19 seconds on an old PIV) whereas Windows 7 with HDD will still be slower. (35 seconds to desktop on a modern dual core.)
Score: 0
|i can't speak for the public, but everyone i know thinks this too. the care abut being able to actually open their web browser, and consider the system booted when they are at the desktop and can open their web browser and see it open.
Score: -1
|Iolo System Mechanic 4 (I believe it was) was the last usable version of it.
Since then it became the exact opposite of what it claimed it was (namely a system cleaner and speeder-upper).
It hardly surprises me that those chumps are rigging a test.
Score: -1
|The biggest difference in boot-up I have noticed between XP/Vista/Win7 is that Windows 7 (At least the Enterprise Version) will load all your start-up programs (minus delayed-start, etc) prior to showing the desktop.
I have outlook, Cognos/Axiant, IE, and a few other apps loading at start-up. The login screen fades to the desktop only *after* these apps have loaded and are ready to be used.
No waiting for the apps to load while presented with an unusable taskbar/start-menu. It does not show you these until it is ready to go.
So...is it just Enterprise, or are you guys seeing this behavior in other editions? I have other editions installed on my other PC's at home but use them infrequently...so I can't say as I have noticed.
Score: 0
|No, I saw it in Ultimate and Professional versions as well and is kind of annoying. In my case with an old notebook it takes a while and you only are shown with a black screen until then. Of course you're ready to go when it's done while in XP the computer is unusable for some time until all applications are loaded.
Score: 0
|It is definitely a trade-off.
Odd about the black screen, though. Mine sits at the blue "Logging in" screen until it hits the desktop.
In my opinion, not giving you the start-menu/taskbar/desktop until it is ready is far less annoying than giving it to you in an unusable state and forcing you to take cues from your hard-drive light or mouse-pointer as to when it is "ready". This way, you just know. It hits the desktop, it's ready.
It has also made me seriously consider what programs are starting up with the system. In my case, since these are programs I would be launching anyway as soon as the system starts, it makes sense. I have gone in several times though and trimmed the start-up (with Glary Utilities), cutting out cruft like Adobe's launcher and WinAMP agent, etc..).
If this makes any "normal user" consider their start-up programs and how to speed it up, I can't see it as anything but a good thing. :)
Score: 0
|The solution is to maximize your uptime and never shut your system off/log off. We train all our users how to suspend/sleep their machines at every opportunity, and all machines wake up at 6:50 for the first arrivals by 7.
Score: -1
|Sure, I'm not complaining about the delay but the black screen (I realize I wasn't clear enough). It happens the same when I go to hibernate, a black screen without any progress report as with XP. Could be something related to my hardware/drivers but I'm lazy to research it as I use quite sporadically that notebook.
Score: -1
|@mj:
"The solution is to ... never shut your system off/log off."
Let me introduce you to this lovely thing called "Reality". In "Reality", your situation and experience does not equate to the situations or experiences of others. For example: A single system may have multiple users, or the IT department may have systems running in non-persistant mode, requiring a reboot to wipe accumulated data and restore the system to it's initial state.
In short: As I have stated before: You !== Everyone Else.
@DonGato:
Yeah, that black-screen thing is odd. Do you have more than one monitor set up on that thing the majority of the time?
Score: 1
|PC_Tool, perhaps you should apply you own sense of humility in taking your own opinion out of your posts, then. I believe that is why we post comments, to give opinions. Were you assuming otherwise?
Score: -4
|Mmmm... it has dual view set but while no second monitor/tv is connected it shouldn't divert the screen output to it. At least that didn't happen with XP. Have to do some tests...
Score: -1
|@MJ:
That's all well and good, but when do I submit my *opinions* as general fact?
...and I quote:
"The solution.."
No. It is not "the solution". It is in fact but one solution, for one scenario. If you intended that to mean something other than how you wrote it, perhaps you need to take more time with your posts.
@DonGato:
I have dual monitors set up, and the only reason I asked is because the secondary screen is black during the "logging in" screen (though the mouse cursor can be made visible by moving it up to that screen). throw a second monitor on there and see if the same applies. If that is the case, perhaps your laptop's built-in screen is, for whatever reason, set as the secondary?
Score: 0
|BS. I had one of the first IBM pcs. They booted to DOS quite quickly
Score: 0
|My Commodore 64 booted in approximately 1.5 seconds. =)
Score: -1
|If I were Microsoft I'd be setting my lawyers on Iolo for slander.
Score: -2
|This is the OS that will give a final bite to snow leopard's neck and eventually kill it. RIP Snow leopard
Score: 0
|"The public at large typically perceives the boot sequence of a computer as the period of time between startup and the first moment they're asked to log in."
I'm not sure what "public" you are referring to. I would say 80-90% of my customers don't understand startup processes but DO understand of the fact they might be sitting on their hands for quite a while after the desktop appears because of who knows what necessary and unnecessary startup apps and processes are loading. The combination of not understanding what's occuring but knowing it's a reality is the real frustration. And then there are the many who have no clue at all and are all the more frustrated because they are clicking, clicking, clicking away while 5 HP printer apps load, Skype loads, iTunes loads, AIM loads, MSN Messenger loads, etc, etc, etc, etc...
Score: 2
|Using Win7 RC on a separate partition, it has been much much faster than Vista. However, it is true I do not have quite as much software installed on Win7 as I do on Vista, however the programs that actually run on boot are very similar. Win7 also comes back from Hibernate faster for me.
So I don't believe the tests that say Win7 is slower.
Score: 2
|Unfortunately, Win7 RTM is slower than RC, and RC slower than previous betas... Still, any of them are faster than Vista.
Score: -3
|@floodland:
Good. I am not the only one who noticed that. I would love to see an article comparing the services launched at start-up and such between these releases. Perhaps there's a way we can bring it back to "Beta" speed.
Microsoft seems very good at turning the "removing the debug code should speed it up" meme into a myth.
*Bold is a hint to Mr. Fulton. Get on that, will ya? ;)
Score: -1
|MS removes the debuggers in RTM, but seems like they insert insert NOOPs x2 in such places... Half of the Win7 code would be 90 90 90 90 90 90 :-P
Score: -1
|Is that a surprise? The fastest things are the broken ones usually.
Score: -1
|Getting to a usable state may be nebulous but is really the issue. It takes a rather long time, even for my WinXP machine to get to the point where I can start something. Microsoft should have held back showing the desktop and taskbar, if they weren't ready to be used.
In the case of Iolo's System Mechanic software and boot times, rather than cry that Windows 7 and Vista don't work the same, shouldn't they just be finding a way to keep their software from hindering the system?
Score: 2
|It use to take the first IBM PCs 10 minutes to boot....
Score: 0
|Yea this was like in Windows 3.1 days lmfao!
Score: 0
|My 486dx33 booted WFW 3.11 in less than a minute. It got much slower when I put Win 95 on it. Much slower.
Score: 0
|"Exactly how much time is required for a Windows-based system to start idling down and doing relatively nothing -- the "fully usable" state that Iolo is looking for -- typically varies wildly depending on what drivers are installed, and what startup applications may be running. On a well-utilized XP-based system (and we have a truckload of those), that time may officially be never."
Not sure where this comes from, as anyone who understands the boot process of XP versus later models from Microsoft knows how certain things have purposely been taken out of the calculation of CPU usage, though they are still taking place, and dragging on CPU cycles.
I don't think many paid attention to this flap about Vista anyway - the test is speed to be usable for 7 vs XP, and on three of my machines, using identical drives (not different partitions on the same drive) XP was faster to become usable than with beta and RC. I'll come back after my Windows 7 party and see if it is faster than XP on the gold code.
Score: 0
|You did not state which OS was on the first partition. The first partition would usually be faster than the second and would likely affect boot time, though I doubt by 50%.
Score: 3
|I thought exactly the same... The correct comparison would be both OSs on same HDD model, but physically different HDD. Another thumb down for Fulton...
Score: 0
|On my 3.2GHz Intel Pentium 4 Single Core PC, the RC build booted up within about 2min 30sec with everything I have loaded into system tray and desktop gadgets included, I say thats pretty good for a 4 year old system.
Score: 1
|On my system (Core 2 Duo E6300, 2GB DDR2-667, 250GB HDD):
Vista start time: 40 seconds.
Win7 start time: 15 seconds.
This is all the test I need.
Score: 9
|LOL, I guess so.
Score: 0
|Takes about 10 seconds from the time I turn it on, till I can get on the internet... Just company's trying to spread fud 10 days before the OS comes out ;)
Score: 6
|trying to promote themselvess ;)
Score: 4
|Just a site trying to generate hits by posting controversial articles. People will click on it just to see what they already know is an article full of BS.
Score: 4
|First of all, boot time is not moot. There are plenty of times when I get frustrated waiting for my system to boot up just so I can check an email. Just last week I was running late and just needed to check the address of an appointment and was forced to wait a frustrating 4 minutes before my pc booted up, got online and would allow me to launch outlook. So Andrew Thomas's argument is absurd and is a classic example of techies failing to comprehend that other people just might use a computer differently than they do.
I also think that arrival at the login screen is not the end of the boot cycle. I don't boot my computer just to log in. I boot it to do something.
That being said, waiting for the processor to go idle doesn't seem like a reasonable test either. As unscientific as it might be, I'd like to see a few different tests. Like how long until you can launch firefox/explorer (and actually browse to sites). How long until you can launch and check email with outlook or some other email program. Even though times might vary depending on a users particular ISP and connection type, I'd still be interested in a speed comparison on the same machine. To take the network out of it, how about a test of things like how long until you can open and start editing a word doc or excel sheet.
Also fwiw: my months old beta build of windows 7 seems to boot to what I consider a "usable state" much faster than XP on the same machine. Don't have vista to compare.
Score: -2
|My Xubuntu 9.10 on my Dell laptop boots in 10 seconds to a usable, workable desktop. Never see windows do that! :)
Score: -12
|Incorrect. :) I had a version of TinyXP that could do that.
Funny how you are comparing a torn-down, minimally functional OS to a full-featured default, general-purpose OS. ..and you seem to think that comparison is at all logical.
Score: 5
|I love my copy of W7 Pro 64 bit, it loads faster than XP Pro SP3, and much more secure. Everything that I have thrown at it, it has been able to run flawlessly. The only thing that I had a problem with was TS and all I had to do was run the installer in Windows XP SP3 compatibility mode and as an Admin. As for some flawed program/company trying to say that it boots slower, get a better system. Oh, and yes, boot times do count!
Score: 3
|did anyone really believe it when it was posted? this is a company that makes tune up and speed up utilities trying to stay relivant. Since the newer operating system is, in general, more efficient in virtually every way it makes it harder for a company who addressed teh short commings of it's predicesors to prove that you still need their product.
in other news, wheel chairs deemed inefficient. click here to buy foot pedals to attack to it to use as a bike for more efficient movement. ....
Score: 4
|LMAO
Score: 0
|Thank you BetaNews for the completely incorrect article. I am tired of BetaNews editors spreading their lies and highly skewed personal views. I will not be visiting BetaNews anymore :/
Score: -3
|BetaNews is becoming like a political or gossip blog...
Moron editors say one thing in one place and another later... totally not reliable...
Score: -1
|