Print
What can be done to help Windows 7 boot faster? According to Windows Fundamentals feature team leader Michael Fortin, blogging on the e7 (Engineering Windows 7) blog. a clean install isn't necessarily the way to go:
As the system [running Windows Vista SP1] arrived to us, the off-the-shelf configuration had a ~45 second boot time. Performing a clean install of Vista SP1 on the same system produced a consistent ~23 second boot time. Of course, being a clean install, there were many fewer processes, services and a slightly different set of drivers (mostly the versions were different). However, we were able to take the off-the-shelf configuration and optimize it to produce a consistent boot time of ~21 seconds, ~2 seconds faster than the clean install because some driver/BIOS changes could be made in the optimized configuration.
Fortin identifies a number of design goals for Windows 7 to help it achieve a high percentage of "very good" boot times (under 15 seconds), including:
Fortin's comments suggest that Microsoft is working very closely with system vendors to help assure that Windows 7 works well in typical preconfigured systems. Hopefully, Microsoft has learned a lot from the vast difference in performance between clean installs of Windows Vista and systems cluttered with OEM products not optimized for Vista.
Don't want to wait for Windows 7 to get faster boot times? Fortin also discusses analyzing systems with the Windows Performance Toolkit for Windows Vista and Windows Server 2008, available here.
How do you define fast boot time? When is a system "ready to go?" Hit the comment button and give us your thoughts.
Illustration adapted from Windows 7 logo courtesy of ArsTechnica.
Comments are closed on this article
pcjoeyd
February 24, 2009 at 1:02am
I've been using Windows 7 beta build 7000 for a week now and I am VERY impressed. For me it basically combines Vista and Windows XP. (it looks perty like Vista, but it's fast like Windows XP).
It boots up fast, it's very responsive....file transfers over network are speedy again like in XP, games run the same as XP (I get pretty much the same FPS as in XP which is amazing to me consider this is a beta). I haven't gotten any blue screens or crashes as of yet. All the drivers for my system are loaded....my NOD32 antivirus worked without a hitch...most of my apps work (Nero 8, Office, Acrobat). IE8 seems to work great as well as Firefox 3.
I can't believe I'm running a beta of a new OS and it's running like it is. It's running 10X better than Vista was when the FINAL RELEASE of Vista came out. And way better than when XP first came out. I think Microsoft is going to have a HUGE hit with Windows 7. Way to go! FINALLY!!!
periodhyphenund...
January 30, 2009 at 11:07pm
The main difference between the Atom Computer and the 3.2Ghz Single core below is attributed to the fact that the Atom does not need ANY additional drivers other that what is on the XP install CD
The 3.2Ghz Single core required Additional Graphics, Sound, Chipset and Wireless Network Drivers
The Atom had 2GB 667Mhz Ram (1-stick)
The 3.2Ghz Single Core had 4GB of 667Mhz DDR2 (2-sticks)
periodhyphenund...
January 30, 2009 at 10:43pm
I never use Power On to Desktop Boot time when comparing PC's
Bios Differences from PC to PC and varying Bios Settings will directly affect your Boot Times rendering your comparison pointless!
I start my stopwatch when I 1st see the Windows Logo and I stop it when I 1st see the Desktop because this is directly related to how fast Windows is loading and has No relation to my Bios Settings
Shure I could wait untill the Hourglass Stops after I see the Desktop but what I am looking for is really the relative difference between computers when booting Windows and I can get that difference as soon as I see the Desktop so I stop right there!
My dualcore Atom computer boots Windows XP Professional in 12 seconds from a 300X Compact Flash Card using this approach and my 3.2Ghz Single Core Intel chip with 4GB Ram boots in 22 seconds from a 500GB Seagate that reads @ 105MB/sec using this methodology (Go Figure)
Both Windows Computers had the same identical speed tweeks before the tests were run!
7hemy7h
November 24, 2008 at 8:24am
"Reducing the demand that system services make on CPU, disk, and memory resources"
Thank God!!!
BaggerX
September 05, 2008 at 10:08am
What I want is a power-saving sleep mode that actually works well. I don't care if it boots slightly faster. I don't want to have to reboot! Make it so I don't need to reboot and then we don't have to worry about boot times. Mine boots up in about 30 seconds now. I really don't need it to be faster than that. I just need to reboot less often and have a reliable sleep mode that lets my system power down when I'm not using it, and then recover quickly when I need it again.
bcweir
September 05, 2008 at 8:05am
Preload the BIOS into a small amount of flash ram or a very small SSD... then boot from that instead of the ROM itself. Sort of like the oldstyle BIOS shadowing, but with a modern twist.
jcollins
September 05, 2008 at 7:51am
Boot time = power on until you can start using Windows. Just because Windows pops up doesn't mean you can actually do anything until the 50 different apps that want to be added to your task bar start up...
zstadt
September 05, 2008 at 6:07am
I'm excited for Windows 7 too; I just hope the price tag isn't as heavy as it is for Vista (I'm still running XP, and I'm proud of it).
jey18
September 04, 2008 at 10:54pm
I don't think they ment the OS optimized it, they just probably turned a few things off.
I'm excited for windows 7 personally, boot times really don't affect me much but less processes, less memory uses, paralell drivers seem interesting, and they are working closer with vendors = money imo.
Marcus_Soperus
September 05, 2008 at 7:37am
What this means is that Microsoft is working with system and BIOS vendors to assure that systems built for Windows 7 have BIOS code that works very well with Windows 7. This isn't new: most motherboard and system vendors have released BIOS updates to improve hardware and software interaction for previous Windows versions. Hopefully, the first systems released with Windows 7 will have a well-matched combination of BIOS firmware, drivers, and applications all made for Windows 7, rather than the hodgepodge we saw with the early Windows Vista systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's amazing how illogical a business built on binary logic can be.
sirphunkee
September 05, 2008 at 12:53pm
Thanks Marc, I kinda thought/hoped that would be the answer. I understand optimizing the interaction between the two (from BIOS or O/S side), I just though M$ was claiming to directly alter BIOS settings/behavior.
vistageek
September 04, 2008 at 8:00pm
I think booted means you are looking at your desktop. The boot starts when you hit the power button.
