Darth Matty

October 17, 2009 at 1:36pm

No, it doesn't retain the out-of-the-box fastness of a new PC, but I've been running RC since August and am still useable in 50 seconds. That's compared to 2:45 on the same machine by the time I gave Vista the heave. I like XP, and I've still got it running on another computer, but the resistence I hear to moving on to 7 is starting to sound as stubborn as hanging on to carburators in lieu of fuel injection. The Yahoo Answers guy sounds like he doesn't know anything about computers, or like them very much for that matter. He seems more like some ornery curmudgeon paid to work from home complaining about things. It makes sense that he'd work for a pain in the a$$ company like yahoo, with it's pain in the a$$ toolbar parasite always trying to install itself with every piece of software known to man. People like that should just get an i-Book and throw in the towel of ever having anything to say about their computer's performance ever again.

DBsantos77

October 17, 2009 at 12:29am

Hey, Yahoo answers isn't bad :( 

WTH is google answers? Lol

-Santos

jreed012

October 16, 2009 at 2:49pm

http://www.pcworld.com/article/172509/windows_7_performance_tests.html

I love Maximum PC, but I also read PC World.  I'll take PC Worlds results over lolo tests any day.

jreed012

October 16, 2009 at 2:40pm

I looked at all the links expecting to find details on the machine....not just the hardware, but revisions of drivers, etc.   Unless I'm missing it, I don't see anything detailing the machine(s) in question for both CNET and lolo (what kind of f'ed up name is that).  

People need to remember, Vista was much slower when it first came out.  Not just because of the pre SP1 fixes, but because of flawed release drivers, etc.   

I don't buy this performance test one bit.   Maybe after a few releases of drivers I will...but not at this point. 

And Yahoo Answers dude, you crack me up.   Whatever you're smoking, I want some.

jimc52

October 15, 2009 at 1:09pm

I just read your review on Windows 7 and left a holy be-jesus mess of irate tantrum.  Now, you have done it!  This convinces me that W7 is Microsoft's worst-ever blunder.  I thought this O/S was being touted as being sleeker and more sexy as far as paired down code is concerned.  It seems like we have worked backwards from XP which truly loads faster than Vista does...and now, comes W7, Microsoft's latest paltry release.  Now, we are supposed to wait even longer than Vista for this thing to boot.  Where did Microsoft go this time, to get it's engineering finesse?  New Dehli?....I guess this goes along with the brain melt down in the U.S....Microsoft must have outsourced their brains to a tin can.  What would have ever made Microsoft think for one moment, that we want slower boot times?  I remember how Microsoft coyly removed one of the best and most useful utilities it ever blundered into creating...namely BOOTVIS for XP.  One of their engineers was THINKING when along came the Man with the Hammer and hit the poor boy on the head with the wrench of stupidity.  They said, as I remember, the utility was only designed for developers...Microsoft quickly moved to disavow any responsibility for using their BRAINS.  All you have to do is use just about any current free version of Linux to find out what Windows 7 is MISSING!  How can people be paying $300 for an operating system that couldn't stack up against Ubuntu if it tried?  And nooooooooooo!  I am not a smart a$$ing Linux user either...I use it, but I have always been a Microsoft user too...and you just cannot, not even...find one level of comparison against Linux with W7...but now...comes the hippo that wallows through the mud!  I am truly dis-A-point-ed with W7 and I haven't even bought a single copy yet!

 

PS - I am a main contributor on Desktops and Hardware on Yahoo Answers!  Believe me, I will be shouting about this to every would-be upgrader and system builder.

highsidednb

October 15, 2009 at 11:59am

Again, can somebody please tell me why this is an important benchmark?  Other than fanboy peeing contest flame wars, what's the point?  This story is non-news.  

Wingzero_x

October 15, 2009 at 9:27am

They probably loaded that crap System Mechanic on it! I know spyware that loads faster than that POS software. Seriously MPC crap articles like this belong in PCTurd magazine. Those people will eat this crap up like a butter cake with whipped cream icing!

Vista loaded 1:36, Win 7 Ultimate :42

Just how crappy is System mechanic? Don't take my word for it.

http://www.forbes.com/2007/04/25/iolo-system-mechanic-tech-personal-cx_de_0425iolo.html

ghot

October 14, 2009 at 7:56pm

....install, thats been Ghosted from 3 different mobos....boot to full readiness (zero CPU cycles) WITH typing in a 12 digit pass (I don't touch type) takes 43 seconds by stopwatch.  And.....my startup programs are:

Symantec Corporate AV, the older Zonealarm, Riva Tuner 2.24, Everest 5.20..., SnoopFree, nVidia Control panel, and Symatec vptray, and w/e FIOS 20/20 Internet is doing.....and all my normal services running.

I didn't run defragger or disc cleanup or anything before timing this and this comp has been on for 3 days straight as well.  AND, I timed it from dead cold power off on everything.

Rock on...Windows XP   ;)

AMD Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition 125W...OC'd to 3.7ghz
ASUS M4N82 Deluxe nVidia 980a SLI Motherboard
ASUS AMI 0802 BIOS
Realtek ALC888/1200 nVidia MCP72 HD Audio
EVGA 01G-P3-1280-AR GeForce GTX 280 1GB 512-bit
Corsair CM2X2048-8500C5D Dual Channel [5-5-5-15-22-2T-2.1v]
SATA WD 300GB Velociraptor
Seagate 7200.10 250GB
LG GH22LS30 CD/DVD Burner
PC Power & Cooling Silencer 750W Quad EPS12V
ViewSonic G90FB Black 19" CRT Monitor
Generic Altec Lansing (2)
Logitech Optical Mouse M-BT96a

 

 

Take an OS, and edit out all the efficiency, and what you have left is a post-XP Microsoft operating system :)

chaosdsm

October 13, 2009 at 4:35pm

"Iolo plans to release more details on its findings and methodology next week"  - ROFLMAO.   Blanket statements like this one from Iolo are just crap.  How many different PC configurations did they test???  1, 3, 10???   PC configuration (actual components used to build the PC), can have a dramatic difference in OS start-up time.  Little things like BIOS type, BIOS version, add-in cards, integrated components can all have a dramatic effect on boot time, different OS's will handle those differences in different ways leading to differences in boot times.  So unless, Iolo ran their tests on several thousand different PC & notebook configurations, their data is nothing more than an extremely generalized statement which may or may not be reflected in the real world.

 

Coupled with the fact that Iolo is in the business of selling "PC Tune-up" software, it makes their findings at least a little biased...  if Win 7 booted faster, why would you need to buy their software...

 

BTW... I've seen Vista machines take as much as 8 minutes to boot to the point that the desktop is fully rendered.

highsidednb

October 09, 2009 at 10:14am

Why should boot up time matter?  Ever?  We're past the days of the 15-minute-go-make-a-sandwich boot.  Anyone here old enough knows that.  What difference does 25 seconds make?  Could someone please explain this to me?  Maybe this benchmark makes sense if you're a spy and booting up your laptop fast enough to difuse a ticking terrorist bomb in order to save New York City is a priority.  

What other fake benchmarks will we see in the OS wars?  Number of screensavers?  Cuteness factor of wallpapers?  Defrag speeds?  It's just more excuses to uselessly polarize people around nonsense.

 

DBsantos77

October 08, 2009 at 6:09pm

For me, Vista boots faster than 7 just shy of seconds on the same machine. But as far as being able to *use* the OS as soon as you see the desktop, Win7 wins no questions asked. I prefer 7, I don't really care for the OS to boot 3 seconds faster than it's predecessor. I also don't shut down my PC, I rather have it hibernate, which takes 15 seconds. 

 

Boo hoo.

-Santos

pcguy94

October 08, 2009 at 6:08pm

I am running Windows 7 RC on a 6 year old computer with an AMD Athlon XP 1800+ 1.52 ghz with 1.25 gb of ram.

My dads computer runs vista with an AMD 2 g processor and 2 gbs of ram and it is way slower than my 6 year old computer.

 Win 7 is clearly faster.

Danielt876

October 08, 2009 at 1:30pm

Once I can see my desktop, about 30 seconds, my computer is completely usable, and as fast as its gonna get, Vista wasnt even close to that.

xj97

October 08, 2009 at 12:18pm

Who cares what the task manager says anyway... the real test is whether your computer is usable or not.  This reminds me of the hubbub about memory usage during a disk scan a while back. If the OS can utilize my hardware to it's fullest without bogging me down, I *want* them to do that. For me, Windows 7 saves me a few minutes every morning, which is nice:

Start of the morning with Vista:
 - Plug in laptop, turn it on
 - Put bag & jacket away
 - Put lunch in fridge, get coffee & cup of water
 - login to Vista
 - wait for usable desktop
 - start working

Start of the morning with Windows 7:
 - Plug in laptop, turn it on
 - Put bag & jacket away
 - login to win7 (I was shocked the first time this happened)
 - Put lunch in fridge, get coffee & cup of water
 - start working

And overall I'd say it feels *much* snappier than Vista.  I ran Vista for a few years, and I've been using Win7 for the past 5 months or so.

I want to see hard data on this study, it seems they have a conflict of interest anyhow.  It is so easy to start a FUD campaign with all of the news aggregators these days.

BTW, I have a Dell Vostro notebook, with a fairly sluggish hard disk & 3 GB Ram.  At some point I want to put an SSD in there, and take advantage of the TRIM support in win7.

vulchan

October 08, 2009 at 11:00am

Coming from Vista 64bit ultimate to windows 7 64bit ultimate, I do believe Vista was a tad faster at boot up because I could navigate through explorer with no stuttering or hanging while the programs were loading. As far as exact times, I can't say for sure though. I will say that I am very disappointed of windows 7's constant hanging, stuttering and pausing, which was not a problem whatsoever on my identical Vista platform. GUI improvements are pretty good though in 7.

Ntldr

October 08, 2009 at 9:54am

I tested this on my home machine and got the following. 

 

Windows 7 Ultimate 64bit

Cold boot: 48 seconds til I can open something and use it.

Windows Vista Ultimate 64bit

Cold boot: 1 minute 36 seconds

 

System:

 Intel C2D @ 3GHz

 DDR2 @ 1066MHz

 ASUS P5Q SE/R

 400GB SATA II HDD

 OCZ 550 Watt PSU

 

Did the install and tested from a cold boot.   Boot times are tested from when I pushed the button until the task manager came up and was lower than 10% usage on the CPU.  

 

Edit:  I am also running Windows 7 on my, for lack of a better term, production computer and it has been on there since the RC came out and the boots times are with in the same area + ot - 2 seconds.   I have a Mini-ITX box that has a dual core Atom processor in it and that even boots Windows 7 in less than a minute. 

Taz0

October 08, 2009 at 9:13am

It seems, at least from the comments here, that their "tests" don't really represent the real world. My computer boots in less than 40 seconds, and hasn't changed since I installed it two months ago.

But why shut down your computer in the first place? Why not put it to sleep? My computer wakes up from S3 sleep and is ready to use faster than my monitor can respond, which means it's under two seconds. I can't even tell the difference between when it's off and when it's sleeping - in both cases all LEDs are off, all fans are off and everything else is powered down. There's really no reason to shut down your computer.

charliemikefoxtrot

October 08, 2009 at 8:52am

Windows and MS in general has always worked pretty hard to lie about startup times.  The standard they used here was how long it took to complete the boot and give back the CPU to the user, not how long it takes for your Desktop to appear.  If you can't open an aplication yet it's not booted.  Windows throws up a desktop that is almost a second splash screen to appear ready but if you watch your CPU activity it is still pegged for a significant amount of time after this point.  The same thing happens with the new Office, you get a window that appears to be the application pretty fast but it is completly non responsive for about 8 times as long as it takes to appear.

 -CMF

LatiosXT

October 08, 2009 at 8:39am

... This is probably just a marketing ploy or something. I've had Windows 7 for two months on a laptop and if there's a linear relationship between a fresh install and that, I should be having 2 minute boot times. That's not the case with me.

snapple00

October 08, 2009 at 8:07am

Lets see... The company that did the study sells tune up software for a PC...

 

And where are the numbers? The results? The procedure? No where. More BS from a soon to be extinct company.

lunchbox73

October 08, 2009 at 8:02am

I am I the only one who doesn't give a rat's ass how fast my computer boots? Ooo, it's 3 seconds faster. So?

ironorr

October 08, 2009 at 7:46am

I've been running RC1 since it released on a three year old Pentium D desktop and a two year old Athlon X2 laptop, and both are fully booted and ready to use in less than a minute. Just as fast as they were when I first installed it. This study is a bunch of bull.

Xylogeist

October 08, 2009 at 7:06am

LOL Max PC better update this. It is a LIE. I'm sorry to say, but this is a flat out lie. Remember the old fast-booting XP? Yea,Windows 7 boots at 4 times that speed. I've tested on the same computer with most OS's including Windows 98 - Windows 7. I've also tested with Linux Ubuntu and Fedora, and Solstice 10.5. Out of all the ones I've tested, Windows 7 BY FAR boots the fastest. And even if it didn't, it still runs 100 times smoother than any other OS I've tried (including Snow Leapord, which I got to demo at an apple store, blegh macs)

Pentium 0

October 08, 2009 at 6:36am

thats odd because the nearly 5 year old pc im running it on takes under a minute to boot...or at least it seems that way. quite speedy actually.

mattman059

October 08, 2009 at 6:36am

I've been getting < 1min boots ever since switching from vista..vista took an average of 1.5min on my machine.

jfigura

October 08, 2009 at 6:24am

I have noticed that on th ebeta laptop I have been running for months, it takes around 3 minutes to get to a useable state. It didn't start out that way. The sad thing is we have added no extraneous programs etc. The configuration is the exact same.All we have done with it is use to surf the net at bedtime. Nothing more.

While a big part of me wants to upgrade, XP and my dev apps all work fine as of now and for the foreseeable future. If it isn't broke, dont fix it.

zstadt

October 08, 2009 at 6:03am

Screw this study...

In my personal experience, Windows 7 boots faster.  I may not have Vista on my PC, but my brother and my best friend both do, and my Win7 install dusts them.

WALT_OWNS_YOUR_FACE

October 08, 2009 at 5:59am

Who cares what the hell this study says, I know for a fact that my PC boots Windows 7 much faster than it did Vista when both copies were freshly installed. FACT.

Lorddeth

October 08, 2009 at 5:59am

I would take these study results with a grain of salt as the company in question makes system optimizer software among others.

dracx619

October 08, 2009 at 5:46am

idk what the heck they are doin but ive been running my main system with the rtm since it came out and it still boots pretty damn fast and my laptop running the rc since it came out is doing equally as fine since ive installed it, maybe only a few seconds slower. vista on the same laptop took about 30% longer to load and had to reinstall vista on the same laptop twice within the same time frame as ive had 7 on it...

 

hmmm