Comments on: Windows 7 Boots Slower Than Vista?

By: Name@Name.Com

Name@Name.Com — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 05:44:00 +0000

*shrug*
Windows XP boots in 15 seconds, you just need to know how to “defrag” and “disable stupid services”

By: [Solved] Windows 7 same problems different dollar… | hardware wacool

[Solved] Windows 7 same problems different dollar… | hardware wacool — Wed, 08 Sep 2010 02:22:06 +0000

[...] Blog post. There is still evidence that performance (i.e., boot times) degrades over time. Read this. However, I’m not really sure what kind of "maintenance" you mean. If you can tell [...]

By: nick

nick — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 17:25:43 +0000

wtf!!!! i had linux for a year and it doesn't get slower. my linux boots in 13 seconds. and i didn't spend money on it HAHAHAHAHA why would programs make you slower??? the idea of a registry is retarded

By: Onclejon

Onclejon — Sat, 29 May 2010 18:09:31 +0000

It is not not meaningful to compare Win 7 with Vista which is a failed operating system.
If Win7 is compared with Win XP Pro SP3, XP is much faster. You have to make the comparison on the same PC with the same programs installed and the same optimisation of boot items first performed.
My experience, with a Dual Core AMD Athlon 64 FX-62, 2884 MHz with 160 programs installed, timed from clicking on the boot Windows sreen to the point where Windows has completely finished loading was as follows:

Win XP pro SP3 45 seconds to complete
Win 7 ultimate 1 minute 15 seconds to complete

So no reason to go to Win 7 except to please Microsoft and inflate their cashflow!
Onclejon

By: Onclejon

Onclejon — Sat, 29 May 2010 14:09:31 +0000

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 03:18:05 +0000

I got a HP with Vista in Feb and its been a total PIA! MS has a lot of nerve charging Vista users for the upgrade!

By: Name

Name — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 04:24:26 +0000

On my PC Windows Vista 64-bit took at least 2 minutes to boot and become usable.
On the same PC with same set of applications and data, Windows 7 64-bit boots and is usable in 40 seconds (sometimes less). Even the original RC version booted in 40 sec.

In addition, Windows 7 is more stable and does everything faster than Vista.
Vista was a dog and I hated it.
Windows 7 is a very good OS (except for DRM).

One thing I hate is Microsoft's & the IT industry's willingness to embrace DRM at the behest of the movie studios etc. Not being able to backup your own DVD's without a lot of hassles really sucks.

By: Robert B

Robert B — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 02:01:22 +0000

“this is coming from a company that makes it's money by saying your computer is too slow and they can speed it up by you purchasing their software”

Ha Ironic isn't it………… Glad i could give you a techno-giggle!

By: Robert B

Robert B — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 01:00:00 +0000

Thats a good point…. Having the correct chip sets seems to make a difference

By: Robert B

Robert B — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 00:58:00 +0000

24 seconds! wow!! that must be some system….I wish i could boot that fast.. Are you using a solid state drive?

By: Robert B

Robert B — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 22:01:22 +0000

“this is coming from a company that makes it's money by saying your computer is too slow and they can speed it up by you purchasing their software”

Ha Ironic isn't it………… Glad i could give you a techno-giggle!

By: Name

Name — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:51:00 +0000

Windows 7 boots much quicker than Vista and XP. I am an Enterprise user and have been using the full version for months at work. I dont think these people have their facts together.

By: Luke

Luke — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:40:00 +0000

Having been using 7 since pre-RC1, I’ve experienced all of the flavors that have become available thus far. On my desktop running a Phenom X4 9600 and 8GB of RAM, I experience a boot time of ~24 seconds until I have a workable desktop. With the exact same system running Vista x64, I experienced a boot time of ~85 seconds until a workable desktop. With the exact same system running windows XP x64, I experienced a boot time of ~45 seconds until a workable desktop. “Waiting until the processor becomes idle” is foolish for vista and 7 because they both load only the basics at first then do everything else in the background to give users a workable desktop as quickly as possible. Windows 7, however, does this part correctly. Also, if these tests are done on inconsistent hardware, then they’re hardly conclusive. That’s like comparing the acceleration of a 2 cycle engine vs a twin turbo V6 and saying that it’s a conclusive result that this brand of car is faster.

By: Gavin

Gavin — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 10:33:12 +0000

i did felt windows 7 boot slower then vista . after i key in my password then i press enter it takes so long to show my desktop twice longer time than vista

By: fade2black

fade2black — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:41:00 +0000

My bad I meant:
“The first machine was a Samsung R70 A003, my laptop, win7 ver 7000 booted slower than VISTA”, not XP.

I never installed xp on my laptop.

By: fade2black

fade2black — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 09:39:00 +0000

Since the start beta i installed windows seven on several machines, i found that among a dozen machines only a couple did boot slower than vista. I have been able to fix it anyway so now they are fine.
The first machine was a Samsung R70 A003, my laptop, win7 ver 7000 booted slower than xp. All I had to do was to install the chipset drivers for Vista ( R70 laptops have an Intel chipset): the amount of time it took to boot was halved from the next boot on. Now my system boots faster than Vista, roughly one minute while vista takes a couple (it takes 40 seconds now, with ver 7100 installed a couple of days after release, plus a couple of seconds for me to enter the logon password).

The second pc on wich it ran slower it was one of my friends pc, i didn’t touch anything though, he the did the installation by himself. After he said it was sluggish, I tried to fix what seemed a rather strange outcome by installing the drivers for his chipset ( this time from ATI for intel processors): nothing to do the system was sluggish when accessiong the hard drive, not to mention booting. he was pissed off and asked me to remove 7.
I don’t know if it is related but i remember noticing that 7 didn’t rename the partitions: every time I install 7 it renames the partition on wich it is installed to C:, in that case it didn’t, and windows was installed on partition E: while C: was still the name of the Vista partition.
I took his [huge desktop] PC home, wiped out 7 partition and reinstalled it ran on par with vista, and after installing the chipset drivers it boots in under a minute, 30+ seconds less.

I’m sure they tested a pc not properly configured, I found that correct Sata drivers really make the difference with boot time and responsiveness.

By: SgtMoo

SgtMoo — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:49:41 +0000

7 slower than Vista?!…surely they cant be serious…this is coming from a company that makes it's money by saying your computer is too slow and they can speed it up by you purchasing their software. Pull the other one next time.

But this is my techno-giggle for today

By: Name

Name — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 06:26:43 +0000

This actually is the really old version of windows 7 like the milestone series, way before RC. Those were the times in which there were an overload of bugs in it. Build 7600 is faster than this now.

By: Adrian2055

Adrian2055 — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 05:37:09 +0000

On my new desktop (intel 2.20 ghz celeron single core, 2gb ram, intel chipset) I find that vista and windows 7 boot at the same time, but vista is actually usuable. I can use vista 64-bit business and home premium as soon as I get to my desktop, but with windows 7 home premium 64-bit I have to wait at least 30 seconds to a minute before I can access anything. They both boot faster than xp which can take anywhere from 2-4 minutes before I can access anything. I'm putting a dual core processor in this week. Maybe that will improve things.

On a side note: Am I the only one having hell finding drivers for my stuff? I still can't get my wireless card to work and most of my programs won't install. It was the same way on my laptop before it crashed. Anyone else having this issue?

By: kashifraza

kashifraza — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 23:28:48 +0000

I think whiever company has some up with the info that it takes longer to start 7 to Xp or vista are either fools or they have a win 98 compatiable system with win 7 Dual boot , My laptop is a lenovo one with 1.83 ghz Intel duo core processor Intel chipset I have Xp which takes 55 sec to 1:22 min but win 7 takes 20 to 25 sec mind it 20 – 25 sec nothing more i think its the best Os ever win windows since os 3.1 by microsoft ,

By: bobisimo

bobisimo — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 22:28:03 +0000

I'm sure this post may be perceived as trolling, but it is coming from a sincere criticism of an OS I enjoy, and not just a “Mac is better” pointless rant.

My Windows desktop died and I've been living exclusively with my MacBook — about a few weeks — until I can get a new desktop. I have installed a variety of programs (FileZilla, uTorrent, VLC, Firefox, OpenOffice, etc) in addition to using it for iTunes and syncing with my iPod, Address Book, etc. I say all this so you realize the laptop isn't just used to occasionally browse the web with Safari; and, as the article says, Windows slows down once you install a couple programs, also making this information relevant.

And?

I hit reboot at 4:02:00 pm. At 4:02:40 pm I was staring at the desktop. That's 40 seconds to shut down AND get back to the desktop. About 10 seconds or less later, my CPU was 95% idle. (For the record, my laptop is first gen, so it's got older hardware in it: 1.83 Ghz core duo and 2 GB of RAM.)

I really like Windows. I'd say I prefer it to Mac. And not just because I can game on Windows. But on this one count, Mac is so far ahead it's ridiculous. I'd say it took my Vista/7 desktop (with much better hardware) longer than 40 seconds to shut down — after a fresh install, let alone shut down and reboot. Your cites of 2 to 3 minutes sound much more like what I dealt with.

Maybe there are all sorts of “yeah but” responses for why Mac is better on this count, but to the end consumer (me), all I care about is that I can reboot my MacBook so quickly. Windows, so far, can't touch this.

By: Robert B

Robert B — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:56:22 +0000

Sorry about that, should be ok now

By: Danny

Danny — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:29:26 +0000

I have a six year old AMD Athlon with only 1GB Ram piece of crap with both XP and 7 on it. 7 boots up quicker than XP. Both show the desktop in about a minute to a minute and 15 secs, but it only takes 7 another 10 or so seconds to be able to launch Chrome while XP takes a little over 20 seconds. In XP defense it does have a lot more programs loaded on it but I do try very hard to keep my startup very bare bones.

By: yolarrydabomb

yolarrydabomb — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:06:44 +0000

may I ask whats up with the colorful underline marks?

By: yolarrydabomb

yolarrydabomb — Sun, 11 Oct 2009 19:04:42 +0000

Well whatever to them. It does boot quicker on this computer!