AfterDawn: News

Windows 7 boots slower than Vista?

According to PC-tuning company iolo Technologies, Windows 7 boots up slower than predecessor Vista, a strong contradiction to Microsoft's claims of improved start-up times.

Iolo's testing showed that Windows 7 loads up 42 percent slower than Vista, while using a "brand new machine." 7 loaded in 1:34 compared to 1 minute flat for Vista.

This point is where the numbers get confusing, however. Iolo measures startup as the "point where the computer is 'fully usable,' with a low load on the processor." From power button to desktop, Windows 7 loads faster then Vista, but in "full startup" it does not.



Perhaps more notably is the fact that just like Vista, startup times depend on how many applications have already been installed on the computer. After a few "commonly-used" applications are installed, boot time increases 64 percent to 2 minutes, says iolo.

The full report on boot-time benchmarks is set for release on Monday.

Written by: Andre Yoskowitz @ 11 Oct 2009 20:25

• Previous article

• Geohot releases 'blackra1n' jailbreak software

• Next article

• Newshosting ups data retention to 400 days

• 26 comments

• core2kid

  Their computer must suck because Windows 7 loads instant for me, under a minute. Same with Vista on a fresh install.

  11.10.2009 20:54 #1

• bigdawg71

  Windows 7 loads a hell of alot faster than vista for me must be morons running the timer!

  11.10.2009 20:56 #2

• bbbob

  I wonder how long it will take for other PC manufacturers to take example from Dell (not a fanboy) and start shipping with Linux.

  11.10.2009 20:57 #3

• z_o

  This is supposed to be a technical site right? Why not do your own testing vs posting something that pretty much everyone who has run Windows 7 can dismiss as false.

  11.10.2009 20:58 #4

• jetyi83

  agreed, windows 7 boots pretty fast.
  
  and why would they ship with linux? it's not ready for mainstream use.
  windows 7 is a very impressive os. I thought id have to use xp forever.

  11.10.2009 21:33 #5

• KillerBug

  They are just making up these numbers to try to sell software. By announcing this they figure that they will scare some vista users into buying their software to try to fix their problems instead of just upgrading to Windows 7.
  
  It is true that some processes keep starting after the desktop is available (most are easily dissabled, Windows 7 needs tuning just as all Windows do). However, these are low-priority programs, and you can start working/gaming/watching/whatevering much faster, with these running off of spare CPU cycles in the background.
  
  Also, I suspect their "commonly-used" software is a bunch of bloatware programs like browser bars, Nero, etc..

  11.10.2009 23:04 #6

• Andrew691

  Just timed my new laptop (2.1ghz AMD 64x2, 4GB RAM running 64bit Win7 Enterprise) took just under a minute to fully start, thats including a few second pause for bootloader and a few extra to login using fingerprint scanner. This is with a far from fresh install, Nod32 and Msn Messenger are the only significant apps that are running at startup.
  
  Have the pre installed Vista still on another partition its got nothing installed at all, will go test it now.
  
  EDIT: A clean (32bit) Vista, with nothing loading at startup took under 10sec less to boot completely. Dunno what kinda hardware these guys tested this on but I think it might be time for an upgrade.

  12.10.2009 00:08 #7

• navi1199

  i have been using windows 7 beta and rc 1 since they released it to the public and i installed so much crap on mine, nearly 40 programs at starting, skype, virus apps 3 different chat applications, the windows gadgets, almost anything a typical machine is usually loaded with after almost a year of use, and still i get booted up in less than a minute. since it's an organization called lolos i can only imagine this to be some Chinese computer research group that uses parts only made in china, cause i have a pretty decent machine and it can still load up fast with 7...

  12.10.2009 01:15 #8

• psyko312

  Just like all the others, W7 boots up SSOO much faster than Vista ever did for me. Also since I've started using W7, my pc actually hibernates like it is supposed to and no blue screens which I was getting pretty often with a Vista boot (even after repeated clean installs of Vista).

  12.10.2009 03:14 #9

• KillerBug

  iolo does not make computers or computer components. They make those crummy "fix windows errors" applications that typicaly cause more harm than good. They even make several of the apps that sell themselves with pop-up windows that appear to be microsoft security warnings. This company is based on scamming people, and this announcement is just another one of their scams. The only reason it has gotten so much press is the fact that no one else has made such claims...a bit like when someone claims to have a dead bigfoot.

  12.10.2009 04:15 #10

• domie

  Like everyone else , i'm scratching my head at this - my PC boots up so much faster with Windows 7 Enterprise than Vista.
  I think what we really need to work out is what programs they have installed and whether they are all properly configured for optimum performance under a Windows 7 environment - it could be that iolo is using its own programs and has not optimised them for peak Windows 7 performance yet.

  12.10.2009 05:36 #11

• creaky

  Have never used Vista. However my dell Optiplex 745's boot Win7 in 40 seconds.
  

  
  
  Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
  Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS/WPA ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 4node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G v3.1, WRT54G2 v1, WRT54G v5. *** Forum Rules ***

  12.10.2009 05:44 #12

• KillerBug

  Originally posted by domie: Like everyone else , i'm scratching my head at this - my PC boots up so much faster with Windows 7 Enterprise than Vista.
  I think what we really need to work out is what programs they have installed and whether they are all properly configured for optimum performance under a Windows 7 environment - it could be that iolo is using its own programs and has not optimised them for peak Windows 7 performance yet.That's probably it...the vista machine starts in 60 seconds without their software. The Windows 7 machine starts in 50 seconds without their software, and the Windows 7 machine with their bloatware takes 84 seconds.

  12.10.2009 06:31 #13

• xnonsuchx

  Originally posted by jetyi83: agreed, windows 7 boots pretty fast.
  
  and why would they ship with linux? it's not ready for mainstream use.
  windows 7 is a very impressive os. I thought id have to use xp forever.
  Many Linux elitists just think if THEY know their way around it, everyone should. But yeah, Linux has its own issues as far as being a mainstream consumer OS (which they will usually vehemently deny...or just call you stupid).
  
  "very impressive" is a bit of an overstatement regarding W7, though. A LOT better than Vista (overall), but still many annoyances and at least a few performance issues.

  12.10.2009 06:55 #14

• jdurden

  I think it's fair to say that PC-Tuning is eithe full of &#$*, or they have workers with down syndrome running the stop watch. My 64-bit machine will power off and boot back up in a little over a minute. Keeooooooooooooommmmmmm!!!!

  12.10.2009 10:33 #15

• slickwill

  Why are people so fascinated about boot up times? There really isn't much of a benefit if an OS boots up faster than another OS or computer b/c in the end the user is going to spend more time siting in front of a booted computer and not in front of a booting computer. I guess this is some sort of intolerance of patience that has built up in our society since things have become so on-demand.

  12.10.2009 13:45 #16

• brockie

  not slow for me this is a silly statement 7 is much better in all departments

  12.10.2009 13:59 #17

• creaky

  Personally i'm just impressed with the Win7 boot time on two C2D E6400 single-hard drive machines, certainly very quick compared to my 6-drive (XP) C2Q Q6600 machine. One of the E6400's is a dual boot with Puppy Linux, Puppy also boots very quickly indeed.
  But i don't fuss over boot times, it's just nice to have a few machines that start up quickly.
  (I have all sorts of machines, some new and some quite old, and not all are Windows).
  

  
  
  Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
  Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS/WPA ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 4node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G v3.1, WRT54G2 v1, WRT54G v5. *** Forum Rules ***

  12.10.2009 14:05 #18

• o0cynix0o

  Originally posted by KillerBug: ...a bit like when someone claims to have a dead bigfoot.UUmmmmm...yummy Bigfoot, can I have some.
  
  As for the 7 load times I bet these guys already have one of those Fix reg problem app thingamajig's waiting in the wings.

  12.10.2009 14:27 #19

• Xplorer4

  Originally posted by slickwill: Why are people so fascinated about boot up times? There really isn't much of a benefit if an OS boots up faster than another OS or computer b/c in the end the user is going to spend more time siting in front of a booted computer and not in front of a booting computer. I guess this is some sort of intolerance of patience that has built up in our society since things have become so on-demand.
  Because we dont want to have to wait 10 minuets for our PC to start up if we want to use it weather it be used for 5 minuets or 5 hours.
  
  
  Personally I dont see a big difference between Win 7 x64 Ultimate boot time, and Vista x64 Ultimate boot times.

  12.10.2009 14:33 #20

• joe777

  Quote:Many Linux elitists just think if THEY know their way around it, everyone should. But yeah, Linux has its own issues as far as being a mainstream consumer OS (which they will usually vehemently deny...or just call you stupid).The only boot you should be thinking about is booting windows off your machine and installing linux:P
  he he he he elitist indeed:P
  No seriously though if your not a hardcore gamer then you should use Gnu/Linux and stay away from slick willy. Also have any of you gamers tried this http://ultimateedition.info/
  Claims to be able to play most windows based games. Just a thought for all you windows peeps out there in the dark:P
  Now am only teasing, dont get your knickers in a twist with a war on which OS is best, whatever floats your boat or ignorance is bliss to the window user:P
  
  And as for most *nix users thinking they are the mutts nutts, I dont think so there is a plethora of forums ready and willing to help you with whatever probs you come across. Dont be afraid to try something new, like bloatware free, virtualy virus free and BSOD free computing:P he he he he he

  12.10.2009 14:43 #21

• DVDBack23

  http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/19872.cfm

  12.10.2009 14:48 #22

• creaky

  I wonder where they get 1:43 boot times from. Wierd. I've found (32-bit) Win 7 RC1 to boot to login prompt in 40 seconds, Machine is an E6400 hence C2D 2.13GHz CPU, 4GB RAM (and to all those smart alecs who want to point out that 32-bit doesn't utilise all of the 4GB - i know, i don't fuss over 64-bit OSes at home, have been using 64-bit Solaris at work for 9 years, more bits doesn't get me all excited) :)
  
  As i've said, it's nice to boot quickly but it's not something that's actually important. What is more important is that the machine's performance during use is very nippy indeed.
  
  (am typing this on a P4 laptop using Puppy Linux.. this boots in a week and every webpage refresh takes a day and a half)
  

  
  
  Main PC ~ Intel C2Q Q6600 (G0 Stepping)/Gigabyte GA-EP45-DS3/2GB Crucial Ballistix PC2-8500/Zalman CNPS9700/Antec 900/Corsair HX 620W
  Network ~ DD-WRT ~ 2node WDS/WPA ~ Buffalo WHR-G54S. 4node WPA2/AES ~ WRT54GS v6 (inc. WEP BSSID), WRT54G v2, WRT54G v3.1, WRT54G2 v1, WRT54G v5. *** Forum Rules ***

  12.10.2009 15:18 #23

• engage16

  Windows 7 boots faster than windows vista... and unlike in vista, as soon as you can see you desktop you can start using your computer....

  12.10.2009 23:09 #24

• EricCarr

  For me, it's not how fast the OS boots up. It's how fast it performs after it boots up. I have only played around with Windows 7 on a Virtural Install. I will install it soon when I get an offical release.

  13.10.2009 03:13 #25

• KillerBug

  Originally posted by slickwill: Why are people so fascinated about boot up times? There really isn't much of a benefit if an OS boots up faster than another OS or computer b/c in the end the user is going to spend more time siting in front of a booted computer and not in front of a booting computer. I guess this is some sort of intolerance of patience that has built up in our society since things have become so on-demand.This is a leftover from vista...when your system crashed 10 times a day, reboot speed was important. On windows 7, it does not matter nearly as much.

  13.10.2009 04:17 #26