Study: Vista Startup Time is Faster Than Win 7

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have to say that I've seen the same things as this report states.

I get fast time to desktop, and slow after that. Win7 takes a significant amount of time just to get a network connection established. I notice the same thing coming out of sleep mode where Win7 takes a while and, e.g. Firefox will be unusable for maybe 20 or 30 seconds after sleep, where as it was available almost instantly on Vista.

Once it's up and running it seems fine, though Call of Duty takes about 3 times longer from the time the splash screen comes up until the program actually starts.

Note that I'm also a person who reformats / reinstalls often - at least once every 8 months. And currently have a lot less running on my Win7 install than I had going on my last vista install...

I've also disabled firewall and have no anti-virus running, so I don't know why Win7 takes so damn long to establish a network connection after a reboot. Perhaps because my MB has two nics, and it's trying to setup nic 1 before nic 2 (which is where the cable is right now) - think I'll try switching the cable and see if it helps...

Cheers,
CList
 
I think I can see where they are coming from but in my case with a MSI GT627 both OS's are pretty funtional within seconds of reaching the desktop. I didn't check where the ativity was coming from after the second times and these aren't clean installs by any means at this stage. Both OS's has a number of updaters and such running.

Windows 7 36 seconds from boot options to desktop
Windows 7 1:43 until near idle activity

Vista 56 seconds from boot option to desktop
Vista 1:29 until near idle activity
 
... what a fruit? ... ok... maybe the start-up time better, but working with vista suck's so much! ... i got aspire 8530g... windows vista was on that machine just for 2 or 3 hours... installing, finding, copying stuff takes much longer... network setup is a pain in the a$$... with 7? It work's for me... ok, there is some stuff an comparability issues, but the benefits evens it out.. and i get the licensed copy, when it comes out...
 
...just for the record I tried swapping my cable to NIC #1 and disabling NIC #2 in the BIOS. When I get my Win7 desktop my network connection is "unavailable", it just took 80 seconds (1:20) from the time the desktop came up until the network connection was available. That seems crazy to me. Never had that issue with Vista (using the same router obviously).

I have to say that I find the user experience in Win7 to be very similar to Vista. I can't understand why so many people who have these big gripes with Vista think Win7 is so much better... but then again, I didn't use Vista until SP1 was out...

Cheers,
CList
 
...oh yeah, I should mention that I'm using an EVGA MB, and a Core i7 920 clocked to about 3.3GHz... anyone else notice Win7 taking this long to attach to a network?
 
I can also confirm that the load times for Win 7 are nowhere close to 2 min, both in mi Laptop (a middle end-machine) and my desktop (high-end) the boot time is about 45 sec to 1 min and the computer is ready to use almost as soon as the desktop is showed in the screen(s)... so in short, my opinion is that those "experts" don't know what they're talking about.
 
[citation][nom]blackpanther26[/nom]I'm still getting Windows 7 becuase of Direct X 11[/citation]

But to use DX11, you'll need a DX11 GPU....
 
i concur with BS article. Ditch the crapware. I get 38 seconds from after post to desktop on an OC'd Pentium E2160 (3.0ghz)/4gb ddr2 800 (950mhz).
 
haha been saying this all along and getting voted down each time i mention it - finally someone makes an article on it

on an old ancient system with little system resources and crappy components it runs alot quicker then vista, with a new system with ample resources (because microsoft made it lighter - less caching/prefetching) it ends up being slower
 
Yea this aticale strikes me as odd because When I switched back from 7 back to vista.Vista takes longeri n my opinion.

Both Vista and 7 I installed were the ultimate x64 versions
 
[citation][nom]kingnoobe[/nom]How long will you have a brand new computer?[/citation]
^This.

Most people never reformat, so a PC that boots faster in the worst case or even normal scenario is what you want. Can you notice the difference between 1 and 1.5 minutes? Yes, probably. Can you notice the difference between 1.5-2 minutes and 5 minutes? Hell yes! This study is FUD for marketing purposes.

Of course you could get an SSD and enjoy usability in approximately 20-30 seconds on an un-tuned machine. 😀
 
I take XP any time over Vista!
My XP laptop boots twice as fast as my wife's Vista one, despite her having a 400Mhz faster processor, and twice the RAM,and 66Mhz faster ram too!
 
Huh. Well I am not too sure really what they did to test it because my Windows 7 install is pretty much at near idle when the desktop appears (I have the performance Widget up). I have Steam, ATI CCC, and MSE running at start up and the second the desktop appears they are up and running.

Steam used to take a while to load after appearing on the desktop with Vista but is useable right away with 7.

Kinda wish I could set around testing a OS to try to push my new software and get paid good instead of working crappy dead end jobs all the while knowing more than that said person.
 
kiss my ass.

My computer, has 2 exactly the same hdd, Raptor 150 gb. and Dual boot windows on each drive, Windows Vista Ultimate, and 7 Ultimate.

Windows 7 starts and usable at LEAST 2 minutes faster than Vista.

Oh yes they both have the same amount of "start-up" ware installed (cuz I need them)

Soon Im going to Format the Vista drive :)
 
doesn't windows 7 boot background programs later on in the boot process so as to speed up usability and thus making it boot faster. This in turn would work against the benchmark being used in this test.

Personally, Vist x86 seemed to boot faster than my 7 x64. I haven't timed it and I don't plan on going back to test the difference. I really don't care but the inner workings of the os are more interesting and important in a test like this.
 
well i think if anyone wants a 1 sec start up, they should use MS-DOS !!

really... what's the big deal with this "Start up time" competitions?!

if u want to use a real OS with full features, you have to wait for about 60-90 seconds...

it is funny to see when press and media cant find a real problem with windows 7, they try to bash it with these sort of things!

"1:34 vs 1:06 on a brand new machine" (!!!) so much information about the test, what a reliable study !
 
for a system that's been running for a few months, win 7 now starts up (usability yes yes..) faster than when I ran XP. My win7 installation now has same amount of crapware and stuff installed as my old XP installation. XP used to take about 2.5 minutes, whilst this is a lot faster than that: 1:37. (both excluding bios stuff, so as soon as i see windows logo showing up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom