W 7 Loads Really Really Fast, Why Reviews say it doesnt? Yours ok?

[OneHumongousLoser]

I used the RC version for like 4 months, then won a house party and put in the license 64 bit version. Been using it now for a week, and the boot/load time is really fast and screamin hot compared to XP and Vista.

So I keep seein reviews saying there is no difference, or that Vista is quicker startup/boot. I really dont understand the reviews based on my useage.

Anyone else have a 'slow' boot, or comparision observations? What do yall think.

 

[Scotteq]

Boots fine, and faster than Vista on the same box.

If the reviews you are referring to are the recent ones floating around in the last week or two: Please be advised that "review" was done by a company that sells (crapware/software) which is purported to speed up boot times. So OF COURSE their testing shows that Win 7 boots slower - because they want to sell you their sh*t. Same scam as Registry Cleaners, at best this stuff does nothing except lighten your wallet.

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

i agree it runs quick!

 

[warezme]

I personally have not noted a "huge" difference between W7 and the other 2 OS's but its most likeley because my main rig is an OC'ed 3.8Ghz i7 with 12GB of RAM and raptor drives and my laptop is an Alienware m15x already maxed so there is only so fast you can go.

 

[Dark Lord of Tech]

that rig could boot the space shuttle fast!

 

[ubernoobie]

my xp box boots up in 5 seconds but it's vlited and only msn and steam installed

 

[buwish]

I've noticed a slight difference between Vista and W7. W7 seems to boot faster. But Vista is on an old WD 7200rpm, while W7 RC is on a Velociraptor

 

[SpidersWeb]

Windows 7 starts very quick on my machine.
I've been amazed in all honesty, and when it starts it works straight away, unlike Vista where its fairly unresponsive for a bit after the start button appears (annoys me).

Any review which says it boots slow is full of rubbish (unless they provide reasons, or it's a special case).

 

[ScottBates]

My windows 7 laptop screams. Much faster then XP ever was. We also have a W7 system at work for testing and its hands down better then XP.

 

[Lexie]

I haven't read any bad reviews of Windows 7. Are there any?

 

[dallasjoh]

No problems here. Mine boots a little faster than the Vista Ultimate 64bit I was running. If I had not gotten my Windows 7 Ultimate for free than I would have stayed with Vista for another year.

 

[SpidersWeb]

No problems here. Mine boots a little faster than the Vista Ultimate 64bit I was running. If I had not gotten my Windows 7 Ultimate for free than I would have stayed with Vista for another year.

Brave man!

I use Vista at work, and Windows 7 at home.
The problems I've had with Vista, stability, memory usage, disk usage... just makes my head want to explode. In my annual review I put down as a requirement Windows 7 to be purchased on it's release date.

I have been nothing short of impressed with 7.

As an example, when I installed Windows 7 at home I was extremely happy and enjoyed the new interface/features. With the Vista install at work, I was furious for about a week.

We call Vista the new 'Windows Me' at work. There are quite a few people like yourself that are happy with Vista, but I guess it depends on what you use your machine for and what you expect from it performance wise.

 

[Zoron]

Vista is nothing like ME. I'm sorry, but these ridiculous comparisons have to stop. I had nothing but issues with ME... especially on customers' computers... but Vista has been smooth sailing. Admittedly my computer is a slight bit beefier than average... especially the average office desktop... but even so, I've experience perhaps one blue screen since switching to Vista... and that was easily blamed on a crappy nVidia driver.

ME crashed and blue-screened constantly... Vista does not. Yeah, it's slow on older hardware and it does like to have at least 2GB of RAM installed... but it's perfectly stable; especially compared to ME.

 

[SpidersWeb]

Yeah I do agree that Vista doesn't blue screen, and over the last 6 months the updates have fixed the problems. However I suffered lots of application crashes, memory leaks, extremely poor file copy on large files (moving a 5Gb virtual machine image on an OS that wants to sit for 15 minutes while it works out how long it's going to take before even starting is NOT acceptable).

When I did the Vista install it was on an high end model at the time from Dell, not older hardware (quad core Intel, 4Gb RAM etc). I hate it, and it's caused massive problems for Microsofts reputation (even Mac has said at one point that an increase in sales was due to 'Vista').

Windows 7 is what Vista should have been. It's brilliant, stable, and has sensible resource management.

It's good to hear that you haven't had customer issues, and for general tasks e.g. MS Word, Publisher, etc it's fine, but until SP1, with what I demand from my machine, it was painful and unstable. Other developers here (on different hardware) have had the same experience, and I'm only one of two people in the office that haven't reverted back to XP waiting for the 7 licenses.

It's fine now, but as I said, I was furious that my brand new machine was less stable and slower than the machine it had replaced.

 

[Zoron]

It probaby didn't help that MS had to rush Vista... as it was already delayed far beyond what MS expected. The one thing I was hoping would make it into Win 7 didn't (since it was originally supposed to be in Vista)... WinFS. Of course I still like 7 and because of the big pre-order discounts, I ordered my upgrades back in July... if it hadn't been for that, I probably would have stuck with Vista a while longer.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

Vista's problems were more related to what MS did on purpose than what tweaking it had left to do upon release.

Win7 essentially matches XP's performance (wins some, loses some) in most areas where other factors don't come into play. This in and of itself is a huge accomplishment for Redmond as every other OS has paled in comparison to its predecessor on the same hardware. Win95 was the worst "upgrade" w/ performance that was 40% slower than W4WGs.

Win7 does offer advantages in several areas, most importantly that if you have dual GFX cards, DX10/11 will help significantly. Other than that, I can't see a real reason to upgrade 2-4 year old boxes to Win7. Now if you're a Vista owner, hard to say ...If ya think of Win7 as Vista Service Pack 2.5, ya have to wonder what benefits / improvements MS will include in the next Vista official SP. Can't see them doing too much as if they do, that woulkd cut the cash stream of users looking to escape from its grip.

 

[Shadow703793]

I haven't read any bad reviews of Windows 7. Are there any?

Yeah, like this one: http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-31012_7-10319612-10355804.html

It's from the Mac camp so I wouldn't trust it. I wish Microsoft had more things like this : http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10374323-56.html
to PWN the Apple drones.

@Zoron: YES! Microsoft NEEDS to have a better file system. NTFS is ANCIENT by the standards today. I do hope Microsoft doesn't spend a hell of a time trying to create a new file system (in turn delaying the next Windows OS) and instead get a truly stable and well tested file system from the Linux community (ext4 (in testing atm),ext3,Reiser,etc)

 

[Zoron]

As old as it is... it is still a very solid file system... especially compared to FAT. File system corruption is a lot let prevelent in NTFS.

 

[SpidersWeb]

Yeah I haven't had any issues with NTFS, but ext3 is pretty impressive in comparison (although for a home computer, probably not of interest).
We use Linux/ext3 for all our server systems with work.

Shadow - MS will create a new filesystem, but only when NTFS becomes a problem big enough to warrant the change. They will never take from the Linux community, as they'd probably see that as showing 'weakness' e.g. copying off the guys that provide stuff for FREE.

I have a love/hate relationship with microsoft. Sometimes they make me really angry, and other times I wouldn't be without them. I couldn't imagine PC computing without MS DOS or Windows.... actually I could.... OS/2... bleh, even IBM didn't have faith, IBM machines shipping that dual booted Windows and OS/2 by default.

 

[Zoron]

It is too bad that IBM abandoned it... it may have become a worthy competitor to Windows on the x86 platform. I never really cared for it much, as there didn't seem to be a plethora of software available for it. Up until a couple years ago though, it was on a lot of older Diebold ATMs... but now Windows has taken over even on those. Some NCR machines still use it, but eventually those will all be upgraded to run Windows as well.

 

[alikum]

@SpidersWeb
While I agree with you about the slow transfer speed in Vista, I would like to know what did you mean by memory leaks? I've been using Vista Home Premium for 2 years now and never had an issue, not even crashes. By the way, I am not talking about general use, I put the rig under alot of stress, a C2D with 4GB RAM. I do intensive tasks like video encoding (using the CPU) while at the same time, photoshop and running two servers for testing. It can turn a little sluggish, but still it doesn't crash, not even once. However, most likely it's because software that I run are mostly updated.

Yes, Windows 7 is much better based on reviews. I'll just grab one for my new rig

@Shadow703793

I agree with you on the file system there. You can't just keep improving on the OS without also improve on the filesystem.

 

[SpidersWeb]

"memory leaks" was probably a bad term to use, it was more of an issue of running out of resources. At the end of the day the machine was painful to use and you'd open a program but it couldn't start, it'd go to draw the window and hang, you close something else and it'd appear, I'd shut down all the apps and it was still slugish. A reboot fixed this, but the fact it would run barely a work day then clug up was annoying. I didn't get this with XP or W7.

However the service packs from MS fixed this, I started leaving the machine on at nights like I used to with XP, and managed to do 40 days before Vista got to the unusable point.

Right now Vista isn't too bad, it was the first few months that made me angry. The file copy is a big thing for me. I think being able to copy a file is one of the basic features an operating system provides, I was really annoyed that after the release candidates microsoft still didn't fix that issue before release.

What my work machine does (if you are interested) 8-6 is:
- Windows XP VMWare with IE6 (SMB link to local machine)
- Linux PHP/Zend webserver VMWare (SMB link to local machine)
- several SSH sessions
- ZendStudio (JVM)
- IE8/Firefox 3
- SQLYog enterprise
+ email/music etc

Thats a minimum. I only shut down the XP VM occasionally (usually if I need another big app). All needs to be open at once and I'm quickly flicking between all of them, often working with 30-40 files open. This didn't work out well with Vista on first release.

It's not CPU intensive, but its resource intensive.

My colleuge's machine (Vista), will also slow right down and go nuts on the harddrive for 30-60 minutes for apparently no reason, we can't find any applications doing it, it appears to be a windows service but we can't see anything using CPU resources or similar. I have a hunch its application caching or file indexing. He also has his own set of issues with the OS. We're waiting for a Win 7 license to do a reinstall.

I just haven't had constant difficulties with an OS since Windows Me (hence my comparison).
Windows 7 I love, it even runs in a VMWare image on this Vista machine with only 1Gb of RAM and it's so quick. It starts in a VMWare window faster than Vista (when cleanly installed) did native on this machine.

 

[croc]

my xp box boots up in 5 seconds but it's vlited and only msn and steam installed

...That's some good BIOS you have there... Want to share with us what BIOS version you are running that posts in .5 sec.? And just how much of the OS's services you stripped out to get the total boot time down to 4.5 sec.?

 

[Shadow703793]

^+1.

Shadow - MS will create a new filesystem, but only when NTFS becomes a problem big enough to warrant the change. They will never take from the Linux community, as they'd probably see that as showing 'weakness' e.g. copying off the guys that provide stuff for FREE.

True that, but Microsoft could/should provide a better file system for AT LEAST their Server OSes.