Software firm finds Windows 7 doesn't boot faster than Vista
By Donald Melanson 
posted Oct 8th 2009 2:11PM
posted Oct 8th 2009 2:11PM
There's no question that Windows 7 promises plenty of improvements over Vista, with one of the biggest being faster boot times. While that's certainly been the experience for some, Iolo Technologies (a maker of PC tune-up software) found some significantly different results in their long term tests, which they say show that Windows 7 isn't faster than Vista at all in real world use. Specifically, they found that while Windows 7 actually got to the desktop fairly quickly, it took a full minute and 34 seconds to actually become usable, compared to a minute and 6 seconds with Vista. They also unsurprisingly found that things got worse over time, with a three-month old Windows 7 install adding a full minute to the boot time, although in that case it did actually fare somewhat better than Vista. Of course, we are talking about complete reboots here, and it's a different story when Windows 7 is simply coming in and out of sleep mode. Details on the tests are otherwise a bit light, but Iolo is promising to release its complete findings next week.
..'fare' better..
Vista sucked when it first came out, but 2 service packs in the first six months of its release plus 1 gig of extra misc. upgrades and its the OS that it SHOULD HAVE BEEN when it was first released.
Its quite stable and snappy now. Windows 7 is exactly that,
VISTA + Service Pack 1 + Service Pack 2 + 1 Gig of Updates - $200 from your pocket.
And WinTel machines are cheaper then Macs? Right...
LOL, a company that sells PC Tune Up software wants to prove that they are still needed. What a shocker.
I've never used PC tune up software and never will. Just keep the crapware off your PC and you will be fine. By the way, Vista on three machines since day one and it has run well. Although I just use sleep mode - my HTPCs have worked flawlessly waking and recording TV, then going back to sleep.
I also find it suspect that Iolo would be making these findings. Win7 was in RC starting 3 months ago, wasn't it?
@steve
windows service packs are free you jackass
just because youre used to paying almost $100 per OSX service pack named after a cat, and finally a lower but still overpriced $30 for the last one, doesnt mean its the norm. nice try sreading FUD noob. get a real os
Alright ladies, take your bitching to a more relevant post..
uhm, Steve is kind of right, 7 is Vista all fixed up.
Microsoft didn't build a new OS from scratch here, folks. You do know that?
Perhaps it's the fact that this Windows 7 install is only a month and a bit old as opposed to the Vista install which was going on 3, but Windows 7 definitely boots and becomes useable noticeably faster than Vista did on the same machine. I'm talking IE8 open and browsing the internet (having previously connected to a network) with a laptop HDD in under a minute post times and all.
"lolo" in west Indian creole means "penis", how fitting.
considering these guys sell stupid 'computer speedup' tools i couldnt care less what they think.
my 5 year old computer with a 3200+ amd, 1 gig of ram and a 36 gig raptor cold booted into RC1 in about 1 minute, with only one bar going accross the initial bootup. it boots in almost the same amount of time that xp does, which loads in 1 bar also.
"Microsoft didn't build a new OS from scratch here, folks. You do know that"
You do know that Snow Leopard is Leopard fixed up, right? You do know that Puma, Tiger, Leopard, Snow Leopard, etc are all basically the same OS, just fixed up, right? Going back to what, 2001?
@Annoying Poster
Are you saying that my Vista is not a real OS? I get your point as it still doesn't even have a native spellchecker or DVD codec, but what I'm saying is that its not as much of an UNoperating system as it used to be. A fresh install with all the Service Packs runs nothing like when it first came out. But true, any *nix OS is definitely more stable and reliable. Period.
Now everyone knows Win7 is really the Vista Pro! MS has done a good
marketing job by renaming the Vista Pro to Win7. Congrat to MS marketing
for winning the Bernie Madoff award!
So how many free copies of System Mechanic Pro did you Recieve ?
@ Annoying Poster
OSX's updates (Panther, Tiger, Leopard etc...) are not considered 'service packs.' Since you seem to think they are I can only guess that you don't own a Mac. You should only throw stones at products that you actually own. Not that you read about.
@ Jordan
Apple went the best way in regards to their OS updates. Every release added completely new features and enhancements. Snow Leopard was the only upgrade that really was an 'under the hood' enhancement. Look at it like this. What if Microsoft had have done things similarly? What if they added and refined XP instead of creating Vista? Things would have been much different. However, that is what they did with Win7. It's got Vista under the skin with the refinements and new features. And no, I'm not trying to insinuate anything. Win7 is better than Vista.
The look of Windows 7. The heart and soul of Vista. What else is new. Even the Windows 7 DVD Install boxes are recycled from Vista boxes.
@ Dragnt
"OSX's updates (Panther, Tiger, Leopard etc...) are not considered 'service packs.' Since you seem to think they are I can only guess that you don't own a Mac. You should only throw stones at products that you actually own. Not that you read about."
I own a Mac and would consider them a service pack - think about it 10.4, 10.5 next 10.6, they are all OS X. Yes they add functionality but so does Microsoft, just not to the same degree. SL (10.6) was really a true service pack and funny enough we still got a bill for that, something MS doesn't do.
"Apple went the best way in regards to their OS updates. Every release added completely new features and enhancements. Snow Leopard was the only upgrade that really was an 'under the hood' enhancement. Look at it like this. What if Microsoft had have done things similarly? What if they added and refined XP instead of creating Vista? Things would have been much different. However, that is what they did with Win7. It's got Vista under the skin with the refinements and new features. And no, I'm not trying to insinuate anything. Win7 is better than Vista."
XP is like OS 9, you can only fix a car so many times until its time to move on. The horse is dead sonny. Oh looky! Remember how every body cried about the stuff not working from OS 9 to OS X, kinda sounds like Vista's growing pains. Don't get me wrong I like Apple, but just like Microsoft they are around to make money, not give you the warm fuzzys. And Apple is making a killing. Hell I'm getting Win 7 and loading it on my Mac right away, and it was cheaper to buy than the last few years of service packs(!?) for Apple.
@ James
From my experiences with MS a service pack is kinda like 10.5.(1, .2, .3 etc...). It fixes small issues as needed. The Annoying Poster guy was implying that Apple doesn't release updates like MS does. I'm pointing out that a Vista service pack isn't gonna come out and install Aero Snap, Peek and Shake for free. We may want it to be free but it won't be. Those new features are in Win7 a whole new OS. Much like Tiger owners who moved to Leopard for the new UI, Time Machine, Boot Camp, Stacks etc... That's not a service pack in any way.
Again, you have to start with BARE metal. Vista is now much much faster then you think. Simply install it fresh, then apply over 2 gigs of "updates" and you'll see that Vista is quite snappy. Certainly faster then a machine thats been lugging around fragmentation, temp files, and registry grease, clogging its arteries.
Now just minus $200 bucks from your pocket and you can call it Windows 7. Basically, your getting what you should have gotton after XP for $400+ bucks that in the end 'actually works'.
I'd rather take the $29 "service pack" instead and throw down the $400 applications or extra hardware.
i just wonder that engadget(donald i mean u) instead of sayin a big fuck off to the source posted it on the engadget(maybe your microsoft bashing system is not down after all?)
Obviously
If windows boots faster then who will buy their shitty software? So they have to convince users that Windows 7 is shit at starting and then claim that their tune up software can fix that problem.
Main intention of iolo is to promote their software.
In my experience (fixing my extended family's busted computers), software of this type causes SIGNIFICANTLY more problems than the 10 seconds it saves on the overall boot up time.
Advertising this software should be a felony, since it causes just as much damage as some of the more problematic viruses.
They're called "Iol"-o Technologies, ffs.
Reminds me of Finally Fast. Those commercials are so devoid of reality it's hilarious.
In other news, Security firm finds Windows 7 less secure than Vista...
@dolphz
agreed, i cant stand those commercials. i always mute when they come on
haha, it's like a plastic surgeon trying to tell megan fox she's not as pretty as everyone else thinks she is and a plastic surgery is very necessary... oh wait.
What are they smoking?
Apple has nothing to gain from comparing boot speeds of Vista vs Win7. The company Iolo, however, has everything to gain. They make windows software...
Why even mention Apple?
Oops, meant as a response to Jordan below this one.
Does boot time matter?
If it has ACPI and the OS itself is rock solid, you either let it do it's power thing as is, or suspend the system. Reboots should be minimized.
BillG
Why indeed...
Everybody knows that 7 is faster than vista. How much did APple pay this co
pant to say this?
Sorry I typed that on my iPhone, another Apple failure
How can u consider it apple's failure when it's just your inability to type
(not defending apple, just proving your stupidity)
dude, that was sarcasm.
I don't see the sarcasm tag...
I have experienced the exact opposite. Boot and shutdown times are both improved.
same here. i've noticed a solid 10 second difference. nothing to get over excited about but worth noting. my computer takes like 3 minutes to boot to begin with (loading RAID drivers and BIOS issues im too lazy to fix) so i'll take what i can get. over all i'm quite happy with Windows 7
obviously FUD to sell their product, the fact that Engadget posted this seriously says something about the intelligence of the bloggers
Putting this horse shit on the front page is an atrocity. 1:34? It's never taking me anything near that to get up to speed in 7.
Exactly, and I mean drastically changed. My Windows 7 machine is at my desktop about 7 seconds after I POST.
I'm at the desktop ~10 seconds on my quad-core machine, and it's usable about 5 seconds after that; even while all kinds of startup programs are starting up.
im going to continue this outlook of positive boot times.
i rarely have any problems with vista (except when i get ahead of myself with software i know can crash, i.e. triple-booting with linux and OSX, but thats just understood with the territory).
hardware comes into play immensely with vista or even 7 for that matter. while my AMD 64x2 with 5G of ram has almost no problem, not everyone has the same setup under the hood so therefore i can understand long boot times or consistent problems. i really think a lot of hassle can be resolved with minor hardware adjustments.
I have a quad-boot PC (OSx86, Unbuntu, Vista, and Windows 7 Pro)
Windows 7 loads faster than all of the others. Vista, of course is the one that matters and yes, it is much faster.
Win7 takes ~5-10 seconds after I choose the OS, and is usable as soon as it hits the desktop.
However I go weeks to months without restarting, so boot times mean very little to me.
Of course my boot times are only so low because it is a custom quad-core, on a 6 drive raid array.
OSX isn't made for this system so boot time is irrelevant for that.
I haven't noticed any significant slowdowns in boot time on my 64 bit dev install and it has been in use for over a month. Though my install of XP SP3 on the same machine has become a slug in a similar time period.
why don't you try msconfig and go to start up, then uncheck all the crap that starts up when windows boots. Also to use a good defrag client to get all the files back in order. Have been doing that on my XP machine for the longest time and it boots up in about a minute.
you don't need to defrag. its automatic background defragging in windows 7. sadly its only 99.9% of efficient as the $50 programs. until the EU sues them for pushing defrag companies out of business
Got my Party Pack from Microsoft yesterday! Installed Win7 ULt
seems to boot faster and shut down faster than vista.
I got my party pack too, and windows 7 definitely loads faster than my previous Vista install. It's a bit slower than the RC1, but still pretty fast.
I have been using win7 RC1 since it came out, on a 4 year old computer, it boots in around 30 seconds and i can start working as soon as it is on.
what kind of crappy machines are those guys running tests on?
"Iolo Technologies (a maker of PC tune-up software)"
They have very little detail about their tests and they are 'a maker of PC tune-up software' I'm guessing they want people to buy their crappy software.
Referring to the title, "Software" needs to be changed to "Crapware".
Yea this "study" is entirely false. Windows 7 is much faster than Vista
Not surprised. Windows 7 has been overhyped. I've used it and it's no better or faster then my vista install. just some different features.
Right right, it must be the rest of us that are wrong...7 is no better than vista...get lost troll.
I think you mean faster "than" not faster "then". Brush up on your grammar, you troll.
I want to add that Windows 7 Beta 64 bit did boot much faster than my RC1 version, but it's the best Windows OS so far.
Yeah I've been using Windows 7 for a while now, and it definitely seems to boot faster than Vista.
Anyone who has actually used 7 in "real world experience" knows that it's MUCH faster than Vista. This article is such hogwash.
It is much faster. But the article is about boot times, not speed. And I may be the only one whose noticed this, but after about a year of using 7 I've realized that boot times can be really deceiving. I can reach the desktop much quicker than in vista - but try launching any program, and it takes at least an additional minute to start up ( vista wouldn't do this - it took forever to get to the desktop, but was fast enough from there)
Dont get me wrong - I love 7, and its soo much better, and faster, then Vista, but there could be some legitimacy to this companies claims
It hasn't been the same for me. Of course, I've been running Beta and RC; if they filled W7 with crap software for the final release then this is more than possible.
Has anybody ever heard of "Iolo Technologies?" Going to their web page, you get the feeling that they are one of those reg cleaner tools, or one of the memory compactor tools.
But this sounds like one of those press releases Semantic puts out before the release of each new versions of Windows - "Hey, this one is less secure, buy our tools to protect yourself." Now it is "Windows is slow, buy our tools to speed it up."
Symantec is the company you are referring to. And agreed.
Ah crap, I can never get their name right. Thanks.
I've been familiar with Iolo for years, they're the makers of System Mechanic. It's actually a decent piece of software, been using it for years. Basically one of those all-in-one optimization suites that actually works as advertised. Their automatic registry backup even saved me a few weeks ago.
That said, I don't buy their Windows 7 tests for a second. They're in the business of selling their software and if they praise Windows 7, that's counterproductive for their profits.
Oh yeah. I completely forgot about System Mechanic. It was pretty good, but I haven't needed it since 7.
Oh and before some shitwit jumps in with "Yeah my Mac boots in 10 seconds lol!" I'd point out that's from sleep - my Mac boots in about 40-50 seconds from a shutdown. Vista also wakes up within 10 seconds from sleep.
How on earth does it take your Mac 10 seconds to wake from sleep? I've never seen one that took more than 1-2 seconds. This is vastly quicker than I've ever seen XP wake from sleep/standby/hibernate/anything, when waking actually works and doesn't just cause an IRQ MORE OR LESS NOT EQUAL bluescreen on my Thinkpad (to be fair, only about once every 2 weeks when I wake it from standby 2x a day).
My Mac Pro boots in less than 30 seconds including login time, but that's not a fair comparison because it's a fast box. But my T60 1.8ghz hackintosh boots Leopard, including 5-sec bootloader pause and 3G cell card connection in ~50-55sec.
That's awesome. My Mac wakes in less than 10 seconds but then takes the full ten to actually manage a WiFi connection. As for your XP laptop, so what? I'm talking about a Vista box.
Comparisons: great when they're relevant. Less so when they're not.
I fare significantly better as a Windows user because I already know how to keep it optimized.
Yet this remains the reason I use Linux for most things--Linux doesn't "atrophy" over time.
True, many of Windows' faults aren't actually its fault--spyware, viruses, and needless background processes will infect any OS with 90%+ marketshare.
But (and forgive me if I misunderstand something) I fail to see why MS remains attached to filesystems that require regular defragmenting, and a registry that is in constant need of tidying up.
Linux and Mac are very "fix-it-and-forget-it" in that respect.
Is there a way Microsoft could forget about the registry and file system and come out with something new without causing big problems?
Even if they wanted to ditch the registry and file system, they probably couldn't because of legacy app issues. As soon as they produced an OS that used something in place of the registry or a different file system, EVERY windows based program would more than likely instantly have issues.
While its true that Mac and Linux have very robust file systems, the support for legacy apps is limited, on Mac at least, haven't used Linux long enough to find out.
Just as an example, I can still run my windows 95 progs on my Win 7 machine just fine (%90 of the time) While I can't run apps designed for OS 10.3 on my 10.5 install. MS tries really hard to keep those win 98 users happy, but sometimes you just have to let stuff go to move forward.
Not bashing any of the OS here, I use them all equally, just noting the differences I've seen.
That's interesting. My wife's desktop has been Linux for ages, and it boots quicker on her slower machine than Vista on my much faster machine. And, yes, Vista gets slower with age, but the Linux box stays at the same fast boot time.
One observation though. What they said was that 7 gets to the desktop faster, but doesn't settle down until after Vista has settled down.
My old 2ghz P4 laptop boots XP in about 30 seconds, and settles down within a minute.
Im using the 64bit version Build 7100 (RC)
at the beginning it was whole lot faster than xp and vista (had to reinstall xp and vista for other reasons so it was a good comparison)
but now it got reaaal slow when the win 7 logo is flowing on the screen at startup on either PC or Laptop (somehow like the loading bar in win xp)
PC has Quad Core 2 @ 2.0GHz
and Laptop Dual Core 2 @ 2.4GHz
dunno why it changed but I hope it got fixed by the time and no, I didnt trash my Storage full ...!
I call bull. I've been running Windows 7 RTM as well as the previous beta versions when they were available...and it booted twice as fast as Vista. There's no comparison...Windows 7 is so much faster than Vista it's ridiculous.
Sounds like a statement from a company who wants you to buy their tune-up software.
Oh wait...
This stupid company wants you to think Windows 7 is slower than Vista to entice you to purchase their "tuning" software.
A minute? My Vista 64 doesn't take a minute to boot, more like 30 seconds. It's even less if I put my HDD in fast (loud) seek mode.
They must be good at telling the future..
As far as I know, the RTM version of Windows 7 hasn't even been in existence for 3 months yet. That's a pretty weak statement if they're basing it on beta code.
I'm running 7 pro and it goes from off to usable in under a minute.
Who BOOTS their computers every day??
Wait... nevermind.. my grandma does before she connects to AOL...
laptop users.
I can't recall ever shutting my laptop down in recent memory. Though if you mean sleep mode, then I use that all the time.
What iolo doesn't tell you is they're using a 15 year old Thinkpad for their tests.
lololololololol Technologies.
Sorry - but I've been using Windows 7 for ages (Beta and RC) and it is significantly quicker than Vista. So pretty much everyone except Iolo think Windows 7 is faster. Oh, when my desktop appears, I can open and use Chrome straight away, and the wifi is already connected.
I have a mixed result. Beta and RC1 boot times were blazing. I could reboot mine several times (2 or 3) when my friend rebooted his vista once.
For the RTM ver i have now, it slowed down for some reason (maybe due to me jumping on the X64 bandwagon?) but still it's faster than vista most definitely.
"Iolo Technologies (a maker of PC tune-up software) " tries to stay in business, eh?
"They also unsurprisingly found that things got worse over time, with a three-month old Windows 7 install adding a full minute to the boot time,"
I'd like MS address this Windows rot/arthritis issue. Pathetic.
That's true of any operating system. They all slow down as time goes on and they accumulate what's called "bad state". Same thing happens in Linux or OSX. The amount of time it takes for such slowdowns to develop depends on the user and what they do with their computer.
Did you just make that one up?
ACtually Windows 7 is taking a lot to boot and shut down for me. I think there is problem with my core i7 drivers and the OS as seen by DELL. They made me downgrade to Vista and wait for the General Public release
Ah, I missed the bit about it being a maker of PC tune-up software. Now it all makes sense. Spread FUD so people will still buy your now-defunct product.
Hey everyone!
Let's all pony up some money together, donate it to "Mark," and in return he'll change his fugly avatar!
Like yours is any better? This is why I stick with the 50x50 Engadget gave me in the first place. In case I douche around thinking a cash-for-clunker I drive to community college is better than a angry man behind a yellow background.
Ironically I've already changed my avatar several times. Unfortunately Engadget doesn't seem to want to let me use a new one, since it always just stays with this one.
waaaawww!!
What a surprise! "engadget" has something bad to say bout Win7?
Weird.
At this point I would like to be able to downrank said articles. Posting an article like this and giving it any credibility ,when the general public who owns win 7 knows this is a fallacy and engadget themselves have tested this already, is not only stupid but just plain wrong.
+1 to your post. -1 to this article.
But then you'll realize that, downranking this article will downrank another said article instead.. much like the 'shuffle' feature for the Engadget reply button. :)