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.