on an old dell, p4 512mb ram and no video card, it takes about 1:30 from power button to active desktop. its better than xp even. (only have word, MS security essentials, adobe reader, and a codec pack installed, same as on xp). just my $.02
This reminds me of an argument I had with someone, back when Windows 2000 had just come out, and I had switched to it from Windows ME: The heart of the argument was that Windows 2000 booted slower than Windows ME, which was true. Full NT kernel VS Half9x/NT kernel, or whateverthehell WinME was. My argument was that I would rather wait a measly 30 seconds more, and have a more secure system that could take 7 days uptime and not blink, VS a Windows ME based system that booted 30 secs sooner, but needed a reboot every 6-8 hours. (depending on what games I played) I think I ended the argument with something along the lines of: "I can't understand why you are so happy about getting to your BSOD's faster, but go for it bud." Ahh, nostalgia. --DKnight
Iolo is a moth@ fuc@ crap, even my grandmother knows that .They are really liars Iobit products are 10000000000% better.
Win7 bootup time With Norton AntiVirus 2010 it takes about 35 Seconds in My PC with Dual Core E5200, 1GB RAM (512x2) 667Mhz CL-5, 7200.12 Seagate 500GB HDD, MSI G41 MBD Using Hazar Loader & loader by Cypher
Frankly, I don't care much about boot times these days because I tend to leave the PC on all the time anyway (for seeding torrents and just the convenience of coming right back to it). I might be inclined to use hibernation if I really had to "shut it off." That said, I imagine boot times would be affected by what you have installed and how you have things set up anyway.
I've been working in the tech field since 1995 and I'd like to think I can at least tell when there are significant differences between entire operating system versions. I have a machine that I am typing on this very second that has 2 SATA drive arrays of the same exact make; they were part of server that was recycled. One array has vistault64 and the other win7ult64. They were both installed within a day of each other and have similar applications (firefox, k-lite codecs, openoffice, gtk+, and plants vs zombies ). Hands down, the Win7 array is faster. The only difference is that it is on the second controller of the same model as the Vista install. Perhaps this will change over time, but the second report from that Iolo company says that after six months Win7 deals better with windows 'rot'. Since their first claim does not match my real world results (I admit I'm not comparing data directly and it's circumstantial) I do not feel any more credibility about their second claim. I should also say that I am far from a MS fan and support open source fully.That said, Win7 is the best desktop operating system product they have produced to date. I have already been recommending to clients to budget for it.
ii been using windows 7 since may in its beta stage and i have had no promblems with it i had vista on my comp for 2 weeks an had to format because it was lagging so bad i advise everyone i no to stay off vista i will be advising everyone i no to get windows 7. everyone nos xp is better then vista u could put a snail up against vista and the snail would win. this article B$.
I tested this. For me, with clean x64 installs, power to login was 47 seconds on Win7, and 42 seconds on vista sp2. So I'd say there were right, but not by much, and judging by other posts it seems 7 loads faster on certain hardware (unless they are bulls**tting fanboys). Who cares about 5 seconds of boot time anyway though? I only ever boot about once a week these days, sleep mode is fine.
The main difference to me between 7 and Vista is hard drive usage. If you have a 7200 RPM hard drive you won't notice it as much, but throw a laptop 5400 RPM or a 2.5" 5400 RPM hard drive in there and you will see a big difference. Both start up at about the same rate but the usability of 7 is a lot better. I find I am not waiting 5-10 minutes for my hard drive to calm down after loading everything. 7's selective services is also a big thing, with Vista and XP everything basically fired off at once unless you used a program to control that. Now with 7 everything that needs to start right out of the box does the rest of it is on demand.
I cannot make out any significant difference in boot time. Granted i did not time it with a stopwatch, but subjectively there seems to be no difference at all, which means IF there is one after all then it cannot be that much. If i were to estimate then id say it is ~30 seconds with both of them, give or take a sec or two. The only thing i found that really has great influence on how fast the desktop finishes loading (which to me is part of the boot process) is when your LAN adaptor is set to DHCP (which happens to be the default) and youre just using a DSL Modem to connect to the internet. In that case Windows (XP, Vista and 7 alike) is senselessly trying to get an IP for 40-50 tormenting seconds until it finally realizes that it wont be getting one from that device no matter now hard and how long it tries. Hence there was always a 40-50 seconds delay until the network icon in the systray would loose the red cross and the rest of the auto-start progs would get loaded. But ever since i started giving the LAN adaptor a static private IP (192.168...) this problem was gone and the desktop and all auto-start progs would load instantly. (The only NIC where i didnt have to do this was a 3COM onboard an ASUS A7V333 or A7V600. (Forgot which.) But with all Realtek and DLink NICs the DHCP feature seems to be a surefire way to increase boot time by several hundret percent.)
Well on iolo's site there is no mention of this article being a press release or in the news so. That NZ site might want to check their source. Looks like they're talking out of their asses; quite literally. 2 minutes and a half or even a minute and a half are outrageous boot times unless you're using a dinosaur computer. If that's the case then it's the user's fault not Windows 7's ;-) Get with the times instead of yelling at those kids to get off your damn lawn lol.
of course 7 is slower, because first vista has to boot and then all the new crap that makes the XP users think this is different to vista. hhahaha The new taskbar is just annoying I have set it so it works more like in vista. Other than that whats new really? Homegroups.....didnt find anything else yet.
That was such a retarded statement "What's New?" I swear people need to actual use a product (OS) before making any dumb comments like that. What do you want from the OS? What will be new to you? Paying your bills automatically, knowing what you think, are you that type of user that needs such a dramatic change for it to be new? I swear, sometimes people need to shut up. I'm sure you claim there is nothing new in cars now than 10 years ago right...it has paint, 4 wheels and drives WOW must be the same. Lame.
people that ask 'whats new?' or this is 'Vista SP3' need to do some homework. I know they look similar but hell so did 98 and 2000. I remember when XP came out this same argument was made. The best one I heard was: "Why do I want to use XP, it is just 2000 with a Green M&M start button" The thing that 7 has that looks promising to me is DirectAccess. Right now I need a VPN solution and my stupid router doesn't do VPN pass through on the outbound side, and a SonicWALL or whatever isn't in the budget. With DA I need a router that does IPv6 internally (R&RAS does this), and 2 outside IPv4 addresses for Teredo. You enable this and I am ALWAYS connected to my internal domain as well as my external domain. Extending Bitlocker to USB is also very promising, something like PGP (truecrypt is nice but is doesn't do everything PGP does) costs a TON of money for a site license and a universal server. With Bitlocker and Exch 2010 I get e-mail encryption WDE and USB encryption. Powershell Remote Execution and Server Manager. Only with Win 7 and Server 2008 R2 can I use PSRE and Server Manager. Can't use those with Vista/2008 SP2. Homegroups: These are great. I love the ability to not have to worry about networking or stupid things like SIDs or workgroup names or account names to share stuff. Speed and Reliability: better by miles than vista, much the same way XP has evolved into an OS far superior than 2000. Any time MS releases an incremented kernel it is always better than the .0 point release. 3.11 was better than 3.1, 98 was better than 95, XP was better than 2000, and 7 is better than Vista. Taskbar: Some don't like it, I love it. So it's not as great as the dock in OS X, but having my recent items right there is far better than the dock can offer.
No, cars have different engines, different sizes, different looks. Cars have advanced a lot, hybrids, safety etc... Vista was the BMW 335i if you will...and 7 is just the M3. That would be taking it far though, it's more of a facelift. Like a new front bumper, and some interior dials with a different layout. In the meantime I have noticed some other changes when searching for files. Im just saying that the changes are not like XP to Vista or 98 to 2000, meaning not as big.
It is a kernel increment it is not supposed to be big. The differences from 3.1 to 3.11 were not that big. The differences from 95 to 98 were not that big. The changes from NT 5 to NT 5.1 were not that big. So the change from NT 6 to NT 6.1 isn't going to be that big. It will add new features, improve performance, implement new technologies, and build upon the existing base. People that expect a major improvement are in for a let down if you are expecting a whole new OS. If you used NT 6 then you won't notice that much of a difference between NT 6 and NT 6.1. It was the same as Server 2003 and Server 2003 R2, there wasn't a whole lot of difference on the surface but a lot of new features were added, support for new techs, and performance gains. The same goes for Server 2008 and 2008 R2, not a lot different if you just look at the OS, you have to go deeper.