Anyone else remember when Microsoft used to talk about making Windows Vista (or Longhorn, as it was then known) a fast-booting operating system. Fast, as in cold boots that were 50 percent faster than those possible with Windows XP?
Something obviously went awry.
As Computerworld is reporting, a number of Vista users are none too happy about Vista boot-up times. Some are questioning whether Microsoft is advocating that users just put Vista into sleep mode, as opposed to shutting down systems on a daily basis, to mask the sluggish boot up.
(And it's not just boot up speeds that are troublesome. Vista shutdown is as slow as molasses, too, Computerworld is reporting users as saying. And app-loading times are nothing to write home about, either.)
Microsoft has been touting the sleep/hibernate modes as the preferred ways to "shut off" Vista systems.
View: Full Article @ Mary Jo Foley's ZDNet Blog
Something obviously went awry.
As Computerworld is reporting, a number of Vista users are none too happy about Vista boot-up times. Some are questioning whether Microsoft is advocating that users just put Vista into sleep mode, as opposed to shutting down systems on a daily basis, to mask the sluggish boot up.
(And it's not just boot up speeds that are troublesome. Vista shutdown is as slow as molasses, too, Computerworld is reporting users as saying. And app-loading times are nothing to write home about, either.)
Microsoft has been touting the sleep/hibernate modes as the preferred ways to "shut off" Vista systems.
View: Full Article @ Mary Jo Foley's ZDNet Blog
As for boot up times, they're very similar to me. So vista is not faster than XP, but it isn't considerably slower either. At least for me
I believe one of the main issues that the article brings to light is that this is another in a very long line of Longhorn broken promises. The dismal adoption and saturation rate of Vista that I've heard MS insiders grumble about is in my opinion, (unfortunately) deserved. I really wish they would have hit one out of the park with Vista. Too bad it's not much more than an expensive bunt.
XP on the otherhand -- What a nightmare.
Running Vista Ultimate 32-bit and boot is about 50% faster than XP (15 seconds avg for Vista / 30-40 seconds for XP)
Shutdown is a lot faster (10 seconds avg for Vista / 40-50 seconds for XP)
I usually "Hybrid Sleep" (some sort of mutant child of suspend + hibernation?) instead of shutting down, which works well (Vista comes alive in under 5 seconds, and restores to a completely usable state in under 30 seconds), and I think was the intent anyway.
I think they had said reboots would be greatly reduced, but not eliminated in all cases. That much it seems true. I have installed what were once fairly invasive device drivers such as video, sound, etc. and no reboots were needed.
Occasionally I get a reboot notice tied to an update.
-d
I know, they said they would try to "save and then reboot" to make it look like reboots weren't happening.
That linked article has users complaining about 6 minute startup times. There is something CLEARLY abnormal with comments like that. Another user complains about "10 minutes to boot". Thats not something I've ever seen with vista.
-d
Its like 1/5 the time vista 64 takes to do this.
=/
vista - close to 2mins
shutdown time on xp (5secs)
vista (close to 30secs)
but i couldnt care less abt this
par with XP. On shutdown though, it's another thing. Takes MUCH longer to shut down than XP.
I use hibernate most of the time, simply because I keep 5 apps running most of the time, and I'd rather use
sleep/hibernate to cut down on restart times. I wish MS would do something with the startup/shutdown times, but
considering no two computers are alike, it must be a harder task. Perhaps if they slimmed down the code a bit
it would help. Something else that lags down startup time. Have you seen some of the screenshots of peoples
desktops? They must have a dozen or more apps running in the taskbar.
My fresh Vista install was fast as hell on boot and shutdown, but i had no applications loading on startup.When you add antivirus (which scans on startup). firewall, antispyware, video card drivers (meaning their control panel in taskbar), p2p aplications and whatever you add to start on boot, you get significantly increased boot times.You cannot expect that 10+ apps on boot will have the same speed as none.Same goes on shutdown.Applications cannot be closed imidiately, they need time to be properly shut down.It's ridiculous to expect any OS to be booted and shut down in couple of seconds.
Last edited by dr spock on 14 Apr 2007 - 08:04
Gone. That's it.
Perhaps you'll see it. Maybe you won't. Thakfully, I have no such concerns as I'm a Mac user.
On startup, the system loads the standard items (sys tray, volume control, WiFi, etc) + AnyDVD and WowHead
It doesn't bother me that much, but it was kind of funny how I just realized a week ago the increased times and now this is posted.
Last edited by HeartsOfWar on 12 Apr 2007 - 14:29
I've recently noticed that mine is getting sluggish as well as the PC I have dedicated as a media centre
My installation was a fresh OEM Home Premium days after the official release
Even stipping a few things out of the startup etc hasn't really speeded it up
I think M$ was always talking about leaving a PC in sleep mode when discussing fast booting (as well as hybrid drives)
Atm, I wouldn't say it was much better in terms of speed that XP, but no worse either
Surprised in this age of cutting energy bills that M$ is defaulting to sleep mode as the reconmended shutdown
Sure, it's less energy that leaving it on, but far more than when off. I'd like to get an idea of just how much power it might consume while sleeping
The UK Gov is trying to move away from sleep/standby modes to full off atm and looking to force manufacturers to make it so
Wanka's gotta stop installing it on P3's and get with the 1990's
Intel Core Duo 2 2GHz with 3GB RAM and nVIDIA 7600 GS Graphics card with 2 80GB 7K RPM HD's in RAID 0
XP Startup about 45 seconds
Vista Startup about 26 seconds
XP Shutdown about 1.6 Minutes
Vista Shutdown about 20 seconds...
I'd just like to add that Ubuntu takes the same amount of time to start up as both versions of Windows, and longer to shut down than Vista (about the same amount of time as XP). I'm willing to bet that the problem is (as every other Vista bug) some kind of driver issue with certain hardware configurations.
I would hope they are much quicker on a desktop.
My Core 2 Duo Vista Laptop runs out of battery in sleep mode in about 5 hours. My Macbook runs out of battery in sleep mode after about 6 days. Vista's power management is just horrible. I love vista don't get me wrong but if you throw the power management problems together with the slow boot times it can become a real annoyance. That being said, Vista's improvements far outweigh its' drawbacks.
startup is under 30 seconds, but that's because my vista ultimate has been modified with a program called vlite and i disabled a lot of unneccessary things. including the sidebar. haven;t tried the sleep yet tho.
Now I should leave my computer in hibernation ?
If you wish to see your boot time increase without disabling Prefetching:
Restart your computer and note the boot time. (Can be skipped if you feel as if you know it well.)
Navigate to C:WindowsPrefetch and delete the NTOSBOOT.pf file. (Note that the files in this folder are apparently used for SuperFetch, not the Prefetch feature, so don't clear it out.)
Reboot to see your shortened boot time.
This works only once, as with every time you load a program/restart, the NTOSBOOT file gets bigger, and your boot time gets longer. Of course this won't happen at all, and you'll be at the peak of boot speed if you disable prefetching altogether, which isn't recommended as it can degrade application startup time with Superfetch. (correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming they're linked)
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.