Windows 7 Boot Screen

[Robbie Ride]

by the time the orb animation plays, most drivers are already loaded. Thus negating the need for a bootscreen at that point.

After installing Windows Vista on your computer whether fast or not, you proceed to install your drivers, applications ect.

What is the one thing you'll notice after you reboot your computer, boot times increase from what was a proud 10 - 20 seconds, increases to a harsh 40 - 60 seconds, maybe more.

Now some users don't know the first thing about configuring the startup items in any Windows OS, so not everyone will benefit from speedy boot times as well as system performance increases.

So a boot screen is needed and i for one think a decent boot screen other than the one currently in Windows Vista is a good idea.

29.69% of people in this poll think it's a good idea to have a nice boot screen, 18.78% of people in this poll think it's a pointless feature, albeit 26.64% of people don't care and they are likely to be Apple users.

Edited October 21, 2008 by Windows Tester

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Personally I like the way Linux does it - have a nice distro-default boot screen (Ubuntu actually manages to make orange look good) with an open spec so users can create their own and share them around. I know Microsoft patently (no pun intended) hates anything "open" and "Free" but for all they're pushing the "Windows WOW Experience" it would be a helpful selling point to be able to say "Windows 7, now with customizable themes, bootscreens, etc."

What would ever give you the idea that Microsoft hates anything "open" or "free?" And what's with the patent pun? When was the last time Microsoft exercised a patent? Microsoft patents things defensively, to prevent people from trying to claim crazy royalties whenever a user interacts with an ActiveX control before clicking on it or whatever.

And seriously, how many people out of the billion Windows users do you think would customize their boot screen? How many would do it that don't already do it now? How many would upgrade to Windows 7 for that? I mean really, sometimes I'm very glad that Neowin doesn't decide (directly) what goes into the product.

I'm all for a prettier boot screen (I think the Vista radioactive green progress bar is craptastic as they come), but seriously... it's a loading screen. It's a necessity, not a feature.

[darren89]

A real progress bar would be nice.

+1

i also think so. :)

to me that's necessary for windows 7.

[Saarineames]

I agree about having a real progress bar and not just a chaser. Something similar as to when you're first installing the OS, but obviously a bit nicer. I prefer the black screen, though. I enjoy the simplicity there.

A fancy boot screen would be effective on first run. Other than that, it's... trivial.

[jimbo11883]

I also agree with having a real progress bar, it would be nice to possibly also see what Windows is doing while it boots, some debug text... maybe make it a hidden registry entry for us power users?

[Robbie Ride]

What would ever give you the idea that Microsoft hates anything "open" or "free?" And what's with the patent pun? When was the last time Microsoft exercised a patent? Microsoft patents things defensively, to prevent people from trying to claim crazy royalties whenever a user interacts with an ActiveX control before clicking on it or whatever.

And seriously, how many people out of the billion Windows users do you think would customize their boot screen? How many would do it that don't already do it now? How many would upgrade to Windows 7 for that? I mean really, sometimes I'm very glad that Neowin doesn't decide (directly) what goes into the product.

I'm all for a prettier boot screen (I think the Vista radioactive green progress bar is craptastic as they come), but seriously... it's a loading screen. It's a necessity, not a feature.

I think it's hard to put a figure to the number of users who customize their boot screens using 3rd party apps, so yeah if Microsoft but a boot screen customization feature into Windows people may use it, the internet is littered with pictures of customized boot screens.

I think people are unlikely to upgrade for that feature alone so that arguement is invalid.

Maybe someone should do a poll to find out how many people have or would customize their own boot screen, by either 3rd party apps or if the feature was included in Windows Seven, thus given a rough number.

What would ever give you the idea that Microsoft hates anything "open" or "free?" And what's with the patent pun? When was the last time Microsoft exercised a patent? Microsoft patents things defensively, to prevent people from trying to claim crazy royalties whenever a user interacts with an ActiveX control before clicking on it or whatever.

Doesn't Apple patent things defensively, sometimes using other people patents without permission?

Edited October 21, 2008 by Windows Tester

[Brandon Live Veteran]

I also agree with having a real progress bar, it would be nice to possibly also see what Windows is doing while it boots, some debug text... maybe make it a hidden registry entry for us power users?

I thought power users already knew how to turn on the verbose boot-up spew...

[Robbie Ride]

I thought power users already knew how to turn on the verbose boot-up spew...

a verbose boot up how quaint, a decent boot screen wether its verbose or not shouldn't just be for power users.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

I think it's hard to put a figure to the number of users who customize their boot screens using 3rd party apps, so yeah if Microsoft but a boot screen customization feature into Windows people will use it, the internet is littered with pictures of customized boot screens.

It's not hard to put a figure on it. I'll give you a hint: Nobody.

And by nobody, I mean a statistically insignificant portion of the population. We're talking less than 0.00001% of users. Believe me, that engineering effort is better spent elsewhere.

Maybe someone should do a poll to find out how many people have or would customize their own boot screen, by either 3rd party apps or if the feature was included in Windows Seven, thus given a rough number.

If you can do this with third party apps, why build it into the OS when virtually nobody will use it?

[Saarineames]

Maybe someone should do a poll to find out how many people have or would customize their own boot screen, by either 3rd party apps or if the feature was included in Windows Seven, thus given a rough number.

I can tell you right now that I customize the hell out of my system, and the boot screen isn't even an afterthought.

[Robbie Ride]

It's not hard to put a figure on it. I'll give you a hint: Nobody.

And by nobody, I mean a statistically insignificant portion of the population. We're talking less than 0.00001% of users. Believe me, that engineering effort is better spent elsewhere.

If you can do this with third party apps, why build it into the OS when virtually nobody will use it?

Ok, if nobody uses third party apps to customize their boot screens, then why are there websites dedicated to doing this, i maybe mistaken but hasn't Neowin got a forum page dedicated to this? oh wait they have and its here: Neowin - Custom Boot & Login Screenswhat about Wincustomize oh wait they do as well Boot Skins - Wincustomize

So yeah people do use it, otherwise there would be no software available because as u put it nobody would use it

[Mr. Dee]

Perhaps i better elaborate what i mean by incorporating the Boot Screen into the Welcome Screen.

Your switch on you computer and after the Bios Screen, The Windows Orb appears with the standard jingle and underneath is the progress bar that indicates that Windows is loading.

Both the Windows Orb and Progress bar fades out and the Welcome Screen fades in, then the desktop is displayed.

Do you understand now?

The different sequences serve a purpose, you need to understand how Windows starts. When your computer starts, it runs POST then the BIOS loads, it searches for the MBR, the MBR then loads the OS's own native BIOS, in the case of Windows Vista its called NT Loader. NT Loader then runs Boot.ini > the next portion is loading of NTDetect.com, which is similar to POST this is the part where the HAL file is also loaded to handle communication of your hardware with the next step, NTOS Kernel. The next phase is loading of additional services and the Registry and then the user Authenticates and the desktop is built. This is a complex and boring set of processes. Microsoft has done its best to make it as accommodating as possible for the end user.

The array of gimmicky stuff you wish to be added to something that is just trying get the user to do what they want to do just seems like a complete waste of time. The have already done a decent job already and I don't see why this should be an issue.

A real progress bar would be nice.

Its not a progress bar really, its an indicator, if it stops for a period of time, its telling you that the OS has hanged or something has gone wrong.

Some older systems aren't fast enough for a 10 - 40 seconds boot sequence thus the reason for a boot screen to be implemented in the OS.

Some system services from 3rd party applications and drivers increasing the startup time of the Windows OS thus the reason for boot screen.

Until Microsoft decides to implement the Instant On feature in Windows Seven and 3rd Party developers change the way their system services from applications and drivers effect the Windows OS, the boot sequence time will be affected.

No developer is perfect, Windows will always have a little time to startup, its just a part of computing life. I don't see how you are going to control third party IHVs and ISVs to adhere to strict rules about their applications and services. Especially Apple with their own services which they believe is essential. But, the main point here, is if the boot up is successful, that is what is most important. Some of the things people do in the work place in the morning when they boot up there computer, include, chatting with fellow employees, chatting on the phone, go make coffee, then again, this on Monday mornings. Throughout the week days, most employees don't even shutdown their systems. I know I don't.

Ok, but not literally, just figuratively, 10 seconds. I don't see the need for anything more than the classic Windows 2000 loading bar, or a verbose boot log.

What does the Windows 2000 Progress bar tell you that the Windows Vista progress indicator does not? In fact, I remember, the Windows 2000 progress bar would load to the very end, but did not indicate anything after that, it just sat there filled. I use to wonder if the OS was hung.

A lot of should be happy we have come so far, remember NT 4's startup?

[Robbie Ride]

No developer is perfect, Windows will always have a little time to startup, its just a part of computing life. I don't see how you are going to control third party IHVs and ISVs to adhere to strict rules about their applications and services. Especially Apple with their own services which they believe is essential. But, the main point here, is if the boot up is successful, that is what is most important. Some of the things people do in the work place in the morning when they boot up there computer, include, chatting with fellow employees, chatting on the phone, go make coffee, then again, this on Monday mornings. Throughout the week days, most employees don't even shutdown their systems. I know I don't.

I think this article Engineering Windows 7 - Boot Performance talks about how Microsoft will work with their software partners on how to make Windows boot faster and how to develop their software and drivers work with Windows much better.

Some people like a gimicky features especially in Windows, some feature and apps maybe gimicks and some users wouldn't part with them.

What does the Windows 2000 Progress bar tell you that the Windows Vista progress indicator does not? In fact, I remember, the Windows 2000 progress bar would load to the very end, but did not indicate anything after that, it just sat there filled. I use to wonder if the OS was hung.

Sometimes Windows 2000 did hang at the boot screen, much like the previous versions of Windows

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Ok, if nobody uses third party apps to customize their boot screens, then why are there websites dedicated to doing this, i maybe mistaken but hasn't Neowin got a forum page dedicated to this? oh wait they have and its here: Neowin - Custom Boot & Login Screenswhat about Wincustomize oh wait they do as well Boot Skins - Wincustomize

So yeah people do use it, otherwise there would be no software available because as u put it nobody would use it

You don't really consider that to be a significant population do you? I mean, I love Neowin, but it's a tiiiiiiiiny and very unique sampling of the userbase. Even among the Neowin population (which itself is a ridiculously small group among Windows users), I believe the number who care about bootscreen customization is negligible.

[Kirkburn]

a verbose boot up how quaint, a decent boot screen wether its verbose or not shouldn't just be for power users.

Er, he was directly responding to the last comment. No need to be snarky.

I'm going to have to go with Brandon on this. I work on product management (albeit in a small company), and it /is/ important to decide where best to focus the efforts of the tech team. Even apparently small changes like this need a lot more work than you might realise, and the techies are a finite resource.

Regarding the idea of turning it into a loading bar - that takes more work than you might realise. I'd expect during boot up you don't really know how long it'll take until it's finished. Thus, you might get the loading bar seemingly "hang" on a certain section that takes longer than expected for whatever reason. You'll think the PC has got a problem, when it's fine. Thus, you have a continually moving bar instead.

[Robbie Ride]

You don't really consider that to be a significant population do you? I mean, I love Neowin, but it's a tiiiiiiiiny and very unique sampling of the userbase. Even among the Neowin population (which itself is a ridiculously small group among Windows users), I believe the number who care about bootscreen customization is negligible.

No, i don't really consider that to be a significant population. Have you actually researched this?, go to Google and type in Boot Screen customization and you'll find a whole raft of websites dedicated to doing this.

Obviously Neowin is tiny but you may find that more users customize Windows than you think, unless we have exact figures, we'll never know, but it would be interesting to find out.

[Mr. Dee]

Er, he was directly responding to the last comment. No need to be snarky.

I'm going to have to go with Brandon on this. I work on product management (albeit in a small company), and it /is/ important to decide where best to focus the efforts of the tech team. Even apparently small changes like this need a lot more work than you might realise, and the techies are a finite resource.

Regarding the idea of turning it into a loading bar - that takes more work than you might realise. I'd expect during boot up you don't really know how long it'll take until it's finished. Thus, you might get the loading bar seemingly "hang" on a certain section that takes longer than expected for whatever reason. You'll think the PC has got a problem, when it's fine. Thus, you have a continually moving bar instead.

Exactly, just like Windows 2000. So basically we want a downgrade in experience. The Windows Vista progress bar already does a perfect job, it tells us that the OS is booting and everything is functioning.

No, i don't really consider that to be a significant population. Have you actually researched this?, go to Google and type in Boot Screen customization and you'll find a whole raft of websites dedicated to doing this.

Obviously Neowin is tiny but you may find that more users customize Windows than you think, unless we have exact figures, we'll never know, but it would be interesting to find out.

There are over a billion Windows computers out there. Even if it was 5 million, its still a small portion of the market that's probably already satisfied by third party utilities. Its also perfect that third party vendors are filling this gap, its called building the Windows ecosystem. I am sure the vendors who do it now, wouldn't want Microsoft stepping on their toes. I honestly don't think this warrants any Microsoft developer time, there are bigger challenges in the OS that needs to be attended to: Instant On, improving the OOBE, Upgrades preserving personal settings and profile, improving the networking experience, making security a better experience, Speech and Hand writing recognition and power management.

[StarLion]

You know what part of the startup process really annoys me? Windows dismisses that login screen and draws the Windows desktop BEFORE its finished loading. Sure you can see your desktop quicker, but it's no use to me when I'll have to wait another minute for the system to become responsive.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

You know what part of the startup process really annoys me? Windows dismisses that login screen and draws the Windows desktop BEFORE its finished loading. Sure you can see your desktop quicker, but it's no use to me when I'll have to wait another minute for the system to become responsive.

On Vista it should stay at the login screen with the flaming donut until the shell is fully loaded and ready to respond. You're saying when your desktop appears and you click on the start button it hangs or nothing happens?

[Andre]

Really... who cares! ~100 replies on how something that is so insignificant should be. You have got to be kidding me!

[Mr. Dee]

On Vista it should stay at the login screen with the flaming donut until the shell is fully loaded and ready to respond. You're saying when your desktop appears and you click on the start button it hangs or nothing happens?

Brandon, this is something I have noticed as far back as Windows 2000. The desktop is built, but you are unable to launch the Start menu, items are still being loaded in the Notification area. Particularly on Vista, when this happens and I click the Start button, the Start menu is being rendered. I would prefer if it stayed at the Loading your Personal Settings sequence until everything has been completed.

[Brandon Live Veteran]

Brandon, this is something I have noticed as far back as Windows 2000. The desktop is built, but you are unable to launch the Start menu, items are still being loaded in the Notification area. Particularly on Vista, when this happens and I click the Start button, the Start menu is being rendered. I would prefer if it stayed at the Loading your Personal Settings sequence until everything has been completed.

It's supposed to stay there until Explorer is up and ready to go. It does NOT wait for other apps in the start-up path like Messenger, sidebar, etc. However, the system should be responsive while those are loading since they're loaded with background priority.

The idea is that as soon as you see the taskbar you should be able to click on the start button and open an app. Your gadgets, buddy list, tray icons might trickle in over a short period though.

[Kirkburn]

Regarding the start menu - it all seems there and responsive for me ... except for the icons (which, tbh, are not that important). The icons always load a bit slowly, which might be due to the number on my start menu, and it induces a little starting lag.

[Robbie Ride]

I don't know if any if you have your the article on Boot Performance in Windows Seven, but it seems Microsoft is working on all issues relating to Boot times and the loading speed of the desktop.

If you compare Windows XP with Windows Vista you'll notice that Windows XP loads a quicker than it's successor, this may or may not have to do with more processes in Windows Vista or just the way it was built.

I have a conversation with a friend online last night and we both agree that Microsoft should have included these basic improvements that Windows XP has enjoyed for sometime into Windows Vista.

But of course many of you will argue that Microsoft rushed Windows Vista out the door and we have been left with a half baked system of which Microsoft has tried and maybe failed to fix by releasing Service Pack 1 and it goes to show that doing this didn't fix all of Windows Vista's sort comings and Service Pack 2 will be seen as a last ditch attempt to bring the OS up to the standard that people expect.

I have 2 PC's and 4 Laptops with either Windows Vista Ultimate or Home Premium installed and performance varies but the one this that is continuous if the feel of an incomplete OS.

Obviously people with argue that this Poll/Post is pointless but it just points out that if people want to see the return of the Boot Screen then it's likely they want other things to return.

it seems like it's Evolution not Revolution.

[random_n]

On Vista it should stay at the login screen with the flaming donut until the shell is fully loaded and ready to respond.

:laugh:

Also, status text during the stuff that runs with the boot screen would be pretty useless; since XP it's all very asynchronous. With everything loading at once, you just get a list of drivers (what you see in safe mode), and glean nothing useful from it.