Windows 7 Boot Screen

[Mr. Dee]

Why dont they just eliminate the boot screen?

Computers should be fast enough. People expect Windows to start when they turn on their pc - nothing else. Nobody really needs to know that Windows is loading. They already know.

Hibernate :)

[SMELTN]

I think it needs a boot screen. I personally like them.... even though I may see 1 for 2 secs at a time, I still like the fact that its there.

[PermaSt0ne]

if you look at alternative boot screens that exist today you see the problem. they can only be like 16-bit colors and 10mb or something. any screen you put on there will look pixelated, off color, and just look like crap in general

you can't create pretty boot screens, so just leave it black

[Denholm]

I don't really care but it would be nice if it was more than a black screen with a green worm.

[Geranium_Z__NL]

i first thought it was pointless.. then i saw the option "Who Cares" chose that one :D

[kiwi89]

Who really cares. I see my boot screen once or twice in the day. 3 times if im lucky.

As long as its minimal and fast :p

[Skulltrail-old]

Wish they would implement Tetris or Pong while its booting.

3 seconds to play Tetris would be nice :laugh:

I honestly could care less about the boot screen, unfortunately I do care about it. (even if it is 3 seconds, I still want it to look nice)

[capr]

dont make it welcoming.. get ride of that thing!! come on now, PC boots shouldn't be so slow that you need a welcoming boot screen.

[pyehac]

Just show what the OS is really doing when booting - show some echo commands.

[Skulltrail-old]

Apparently this is Windows 7's current boot screen (as of 6519):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdrr3XUMLlE.swf

It isn't black guys! But if Microsoft keeps their word, you will barely get to see the computer boot; announced boot times would be shorten on the average PC by over 5 seconds. (Can't find source)

[.tony]

That picture looks pretty good except the 7, obviously.

It looks as if it's returning to the functionality of Windows 200 where the progress bar actually meant something rather than going on forever.

As for 6519, looks good also, but needs branding somewhere too.

[Kralik]

Yeah.. please not black and dull.. if the bg is black try to make the fg bright like Ubuntu.. bright orange on black..

More importantly, Windows 'se7en'? Seriously? How the hell did that catch on so much, anyway? I can't think of the last time I heard a nickname so retarded. Ugh. How can a community make fun of the name Vista so much, then spew up cheesy niche fanboy crap like se7en?

lol... its official now... thats what they are calling it.. Windows 7 is no longer just the codename.. thats what it will be shipped as..

Mike Nash, corporate vice president of Windows Product Management, explained:

"Over the years, we have taken different approaches to naming Windows. We've used version numbers like Windows 3.11, or dates like Windows 98, or "aspirational" monikers like Windows XP or Windows Vista. And since we do not ship new versions of Windows every year, using a date did not make sense. Likewise, coming up with an all-new "aspirational" name does not do justice to what we are trying to achieve, which is to stay firmly rooted in our aspirations for Windows Vista, while evolving and refining the substantial investments in platform technology in Windows Vista into the next generation of Windows."

Ultimately, Windows 7 is the seventh release of the operating system, "so therefore 'Windows 7' just makes sense," Nash writes.

Edited October 20, 2008 by Kralik

[White Cuban]

i'd prefer no boot screen and immediate login :p

[Toxicfume Veteran]

Of course, we all would prefer an "instant on" Windows. But at the rate OSes and Microsoft is going, just admit the fact that that's not in the realm of possiblity right now, so lets not dream too much.

In that light, I really hope they have a real bootscreen now. Vista's bootscreen is abysmally sheite. I don't care if you look at your bootscreens or not, how can a renowned company make a product that does not display any branding before getting into it? This is Microsoft Windows for heaven's sake!! Even minimally famous Linux distros have a proper bootscreen signifying the brand. A professional OS with a bootscreen like Vista's is nonsensical, it seriously looks like an experimental beta build, a half-assed version.

[Mr. Dee]

Of course, we all would prefer an "instant on" Windows. But at the rate OSes and Microsoft is going, just admit the fact that that's not in the realm of possiblity right now, so lets not dream too much.

In that light, I really hope they have a real bootscreen now. Vista's bootscreen is abysmally sheite. I don't care if you look at your bootscreens or not, how can a renowned company make a product that does not display any branding before getting into it? This is Microsoft Windows for heaven's sake!! Even minimally famous Linux distros have a proper bootscreen signifying the brand. A professional OS with a bootscreen like Vista's is nonsensical, it seriously looks like an experimental beta build, a half-assed version.

It says 'Microsoft © Corporation' below the progress bar on boot up, I would call that branding. It displays the Windows pearl logo during a portion of the boot sequence, it displays the 'Windows Vista SKU' on the Welcome Screen along with the Windows Logo. So, I don't see how you can say that Microsoft is not signifying their brand. Again, the boot screen is minimal for a reason, it does not need this over emphasis you expect, its just there to hide the boot processes and services. Something which most Linux distributions does not do.

[giga Veteran]

There is a reason why it's called a boot screen or loading screen .. it's still loading the drivers and the graphical subsystems.

Boot screens are minimalistic by nature and usually don't support higher resolutions.

Not only is it done to speed up the proces but also to debug something in case something goes wrong.

What you suggesting is a good idea but sucks in practice. It's like wanting to eat a sandwich whilst making a sandwich.

That is a limitation of BIOS, not boot screens.

[CelticWhisper]

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." Where "customizable themes" refers to the kind of stuff Neowinian themesters have been making in the customization forums with redesigned window decorations and start menus and buttons and transparency and everything, not just "Pick your colors and save them to a .theme file!"

I like my Macs, but that OS X bootup screen is FUGLY. Grey can be done properly and look good, but...Apple is NOT doing it properly. Those shades don't work and look like crap on silver monitor or on a projector. Black is popular for a reason.

Speaking of black, the WinXP and Vista boot screens get that part right but still are...loud. MSFT needs to do something more subtle for Win7. Lines of text describing certain parts of the boot process that fade from black&white to color (and I mean your regular 12-point Arial, not gigantic block letters that take up 35% of the screen), something that looks nice but is still useful with specific portions corresponding to specific parts of the boot process. Think troubleshooting here: If the words "Windows Seven" appear letter-by-letter as it boots, and there's a problem, novice users can say "It gets to the 2nd 'w' and then freezes" and it'll be easier for experts to help them. Things can be pretty and useful at the same time, and that'd be a decent way to do it.

Also, "Copyright 2009 Microsoft Corporation" is fugly too. I know, I know, MSFT wants their copyright-ego stroked. It's natural for an Ah-mayr-ee-can corporation to do, but swallow the corporate hubris and omit legalities from the bootscreen - it WILL look nicer because of it.

[Kralik]

Just show what the OS is really doing when booting - show some echo commands.

On second tht I agree with this comment.. My laptop is booted once in 3-4 days but I would love to see what really is happening in the bg while my computer boots.. but there should also be the option of watching a boot screen for those who cant understand the echo commands or prefer not to see that.. boot screens are defintely good.. even if you see them once a month.. its abt branding and telling ppl you exist.. you made this..

Edited October 20, 2008 by Kralik

[ViperAFK]

I only see the loading bars for like 3 seconds and vista boots to full desktop in 35 seconds so I couldn't care less although it would be nice.

[devHead]

Anything's better than the blinding white from the Windows 2000 boot screen. Remember that! Talk about screen burn, and that wasn't up for just a few seconds either.

But I like the Vista boot screen better than Windows XP. It's simple and clean, and since it's up for just a few seconds, it doesn't really matter. Hopefully Windows 7 will have something similar.

[Mr. Dee]

On second tht I agree with this comment.. My laptop is booted once in 3-4 days but I would love to see what really is happening in the bg while my computer boots.. but there should also be the option of watching a boot screen for those who cant understand the echo commands or prefer not to see that.. boot srceen is defintely good.. even if you see them once a month.. its abt branding and telling ppl you exist.. you made this..

Boot in Safe Mode and your wishes will come true. :)

[Kralik]

Boot in Safe Mode and your wishes will come true. :)

lol... exactly.. MS does that for safe mode... why not do the same for normal boot-up? plus I wish I dont have to see that safe mode boot-up much :s

[Mr. Dee]

lol... exactly.. MS does that for safe mode... why not do the same for normal boot-up? plus I wish I dont have to see that safe mode boot-up much :s

Because its irrelevant for a normal startup. The reason why its displayed in Safe Mode is for diagnostic purposes only. It can tell which service is causing a hang or crash. The fact that Windows is a consumer operating system, used for end user based type activities, the average consumer does not care to see a list of services starting on boot up, they just want to ensure it boots up, reaches the desktop and they can start checking their email, surfing the web, IM, and run their applications without any problems.

[_neutrino Veteran]

i prefer a solid colour with some sort of loading bar it does not bother me any if there is anything at all.

[Robbie Ride]

What if Microsot did implement a new boot screen, would you find a way of removing it so that your computer boots faster and takes you to your desktop much quicker

If Microsoft gave Windows Seven users a choice of having a boot screen or not, would you turn the feature on or disable it permanately.

Do you think it would be a good idea for Microsoft to let the user fully customize the boot screen in Windows Seven without the need for 3rd party applications?