# Windows 7 slower than Vista



## 10TaTioN (Oct 12, 2009)

> *The newly launched operating system of Microsoft, the Windows 7 has been reported to be slower than Windows Vista by as much as 42 percent. A Los Angeles based PC software company called iolo has made a report that the system takes One minute and 34 seconds to boot against one minute and six seconds by Vista.*
> 
> The report was released after carrying a series of tests by iolo. The catch here is the startup point. Iolo has taken the start up point as the point when the PC becomes fully usable. Whereas Microsoft has claimed that the Windows 7 is faster than Vista with its time to the desktop.
> 
> Microsoft has also claimed that the system is faster while getting out of hibernation and sleep. A number of other tests have also agreed on to the claims made by iolo. PC World and Computerworld have reported the Windows 7 to be slower than Windows Vista by 10 to 14 percent. Iolo has reported that the delay could be the large number of applications that load with the Windows 7 box. Time will tell which system will emerge the winner.



*Source:* NewsLine365


----------



## AphexDreamer (Oct 12, 2009)

I think they might be right. My Windows 7 Startup time is also slower then when I had Vista Installed.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 12, 2009)

eh? lightning here.

there was a thread with a boot-time benchmark here on TPU, and it was dominated by windows 7 users


----------



## r9 (Oct 12, 2009)

Mussels said:


> eh? lightning here.
> 
> there was a thread with a boot-time benchmark here on TPU, and it was dominated by windows 7 users



+1 
I don`t need external testers to tell me what is faster. For me Windows 7 is faster than Vista and XP. The biggest problem with MS OS is that they tend to get noticeable slower with time.
Taking that in to account Windows 7 is as fast as the first day and I have installed amazing amount of crap on it and it still booting and running fast.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 12, 2009)

these 'tests' are likely done with a bogged down OS and 20 apps starting with windows.

Myself, i just have my antivirus, MSN and steam start with windows and leave the rest as i want it - and everything starts and runs quite happily.

due to vistas (sometimes overuse) of superfetch, it may well load faster under extremely heavy startup conditions


----------



## AphexDreamer (Oct 12, 2009)

I think its something with my HD's cause the lengthy part isn't at the Desktop its at the Windows 7 Loading screen, It takes longer there then Vista did. Not sure why.


----------



## kid41212003 (Oct 12, 2009)

My Vista is as fast as 7. I noticed zero different between them, and I did not tweak both of them.


----------



## bogmali (Oct 12, 2009)

That is straight garbage......My rigs boot a lot faster with WIN7.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 12, 2009)

I think Win7 boots about 20% faster However programs like Call of Duty WaW take about 50% longer to load..Crysis hmm. I can walk away make a sandwhich and eat it before it loads


----------



## A Cheese Danish (Oct 12, 2009)

I don't think this is truly accurate for rigs like ours on this forum. 7 boots up faster than Vista and slightly 
faster than XP on my laptop and desktop. Now if people went out and bought a computer with 7, and all 
that factory crap that is on there, yes, it may boot slower than Vista.


----------



## newtekie1 (Oct 12, 2009)

Maybe it is because I grew up in a time when boot-up times were 5+ minutes.  Remember booting the PC, going and making a sandwich, and coming back and the computer still isn't booted?  1:34 isn't too bad, IMO.  Yes, it is slower than Vista, and overall it might be slightly slower to use.  However, it is a better OS, so the slight slowdown would be worth it, IMO.

Not to mention, as I've said before, Win7 will feel faster to most consumers, simply because they will be going from a dirty install of XP/Vista to a clean install of Win7, and the clean Win7 will be faster than their dirty XP/Vista.



AphexDreamer said:


> I think its something with my HD's cause the lengthy part isn't at the Desktop its at the Windows 7 Loading screen, It takes longer there then Vista did. Not sure why.



I think it is because the Win7 boot screen covers two parts of the Vista loading process.  With Vista, there was the green scrolling bar, and then the fade in of the Windows Vista logo.  Those were to loading screens.  With Win7 it has been combined into just one, so it sits there longer.


----------



## AsRock (Oct 12, 2009)

Mussels said:


> eh? lightning here.
> 
> there was a thread with a boot-time benchmark here on TPU, and it was dominated by windows 7 users





Mussels said:


> these 'tests' are likely done with a bogged down OS and 20 apps starting with windows.
> 
> Myself, i just have my antivirus, MSN and steam start with windows and leave the rest as i want it - and everything starts and runs quite happily.
> 
> due to vistas (sometimes overuse) of superfetch, it may well load faster under extremely heavy startup conditions




neither are  100% valid done in the TPU or not.  Depending on hardware used and what tweaks each user did OR did not do to get a good boot time.

My old AMD 3800 x2 beats this system ( both in specs ) on vista boot or win7 boot without issue.

In all i find no difference from vista and win 7 boot times on the same system.  WTF with boot times any ways ow programs run after that point are more important to me but then NO  difference with vista or win 7 well not of what i have noticed.

XP x64 is still faster to me thinking about it.  But as i said it depends on hardware app compatibility and so on. 

So either on TPU or what the OP posted is basically crap.

Although what i would like to see in the TPU thread is all the tweaks each user did and show what they had to shutdown to get it boot how they did.

And even then if all the tweaks were the same it totally depends on hardware \ setup if there using a raid setup or not and such.


----------



## kid41212003 (Oct 12, 2009)

My mom's computer boot up faster than mine, and she has an AMD Athlon 4400+ x2 with 2GB ram, the POST was alot faster than mine, because her mobo was really simple.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 12, 2009)

AsRock said:


> neither are  100% valid done in the TPU or not.  Depending on hardware used and what tweaks each user did OR did not do to get a good boot time.
> 
> My old AMD 3800 x2 beats this system ( both in specs ) on vista boot or win7 boot without issue.
> 
> ...



the thread was a compilation of all the TPU users posting their times with a benchmark tool.

tweaked users came out faster for their respective OS, but windows 7 users (beta/RC1 at the time) were dominating vista, tweaked or not.


----------



## Easo (Oct 12, 2009)

7 is faster for me, vista x64 was slower...


----------



## Polarman (Oct 12, 2009)

I remember doing that startup speed test. But this was done on the fly with all kinds of crap installed.

Redoing a controled test with a fresh install without anything added except hardware drivers, service packs & updates would probably make some difference.


----------



## Soylent Joe (Oct 12, 2009)

I have Win7 RTM on both of my computers and I can vouch for the slowness. I love the new features and eye candy but it makes me feel like the computer is loaded down with crap.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Oct 12, 2009)

newtekie1 said:


> Maybe it is because I grew up in a time when boot-up times were 5+ minutes.  Remember booting the PC, going and making a sandwich, and coming back and the computer still isn't booted?  1:34 isn't too bad, IMO.  Yes, it is slower than Vista, and overall it might be slightly slower to use.  However, it is a better OS, so the slight slowdown would be worth it, IMO.
> 
> Not to mention, as I've said before, Win7 will feel faster to most consumers, simply because they will be going from a dirty install of XP/Vista to a clean install of Win7, and the clean Win7 will be faster than their dirty XP/Vista.
> 
> ...



I guess that explains it. So vista just made it seem quicker? I never really counted, just know what I experience.


----------



## AphexDreamer (Oct 12, 2009)

Polarman said:


> I remember doing that startup speed test. But this was done on the fly with all kinds of crap installed.
> 
> Redoing a controled test with a fresh install without anything added except hardware drivers, service packs & updates would probably make some difference.



You think they would know better to do that from the start.:shadedshu


----------



## heky (Oct 12, 2009)

@ Soylent Joe

And I have Win7 RTM on both of my computers and can vouch for speed. It runs much better than Vista ever has. I think it really comes down to other installed crap you have on your computer.


----------



## Soylent Joe (Oct 12, 2009)

heky said:


> @ Soylent Joe
> 
> And I have Win7 RTM on both of my computers and can vouch for speed. It runs much better than Vista ever has. I think it really comes down to other installed crap you have on your computer.



The only things I have installed on my second computer are FF, Steam, My Printer Program, and Glary Utilities. I've ran registry cleanups, shortcut cleaners, and startup optimizers. Come to think of it, it's a whole lot faster than Vista was, but just takes a little longer to boot. Eh, whatever, it's faster on both of my computers. I change my mind.


----------



## heky (Oct 12, 2009)

See, i told you so.


----------



## gezeo750 (Oct 12, 2009)

I just love the fact that they're just trying to find something to whine about with W7. First everyone bashes Vista, but now it's that much better than w7 cause it loads faster? What gives?


----------



## Soylent Joe (Oct 12, 2009)

gezeo750 said:


> I just love the fact that they're just trying to find something to whine about with W7. First everyone bashes Vista, but now it's that much better than w7 cause it loads faster? What gives?



Did anyone say that Vista all around better than Win7 because it loads faster? We're just comparing apples to apples here, and when comparing boot time to boot time, I'd say Vista is better. And if you were comparing device support or pretty much any other ease-of-use aspect, Win7 would win.


----------



## aximbigfan (Oct 12, 2009)

I have 7 on all my computers. Bad idea, good idea, whatever it works. 

I can vouch for the speed increase. W7 is easily faster than Vista - and in some cases, XP. No way it is slower than Vista. Sounds like Apple fanbois looking for something MS related to bash.


----------



## suraswami (Oct 12, 2009)

I don't know about Vista since I didn't use it on my home PCs.  When compared to XP, 7 Ultimate 64bit is snappier.

Boot-up times on my Game machine:
With No Virus Scan installed but all other Software used installed - 1 min and 5 secs for usable desktop and IE opening
With AVG Internet Security installed - 1 min and 15 Secs
With Trend Micro (without AVG ofcourse) Internet Security 2009 installed - 1 min and 20 secs.

I guess its good.


----------



## naoan (Oct 12, 2009)

> The report was released after carrying a series of tests by *iolo*


I'm surprised no one realised it here, this is just a marketing ploy to sell their bloated "optimizer".

7 boots faster here too.


----------



## Moose (Oct 12, 2009)

Windows 7 is faster on my computer, tbh neither were exactly slow though.


----------



## Boyfriend (Oct 12, 2009)

Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit is much faster than Windows XP & Windows Vista on my (same) hardware. My boot time with Windows XP Pro was 70-80 sec, with Windows Vista it was 90-100 sec, but now with Windows 7 it is only 45-55 sec (With KIS 2010, FF 3.5.3, Opera 10, PowerDVD 9, Returnil Virtual System 2010 (with virtual system enabled) and other softwares etc.), actually half of that of Vista. I think iolo has some misunderstanding as everyone is praising Windows 7 for its true speed, while they are interpreting it in opposite way.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 12, 2009)

gezeo750 said:


> I just love the fact that they're just trying to find something to whine about with W7. First everyone bashes Vista, but now it's that much better than w7 cause it loads faster? What gives?


I'm not bashing it's just some programs are slower on 7 and will probably continue to be until the 22nd when the user's of the RTM finally get "Updates" and not just security updates RC1 already has the updates in beta and on the 22nd the Actual Updates will be available to RTM copies and things will get better..Hell I won't even find out till the 22nd if my RTM is valid lol


----------



## Reefer86 (Oct 12, 2009)

1 minute 34 seconds to boot in what the hell they using , a calculator!? thats slow as hell, i boot in, in around 30 seconds


----------



## gezeo750 (Oct 13, 2009)

Soylent Joe said:


> Did anyone say that Vista all around better than Win7 because it loads faster? We're just comparing apples to apples here, and when comparing boot time to boot time, I'd say Vista is better. And if you were comparing device support or pretty much any other ease-of-use aspect, Win7 would win.



I was referring to the people running the tests at iolo. Or should I have been more specific? You sound like you took that personally.


----------



## Wile E (Oct 13, 2009)

7 RTM is faster on all 7 of my machines, including the the laptop and iMac.


----------



## beyond_amusia (Oct 13, 2009)

My 7 x64 Ultimate install boots faster than my XP x64 and Vista x64 Ultimate installs did... These people must have tossed 7 onto a Mac Mini from 2006 and used Bootcamp's Vista drivers


----------



## P4-630 (Oct 13, 2009)

10TaTioN said:


> http://i37.tinypic.com/2h3ohe1.png​
> 
> 
> *Source:* NewsLine365



= Windows 7 *32 bit*


----------



## LAN_deRf_HA (Oct 13, 2009)

Not only has Windows 7 started faster for me on all the rigs I've put it on, it's also been usable much sooner. Vista does some huge resource hogging thing that eats up half your mem for the first 30 seconds after entering the desktop. What's the point of getting there quick only to be in a crippled state?


----------



## Steevo (Oct 13, 2009)

W7 is slower if you don't use superfetch, a readyboost drive, allow active defragmentation, and or reboot ever.


So I use a 8GB readyboost, use the advanced disk options, keep my startup clean, and W7 boots much faster, but with more stuff connected it does take a few seconds longer at teh welcome screen.


----------



## JessicaD (Oct 14, 2009)

Moose,

Thank you for your support of Windows 7 and thank you for evaluating Windows 7 RC! Have you pre-ordered your copy of Win 7 yet? If you are planning on purchasing Windows 7 when it is released in just 8 days it may be helpful to know you don't have to wait to reserve your copy of Win 7! You can pre-order your copy of Windows 7 Home Premium or Windows 7 Professional today. For more information, see the Windows 7 Pre-Order offer page here: http://tinyurl.com/nldc8p 

Also, if you are currently a student you may qualify for the $30 upgrade to Windows 7. For more information, please go here: http://tinyurl.com/kprhkp

Jessica
Microsoft Windows Client Team


----------



## [I.R.A]_FBi (Oct 14, 2009)

Im a student ... hmmm ...


----------



## PP Mguire (Oct 14, 2009)

7 + no SSD = fail.

Get an SSD, turn all the extra BS off, and see who prevails. 7 will eat Vista for breakfast, lunch, AND dinner.

I did a test on all 3 platforms to prove my dad wrong.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Oct 14, 2009)

*Windows 7*



JessicaD said:


> Moose,
> 
> Thank you for your support of Windows 7 and thank you for evaluating Windows 7 RC! Have you pre-ordered your copy of Win 7 yet? If you are planning on purchasing Windows 7 when it is released in just 8 days it may be helpful to know you don't have to wait to reserve your copy of Win 7! You can pre-order your copy of Windows 7 Home Premium or Windows 7 Professional today. For more information, see the Windows 7 Pre-Order offer page here: http://tinyurl.com/nldc8p
> 
> ...


 I did order it..The fisrt day of pre-order when was cheapest can't wait to get 7 HP64 for a HTPC



[I.R.A]_FBi said:


> Im a student ... hmmm ...


Go to ACM.org I got 2 7's for $19 You must actually be a student to get that deal


----------



## ArmoredCavalry (Oct 30, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> Go to ACM.org I got 2 7's for $19 You must actually be a student to get that deal



It is not really a "deal" this was a perk of being an ACM member that was exploited once it got out on the internet. Tons of non-CS students started signing up and selling keys (which is a total violation of the EULA).

Now student's who have been ACM members for years (and for legit reasons) can't even get 1 key due to the abuse.

Sort of a bummer.... :shadedshu


----------



## Nick89 (Oct 30, 2009)

Windows 7 boots faster than XP for me so far.


----------



## Kreij (Oct 30, 2009)

I'm not buying 7 until we get some pics of JessicaD.  (j/k) 

I've had exactly zero problems with Vista on my rig. It's fast, responsive and rock stable.
Maybe one of these days when I get bored.
Boot time is just not that important to me when we are talking a difference of about 30 seconds.


----------



## Lazzer408 (Oct 30, 2009)

In order of performance on my system...

XP 32
Vista 32
Win7 64

On Vista and Win7 I disable alot of the unwanted services and 'automated activities' that run in the background. It's easy to see by the amount of running processes and services that Vista and Win7 have to load more at startup = slower.


----------



## THRiLL KiLL (Oct 30, 2009)

i read this about a week ago, and i cant find the article.  but in a nutshell they found when the iolo was uninstalled 7 booted faster. 


my question is, what are they recording for boot times? 

are they going from off to login screen  or from off to when they stop hearing stuff being loaded?.



but on a serious note, unless your a laptop how often are you rebooting your system?


----------



## Lazzer408 (Oct 30, 2009)

THRiLL KiLL said:


> i read this about a week ago, and i cant find the article.  but in a nutshell they found when the iolo was uninstalled 7 booted faster.
> 
> 
> my question is, what are they recording for boot times?
> ...



wtf is a iolo?


----------



## Kreij (Oct 30, 2009)

THRiLL KiLL said:


> but on a serious note, unless your a laptop how often are you rebooting your system?



I shut mine off every night, so at least once a day.


----------



## ArmoredCavalry (Oct 30, 2009)

Kreij said:


> I shut mine off every night, so at least once a day.



So just set your bios to wake up your pc at a certain time. Then you don't have to wait for a bootup every morning.


----------



## Mussels (Oct 31, 2009)

ArmoredCavalry said:


> So just set your bios to wake up your pc at a certain time. Then you don't have to wait for a bootup every morning.



bootup? S3 sleep! you're doing it wrong!


----------



## MilkyWay (Oct 31, 2009)

Lazzer408 said:


> wtf is a iolo?



a shitty software developer who makes optimisation software and bad antivirus programs


----------



## ArmoredCavalry (Oct 31, 2009)

Mussels said:


> bootup? S3 sleep! you're doing it wrong!



I leave my PC on 24/7.


----------



## vbx (Oct 31, 2009)

The RETAIL version of Win7 does load slower than the RC release.  Seriously!  By as much as 20 slower from what I can tell.


----------



## hat (Oct 31, 2009)

When I had w7 on my laptop (Celeron-M 530: single core 1.73GHz 533FSB 1MB L2 cache Conroe-L, 1 stick of ddr2 533 4-4-4-12) it was pretty zippy. I was amazed at how fast it was considering the setup.


----------



## Wartz (Oct 31, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> I think Win7 boots about 20% faster However programs like Call of Duty WaW take about 50% longer to load..Crysis hmm. I can walk away make a sandwhich and eat it before it loads



You get that crysis loadtime thing too?

It's been quite annoying. On XP/Vista it loaded smooth and quick, now with 7 it takes forever on the last bit. I still like 7 better than any other OS though.


----------



## 95Viper (Oct 31, 2009)

MilkyWay said:


> a shitty software developer who makes optimisation software and bad antivirus programs



Nothing shi**y about them; they make good software for the people who, either, do not have the time or knowledge for cleaning, tweaking, securing, adjusting, and optimizing their os platform.

Most of the people on this forum, probably, do most of the functions themselves, but there are users out there that do not have the knowledge to do this or the the time... so Iolo makes a good all in one source point for this type of person.

Their A/V may not be the best, but neither are some of the others, but it does work.

And, the tech support is good and helpful...first hand knowledge.

Also, the wife, likes their System Mechanic; as, she can automate a lot of tasks, without my intervention.


Sorry about off topic.

Back on topic...

My Windows 7 (64 bit) seems to be quicker at getting me to the desktop; with a clean install, but have noticed the same certain apps that will slow down the process.


----------



## THRiLL KiLL (Nov 2, 2009)

Lazzer408 said:


> wtf is a iolo?



name of the company that makes the tool that recorded the boot times.

EDIT
opps, didnt see someone else responded to that =)


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Nov 2, 2009)

Wartz said:


> You get that crysis loadtime thing too?
> 
> It's been quite annoying. On XP/Vista it loaded smooth and quick, now with 7 it takes forever on the last bit. I still like 7 better than any other OS though.


Thanks for speaking up I really was starting to think I was the only one


----------



## Delta6326 (Nov 2, 2009)

well my rig with W7 starts up about 5sec. faster than vista to me W7 is just a renamed Vista with eye candy and some tweaks but my moms crapy old Pent4 at 2.4ghz with 512mb of ddr and onboard graphics starts up faster than my w7 theirs starts in around 20sec. from power on to logged on mine takes around 40+sec. when i get home i will have to time it


----------



## flashstar (Nov 2, 2009)

Windows 7 is faster for me and more stable as as well. Vista gets very laggy over time whereas windows 7 stays quick no matter how long you use it and applications open much faster as well.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Nov 2, 2009)

I dual boot and i know that Win7 boots faster But I just don't understand Why there is a 7 other than those stupid Mac commercials, really it's not like 7 Does more right? TBH if it wasn't for the expanded quick launch bar in 7, Vista would still be my main OS, But I absolutely love the expanded Quick launch Bar  it makes the switch worth it Right?


----------



## Oliver_FF (Nov 4, 2009)

Video of the same hardware booting clean installs of Win Vista, Win7, Ubuntu 9.04 and Ubuntu 9.10

Each OS has firefox set as a startup program which goes and loads the websites home page. The timer stops when the OS has booted, firefox is open and their homepage has loaded.

http://www.tuxradar.com/content/vista-windows-7-ubuntu-904-and-910-boot-speed-comparison


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Nov 4, 2009)

Oliver_FF said:


> Video of the same hardware booting clean installs of Win Vista, Win7, Ubuntu 9.04 and Ubuntu 9.10
> 
> Each OS has firefox set as a startup program which goes and loads the websites home page. The timer stops when the OS has booted, firefox is open and their homepage has loaded.
> 
> http://www.tuxradar.com/content/vista-windows-7-ubuntu-904-and-910-boot-speed-comparison


I don't get those reaults it goes 7,Vista,Ubuntu... something is Bunk about that test...Like maybe 7 was installing updates or something


----------



## laszlo (Nov 4, 2009)

i have 7 installed and activated but i don't use it...my 1st option is still xp;about boot time i don't care as i use hdd not ssd so no big difference between boots between any os... seconds who have time to count ... let us know...


----------



## Oliver_FF (Nov 4, 2009)

jmcslob said:


> I don't get those reaults it goes 7,Vista,Ubuntu... something is Bunk about that test...Like maybe 7 was installing updates or something



Do clean installs of both time it yourself. Set firefox to load on startup in both Vista and Win7 and stop the timer when firefox has loaded.

Only a fool claims bs from a non-amateur video without solid evidence that says otherwise.


----------



## Wile E (Nov 4, 2009)

Oliver_FF said:


> Do clean installs of both time it yourself. Set firefox to load on startup in both Vista and Win7 and stop the timer when firefox has loaded.
> 
> Only a fool claims bs from a non-amateur video without solid evidence that says otherwise.



Every setup is different. Win 7 absolutely boots the fastest for me. Faster than Vista, XP or Fedora.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Nov 4, 2009)

Oliver_FF said:


> Do clean installs of both time it yourself. Set firefox to load on startup in both Vista and Win7 and stop the timer when firefox has loaded.
> 
> Only a fool claims bs from a non-amateur video without solid evidence that says otherwise.


Ok well look at the differences in the Programs..Lets start with Firefox which with Ubuntu is Extremely basic, your not Talking program for program here with windows you get twice the firefox, right off the start Then your talking about services..Which 7 loads just above basic requirements Vista loads em all! and Ubuntu starts exactly How many it needs for the program it's running, I don't see what this Video proves... and I think they picked a setup that would depict the end results before Hand...

I could waste my time reinstalling to find out what i already Know....My setup does not resemble that test setup and my results ARE completely different

My Pc is setup for so Many things That Ubuntu just doesn't do 
But Windows Does 
Which I'm sure makes all the difference here
And as I said I believe That Video was Made with Certain hardware That favors Ubuntu's fresh install over 7


----------



## 1Kurgan1 (Nov 5, 2009)

I personally could careless, I dont notice a difference and I didnt notice a difference between XP and Vista, if it's taking over a minute by that time I am usually already not paying attention to it.


----------

