Windows 7 slower than Vista

[10TaTioN]

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]

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

 

[Mussels]

eh? lightning here.

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

 

[r9]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[bogmali]

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

 

[Deleted member 67555]

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]

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]

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 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]

eh? lightning here.

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

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[Polarman]

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]

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]

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 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.

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

 

[AphexDreamer]

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]

@ 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]

@ 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]

See, i told you so.

 

[gezeo750]

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]

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]

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.