“Windows 7 boots slower than its unloved predecessor, Vista, a PC tune-up developer claims,” Gregg Keizer reports for Computerworld. “The claims by iolo Technologies, a Los Angeles maker of PC software, contradict Microsoft’s boasts that Windows 7 starts up faster than Vista.”
“According to iolo’s tests, Windows 7 starts up 42% slower than Vista — one minute, 34 seconds versus one minute, six seconds — on a brand new machine when the time trials are run to the point where the machine is usable, at least by iolo’s standards,” Keizer reports.
“Windows 7 seems to start faster than Vista, says iolo, with its time-to-the-desktop measured as around 40 seconds,” Keizer reports. “But iolo measured startup as the point where the computer is ‘fully usable,’ with a low load on the processor.”
“Iolo also says its tests indicated that Windows 7’s startup times, like Vista’s, degrade over time. After several ‘commonly-used’ applications have been installed on a new Windows 7 box, for instance, its boot time — again, as measured by the company — slows to two minutes, 34 seconds, an increase of 64%,” Keizer reports.
“Over an even more extended span, Windows 7’s boot times get more sluggish than that: By the end of a simulated two-year period, Windows 7’s startup times increased more than 330%,” Keizer reports.
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Note: As we wrote earlier today: “Windows rots. And we don’t just mean that’s inferior to our Macs, but that also over time, in the hands of everyday users, it clogs up, slows down, and generally deteriorates. Let’s give Windows 7 the time it needs for its inherent issues to begin showing up.”
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “James W.” for the heads up.]
I am beginning to doubt old Walt Mossberg’s opinion.
I cannot believe I posted the first comment on two MDN stories in a row. Most MDN readers must be at other websites today bitching about Obama’s Peace Prize.
During my time in desktop support, I used to refer to Windows “cruft” – the stuff that builds up over time, clogging the registry and directories, as well as the patch upon patch – that resulted in gradual slowdown.
My boss’s boss in the late ’90s used to go a bit over six months before he’d have to “wipe and reinstall” his Windows 98. I just couldn’t persuade him to try something else. It would appear that problem of cruft – and customer resistance to changing – remains.
Give Walt a break, he was right, 7 is the best version of Windows. He just left off that it is still horrible.
MDN must be grasping at straws, failing to mention this “study” is from a company that sells basically irrelevant optimization software for Windows. “Buy our software to make Windows faster!” Seems more like a bite for promotion, especially considering the arbitrary test conditions.
Meanwhile, other tests from reputable sites show Windows 7 does in fact load quicker than Vista. Their load tests for “simulated” periods is suspect as well…since W7 continuously optimizes itself in the background for startup and commonly loaded applications with a much more efficient form of Superfetch than Vista. I guess if you turn off W7’s built in maintenance, I can see how those numbers hold true. Makes for a better selling point anyway.
No, they are bitching here.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
As mass adoption occurs for the unfortunate user I’m sure we’ll be hearing more and more similar stories coming out as the lipstick wears off the pig.
ZuneTang®’s MOM boots slower than Windows 7.
@ Raymond in DC
Most Microsoft certified Techs will tell you that all computers slowdown over time and need wiping and reinstalling. Windows has many rot issues, First is the biggest and that is Registry Rot, Next is File system Rot, and the last is DLL Bit Rot.
While the issues are now less common on Windows XP then it is with Vista or the preview releases of Windows 7.
I forgot Windows biggest ROT issue with Windows and that is it’s users whom actually use it.
It figures that startup time is such an important consideration in the Windows world. About the only time I restart my Mac is when a software update requires it. How long Snow Leopard takes to boot is a mostly irrelevant consideration for me.
BULLSHIT!! Windows 7 boots much faster than vista and after numerous software installs still boots just as fast!!!!
“the time trials are run to the point where the machine is usable”
My PC boots in just 50 secs…. but in order to use it in the network, I need to wait up to 3 minutes. My slower iMac boots in the same network and you can star using all in just 30 or 40 seconds.
In all honesty, my iMac has some issues about once per year or so that cause me to have to run Disk Utility and repair permissions. Other than that, I don’t do any kind of maintenance whatsoever. Ever.
Meanwhile, my XP machine at work has to be re-imaged about every six months because it goes haywire and won’t boot properly and becomes too slow to tolerate.
I never even shut off my iMac or MBP. Just log out and sleep. I do that for months at a time and nothing ever goes bad. I tried that on Windows and after the 10th or so time, full lock up when trying to wake it up! ahahaha… FAIL!
What MDN calls “Windows rot” I have termed “Windows sclerosis” for years when talking to clients and friends. Microsoft needs to stop using the registry file, not get rid of it, just stop using it. Leave it there for backwards compatibility but drop it from use in all modern software. This would be akin to Apples use of Classic to ween people off of the old Mac OS.
The only ones who will ever know the truth are those who have W7 and they will tell the story the way they want it to be told. I will never know. I will never have w7.
Who’s lying here and who’s telling the truth?
I just know that my MBP works pretty darn good to talk to brother in Germany (form U.S.) using Skype with me using 28.8 Kbps dialup on my end. Amazing!
But what does any of that have to do with w7…nothing really…. I just wanted to say it. Well, it beats the crap out of telling you all how right I am with my political views and how wrong you are if yours differ.
@ Exposed
Your check from Redmond will be in the mail Monday.
What MDN calls “Windows rot” I have termed “Windows sclerosis”
I call it “hardening of the software”.
@qka
Your brain and your objectivity, unfortunately, will not be in yours.
Ha! 10.4.11 on my 2005 1.25 G4 mini boots faster! I’d be smiling…
Ironically, my Macbook boots faster after it was updated to Snow Leopard…
Hi there, Mr. Microsoft astroturfer. I’m sure Redmond appreciates your efforts to spin damage control regarding the impending Windows 7 debacle. Unfortunately, you’re gonna have an awful hard time fooling people if they read the entire article. It states:
“Other tests, however, have echoed iolo, and showed that in some cases Windows 7 does boot slower than Vista. PC World US, for example, benchmarked the new operating system as starting about 10% slower than Vista when 32-bit versions of the two were compared, although it was 14% faster on 64-bit.”
So, no, it’s not exactly a conspiracy by iolo. 14%(I’ll be nice to PC World) is such a small lead that it will naturally fall behind Vista as Windows 7 collects the usual cruft. Which, yes, it still collects despite Microsoft’s vacuous BS.
Finally! The truth is getting out. W7 is marginally faster than Vista in only some key areas and way slower than XP at most tasks.
Most tech sites are intentionally omitting the comparison to XP and saying it’s faster than Vista …. Oooh, now that’s a big feat, huh?
I haven’t timed it, but I have the impression that Win7RC boots faster than XP on my homebuilt PC. And both are much faster starting than Leopard on my trusty five year old iBook. Of course, this isn’t even close to a fair comparison hardware-wise.