"Anyone else remember when Microsoft used to talk about making Windows Vista (or Longhorn, as it was then known) a fast-booting operating system. Fast, as in cold boots that were 50 percent faster than those possible with Windows XP? Something obviously went awry. As Computerworld is reporting, a number of Vista users are none too happy about Vista boot-up times. Some are questioning whether Microsoft is advocating that users just put Vista into sleep mode, as opposed to shutting down systems on a daily basis, to mask the sluggish boot up."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-10-10
I had a dual boot [for a while, until I realized that Fedora was useless] with Vista and Fedora on an HP nc8430. Vista booted in about the time you mentioned...13 - 15 seconds [after bios] to a logon prompt. Fedora took 45 seconds. I'm sure if I read manuals, recompiled code, Googled for a few hours, and played with "*.conf" files I could have reduced the boot time, but I actually have to work.
Edited 2007-04-11 18:12
Member since:2006-07-06
Member since:2005-07-09
Member since:2005-11-30
suryad, you ask how he is trolling ? well, i think you need to see the movie " monty python the holy grail" and observe very closely the witch scene. ( q. how do you she's a witch ? a. because she looks like one ! ) anyway, that's my take on why jebb thinks tmanop2006 is a troll.
Member since:2006-03-06
Core duos actually *are* pretty fast machines, actually, but since that is what many Vista systems are running on, that is irrelevant for the topic (should I mod myself down for going off topic?).
I suspect that many of these complaints are due to underspecced systems (the Best Buy near here seems to really enjoy giving users 512Mb of memory, even on Vista systems).
Having said that, on my test system at work, the boot time for Vista is actually twice that of XP on the same exact hardware. There is no indication of any problems in device manager, the system logs, etc. By the way, the system rates a 2.8 (I think; it's been a while since I ran the thing) on Microsoft's performance meter.
Member since:2005-11-18
As always Vista boot times will vary by HW. Mostly I think it has to do with the drivers . If you're using all the default Vista drivers included with the OS you'll probably get better boot times than with downloaded 3rd party drivers, especially legacy drivers.
So once you throw in crufty HP printer drivers, ATI video drivers, Creative audio drivers, and random USB devices you'll probably see boot times go up.
Edited 2007-04-11 20:20
Member since:2007-03-26
It's not what that many Vista systems are running on though. Just take a look through PC World* at their budget systems (be it laptop of desktop). All have Vista on and all grossly underspeced for the bloated OS.
* I'm sure most over high-street IT / electrical store are the same.
Member since:2005-08-12
So I have my DSLR that can take decent videos, and I have a fresh install of Vista Ultimate on my Acer Aspire 5102wlmi (google it for specs). Here's a video!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ICBUMEdUEs
(didn't realize you could see me that well while I was taking it--would have waved or something)
I don't really have an opinion on boot times either way. I don't think it's slow, and I don't think it's amazingly fast. However, I did realize instantly "why" they made the shutdown button hibernate by default. That's hell to change, by the way.
Member since:2006-01-19
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:2006-01-16
You have the newest desktop processor architecture out there and claim it being "not fast"?! Hell, what are you people thinking how fast a computer should be then?
I have an old Athlon XP 1900+ system and tend to say it's "fast enough". It boots in 16 seconds, btw.:
http://fopref.meinungsverstaerker.de/div/bootchart1.png
It seems to me that everybody gets used to that only bleeding edge hadware can operate "fast". I just wonder how people where able to do DTP and 3D rendering in 1990 then...
Member since:2006-02-11
Actually there is no point to have fast boot time, but after booting you still turn on all needed services manually. I'm not using vista, but in OSX, I never shut down my MBP, I just simply close the lid and let it in sleep mode. So I agree with hibernate instead shutdown suggestion.
Member since:
2007-03-22
Core Duo 1.7 laptop is by no means a 'fast' computer.
Boot times (not bios...that's not windows) is about 15 seconds to log on promt. Never had xp on here to compare - but that's not 'slow' Not super fast, but it ain't slow. although faster IS better I am in no way held, back, locked in, or otherwise hurt by waiting 15 seconds in the event that I actually fully shut down / restart.