Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 9th Sep 2011 15:17 UTC
Windows More news on Windows 8. This time around, Gabe Aul, a director of program management in Windows, blogged about the changes Microsoft has made to Windows 8's boot process. The results are impressive - a boot time not much slower than waking from sleep on current Windows 7 and Mac OS X machines. This is, of course, a vital component of getting Windows NT ready for tablets.
Thread beginning with comment 489082
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
They always promise this
by dpJudas on Sat 10th Sep 2011 05:58 UTC
dpJudas
Member since:
2009-12-10

Another new version of Windows, another new promise of faster boot up times. I thought you had used Windows long enough to notice the scam by now, Thom. ;)

Notice how they are improving the part of boot-up that is not really truly the problem with Windows. It is all the disk trashing that goes on when you log on along with their brain-dead FIFO I/O system that causes people to count boot-up times in minutes on budget computers.

Basically what is happening is that all disk access is serialized in the kernel without any regard to what process is doing the request. This means that if you have just a few background processes using the disk, the kernel buffers are filled with that and the 1 KB file the user is waiting for now takes 5 seconds to fetch.

Nothing they have announced here addresses the real problem (poorly designed I/O priority and that countless apps all start at the same time) and so the next version of Windows will effectively boot just as slow as the last one did on budget PCs.

Reply Score: 2

RE: They always promise this
by ilovebeer on Sat 10th Sep 2011 06:46 in reply to "They always promise this"
ilovebeer Member since:
2011-08-08

I've used most iterations of Windows back to Windows 95, never spent my money on the absolute top-of-the-line hardware, and never had a boot time longer then 30 seconds to usable desktop.

My advice to you is to go through the services and set whatever doesn't need to be automatic to manual. You should notice a big difference with that alone.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE: They always promise this
by kovacm on Sat 10th Sep 2011 07:01 in reply to "They always promise this"
kovacm Member since:
2010-12-16

Great post dpJudas!

I've used most iterations of Windows back to Windows 95, never spent my money on the absolute top-of-the-line hardware, and never had a boot time longer then 30 seconds to usable desktop.


my favorite part in Windows 9x was closing start menu - if you click on start menu and start to browse for favorite program BEFORE windows finished complete boot process then there is a big chance that start menu will CLOSE in moment when windows complete with booting process interrupting you in browsing through start menu.

Microsoft NEVER know how to build quality product - their products are Spaghetti code with crap UI.

like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdCvVVFJdns

Reply Parent Score: 0

vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30


my favorite part in Windows 9x was closing start menu - if you click on start menu and start to browse for favorite program BEFORE windows finished complete boot process then there is a big chance that start menu will CLOSE in moment when windows complete with booting process interrupting you in browsing through start menu.

True. This still happens with Vista SP 2 and you don't even need to be in the boot process: click an icon to launch a program and immediately after, open any menu or popup window (like the Start menu) and browse it. As soon as the launched program's main window shows up on the screen, the popup window is closed. Just tried it with Nero and the Start menu. I guess Windows people still haven't made their minds about where to insert new main windows when popup windows are opened.


Microsoft NEVER know how to build quality product - their products are Spaghetti code with crap UI.

I can see you've never used Visual Studio or even the basic Windows Mail. I hate Vista as much as I can hate anything but despite its insufferable slowness, it works flawlessly.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: They always promise this
by shotsman on Sat 10th Sep 2011 07:02 in reply to "They always promise this"
shotsman Member since:
2005-07-22

You seem to forget that the 'disk thrashing' will be a thing of the past when a new mandatory requirement of Windows 8 emerges.

-> In order to activate (if you have a Windows 8 FastBoot license) Fastboot, Windows 8 must be installed on a 12Gbps SSD of at least 1TB in size.

For everything else it is the 2-3 minutes disk thrash.

IMHO, Microsoft could do a lot to cut down the crud that gets started in an OOTB Windows 7 system. Just look at the services or the list in msconfig. There are far too many things running. If you (I mean you MS) want to get startup times down cut the crap out.

What I'd like to see is some proper benchmarks of startup. Not just with a clean freshly installed OS with no 'extras' installed. That is just not a realistic option. It is like stating that 'This car can do 160mph and in thre small(very small print) {coming down pikes peak with a following wind}.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: They always promise this
by wigry on Sat 10th Sep 2011 08:35 in reply to "They always promise this"
wigry Member since:
2008-10-09

I've noticed also that Windows depends heavily on disk access speed. The proof is that as soon as you defragment the Windows system files the overall system responsiveness increases massively. This means, that while using the Windows - like opening explorer, coying files, etc - windows every time accesses its DLL-s and it likes to read them from the disk. INSANE. If you have your shell, kernel and user DLL files in 20 pieces, those pieces are grabbed together gazillion times a day and that mans slow response time. I don't understand why MS does not use its cached copies of DLLs and accesses them from the disk.

Edited 2011-09-10 08:38 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: They always promise this
by sorpigal on Mon 12th Sep 2011 12:34 in reply to "They always promise this"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Windows' I/O scheduler is just really awful. I mostly use Linux but use Windows at work and was amazed by the ever-present disk grinding and slow processing on any day when Symantec was scheduled to run a full scan. It's priority is set to as low as possible, but still everything takes at least 4 times as long (no exaggeration here, I've timed it).

After reading LWN one day and seeing a quote from a Linux kernel dev saying, basically, "If telling all your I/O heavy software to go all at once is ever slower than telling it to run in sequence, that's a kernel bug and we want to fix it," I realized that the reason this slowness bothered me on Windows is that I don't see it nearly as badly under Linux... and that the Windows I/O scheduling system must just be bad.

After that I removed all startup items from the registry and start menu and replaced them with a single batch file. In this file I inserted explicit sleeps of approximately the amount of time (as recorded by me) that I/O-heavy tasks would take to start up. Doing this, I found, improved overall startup time noticeably.

Verdict: Windows (at least up to the latest Vista) is so poorly written that 'manually' hinting to the I/O system dramatically improves performance. Who's surprised?

Reply Parent Score: 2

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Cut it with this crap ... You read on a site that is pro-Linux that Windows was doing something wrong ... That isn't evidence that is propaganda.

Your problem was that anything by Symantec is a pile of crap.

Funnily enough I can run a Disk Scan (complete) with MSE and I was playing Deus Ex: Human Revolution at the same time and never even experienced a slow down in framerate.

Reply Parent Score: 2