 |
 |
| ActiveWin | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise | VBA in Excel | Users Online: 0 |
|
|
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Active Network |
|
ActiveMac |
|
ActiveWin |
|
ActiveXbox |
|
DirectX |
|
Downloads |
|
FAQs |
|
Interviews |
|
MS Games & Hardware |
|
Reviews |
|
Rocky Bytes |
|
Support Center |
|
TopTechTips |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows XP |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
Apple/Mac |
|
Xbox/Xbox 360 |
|
News Search |
|
XML/RSS Newsfeeds |
|
Pocket PC Site |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows Vista |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows Server 2003 |
|
Windows XP |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Windows 8 |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox 360 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Xbox/Games |
|
Fable 2 |
|
|
|
Applications |
|
Windows Server 2008 R2 |
|
Windows 7 |
|
Adobe CS5 Master Collection |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Microsoft Express Mouse |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Interviews |
|
Mike Swanson |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Advertise |
|
Affiliates |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
 |
No, Windows 7 isn't slower than Vista | |
|
||
| Time: 08:46 EST/13:46 GMT | News Source: BetaNews | Posted By: John Quigley | ||
|
The manufacturer of a Windows maintenance toolkit featured on our Fileforum told CNET's Ina Fried last week that it believes boot times for Windows 7 are typically slower than boot times for Windows Vista. Iolo Technologies told Fried that it gauged the amount of time required for the CPU to reach a "true idle state." As many veteran Windows users already know, the operating system doesn't actually boot to an "idle state" -- it's not DOS. Since that time, Iolo has been characterizing the time it stops its stopwatch as the time that the CPU is "fully usable," which seems rather nebulous. |
||
|
Read Only Comments Return to News |
Displaying Comments 1 through 1 of 1 |
This is an archived static copy of ActiveWin.com. |
| #1 By 21912 (71.83.109.74) at Tuesday, October 13, 2009 11:58:18 AM |
|
The person who performed the tests in this article must be a newbie to either computers or the scientific method. He compared the booting performance of Windows 7 and Vista installations located on separate partitions of the same hard disk in a multi-boot arrangement, and then presented his averages for each system to a precision of thousandths of a second. When I saw that, I did a double-take (that's 2.000x).
Furthermore, while Iolo's methodology was probably flawed by using a definition of "boot time" that extended past full usability of all services, the definition used by Scott Fulton for this article erred even more obviously in the opposite direction. He measured the "perceived boot interval" (his concept), which ends at the moment he first sees the user login screen, obviously excluding the startup times of any user services and settings. I hope this issue of boot times doesn't become a raging controversy that overshadows something that's actually important. |
