Microsoft targets 15-second bootups for Windows 7

Many bloggers and tech pundits have criticized Windows Vista for being too sluggish. With Windows 7, Microsoft seems to be working hard to make a leaner and speedier operating system—starting with boot times.

Microsoft Distinguished Engineer Michael Fortin has written a piece on the official “Engineering Windows 7” blog to discuss startup times in particular. According to Fortin, Microsoft has set aside a team to work solely on the issue, and that team aims to “significantly increase the number of systems that experience very good boot times.” Vague? Not really. Fortin defines a “very good boot time” as being less than 15 seconds, and he says only 35% of Vista Service Pack 1 systems today boot in 30 seconds or less. (That number comes from anonymous data gathered through the Customer Experience Improvement Program.)

The startup team has a number of tricks up its sleeve to make things better. Among those, the team has “focused very hard on increasing parallelism of driver initialization.” Also, it aims to “dramatically reduce” the number of system services—along with their processor, storage, and memory demands. Fortin specifies, “Our perspective on this is simple; if a service is not absolutely required, it shouldn’t be starting and a trigger should exist to handle rare conditions so that the service operates only then.”

Windows 7 may not come out until at least 2010, though, so Microsoft has released a little something to tide over partners and enthusiasts. Available from the MSDN library, the Windows Performance Toolkit includes “tools [the boot-up team] use internally to detect and correct boot issues.” Check out Fortin’s full blog post for more details about both the toolkit and the startup team’s efforts.

Comments closed
    • Jigar
    • 13 years ago

    I just checked it yesterday night, my system boots in 29 secs, well i would not consider it bad.

    4GB ram and 4GB Ready boost is all i give to my Quad core to play with.

    • provoko
    • 13 years ago

    Pointless, wake up from sleep is 2-4 seconds and wastes around 1-2 watts.

    Vista’s sleep has no performance degradation over time even after months.

    I think anyone who sits in front of their screen for 15-30 seconds to boot up and any amount of time to wait till it shuts down is wasting their life away…. just push the sleep button.

    • Joel H.
    • 13 years ago

    Windows ME booted much faster than 98SE. Considering how much it crashed, that was a good thing. 😉

    • Pax-UX
    • 13 years ago

    I’m running 64bit Vista and it boots fast enough for me. My Mobo takes about 5 seconds before it even starts loading from HD, then it’s about another 35 seconds and I’ve Password prompt. From there 10 seconds after I’m ready to start gaming (that’s waiting for Steam). But I agree with most posters saying it’s the crappy 3rd party software that’s either a service or in the Startup that slows down the boot more then Windows.

    That said I’ll normally us my Laptop to do the day to day stuff. But it’s on 24/7 but just suspended. Reboot about once every 3 weeks. I’ve found a longs as you don’t go install lots of junk on XP it’s a good responsive OS.

    Boot speed is the least of my worries, it’s not like windows is BSODing like it used to.

    • Ashbringer
    • 13 years ago

    Do people really still care how fast their computers boot? I’d be more interested in how long it can stay on and how much power it’ll consume. I’d also like to see more information encrypted that goes in and out of it as well.

      • Jon
      • 13 years ago

      “Do people really still care how fast their computers boot?”

      Yes.

    • PRIME1
    • 13 years ago

    l[

      • madgun
      • 13 years ago

      That was hilarious.

    • Xenolith
    • 13 years ago

    In summary, more time on optimizing and stability… less time on buggy new features. Not going to get that, because always need a hook to sell a new OS, but we can dream.

    • fpsduck
    • 13 years ago

    I used to see BeOS boot and it’s pretty fast.
    That’s almost a decade ago.

    • Krogoth
    • 13 years ago

    MS has their priories mixed up.

    Why bother with boot time? It is entirely I/O bounded these days. I remember when it was clearly CPU-bound however that was like 10 years ago.

    Anyway, ~1 minute boot time is plenty fast for any user and system expect for mission critical servers that are recovering from an unexpected event.

    My boot time is mostly consumed by BIOS for my SATA controllers.

    • pogsnet
    • 13 years ago
    • Unckmania
    • 13 years ago

    Of Course! Boot Times are important for my diet!
    Everytime the pc takes more than 15 seconds it makes wanna go to the kitchen anf fetch whatever i can find…

    • Cuhulin
    • 13 years ago

    I think boot times would be held down radically if they did something about the “stay-resident” loaders, updaters and spyware of so much of modern software.

    Adobe, Real, Sun, Google, Microsoft, and so many others have now taken it upon themselves to put totally unnecessary programs in startup, or to create burdensome services as part of startup but better hidden, that I sometimes wonder whose machine I have on my desk. Nothing that Microsoft does with Windows 7 will make a difference if they don’t separate that garbage from startup.

      • danny e.
      • 13 years ago

      users should get prompted prior to any program being allowed to write itself to startup.

    • ClickClick5
    • 13 years ago

    No matter the boot time, any antivirus software will slow down the system. Remember Microsoft saying that Vista would boot faster then XP long ago? I wonder how this will /[

      • ScythedBlade
      • 13 years ago

      Lols, it does boot faster … Vista?

      Microsoft wasn’t lying … it depends if you have like … a good comp y’know~

    • Hattig
    • 13 years ago

    Hmm, I define boot time to be the time until the desktop environment is usable.

    For my work laptop (Core 2 Duo @2GHz, Dell D820) in Windows XP, that is around 5 minutes even if I log in as soon as the login screen is usable.

    If they get that down to 15 seconds (even 15 seconds to login screen, then 15 seconds to *working, usable* desktop, then I’d be impressed.

      • Meadows
      • 13 years ago

      I do think you have an obscene number of applications (or drivers or services or otherwise), starting up right off the bat.

        • Master Kenobi
        • 13 years ago

        His IT Department probably has ~100 services/apps starting from the get go. Corporate IT FTW there.

          • Usacomp2k3
          • 13 years ago

          Sounds like mine *sigh*

    • indeego
    • 13 years ago

    MS: just fix, finally, after a decade of promising, the requirement to reboot so often. ESPECIALLY with IE! Good FSM I’ve never reboot for FF, and it patches in like 5 secondsg{<.<}g

      • Meadows
      • 13 years ago

      As long as IE is integrated into Windows, it will share some system files, which can only be tinkered with when not used.
      Mistake me not, I’d also like if IE was less (or not) integrated, since it hurts its install speed very badly and presents other sorts of discomfort (your mention, for example).

    • cegras
    • 13 years ago

    I think Microsoft is too knee-deep in their legacy mud. They should dig themselves out and redesign a functional, slim kernel that doesn’t have all the bloat and round-about ways of doing things that the current Windows versions do.

      • Jon
      • 13 years ago

      That’s what Microsoft are now trying to do. Did you see the Windows 7 Kernel presentation video from a couple months back? Yea talk about minimal.

    • ssidbroadcast
    • 13 years ago

    btw, this dovetails nicely with Microsoft’s pathetic last-minute logo-less Vista boot (when booting Vista, you only see the loading bar and copyright) as an effort to bring load times down. Real elegant, guys.

    /troll-mode?

      • Jon
      • 13 years ago

      The lack of a logo versus the presence of a logo doesn’t make a difference in start-up times. I honestly don’t know why they didn’t have a full screen logo. But the answer is neither here nor there as it’s merely an item of aesthetic value.

        • ssidbroadcast
        • 13 years ago

        On the contrary, it is in-fact related to boot times:

        §[<https://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=61174<]§

          • Jon
          • 13 years ago

          FTA: “Over the past few years, an alarming number of companies have released products that slow down the Windows boot process. BIOS makers, PC makers, and video card makers are among the companies that have begun adding superfluous advertisement screens at system boot”

          Sounds like crap to me. Have you ever seen advertisements while the system is booting up (PRE-login)? No…neither have I. So how is that supposed to slow down boot times?

            • SpikeMeister
            • 13 years ago

            Nvidia had one on my 6600GT/6800GS

    • PRIME1
    • 13 years ago

    After releasing Windows XP ME (aka Vista), I think everyone is going to take this with a grain of salt.

    /[<*Note: By grain of salt, I mean a grain roughly 4 cubic miles in size<]/

      • Scrotos
      • 13 years ago

      I bet that’d burn like the dickens if you got it in a cut.

      • 5150
      • 13 years ago

      That’s a pretty big Twinkie.

        • tfp
        • 13 years ago

        Tell him about the Twinkie

      • Krogoth
      • 13 years ago

      Vista is not Windows ME in any shape or form.

      It is much more closer to Windows 95 2.0

      • A_Pickle
      • 13 years ago

      Wow. Couldn’t even fit an “M$” in there? Or a “Windoze?” Pffft. You weren’t even trying.

    • ludi
    • 13 years ago

    I don’t see why a boot is even necessary in most cases.

    Seems like all the operating system really needs is the equivalent of a Hibernate file that checksums the file against a quick scan of the core hardware, then loads the default system image instead of going through a complete boot routine. The system can then do a scan for any changes in USB peripherals, etc. while the user is already accessing the computer.

    If drivers or core system files are ever changed, or if the checksum fails, or if the system fails to load correctly after attempting to load the system image, the system will go through an actual boot routine, verify successful boot, then write a new system image for the next time around.

    Windows already has the necessary capabilities scattered throughout features like Hibernation, System Restore, and WGA. Someone just needs to link them together.

      • Voldenuit
      • 13 years ago

      When RAM was 256-512 MB, Hibernate made sense.

      Nowadays, with RAM sizes in the 4-8 GB range, reading and writing 4-8 GB of data to/from the hard disk is the bottleneck in hibernating/resuming.

      By 2010, PCs will have even more RAM, whereas I doubt HDD transfer rates will have kept pace.

      Faster bootup is a GOOD THING ™.

        • ludi
        • 13 years ago

        By 2010, what percentage of PCs will have fast SSDs?

          • willyolio
          • 13 years ago

          desktops? barely a blip on the radar. laptops? maybe 25% of the new ones (not counting netbooks with cheap-ass, slow SSDs).

            • ludi
            • 13 years ago

            Wait, what? Laptops are dominating computer sales these days, and I would wager most users don’t need 160GB+ in storage on a laptop; they simply get it because mechanical hard disks are cheap anymore and it allows the manufacturer to hang a bigger number on the neck of the promo materials. Nor do they need it to be lightning quick. Most would do more than fine with a middle-of-the-road 32GB SSD, especially if it increases battery life, wears the word “green technology”, and is less sensitive to impact damage. Plus it gives the hardware manufacturers more flexibility in both layout and overall system costs by being low-profile and, if desired, mounted right onto the system board.

            Given the rapid increases in density we are seeing, and corresponding reduction in prices, I can’t see why at least half of all notebooks won’t be shipping with some sort of SSD by 2010.

        • Meadows
        • 13 years ago

        I have 4 gigs of RAM and hibernating takes less than 20 seconds (didn’t measure it). What’s your point?

        Also, it’s not like you have to sit in front of the PC until hibernation finishes. No matter how long it takes for you, you can go away the moment you start it.

    • flip-mode
    • 13 years ago

    Meadows, people are allowed not to like Vista and MS for that matter – you don’t have to try to denounce or debunk ever such post.

      • Scrotos
      • 13 years ago

      Are you sure? I thought it was in the user agreement when you sign up for the forums that you had to be as contrarian and angsty as possible.

      Dammit, all this time I’ve been doing it wrong!

        • equivicus
        • 13 years ago

        No no no no.. its not in the user agreement of the forum but rather the MS agreement when you install Vista! 🙂

      • poulpy
      • 13 years ago

      Cracks me up every time though 🙂

      • Price0331
      • 13 years ago

      UAC IS THE BEST THING EVARRR11!!! UR AN IDIOT IF YOU DONT USE!!11!1

    • odizzido
    • 13 years ago

    I don’t think it matters what they say anymore. The next version of windows will be bigger, slower, and rely on new hardware to make performance acceptable.

      • Meadows
      • 13 years ago

      I don’t think what you say matters (or has even a grain of truth in it).

        • Jon
        • 13 years ago

        You’ll have to excuse Meadows….he was born like that. Now about your comment. The answer is two fold. In 2010 PC’s *[

          • Ethyriel
          • 13 years ago

          But they said a lot of the same things during Vista’s development, and look at what happened there. I like to think they won’t release two utter failures consecutively (yes, that’s my opinion), but I’ll believe it when I see it.

            • Jon
            • 13 years ago

            Fan-boy comment aside, give them the benefit of the doubt. This time they’re making their development techniques public and soliciting feedback from them. This is the first time Microsoft have done this on such an open-scale.

      • MadManOriginal
      • 13 years ago

      Sounds like pretty much all software to me.

    • herothezero
    • 13 years ago

    Who gives a rat’s ass about boot times? It’s called Sleep mode, people.

    Use it.

      • Sandok
      • 13 years ago

      Gotta reboot from time to time 😉

      I love my sleep mode but reboot the PC at least once every two days, just to clear up the RAM and such!

        • indeego
        • 13 years ago

        Preemptive multitasking Operating system. Look into it. You actually reduce application performance by rebooting so ofteng{<.<}g

          • SHOES
          • 13 years ago

          well im running a 4400+ and I am not displeased with my vista boot time at all…. I haven’t timed it but its sure less than 30 seconds. Granted I have 4gigs of ram but Memory is cheap real cheap I think the main underlying problem is PC manufacturers unacceptably slow uptake of 64bit as vistas start up time must be defendant heavily upon the amount of ram you have…

    • adisor19
    • 13 years ago

    Is it just me, cause i could swear i heard this crap before from M$ ?! They said the same thing about Windows ME !

    Adi

      • leor
      • 13 years ago

      they always say the same stuff, but you have to admit they finally got it right for the most part in XP after the biggest turd they ever pooped out (ME).

      and why do u sign your posts? we can see your name.

        • Jon
        • 13 years ago

        They pooped you out?

        I kid. 🙂

        • Ricardo Dawkins
        • 13 years ago

        about your questions. that helps him remember his non-RDF name.

        @adi 😛

          • adisor19
          • 13 years ago

          LOL come now, where’s the good old personal attack ?! 😉

          Adi

        • Meadows
        • 13 years ago

        I asked him the same question last time and he was mumbling something about old comment layouts and whatever, I forgot and I’m still not sure why he signs his posts.

        • adisor19
        • 13 years ago

        My signature is a relic from the times that TR allowed anonymous posting..I used to sign my posts so that pple would know who I was. Now I just do it as a form of protest against the removal of the anonymous posting.

        Adi

          • Meadows
          • 13 years ago

          I can see how much your protest works. …[/sarcasm]

          Meadows

            • adisor19
            • 13 years ago

            Well, it was either this or harvesting a botnet and ddosing the site.

            😉

            Adi

            • yogibbear
            • 13 years ago

            Quit your jibber jabber!

            yogibbear

            • ludi
            • 13 years ago

            According to the Internet Anagram Server, the name “Meadows” can readily become such diverse phrases as “Dame Sow”, “Mad Woes”, and “We so mad”. Then there’s my personal favorite: “Soda Mew.”

            I had no idea you were so diverse!

        • PRIME1
        • 13 years ago

        MS Bob was a pretty giant steaming turd if I recall.

          • SecretMaster
          • 13 years ago

          He touched me in my sleep. I still have nightmares about that face.

      • barich
      • 13 years ago

      Windows Me did boot up very quickly. Certainly quicker than 98/98SE. One of a very small number of good things about Windows Me.

      Of course, given how unstable it was, having a fast boot time is somewhat more important. Now, I don’t see boot time as that big of a deal. I never shut down any of my Vista computers, and they resume from sleep very quickly. About the only times I have to restart are when updates are installed.

        • adisor19
        • 13 years ago

        Ya ok i remember it booting faster then 98 as well, but what happened with the OSes that followed ? 2000, XP, Vista ?!

        Adi

          • A_Pickle
          • 13 years ago

          …they boot way faster than 98 and 98SE. 2000 didn’t really come “after” ME, it was the “XP Professional” launched alongside ME, which was the “XP Home.”

            • Jon
            • 13 years ago

            lol what? please re-check your facts.

      • PetMiceRnice
      • 13 years ago

      In my own personal experience, Windows ME booted faster than any Microsoft OS, except for Windows 3.1 and prior of course. I never really had any trouble with Windows ME until about mid-2003 when it seemed to crash more frequently with the newer hardware of the time.

    • DrDillyBar
    • 13 years ago

    I’ve been following the blog also.

    • harmisajedi
    • 13 years ago

    the pertinent question is, how many regular (that is to say, non-techy) users are just fine with making a stability-for-speed trade-off? the reason windows systems bloat so massively over time is that every single software designer, from microsoft to google to security vendors, etc, use start-up entries to reduce the chance for glitches or user error.

    think about this: a techy may know very well to only keep the active protection element of an anti-virus application, while discarding the rest (graphical interface, automatic updates, etc) but what would happen to regular users if that particular installation method became the standard? they would: #1. not update their av solution manually, leaving themselves exposed #2. not know how to access various av functions, because their beloved icons are mia from the taskbar.

    same thing but on a much grander scale applies to os design. we may know how to manually edit which services, dll & startup entries we want, but most regular end-users do not, and microsoft needs to design for regular end-users–therefore, bloat.

    don’t get me wrong–i loathe vista with the burning passion of a thousand suns and will very likely not use it at all. i wish that microsoft had the presence of mind to offer an “i know exactly what the fuck i’m doing” checkbox during the setup process which would permanently do away with such atrocities as UAC, aero & other crimes against decent performance. but i certainly understand WHY they choose to do otherwise.

      • Meadows
      • 13 years ago

      Hahahaha…
      Thank you sir, for the good laugh. If you’re a knowledgeable user, then you know how important UAC is (for your information: very).
      Anyone who dismisses a feature is as newbie to the topic as any Average Joe you can think of.

      As for Aero, on most normal systems (read: not intel integrated video) it has a negligible impact on performance and comes with many a caveat (thumbnails and thumbnail-aided Alt+Tab, along with more user comfort) that makes it viable for a lot more people than Average Joes. You can strip your system of all the goodness if you want, but don’t think it was made solely for people who don’t know any better.

      Again, I’d like to reiterate the fact that UAC is a professional feature and no professional user will argue otherwise. It’s not an “are you sure?” question against mistakes – it’s a powerful defense line against malicious code of all sort, and it currently seems to be virtually impassable. That’s why I only use a third-party firewall (with anti-malware components, but I only enabled keylogging protection) and no other protection (no antispyware, no antivirus, no 3 other protective programs running in background) thus freeing far more resources than what Windows would ever take away.

      Think about it.

        • Jon
        • 13 years ago

        UAC isn’t as secure as you would think. Recently some researchers discovered a way to bypass it completely rendering it null & void.
        Sure, it’s better to have it enabled, better safe than sorry but with the current workaround it’s about as secure as holding water in a sieve.

        There’s a link with a lengthy technical discussion on how this works somewhere but it’s not worth the effort to paste it here for you.

        • Scrotos
        • 13 years ago

        Just to clarify, I believe both Win2K and WinXP have the screen-preview ALT-TAB ability if you install a MS Powertoy.

        Hrm, maybe even the Win9x series, too, but it’s been long enough that I don’t remember and am too apathetic to look that bit up.

        I know aero is supposed to do more fancy stuff, but that specific example I know has nothing aero-specific as a requirement.

        You use a firewall and UAC and forego anti-virus protection? Interesting choice.

          • Meadows
          • 13 years ago

          Haven’t had a single malware infection in the past 18 months since using Vista 64, so I think it works. There was one time from a flash drive, but Windows Defender prevented it.

            • cegras
            • 13 years ago

            I don’t think I’ve had one in .. 5 years.

            • Meadows
            • 13 years ago

            Haven’t been owning Vista for so long, so I don’t think I can present any more grandeour than 18 months. 😉

            • no51
            • 13 years ago

            I got some malware on my XP laptop a while ago. For fun, I went to the same website on my Vista64 desktop. Vista didn’t even get infected, XP on the other hand… took several hours to recover.

            • SpikeMeister
            • 13 years ago

            How do you know?

          • gat0rjay
          • 13 years ago

          Also for an “aero” experience in XP try WinFlip. Much better than the MS power toy. I’ve been using it for a few months now as my Alt-Tab app in XP and in my opinion it’s just as functional as Aero – if you have decent hardware. Probably wouldn’t work too great on much older machines, though.

          §[<http://winflip.stylekings.de/<]§

        • SPOOFE
        • 13 years ago

        Wait, wait, how do you arrive at the notion that most systems do NOT use Intel integrated graphics?

          • grantmeaname
          • 13 years ago

          my thoughts exactly.

          • Jon
          • 13 years ago

          The same way you derive that 72% of statistics are made up on the spot.

          • Meadows
          • 13 years ago

          I didn’t.

            • elpresidente
            • 13 years ago

            Ahem:
            “As for Aero, on most normal systems (read: not intel integrated video)”

            Implies that _[

            • Meadows
            • 13 years ago

            Any system without intel integrated graphics is normal to me. Whether it’s ATI/nVidia integrated, or anything from the cheapest discrete card (including units not sold anymore – a vanilla Radeon 9600 can handle Vista almost perfectly at 1280×1024, it’s just that DDR1 is slow on the card, not the processors themselves), Aero will never hog the system in the manner people believe.

            My experience with intel graphics, however, is also consistent but flipped – I never saw it not lag before.

            Don’t forget that while a lot of computers do have intel integrated graphics, that doesn’t mean they use it (at least with desktops – they have less of a choice with laptops).

            • SPOOFE
            • 13 years ago

            “Any system without intel integrated graphics is normal to me.”

            In other words, “NOT most normal systems”. Gotcha. Thank you for the elucidating clarification.

            • Usacomp2k3
            • 13 years ago

            Aero doesn’t lag on any of the computers I’ve used it on, including both my and my wife’s laptops that have Intel integrated video. It really isn’t all that demanding. Heck, it ran fine on my old laptop with GMA900.

      • clone
      • 13 years ago

      r[

    • Scorpiuscat
    • 13 years ago

    We are up to Windows #7 and they are just now realizing that they need to work on Boot times?

    Dont get me wrong, I am glad that they are doing that, but come on, this should have been something that they shoudl have worked on a long time ago.

      • cobrala
      • 13 years ago

      ScorpiusCat, they did. It was called Windows XP.
      here’s are two articles, ~4-7 years old:

      §[<http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/sysperf/fastboot/default.mspx<]§ §[<http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/archive/benchmark.mspx<]§ It may not be what you're hoping for but it doesn't mean they're just NOW paying attention. And larchy, Windows95 had no services to speak of so I'm not sure how the technically literate was doing doing that.

        • Scrotos
        • 13 years ago

        Couldn’t you disable stuff using, what was it, “msconfig” or something? Also manually editing win.ini and system.ini and startup folder and some of the startup entries in the registry. I believe there were some Windows-specific items that affected startup time but I haven’t used 9x in forever so I don’t know off the top of my head.

        edit: §[<http://support.microsoft.com/kb/281965<]§ (yup, msconfig ftw)

    • Meadows
    • 13 years ago

    It may be loathed, but other operating systems don’t boot much different either – if there _[

      • ew
      • 13 years ago

      I’ll second the sleep mode option. Not only do you get usage in a couple of seconds but you also retain the same disk cache between sessions. I really like the way OSX does it. Sleep and hibernate at the same time. So even if you lose power you can restore from the disk image.

      Of course it all goes away with buggy drivers. **cough** ralink **cough**

        • Meadows
        • 13 years ago

        Vista supports both, as well – Hybrid Sleep is enabled by default. It makes for slower shutdown times (due to hibernating before activating the actual sleep) but it makes sure to restore your session if a return from sleep was not successful.
        With AHCI drives (not to mention RAID) the shutdown times won’t be too bad either, just a few seconds really, and it makes up for a lot – not having to restart every service and program and invoke SuperFetch all over again.

          • ew
          • 13 years ago

          I could never get sleep to work at all when I tried Vista. One of the reasons I switched back to XP.

            • ChronoReverse
            • 13 years ago

            Where the sleep and hibernate technology is even more bug-prone. Brilliant.

            • ew
            • 13 years ago

            In my case the opposite was observed. I’m quite sure the wireless drivers I was using in Vista were garbage. Anytime I’d try a file transfer with Cygwin’s scp it would lock the system hard. The best I could get after the machine went to sleep was a frozen login screen with random static from the sound card. Unacceptable behavior for me regardless of what is at fault. Had to switch back.

            • indeego
            • 13 years ago

            Vista SP1 and XP SP3 fix the majority, if not all sleep and hibernation issues. The exception I’ve seen are Lappy’s with outdated graphic drivers.

        • ssidbroadcast
        • 13 years ago

        q[< I really like the way OSX does it. Sleep and hibernate at the same time. So even if you lose power you can restore from the disk image.<]q 2nded. I'll add that the infrequent times that I do boot up (on a whim) it averages ~25 seconds.

    • SecretMaster
    • 13 years ago

    To be quite honest, I can’t understand why people make such a fuss over boot times. Unless its like a five minute booting process, the difference between 30 seconds and 1 minute isn’t really going to kill you. I’ve never had a problem waiting for my computer to boot up.

    And to be honest the boot/load time on my laptop with Vista is faster than both my comps back home running XP.

    • larchy
    • 13 years ago

    “Our perspective on this is simple; if a service is not absolutely required, it shouldn’t be starting and a trigger should exist to handle rare conditions so that the service operates only then.”

    You are kidding me.

    Is this 2008? How many years of development and $$$$$$$$billion have they thrown at Windows over the years, and only now with Windows 7 are they bothering to do something that the technically literate have been doing manually since Windows 95.

    30second boot times in 2010, when we’ll have 32core nehalems and 500MB/s SSDs… geez, don’t set the bar too high or anything.

      • Ethyriel
      • 13 years ago

      here here

      But it’s not something most Linux distributors do a whole lot better on, I’m not sure about OSX. The big problem is third parties, Microsoft needs some way to enforce the issue with HIGs (I’m sure they must have them in some form), and while they’re at it, they can stop the disorganized start menu madness.

      • Jon
      • 13 years ago

      “30second boot times in 2010, when we’ll have 32core nehalems and 500MB/s SSDs… geez, don’t set the bar too high or anything.”

      You know what, that puts it in perspective right there. But that’s not going to stop me from thinking of pokemon and other happy thoughts. 🙂

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This