| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Vista: Whatever happened to fast boot? | |
|
||
| Time: 00:26 EST/05:26 GMT | News Source: ZDNet | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
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. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 353 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:53:46 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 7760 (12.155.143.50) at 4/11/2007 1:57:56 AM |
|
I've always been under the strong impression that Vista's bootup promises were linked to new features and new technologues, If you don't have them or don't use them, you won't see much difference. For example, one of the best ways to decrease boot times, according to Microsoft, is the use of flash drives (either in USB keychains or in hybrid hard drives). I doubt that most people (especially the complainers) are using either. I'm also guessing that they just took a look at the bullet-point features of Vista without actually looking closely at Microsoft's claims. This post was edited by Osprey on Wednesday, April 11, 2007 at 02:00. |
| #2 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 4/11/2007 1:58:37 AM |
|
People happened. That's what.
The same people that have formal and informal training to learn to drive a car - that are licensed to operate it, insured while using it and policed should they behave in any manner that is irresponsible. At their worst, drivers that wreck a car, injure or harm a relatively small number of others. <certainly, not taking away from the impact of that harm, which can be very severe> These same people operate powerful computers without much training at all and in ways that carry the potential to harm millions. After a few weeks of use the average system is exposed to random default installs - piling purchased copies of Office on top of shoveled trial versions that were pre-installed alongside Works and God knows what else. After a few months of naive use, the system is of more use to any one of a dozen bots nets than it is the user. Other people - lawyers, accountants and marketing people, convince systems builders to load an OEM PC with Pure'D Crap, shovel-ware and enough systems tray icons, TSO's and useless utilities to shingle a virtual roof. People happened to fast boot. |
| #3 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 4/11/2007 2:03:38 AM |
| #1, So very true. Sleep or Hibernate a Vista PC that uses a decent ReadyBoost USB thumb drive, and it is like night and day. It is literally like hitting a wall switch coming out of sleep and has changed how I use my systems at home. The WMC systems, in particular, which we now sleep on and sleep off <so to speak> with our remotes to watch TV. It is so dang good that one can leave a channel playing and sleep the systems and the sleep them back on and they pick up the program just like a regular TV. I have yet to see the feature fail - even when I apply a password when waking up. |
| #4 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at 4/11/2007 7:22:57 AM |
|
Mine still won't hybernate properly, and I still think it's either the nVidia or Creative Drivers...
Even after a brand new reload, it crashes on wake. TL |
| #5 By 65179 (221.128.147.138) at 4/11/2007 7:38:29 AM |
|
The Wikipedia performance section says this:
Delayed service start in Windows Vista allows services to start only when they are actually needed. The system will boot up much faster and perform tasks quicker than before. AND Services in Windows Vista have the capability of delaying the system shutdown in order to properly save data to the hard disk or finish current operations. Crashes and restart problems are drastically reduced since services are not terminated by a forced shutdown anymore. The reverse seems to be happening..startup is slightly slower than XP on my system...shutdown is taking forever. |
| #6 By 3746 (72.12.166.62) at 4/11/2007 8:14:56 AM |
|
Startup and shutdown times are comporable to XP if not faster for me. I always found them to be fast so I don't have much need for standby or hibernate. It doesn't take longer then 30-45 seconds for me until I see the login screen. This post was edited by kaikara on Wednesday, April 11, 2007 at 08:15. |
| #7 By 61 (12.108.60.37) at 4/11/2007 8:45:16 AM |
|
Startup time is the same as XP for me, shutdown varies (probably because of the delayed service shutdown as commented on earlier).
Waking the system up from sleep actually takes longer than cold-booting for me. Keep in mind,though, I use an AthlonXP on an nForce2 chipset, which is basically unsupported in Vista beyond just basic drivers (thanks nVidia). |
| #8 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at 4/11/2007 8:49:51 AM |
|
I have the same experience as kaikara. Startup and shut-down is faster, and I've not seen a SINGLE shut-down error since going to vista.
Hybernation is my only issue, and I'm sure that's related to the shitty Creative or nVidia drivers. I did one other thing when I moved to Vista. I took Symantec AntiVirus and kicked that puppy as far away from my computer as I could. It is severely bloated, close to totally inefective these days (what good is AV software that a Virus or Spyware can easily disable?) and in itself adds some 10-15 seconds to boot time. I've since switched to NOD32 and the only question I have is why I didn't do it YEARS ago. Hell, even the (Beta) of SecureClient for Vista loads instantly. On XP, that thing was one of the biggest hangups, adding another good 10-15 sec. TL |
| #9 By 8556 (12.207.97.148) at 4/11/2007 8:51:42 AM |
| The one complaint that stands out to me, is that after upgrading to Home Premium one user's system took 6 minutes to boot. I suspect that the 6 minute boot after upgrade (mentioned in one of the articles’ links) was on an older, underpowered machine that should have had Vista Basic installed instead. Turn off all fades, slides, unproductive features and craplets to get back most of the start up speed on older and underpowered machines. Hardware matters with Vista. And yes, Microsoft “lied” to us again about the start up speed. Vista is not always faster, or even at the same performance level as XP as added hardware (ready boost, ready drive) and system tweaks are often needed to get better performance. Why is anyone surprised about that? Vista is still a work in progress, much like all other Windows releases before it initially were. |
| #10 By 48398 (130.13.13.41) at 4/11/2007 10:22:11 AM |
| Dont forget the Symantec factor. Most new systems come with NIS installed on them. |
| #11 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 4/11/2007 12:31:04 PM |
| #10, No kidding. I recently worked up a new Vista Home Premium based laptop for a relative [I bet we all end up doing a lot of that sort of honey-do work], and it took a good long while to remove all the crud on it - including a boot into safe mode to remove the Symantec/Norton Live Update service. It was a different machine after that. Individual buyers who do not have much experience, or access to family techs must have dreaful experiences. |
| #12 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at 4/11/2007 1:26:04 PM |
|
Like I said in my post about SAV...
Your answer lies here: www.eset.com :) TL |
| #13 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at 4/11/2007 1:34:09 PM |
|
Really guys, there are few programs I REALLY harp on as being the "Real Deal". NOD32 is one of them.
Comparison to other AV software (use the full report links) http://www.eset.com/products/compare-NOD32-vs-competition.php TL |
| #14 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 4/11/2007 1:40:41 PM |
| #2: That's the most abstract apology I've heard so far. "People happened to fast boot". Yeah, specifically the people at Microsoft. |
| #15 By 76903 (167.88.201.100) at 4/11/2007 2:24:30 PM |
|
Well, mine sure boots a lot faster than my old XP machine. I've read stories of those complaining
about 2 minute boots. Mine does it in about 30 seconds. I never use hibernate or sleep as I've always experienced problems with both no matter what version of Windows I'm using. |
| #16 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 4/11/2007 2:25:43 PM |
|
#13: Any links for a more objective comparison? Every AV vendor claims their product is best. There was a site called antivirusreviews.com or something like that, but they haven't updated since Nov 2006.
#15: That's the best you can do?? For a Latch imposter, you're not very funny. However, I know you're not Parkkker because you managed to correctly spell 'instantaneous' and 'bestiality'. And there was no edit. |
| #17 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 4/11/2007 2:29:38 PM |
| #16: MysticSentinel brought up the point that everyone is comparing their years-old polluted XP boot times to a freshly-installed Vista boot time. Apples & oranges. It would be more interesting to see a fresh XP install bootup compared to a fresh Vista bootup. On my home system (P4 3.2 GHz), XP takes about 4-5 minutes to completely come up. I was going to do a wipe & reinstall but I'll be getting a new system instead. |
| #18 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 4/11/2007 2:44:28 PM |
|
#14, I did not exclude some of the people at Microsoft, Latch - they are certainly among the later group mentioned. So I fail to see where any apology was rendered. Certainly, naive use of PC's is a factor contributing to how well, or poorly they perform.
You're looking for what is not there. The interesting question is, why? #17, #13, Good points Latch - and yes, NOD32 failed some pretty important tests very recently and some that were surprising for even its most ardent supporters. That said, it is still quite good according to many who assess such things, but Latch's point about what is claimed and what is reality is valid and again underwrites the need for a defense in depth strategy - which all would have to agree is well represented in Windows Vista - ASLR, DEP, Hardware DEP, UAC, Non-Admin Admin Accounts, IE 7 Protected Mode, process isolation, Kernel Mode Protections, Windows Defender, anti-phishing filters that work, Windows Updates as an application, now, and a great firewall, Parental Controls - all baked into the OS and presented within the Windows Security Center. Of course, all added to a decent AV suite and AV/Anti-Malware suites running on nearly all mail servers and people have a pretty good chance of staying safer when using PC's on the Interent and other public networks. Seems to me that Microsoft did a pretty good job of providing the foundation for a more secure system. |
| #19 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 4/11/2007 2:49:20 PM |
| #18: Ummmm....Where exactly did I bring up the XP boot times in this thread? I actually haven't said anything in this thread before now. I think you have me confused with someone else. |
| #20 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 4/11/2007 2:56:35 PM |
|
Here are some links to an independant reviewer who tested a number of AV products:
http://www.scotsnewsletter.com/88.htm#avvii http://www.scotsnewsletter.com/80.htm#avsearch http://www.scotsnewsletter.com/81.htm#aviii http://www.scotsnewsletter.com/82.htm#aviv and other links from this series of articles. And Scot Finnie also agrees that NOD32 is the best one out there, based on his own tests. |
| #21 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 4/11/2007 3:13:21 PM |
|
#18: I think it was the benchmark testing you are referring to that I suggested last week, since you were getting a brand new machine with Vista pre-installed. I didn't specifically mention boot times, but that would be a good test to measure as well. What are the boot times of a fresh XP install compared to a fresh Vista install, before a bunch of extra services and stuff are added, based on the Microsoft default settings.
I don't have a problem with the XP boot times on my XP systems, because I usually tweak it so that unused services are turned off. Log in time is a different issue, but that is because I have a crapload of stuff that loads in the background when I log in, so that is entirely my own fault, and thus don't complain about it. |
| #22 By 23275 (24.179.4.158) at 4/12/2007 5:12:21 AM |
|
#4, Curious, TL, what kind of memory do you have in the PC tha will not hibernate?
If you could, what is the Main Board, BIOS .REV and what part number is the RAM; is it of the same manufacturer and what timings are you using? Many times, after one has looked at sub-systems like discrete graphics, and their drivers, and they still see issues with hibernation working, it comes down to two areas: systems RAM and what is written to the hibernation cache in Vista. Often, RAM, its type and how it is set up, are the cause of the problem. Is for example, your RAM exactly matched to the FSB of your CPU? Is it in dual-channel mode, if that applies to you? If you have available RAM, I'd swap it out in matched pairs. A few things to look forward to in May: Intel's Robson Technology - adding better and more direct support for ReadyBoost, ReadyDrive and how it impacts hibernation performance, http://www.intel.com/technology/magazine/computing/robson-1206.htm Also, if you have performed any type of dual-boot, or if you have installed Vista multiple times on the same drive, you may want to delete the files in your hibernation cache and then reboot and hibernate again - re-creating these files. Try this, and then reboot: 1. Click Start, All Programs, Accessories, System Tools, and then click "Disk Cleanup". 2. If prompted to choose a drive, select the drive in which Windows Vista is installed on and press OK. 3. Disk Cleanup will scan the hard drive and present you with a list of options. 4. Check "Hibernation File Cleaner", and then click OK. 5. When asked "Are you sure you want to permanently delete these files?" click on the Delete Files button. |
| #23 By 48398 (130.13.13.41) at 4/12/2007 10:24:55 AM |
| TechLarry, I've been selling NOD32 for almost 2 years now. It's almost funny how such a good product can exist without computer manufacturers jumping all over it. |
| #24 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 4/12/2007 11:47:10 AM |
| #24: The biggest problem faced by Eset and other smaller anti-virus vendors is that they don't have the marketing budget and channel presence that Symantec can bring to bear. Symantec also had a long time to get into a good position with VARs. I will probably give them a try and install NOD32 in the next few days, and try it for myself. I have heard a lotof good things about it. |
| #25 By 2960 (24.254.95.224) at 4/12/2007 3:16:38 PM |
|
#23,
Been thru all that. Remember, I do this for a living :) It's broke right after a clean install and that's why I'm nodding towards the lousy nVidia and Creative drivers. Everything is up to date, of course. I wouldn't have it any other way :) TL |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 353 Last | Next |
The time now is
9:53:47 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
