| 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 |
 |
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. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 141 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:51:10 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 21912 (71.83.109.74) at 10/13/2009 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. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 141 Last | Next |
The time now is
3:51:10 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
