Windows 7 is back!

[SIW2]

It is slower than win7 without the hiberboot thing. Worse than useless for multibooters.

If you want fast, go Linux.

+1

 

[alphanumeric]

Don't forget to factor in Windows 8's "Fast Boot". I would think for a true comparison you'd want to turn it off.

But . . . but . . . but . . . that's what makes bootup faster for me with Windows 8. If Windows 7 doesn't have that, and it takes an SSD card to make Win 7 boot faster, then, well, ummm, errr . . .

If you use Fast Boot the Windows 8 PC goes into a hybrid sleep mode. Putting your Windows 7 PC into hibernate is likely a close equivalent. Booting up from sleep or hibernate will be faster than a cold boot. Apples and Oranges. For true comparison I think each system should be booting up from a cold start with no hibernation or sleep mode used. I use an SSD in my 8 laptop and turn fast boot off. INHO with an SSD its not needed.

 

[whs]

SSDs are basic staple for my PCs. I would not have one without it.

 

[alphanumeric]

I have 1 in my laptop, well 2 actually. Still running spinners in my desktop PC though. I have plans to add one for the boot drive though. I disable hibernate from the command line for multiple reasons. I never use sleep or hibernate and it gets ride of the hyperfile.sys file. Just a personal choice thing.

 

[lehnerus2000]

I thought my boot was fast ,it showed a 22645ns

That is fast.
I think you mean "ms" not "ns".

W8 boot times seem to be horribly hardware sensitive.
When I tried the various W8 previews, its boot time was ~5s faster than W7.

 

[whs]

Deleting the hiberfile is default for me. I started with SSDs in 2007 when you paid nearly $300 for a 60GB drive. So space was always precious. Even today my largest SSD is only 240GB - and that I use as an external drive to run all my virtual systems.

 

[mdmd]

post boot is 6 or 7 seconds with my specs

I don't believe that. Show me the Event 100 nums.

I don't care about Event 100 nums.
I only care about what I see.
I'll post a little clock if I can set up my phone and camera.

 

[mdmd]

For true comparison I think each system should be booting up from a cold start

I cold boot only.

 

[Michal]

Don't forget to factor in Windows 8's "Fast Boot". I would think for a true comparison you'd want to turn it off.

But . . . but . . . but . . . that's what makes bootup faster for me with Windows 8. If Windows 7 doesn't have that, and it takes an SSD card to make Win 7 boot faster, then, well, ummm, errr . . .

Fast boot is ... well wake up from RAM suspend, which is not boot really. So put Win 7 in RAM suspend state and win 8 in hybrid state and you will get (should) exactly the same numbers.

As whs mentioned, boot time speed discussion is nothing more than waste of time if you can't compare as close configs as possible (which is not really possible for average users).

 

[whs]

post boot is 6 or 7 seconds with my specs

I don't believe that. Show me the Event 100 nums.

I don't care about Event 100 nums.
I only care about what I see.
I'll post a little clock if I can set up my phone and camera.

I don't think it is worth having this discussion if you cannot even provide system data. You are just waving your arms and grabbing nums out of thin air. I believe you are trying to mislead us.

 

[titi2]

I very much doubt that Windows 7 is back since you have both worlds in Windows 8 plus the fact that not only Windows 8 is for PC but also it is designed for touch-based tablets and cell. You can work on Windows 8 Desktop and make 8 comparable with 7 in my humble opinion. What do you folks think?

 

[alphanumeric]

Deleting the hiberfile is default for me. I started with SSDs in 2007 when you paid nearly $300 for a 60GB drive. So space was always precious. Even today my largest SSD is only 240GB - and that I use as an external drive to run all my virtual systems.

I have a 120 GB for the OS and 240 GB for data in my laptop. I put the original 750 GB spinner that was in in it in an external USB enclosure for backup. It'll likely be a 120 GB that I put in my desktop. The spinner that's in it will be for data.

 

[MasterChief]

To me, boot times are pointless. Usually, my systems are up for weeks or months at a time (or until Windows Update decides my uptime should be killed and I have to let it do so lol). Even laptops that hibernate.

Does the machine play video well? Does it game well (if that type of machine with that type of hardware)? Does the internet work well? Does it run my music software well? Does Adobe work well? How about video editing utilities?

Things along those lines. What I mean is clear though. Boot times are irrelevant (to me).

I could understand someone thinking differently like many of you guys that like to tinker around with other OSes. Then you may have a valid point for wanting fast booting.

 

[Wynona]

For true comparison I think each system should be booting up from a cold start

I cold boot only.

I cold boot in the morning and turn the system off at night. I haven't changed any of the settings applied by HP. When I go off and leave the computer for an extended time during the day, it takes less than five seconds for it to "wake up" when I come back. I just wiggle the mouse, click and voila!

 

[mdmd]

I don't believe that. Show me the Event 100 nums.

I don't care about Event 100 nums.
I only care about what I see.
I'll post a little clock if I can set up my phone and camera.

I don't think it is worth having this discussion if you cannot even provide system data. You are just waving your arms and grabbing nums out of thin air. I believe you are trying to mislead us.

Like I said, I only care about what I see.
Well, here is the best I can do on short notice.

[video=youtube_share;TEb_kVK2tXE]http://youtu.be/TEb_kVK2tXE[/video]

 

[whs]

To me, boot times are pointless. Usually, my systems are up for weeks or months at a time (or until Windows Update decides my uptime should be killed and I have to let it do so lol). Even laptops that hibernate.

Does the machine play video well? Does it game well (if that type of machine with that type of hardware)? Does the internet work well? Does it run my music software well? Does Adobe work well? How about video editing utilities?

Things along those lines. What I mean is clear though. Boot times are irrelevant (to me).

I could understand someone thinking differently like many of you guys that like to tinker around with other OSes. Then you may have a valid point for wanting fast booting.

You are right. Those are the most important considerations.

I pick the boot time only because it is one of the few performance numbers that the system records and can be compared across systems. All the others are 'felt' performance numbers - they are important but mean different things to different people and a discussion would never end.

 

[mdmd]

I pick the boot time only because it is one of the few performance numbers that the system records and can be compared across systems. All the others are 'felt' performance numbers - they are important but mean different things to different people and a discussion would never end.

We have posted and gone back and forth about event 100 before. It is not a static reading that is the same across systems. It is very hardware dependent, very dependent on software startup processes. Event 100 has a nebulous start and end of data gathering. What if lots of errors are being logged during the boot process? If it includes the bios, that is also a factor as they always vary.

And, btw, who has indicated performance that is felt?
An eye witness is not felt.

Frankly, I welcome Windows 7. Not opposed to Win32 either.
I will expire before Win32 does.
Phone OS's are nextgen tech.

 

[MasterChief]

I pick the boot time only because it is one of the few performance numbers that the system records and can be compared across systems. All the others are 'felt' performance numbers - they are important but mean different things to different people and a discussion would never end.

I hear that and understand. No doubt. I think I say like that mainly because Microsoft touts it like some great achievement. It actually is I suppose, but little value in the real world unless you are always rebooting because of a hobby or whatever reason.

It is not a static reading that is the same across systems.

I think (I am not him so that's why I use the term "think") that he uses it because often it is said that boot times are a measure of the overall operating system speediness.

I tend to disagree but there is at least some value in that. If storage behaves quicker in an OS, to give an example, that will automatically lessen the time to boot because of the storage (maybe or maybe not lessen overall due to all other factors.)

 

[mdmd]

...It actually is I suppose, but little value in the real world unless you are always rebooting because of a hobby or whatever reason.

It is not a static reading that is the same across systems.

I think (I am not him so that's why I use the term "think") that he uses it because often it is said that boot times are a measure of the overall operating system speediness.

I tend to disagree but there is at least some value in that. If storage behaves quicker in an OS, to give an example, that will automatically lessen the time to boot because of the storage (maybe or maybe not lessen overall due to all other factors.)

Overall OS speediness depends on hardware and software processes, errors, poorly (or not) designed systems, heat, etc... many things. Boot time is only a convenience. I don't know many people that run their systems continuously unless they are enterprise clients or servers. How many home PCs are run 24/7? Sleeping is good.

Whether one boots often is not a tell tale sign of a hobbyist. Booting that takes enough time to be annoying is not good. Storage is a factor, so is the cpu, how the OS is installed, amount of memory, gpu, etc...

If you disagree that boot time has value, then I guess a 2 or 3 minute boot time is ok.

 

[mdmd]

I think it is a good thing that HP would offer Windows 7. Many more should do the same.
I can think of a few local offices that have recently upgraded hundreds of XP systems to Windows 7.
That's fine. You think MS will sell millions of copies of Windows 7 for free?
A doctor's office locally uses Windows 7 but their systems are run in classic mode, no aero, nothing fancy.