Glad to see they're taking performance more seriously.

What is their way to measure boot time? What defines the start the end of the booting process?

The reason I'm asking is that 15 seconds sounds very good for any operating system, unless they're running it on a super-computer -- that would explain it :)

Prolly when the Windows logo makes its first appearance and disappearance. I doubt they count the icons displaying, services loading, etc. in those 15 seconds.

finally they seem to be taking performence of an operating system more seriously. in vista its more benificial to just shut down the the PC than to use the hybernation feature, at least on my notebook PC because the for the PC to hybernate takes so long and than it even takes a while for the PC to resume fom hybernation. its just so much faster to shutdown and restart the PC when using the PC when using vista.

XP has much faster hybernation times than vista, but vista has faster startup and shutdown times than XP. vista's startup times are just a bit faster but it just depends on the computers hardware and softare configuration. the shutdown times in vista are a lot faster depending on the software on the hardware and software configuration.

usually as more software is added to the PC the startup, logon, and shutdown times for both operating systems slow down. the nice thing is that Vista is not degraded as much when more and more application are installed on the PC. but sadly XP is. the slowest shutdown time i have ever had was 2 minutes under XP. odd isn't it?

hopefully we will have fast startup times under windows 7 and fast shut down times, as well. these shut downs times better be clean because you know how windows does not alwas have clean shut downs....

If a machine that currently runs Vista performs better with windows 7. I would say there is an improvement and Microsoft is finally moving forward. Users on Vista should not have to upgrade their hardware.

Me thinks Windows 7 will be an update over Windows Vista like iPhone 3G was an update over the original iPhone.

pls send me more information about vienna operating system, the manufacture, date build, expected release

by the way what is the minimum requirements of this windows 7?.. can this be run also faster on old computers like pentium 4??,, further explanation on hardware...

eliass stop insulting them in dutch language okay?

and for people who want to know what it means.. it ment fu** fu** goddamn** pu**ie

m@3str0 - no one knows yet, I think MS doesn't know it for sure either. They're probably similar to the Vista requirements.

Getting back to Boot Times, what do you considered 'good'? I'm more than pleased with mine - boot up complete and ready to go in 30 seconds. Shutdown is about 12 seconds.
XP home, Pentium4, 3 mhz, 1 gig ram.
It's all good ~ and I have considerable number of apps installed.

For people who think 15 seconds is too fast, think again. My 2004 Pentium 4 based Desktop makes Windows XP Pro. responsive in 15 seconds from boot-up. I don't have crapware. After sign in, the number of processes are 22 for me.

I'd love to get it lower than 10 seconds, but I haven't been able to (even on a Core 2 Duo Penryn processor with 2 GB of 1066Mhz DDR3 ram, the XP boot time remains at 15 seconds).

Nice.

So far with a 2 GB computer (Dell) running Windows Vista, it takes about 45 seconds to get to the login window.

I would like them to put more effort in overall system performance. Fast CPU scheduling - almost no OS CPU, disk or memory usage, fast networking.

I boot my system once a day, so if this takes 15 seconds or 10 minutes, I don't care. I want it to be fast as soon as it has booted, because then I start working.

Doe's anyone know if Windows 7 will be able run games and software from windows Xp or vista like Crysis and Gimp?

I believe the difference between great boot up/shut down and lengthy ones - is the registry, the smaller and cleaner the better! and this is where MS should be doing some work.
some kind of a change in the way the registry is setup~ maybe it'd be possible to split it up, one registry for the Operating system and associated programs, a second for the programs you install, maybe it's not possible, but this I think is the key to a speedier system.
I'v installed the majority of programs using vmware, effectively making all these program portable, and zero effect on the system registry - the difference is quite obvious when you monitor boot/shut down times.

what good do you get out of a PC? there is no interaction between a Dell PC and Windows 7, but there is an Interaction between a Macbook and Mac OSX Leopard.

what fun do you get out of Windows 7? some games? Powerpoint, Word, Faster processor speeds, and some teenage games?

Mac can run PC, and can play all the games that you want to play, even with faster processors and extravagant graphics.

so which do you choose?
oh, by the way, Mac has a faster boot up speed than PC.

Apple Club...
Try Ubuntu 8.10

Guys and Gals

When do microsoft will consider open source , it is time to think about.

pm philip

Guys and Gals

When do microsoft will consider open source , it is time to think about.

pm philip

I havn't see this OS so no comments

If they succeed in making it faster alone, I would be grateful. The time it takes to load can always be altered and made slower so just by making it faster and making the next gen laptops desktops hold more ram would be a gift of the goddess for me.

Sounds like Windows 7 is gonna be better than Vista.

By the look of the graph you will have to wait for advances in componentry to achieve anywhere near the 15 second mark. by then Windows 7 (without any service packs) will be obsolete, like running the original release of xp on any half decent machine today.

Don't know why it is even being talked about when clearly we are looking at somewhere around 30 seconds. Personally I think thats a decent boot time but a far cry from anything worth advertising as fast.

Well, I believe that it gonna be pretty much like Vista, but the real problems in vista getting passed over. Besides, instead of having service packs for Vista, they just release this version which would be containing the major improvements since Vista was released.

Hope they can make it boot like an intel apple lol..
I Think personally vista was way too high end, requiring hell alot of memory and a high end cpu..If Vienna or Win 7 can run on a low end pc..or non dual core pc with 1gb of mem and a regular videocard like fx5200 then its okay in my books.. Problems with past operating systems like longhorn and vista are that Microsoft has been focusing way too much on the graphical part of the O.S instead of program stabilization and driver integrity.. Every folder you open or whatever program you open you get" file not responding" then you have to end task and .. well it gives me just a headache typing about it.. I hope they can do a real good job with this next O.S...

Believe me this OS is better than most ones I see.... ok a windows pc will never be booting as fast as a mac computer with os x but that's because that OS is only designed for there hardware.... so almost no bugs and less drivers and stuff... and actually I'm running windows 7 build 6956 as my default Os installation and so far no bugs hadded... it's much faster than vista and it even recognizes wireless internet from the beginning.. where you gonna see that in any other windows os or even mac...? I don't know about linux though.. I think linux is a great Os too.. but c'mon be serious the guy from the apple store is a jerk here who says the mac pro is the best lol even it only has got a ati 2600 xt card which when I mentioned when they are releasing a new card... he kinda got mad at me and laughed me out... but I know the graphic card is old even for mac lol... oh well fanboyism... I like the dock with stacks tough... but linux is good too yes... but if you have like a ati 4870 forget it to have nice compiz together with watching movies cause that will be flickering... in vienna you don't have to install many drivers... I even think you don't have to.. I installed a vista driver over a beta driver for my ati card though :) but give this Os a chance.. it'll blow you away

hahahahah ive been a windows user for 13 years now.. i just got a mac because i thought it would be different, thought i could do things faster with it, guess i was wrong...To tell you the truth i prefer windows, much more capabilities.. but then again there is bootcamp, still alot of work to get running..
The pro's of a mac/imac less wires, cons of a desktop too heavy/and too many accessories to carry around to a lan party. I'm just hoping if windows 7 is like you say it is that, then it will be perfect for gaming, don't get me wrong. If windows 7 has less bugs than vista does and programs are much more stable then its good in my books.

I agree with Hi2.
I have a Vista machine at home, but before I was able to install it, I had to do a major upgrade just to get it to work without any hick ups. Too bad MS can not go the Open Source way. Good performance and low end compatible.

so far it is stable I can tell you that. However I hope they won't screw it up.. they're doing a great job.. and it looks promising and I like the new taskbar too :)

MacLover,
"Mac has a faster boot up speed than PC"
Not true. Boot times depend mostly on stuff you install on your computer. Ive had my windows XP boot in 15-20secs doing some tweaks.I'm tired of mac users complaning about non-mac users.

Mac = is a computer developed by Apple.
PC = is just a personal computer...
so i have a PC with linux installed on it and i can boot it in 5 - 10 seconds(from off to internet browser open), therefore my PC beating your Mac, in boot times.

Macs are expensive macbook starts at $1200 macbook pro at $ 2000.
And thats the Price for their default hardware.
Macbook Pro default: $2000
adding only 2 GBs of ram and a bigger harddrive = $2500

Its a joke. With 2000 i built my own gaming system:
(compared to macbook pro)

3.0GHz core duo - 2.4Ghz (mac)
4GB dual channel RAM - 2 GB (mac)
512MB nvidia 9800GTX - ? 9600 GT
300 GB 10k RPM - 5.4k RPM (mac)

5.4k Revs per min is sad. and you have to pay more to get a decent size harddrive that is 7.2k RPM

...so lets stop the MAC - PC fight.

lol i get where your pointing at about the mac-pc thing.. but i bought mine for 600$ less off of ebay so im not complaining..
i saw a deal on tiger direct 150$ for a barebone with x2 5200 a md
2gb mem
250gb sata 7200 rpm drive.., which is pretty decent for the deal..
i'm looking to build a quad core 4gb, with asus mobo and 8800gtx card as my next machine in january.. .. im still thinking for amd over intel.. what do you guys recommend?.. I'm not up to date on benchmarks or anything..

guys i like windows from that when i entere in computer sceinc field i m using WINDOWS now but i m not satisfied of VISTA GUI becoz it is very boring as compared 2 XP ok XP left pane is everything and icon r good to use easy and i use VISTA its icons which r equal to new york buildings and XP,s left goes upward in VISTA and i know security is much improved but if don,t like VISTA
kindly send me snapshots of WINDOWS 7 and try to improve its GUI
BEST REGARDS
FORM RAHEEL

Nooooooooo Hi2, keep up on intel! I have tried AMD, as well as Intel. AMD were so good and over Intel when Intel first released the pentium 4 cpu's in early 21st century. At that time, AMD showed Intel that speed is not everything. However, now Intel got over AMD, and lately, the Intel Core i7 with the 32nm technology have proved that Intel is way advanced than AMD right now. Not sayin that AMD is way behind, but it is behind Intel. Who knows till when!

Thanks for the Input tbh..
so which the new core I7 is which socket? Is it like quad core or beyond that??

Hey hi2,
the new Core i7 is a quad core processor, but it comes with a couple of editions; As intel claims, "the best desktop processor on the planet.‡1 Built on advanced technology that automatically applies processing power where it’s needed most, the Intel Core i7 processor’s incredible speed and efficiency lets you multitask 25% faster‡2 and delivers an amazing multimedia creation experience.
"
Its socket is LGA1366, and 8MB Cache; furthermore, it has a DDR3 memory!!!
Besides, here is a link for the processor's specifications: http://www.intel.com/en_IN/consumer/learn/Desktop/corei7-detail.htm

This is what seems to be.
Regards

And also, another link for the processor:
http://www.intel.com/products/processor/corei7/?iid=SEARCH

Don't forget to check out: www.tbh-lsvc.tk
and download the documentation:

http://lsvc.cedhost.com/downloads/tbh.zip

Well I am an AMD user for years now and I have been watching the battle for processor supremacy for quite some time now. When Intel improves AMD comes with something better. It may take a while but they do. An din my case their price is always better for me. Look at Vista for example. If I am not mistaken MS waited till Intel had a dual core processor before they launched Vista. While AMD had theirs for months on the market already.
Lets just wait and see what are the new developments in 2009.

Well KRC not really. I have used AMD for 4 years, but I have always seen the difference among both AMD

I am using AMD processor FX-55 with 2GB DDR(1) for the last 4 years and I am running Vista and even WINDOWS 7, flawlessly. Boot time for Vista is around 20 second and for WINDOWS 7 it is 17-18 second. What any one say

I installed Windows 7 on my laptop. It used up 5.4GB of hard drive memory, 46 processes and 534MB or ram memory. The CPU was idling around 15% all the time. Not to mention it took 2 full hours just to install!

Microsoft claims Windows 7 can be used on netbooks, which there isn't any offered. Unless you got a quad core ripping machine...

Truth is, Windows 7 is Vista branded as the next new thing, but in all reality it's still bloatware that enforces DRM technologies.

NEVER again will I assume, trust Microsoft! It's Linux time for me, stable affordable as in FREE and without the vaporware activation, validation and their WGA paid for disadvantage!

Linux runs just fine on my laptop, too!

Same shit, if not even bigger than Vista.

@Frank So what you are saying is Windows 7 used the same amount of Hard Drive Storage as XP with Service Pack3 and recent updates installed? It took 2 hours to install?

I installed Windows 7 32-bit on a P4 2.4 GHz with 1GB of Ram in 35 minutes. I tested both 64 and 32 bit. The 64-bit version took 45 minutes to install.

You must be using more dated hardware than me.

Windows 7 is based off the Vista kernel therefore your statement about it being Vista branded is somewhat truthful you are incorrect. Windows 7 is a new operating system that is based on a similar kernel. Your statement would be comparable to saying Ubuntu 8 is the same as Ubuntu 7. It is not, the Ubuntu 8 kernel is similar to the Ubuntu 7 kernel, however they are different versions of the Ubuntu OS.

i have already installed windows 7 public release.. some features has been adopted on ubuntu.. like the changing of desktop portion.. y microsoft can't think of unique feature...

Well, as my all appreciation to ubuntu which I am currently using next to windows, but linux is the one who started takin features from microsoft

Well Windows 7 Beats Vista by very big margins not only in boot time but also in normal running. I think ideally this should be the next upgrade after XP and People should forget and bury Vista (which even Microsoft wishes i think)
<a href="http://win7thefuture.blogspot.com/" >http://win7thefuture.blogspot.com/</a><br/>

One thing that needs to change with Windows 7 is the Startup/Quickstart/Autostart philosophy, and ditch the annoying Notifaction area. Every bit of software seems to think you need it to autostart. Well if nothing is set to autostart then it will speed up the computer and free up resources no end. Only security/virus software should be allowed to start with Windows the rest can bugger off. Other than that I'm really looking forward to Windows 7, I'm glad I havnt invested any time with Vista.

what is the size of the window vienna??

i mean the How big was the size of the window 7?

Microsoft has finally learnt from their MISTAKE. Finally they have fused the best of Xp and the best of Vista to come up with a good product. The internet explore 8 has a lot of stolen Features from Mozilla esp the sessions. WoW

Anyway i hope this will be a success because Vista is ShitSTAR

Well, I think Windows Vista is better than Windows 7. I think Microsoft has waste their time. They can develop Vista other than Windows 7.

Hi this is Dr. Hasan.

I am sorry my comment does not make sense in more than one way.

Hi this is Dr. Hasan.

I am sorry , cos i dont know english.....

boot times really depends on your hardware buy Western Digital VelociRaptor from your near pc shop

wow amazing.. i have p3 but its working too good.. i love this effort.

Hii How are you ?