Is Vista slower than XP at startup?

[Terry]

This has been asked many times here, and the debate is heated among
many, which makes it hard for unbiased opinions.

Here is a report that used two identical machines, so it puts the
question to rest.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=239&tag=nl.e539

--
Terry

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

 

[Keith]

On my machine, startup in XP is faster than Vista.
However, restart/shutdown on Vista is faster than XP.

So, for me, I really don't care about having to wait an extra few secs on
either platform to startup or shutdown.

 

[Alun Harford]

This has been asked many times here, and the debate is heated among
many, which makes it hard for unbiased opinions.

Here is a report that used two identical machines, so it puts the
question to rest.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=239&tag=nl.e539

I did similar tests on my machine.

Clean XP startup averaged 58 seconds.
Clean Vista Ultimate startup averaged 51 seconds.

Vista is also much faster when booting a machine loaded with third-party
software.

Vista is faster on some hardware.
XP is faster on some hardware.

No surprise there.

Alun Harford

 

[Jon]

This has been asked many times here, and the debate is heated among many,
which makes it hard for unbiased opinions.

Here is a report that used two identical machines, so it puts the question
to rest.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Bott/?p=239&tag=nl.e539

--
Terry

***Reply Note***
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

Startup speed isn't really the issue. We can all go and make a cup of coffee
for a few minutes while a PC boots up. What counts is the speed with which
you can carry out everyday tasks once it's up and running.

Vista's 'startup' doesn't end with the loading of the desktop. If you glance
in Task Scheduler you'll find numerous tasks with triggers within the first
30 minutes, for which XP has no equivalent.

So you might be expecting me to say Vista is drastically slower than XP.
Actually no. I have it zipping along as fast as XP here - but that required
various tweaks such as the shedding of superfluous scheduled tasks,
disabling superfluous services, turning off excessive logging and a number
of other changes to which I could probably devote a whole website. Out of
the box it's slow slow slow.

 

[John Barnett MVP]

On my machine (2.8Ghz P4 with 1.5GB RAM (dual boot XP and Vista)) startup
time for XP and Vista are exactly the same 110 seconds. That figure is from
a cold start. However, as Jon mentioned 'the startup doesn't end with the
loading of the desktop' There are lots of other processes that are loading
in the background which add significantly to the time it takes Visat (or XP)
to boot. Strangely, as an example, I quote 110 seconds from a cold start to
everything loading (i can use applications well before the 110 seconds but
they will load somewhat slower). I recently installed the beta copy of
VMWare's Virtual Machine. This just shows what happens when applications
have to load processes. From cold to a full desktop without VMWare is 110
seconds. With VMWare installed startup time is increased to nearer (although
i haven't timed this exactly) to 170 seconds. At 170 seconds i've got time
to have a knap So, basically, the more applications and/or processes that
have to be run will drastically affect the time it takes Vista (or XP) to
launch to a fully functional desktop.

--
John Barnett MVP
Associate Expert
Windows - Shell/User

Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org
Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org

The information in this mail/post is supplied "as is". No warranty of any
kind, either expressed or implied, is made in relation to the accuracy,
reliability or content of this mail/post. The Author shall not be liable for
any direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages arising out of the
use of, or inability to use, information or opinions expressed in this
mail/post..

 

[Charles W Davis]

This discussion seems to me as important as discussing whether the paddle
shifter on the Bugatti Veyron is fast enough. It shifts in 8 miliseconds!
Zero to 200 mph in 22 seconds! Maybe Volkswagon should be working on that
shifter and improve it to 6 or even 4 miliseconds. But to what use, the car
is electronically limited to 253 mph.

 

[Bill Yanaire]

Brings me to an important issue. When my wife nags me, she YAPS for at
least 15 minutes. When my girlfriend talks to me, she talks for 30 seconds.
Which system do you think I'm going to use?

 

[Justin]

As it's been said many times already.

Vista is faster
XP is faster

Hardware dependant, go figure. Purchase wisely.

 

[Justin]

Brings me to an important issue. When my wife nags me, she YAPS for at
least 15 minutes. When my girlfriend talks to me, she talks for 30
seconds. Which system do you think I'm going to use?

Until wife becomes ex-wife I'll guess dual boot?

 

[Guest]

It amazes me when I read posts regarding the time it takes for either XP or
Vista to boot up. Life isn't that short that you have to count the seconds on
everything you do. For those of us of dinosaur age can still remember the
early days of the XT computers when you could go shopping and mow the lawns
while the 5 1/4 inch floppy booted up the machine.

Just for the exercise I timed my machine boot into XP Pro and from cold boot
averages out to 30 - 33 seconds lolol

 

[Justin]

I've come across many XP machines (new) that shut down in seconds (~5)!