September 25th, 2005
Windows Vista to Boot in Under 4 Seconds
By Alice Hill
RealTechNews
I have to say I wasn’t a fan when the first alpha release of Vista came out. People rightly ho-hummed about the UI and the fact that it looked pretty much like XP. We wanted an OS that would take things to the next level, something that would have the same dramatic leap that Windows 95 had over Windows 3.1 or what Windows XP did over the sad Win 98 and ghastly ME. But guess what? If you haven’t been keeping up with Vista’s development, I have to tell you you are in for a very visual treat. (More on that later.)
Today there’s word that Vista will boot very quickly - something I personally cannot wait for. Windows XP takes over 20 minutes for me by the time ever little spy sweeping, instant messaging app loads and sets up for the day’s work. It’s a living nightmare to restart and sometimes even standby mode takes fro ever to get kicking. For ultimate stability, try “hibernate mode. (FN+ F12 on most Laptops)
Fast On and Off: A Windows Vista computer starts and shuts down as quickly and reliably as a television, typically within 2 to 3 seconds. Windows Vista processes login scripts and startup programs and services in the background so you can start working right away. You’ll also shut down and restart your computer less often by using the New Sleep state, a simple one-click on and off experience which not only reduces power consumption, but also delivers and protects user data. Source Microsoft via Digg
David Johnston says:
20 minutes to boot XP? Good God, what are you running on your startup!?!
September 25th, 2005 at 10:51 am
Tommy Thomas says:
I think You could do with some startup optimization!
September 25th, 2005 at 11:24 am
John says:
The UI in the “preview” version of Vista does not reperesent the final version. The UI will be different.
September 25th, 2005 at 1:10 pm
br0adband says:
Sorry, but if your XP machine is taking 20 minutes to boot perhaps you’re not in the right industry. You’re putting out a tech newsletter and you can’t get it working faster? Besides, who needs a spyware app that loads and scans each time you boot the PC, that’s absolutely ludicrous. Go do a Google search for Bootvis, download and install it, run it, choose Tools - Optimize System and let it do it’s thing. When it reboots DON’T TOUCH THE PC until Bootvis is done it’s magic - leave the PC alone for 5-10 minutes, you’ll know when Bootvis is done. Voila, your boot times will be significantly lower.
20 minutes… that was good for a laugh, thanks.
September 25th, 2005 at 1:31 pm
RobertSB says:
Geez, a little sarcasm doesn’t go over too well round here.
September 25th, 2005 at 1:46 pm
Alice says:
Sheez. Let’s all calm down. I have not used a stopwatch to time my boot time, but it has gotten slower by the day and when I mean boot - I mean from the time I hit “on” to the time I get to work. I definitely need to optimize, but the reality is, for most people, by the time you log on, and then load widgets and web cam software, and Skype and four IM programs, and virus and spy sweepers, and for me, Yahoo Music, and this little tray app that tracks my Google ad clicks and on and on, and *then*, fire up your browser and load Outlook to start dowloading email- it really is about 20 minutes. Can I get that down - sure. But then I still have to fire all that stuff up to have the computing experience I want.
I have huge troubles with Outlook sometimes and have to start and restart -until I get to safe mode and then archive the Hell out of it, so I guess my point is: if you have to turn off your PC (like many people who travel a lot do) or have issues with apps, it just takes a long time to get truly started. That’s my reality and pulling out a few K in the system tray is not going to make a huge impact on the whole process. But I will give it a try.
September 25th, 2005 at 3:54 pm
Matt says:
I don’t think this will be all that different from XP. With XP you quickly get what looks like a gui, but if you click on anything while its still booting up, you have to wait and wait. The Vista announcement says that the other bootup tasks will run in the background, so that means you have 386 performance until it finishes completely, which would frustrate me more than just having to wait for it to finish booting.
This is a marketing ploy - it appears like its booted and ready to use, but its really not.
September 25th, 2005 at 4:16 pm
Jerk says:
Alice, use Trillian. www.trillian.cc (You are using 4 IM applications which is pretty much the reason you have a lot of horse manure replacing your performance specs).
Also, START > RUN > msconfig
Read the comments to some of the Startup apps (non-Microsoft) and disable them.
If you’re running on a laptop, disable your power-saver options and hibernating. Believe it or not, this is slowing you down tremendously due to the lack of avaialble commit charge toward your resource pool. Also, change your page file size to about 15-20% of your total HDD space and then subtract the number representing the amount of RAM you have installed from that number.
Remove all AV software and install BitDefender (www.bitdefender.com). Anti-Spyware utils are pointless if you have a GOOD AV setup.
Skype is a system hog but if you set its priority to below “Normal” (since its VoIP you don’t need to have it so ‘ready-to-go’) and let it idle when not in use. Also, if you have Office installed, make sure that your Language Bar is not set to record oration (meaning - check to make sure it is not listening to your voice as this is a default in vanilla installs of Office XP and Offie 2003).
Who cares about your google ad thing, thats your own perrogative and you’re just asking for problems with it, but hey that’s up to you.
As for Outlook - archive to a remote storage device such as a USB dongle or external HDD or even CD/DVD. Turn off auto-archiving and create folder rules and alerts. Once you have your organizational aspects of Outlook down, simply make sure you have your “Preview” mode turned off (as most spam will utilize this as a gateway to your PC, simply put). If your mail DB is over 10MB, you need to seriously reconsider why you save your e-mails. Either start taking some Gingko, or start using that calender function! Otherwise - burn, transfer, or delete.
Perhaps set your webcam service to start as a service? If it’s something you use ALL the time and can control via a GUI, why not just have it start with your machine and not your profile?
As for Vista - Beta 1 represented some very early code and I would have to disagree with your assumption that most people were unimpressed. In fact, quite the contrary. We were all given a glimpse as to what is in store for us in later releases and those who follow the scene closely enough knew what to expect out of Beta 1 and what to look forward to in CTP 1 (5219).
Additionally, Vista CTP 1 (5219) utilizes Flash RAM and USB dongles (very useful for you on a laptop, especially) which will in essence add ‘physical’ RAM to your PC/Laptop via USB 2.x and 3.x (in dev). This is actually where the 4 second start time will occur (not to mention solid-state hard drives whereby flash RAM is used in conjunction with disk platters found in current hard drives to send cache available into orbit).
Windows ME, if you recall, also tried a similiar approach to boot up whereby all system services and local services were loaded either “on-demand” or in a queue. Basically, you were able to log on to your profile (which, at this stage of the NT codebase, was no longer considered logging into a profile as it was initiating a user profile) while services and other vital resources became active over time and wrote themselves ahead of one another based on usage for next-boot.
This time around, the GUI will be based on .Flops and DX 9/10 so you no longer have to wait for the OS to redraw everything while you move around your IM programs and Skypes, etc. (it is just available and visible). This eliminates a lot of the overhead when booting for the first time in your day (provided you have a capable GPU) and since Vista is built off the NT 5.2 (Windows 2003) codebase (which is the offspring of XP), you can rest assured that your experience will be significantly better than XP.
Lastly, why maintain such a seemingly brutal install of XP when you can just reformat every 6-8 months and start fresh? Your hard drive must be taking a beating. Thrash anyone? Heavy metal. Anything up there you don’t get jsut look up on the MS KB or google.
Finally, and in closing, I have two.
Celery,
- Greg
September 25th, 2005 at 5:02 pm
Joe Nobody says:
An author who can’t optimize their XP or know about faster IM alternatives can write a technical article about Windows can be taken very seriously.
September 25th, 2005 at 6:35 pm
John Corliss says:
I just love it when people criticize Millennium Edition. I bought this computer and purposely told ABS not to install XP on it because I hated product activation (and still do). I asked for Win98SE, but they told me all they had anymore was ME. I went for it and admittedly, it took a while, but I have it so tweaked out at this point that it runs circles around all my friends’ XP machines.
XP is like rap music. If you ever catch me tapping my foot to it, shoot me.
(eh?)
September 25th, 2005 at 6:48 pm
KTrumbull says:
XP boots quick enough for me, under a minute. Dunno what the moron with the 20 minute boot is running, but he needs to find someone to conmfigure his machine for him.
I won’t be using Vista, because of how M$ is trashing OpenGL. If Doom 3 runs as poorly as it’s suspected it will, then Vista is a downgrade..
September 25th, 2005 at 7:02 pm
baal5150 says:
Well,I’m not going to drag you over hot coals,however,20 min. boot time is,to say the least,not anywhere reasonable.I have no problems with your authoring,and I don’t see that there should be any critics,other than the fact that you are in dire need of a clean-up.Granted,all these start-up programs will rob you of resources,but I can’t believe that you put up with this,it would drive me insane!My ex had a P-75 running 8 megs of ram,with AOL(a few years back,granted),and it only took aboul 3-4 min. to boot,and I thought that was unreasonable.Vista will not be your savior.There is something beyond wrong with your setup that would cause this kind of lag,and if you are happy,well,to each his/her own,but I see these problems all the time with my family-friends,but you take the cake.I’m not bashing,I’m just saying that there is a MUCH better way,even with all the apps. that you have…thanks for the news though,I have been enlightened
September 25th, 2005 at 7:56 pm
Tommy Thomas says:
Quit being so anoying and try and help or shut up.
September 25th, 2005 at 9:00 pm
doc2345 says:
“Windows XP takes over 20 minutes for me….” Incredible, and you’re writing tech reviews? What has the world come to…….
September 25th, 2005 at 9:33 pm
Ming Chau says:
Alice is proof all women should be barefoot in the kitchen serving their men dinner.
September 25th, 2005 at 9:33 pm
G says:
It is funny when you see someone post something, all the people come out to criticize another. I am sure he was just exaggerating a bit, or just maybe to show how the average computer user would be. Most computers I repair take 20 minutes if not longer just to load.
September 25th, 2005 at 10:12 pm
David Johnston says:
Yes, I think we’ve established that this was an exaggeration guys
September 25th, 2005 at 10:39 pm
F D says:
Is this fast on/off feature in beta 1? Does anyone have a video of their beta 1 vista loading up in 2-3 seconds?
September 25th, 2005 at 11:27 pm
T H says:
In reference to Ming Chau above. This is the year 2005. If you wish to live in the past, then that is your choice and whomever you wish to co-habitate with. However, please bear in mind that this is your choice and no one has the right to force there points of view upon others, or interfere with their “their pursuit of happiness.” We are all put on this earth for a purpose, and not to just take up space and spew garbage and negative comments at anyone that passes, just because wedon’t like them or can’t agree with them or see their point of view. If the only reason why a person exists is to drag others down because they’re miserable or just not having a good day, and be ignorant on top of it then that is truely sad. It’s sad because it shows that this type of behavior is the lack of an open mind. This news column was written in order to help others and inform them of what is to come. For those that can’t see that, I’m sorry. You’ve missed the focus here.
September 26th, 2005 at 12:23 am
Alice says:
Thanks TH - you’re the first person I’d ever consider serving dinner to just for your considerate comments. I will look into optimimaztion but I am telling you all that most people have set-ups that get out of hand over time and that’s the reality. My new Sony boots in about 6 minutes. Thinkpad after 3 years = another story.
September 26th, 2005 at 1:44 am
Nikki says:
In my opinion i think Vista will be another pile of Microsoft Bloatware. I am running 64 bit system at the moment with XP64 Professional and i must say that this is the first Microsoft Operating system i have been impressed with. Firstly i got it free from microsoft which was a bonus. Secondly it is completly stable and very fast i have a boot time of about 30 - 40 seconds and have so far had no problems at all with it and interaction with other programs. I am personally not going to move to vista when it is released is a suspect that it will be full of the usual Microsoft fluff. It is intresting to note as well that XP64 pro is a smaller install than XPpro and yet it contains both 64 and 32 bit software . I have noticed a vast improvement on my processing speed as i was running a 64 bit chip on 32 bit app before and this is far far far faster. XP64pro might be basic but it is probably the most stable operating system i have seen for a very long time.
September 26th, 2005 at 3:33 am
Mark says:
Four seconds, wow. That’s about the same time I need to boot up to Mac OS 10.4.2 NOW.
No virus, no adware, no spyware, none of that crap. Ha ha!
You guys are so stupid for sticking with that piece of crap called Windows…if you move to Vista, you’re twice as stupid.
Later…
September 26th, 2005 at 4:08 am
mat9v says:
Mayby I don’t understand something but flash can’t be used as swap - it’s slow, much slower than HDD, it has limits for how many time you can write it, flash can’t be used as physical ram - slow and write limited. It could be used combined with HDD as a fast platform to hibernate - hence fast boot time. Even with 2gb of ram on xp 64 starting from hibernation takes about 3-15 seconds, actual time depends mostly on how many apps were running at time of hibernation and consequently how much information has to be read back from a hibernation file. If you count: 40MB/s as a HDD speed and say 600MB of data to read back you get 15 seconds
. For example - 5x bittorrent(200mb), firefox(40), thunderbird(20), openoffice(30), kaspersky(30), outpost(20), bluetooth(20), emule(30), winamp(30), nero(30) and some others… how much memory they use of course changes - if they are active or not, how many windows firefox has opened (one I got over 40 windows and firefox go over 200mb in size in memory). For me x64 is much faster than x32 (xp) sometimes in strange places 
- data transfers from and to a portable HDD (120gb on usb2) are about 50% faster than it were in 32bits - 45MB/s reading and 25-30MB/s writing. I heve no idea why. Same happens in vista, it’s just faster, more smooth at everything I do…. It’s possible my xp32 is just ready to reinstall, just hope it won’t screw up my multiboot 
September 26th, 2005 at 4:41 am
Gsu says:
For everybody whining about boot times:
“But then I still have to fire all that stuff up to have the computing experience I want.”
Look at the last four words, think about what you want, and then stop yelling at people for having what they want. (A small aside that should be obvious, but experience shows not to be: functionality has a price, and loading time is part of it. If you’ve taken any sort of economics, weigh the opportunity cost of “fast boot time” versus “lots of stuff I use” and you’ll see what I’m getting at.)
(Second aside: I think doing startup tasks in the background is stupid. Why are they startup tasks if you can do them _after_ you’ve already started-up? I smell…security holes. “What do you mean Norton hasn’t loaded yet? It starts when my computer does…”)
September 26th, 2005 at 5:00 am
J.D. says:
Use GAIM over Trillian…it’s more stable, and open source…
http://gaim.sourceforge.net/
September 26th, 2005 at 5:40 am
Michael says:
Not interested. I;ve had all this and much more for over 5 years already with Mac OS X. I pity the Windows Sufferers.
September 26th, 2005 at 5:41 am
Alex V. says:
Sounds like a there’s a bunch of rich spoiled children in this forum.
September 26th, 2005 at 7:05 am
eL 5t3v3-0 says:
I have to laugh @ the “20-minute boot time” as well, joke or not. :p FWIW, I can cold boot (yes, that’s the CORRECT term for it) and be, “productive,” as the author put it, in less than 15 seconds. Oh sure, blame my RAID 0.
Haha.
Anyhoo, regarding OS X: I have machines from OEMs, PCs Ive built, and a Mac (and a half, but let’s not argue that one), utilizing Win2k, WinXP, Win2k3Server, Linux, UNIX (FreeBSD), and OS X. Each have their strong points, as well as their weaker ones. To automatically say that Mac/OS X is superior would be a prejudiced statement. Having said that, I do love my Mac, and would like to be buried with it. That white plastic is actually crack, and that’s why you stay addicted to them.
Windows’ weak points largely evaporated when Win2k/WinXP came into being. Most of the driver issues were resolved, and you didn’t have to restart it after performing the most mundane tasks. Even the dreaded BSOD is rarely seen anymore (be honest).
I don’t see myself moving to Vista any time soon, especially so when I consider the rumors that it will require almost all-new hardware. My current system is pretty darn shpanky right now (nForce3-based, Athlon64 w/ a GB of DDR400, and 0.6TB RAID 0 storage). So unless hardware engineers can come up with something REALLY innovative relatively soon, I’m fat & happy. BTW, these $500 video cards they’re making are for the birds. I’m not paying more than $150 for one, and that’s that.
FYI, I’m using a Mighty Mouse & Apple Pro keyboard on my WinXP-based machine right now. :p :p :p
September 26th, 2005 at 7:22 am
JJ says:
The devil is in the details. Alice, you said your machine takes 20 minutes to boot up but you included loading Skype, IM programs, Outlook, Webcam, etc. Since none of those are components of the operating system, the system is actually “booted” as soon as it’s able to start loading those services. The fact that Outlook might take 5 minutes to load itself is completely irrelevant when calculating boot time. And no, HKCU\…\CurrentVersion\Run is not technically part of the boot process.
Unless your hardware is severely underpowered, which I hope it isn’t since your website is called “Real Tech News”, XP is likely booting in less than 1 minute and then the other 19 minutes is the mis-managed crapware trying to load. I sincerely doubt you will see much improvement on a Vista-powered machine with a similar software load.
September 26th, 2005 at 8:58 am
Alice says:
Poster #29 (JJ) You hit the nail on the head. The boot time is not the issue - it’s the crapware.
September 26th, 2005 at 10:21 am
T H says:
Alice,
Twas’ my pleasure to be of assistance. I see that you’re very dedicated to what you do, and am certain that you pursue everything that you do with great fervor and dedication. I’m looking forward and hoping for the privelege, nay the pleasure of being able to beta test Windows Vista. I’ve always enjoyed the “bleeding edge” of “cutting edge” software. Alas, I’m still waiting for the “light of Microsoft” to shine on me as it’s been some time since the last beta test for me… (I enjoy cooking for pleasure and friends *wink*. Being it modern times…) Humor aside I look forward to new challenges…
September 26th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
Bradicus Prime says:
I’m an open source programmer. Most of the time, I run linux, but I keep a few machines around with M$ OS’s on them. The machine I have XP on is a PIII 733, with 384 megs of RAM, and a 64 meg Radeon 9000, with the resolution set to 1600×1200. I let my brother use it for his gaming/instant messaging purposes. Even with all the random crap he puts on this machine, it still only takes 3 minutes maximum to finish all the bootload. You just need to tweak your machine a little more. The guys who posted earlier, not the flamers, gave you some good advice on where to start. Don’t overlook it as someone trying to call you down.
September 26th, 2005 at 2:27 pm
Alice says:
I agree and good point. I have some major cleaning up to do on my system. Thanks to all who gave good advice. I will time a before and after and see where I end up.
September 26th, 2005 at 2:33 pm
bill says:
Yet another attention seeking article with no basis. The author has clearly is not in tune with technology thus has no credibility in reporting on it… 20 minutes to boot the machine? Sheeze.
September 26th, 2005 at 2:48 pm
Pavian says:
Oh well Microsit will be Microshit no matter how many time they try.Usually they need three tries to get it right.
I cant wait for the Mac OS 10.5 to be ported over to x86…Adios Windows POS.
:-)
September 26th, 2005 at 5:02 pm
William Chase says:
wow some nasty peeps on here?
September 26th, 2005 at 6:34 pm
Angry_Dutchman says:
people seem a little critical around here…
September 26th, 2005 at 9:18 pm
Alice says:
Hi William - we have had a few bad apples, but overall I think we all learned a lot and know what to expetc from Vista.
September 26th, 2005 at 9:19 pm
some guy says:
wow your all wierd who says vista is gonna suck, i use xp right now and it takes me about 10 min to start up and get going. im gonna love the vista….NOOBS UBER PWNED
October 12th, 2005 at 7:10 am
PCR Solutions says:
If it is taking a while to boot to the desktop, make sure the desktop picture you are using is in the C:\Windows folder and not under My Pictures or in the Documents and Settings Folder/Sub Folder. This will make the desktop load quicker. Just a small tid bit..
October 14th, 2005 at 10:33 am
Lockergnome's Tech News Watch says:
Everything You Always Wanted To Know About Microsoft Windows Vista
I have to admit, Vista was low on my list until I saw the demo of the new 3D windows and other enhancements recently added into the mix. To get up to speed, I found a great site called Aviran’s Place that gathered up a lot of questions (and thankfully…
October 25th, 2005 at 6:58 pm
sexpokie says:
you guys are fags! chivalry is dead ! im having sex with alice right now! shes pretty hot! but hey so am i..
August 22nd, 2006 at 12:06 am
88 says:
i hope the pc indusrty goes bankrupt
vista is piece of crap! it recommends 1 gig of ram to run good
1 gig of ram happens to be 200$ or more ! gamers say youll need 2 gigs to play games THATS $430 DOLLARS just for fast ram and thats insane! no one can afford 430$ for ram chips and 500 dollars for a fast game card! or500$ for a cpu chip, pc hardware and software prices are unnaceptable ! A good gamer pc should not be more than 1000$ but theyre 4000$ just unnacceptable! you have to buy
a slow crappy pc if youre out to buy one. thanks to these
corporations, buying a pc is never a good purchase.
September 4th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
88 is retarded says:
why do ppl come on here and spat shit when they dont know what theyre saying. im running 1.5gb of ram and am on vista right now. i currently am using 615mb of that ram with firefox, outlook, and mcafee suite running. im am on vista ultimate edition with aero visual so that itself takes up quite a bit. however when i get into C:SS HL2 or BF2 my ram gets up to about 70 percent usage at most. this number is barely any higher than what i was running at on xp pro. the average user wont need a 500 cpu, a 400 dollar ram, and 500 for a video card. i get almost the same frame rates outta all three of the games listed above as i did with xp. so your theory that everyone will need to completely rehaul their pcs to play 3d games is a load of shit. if you couldnt play it on xp then duh it wont work on vista… but if it works on xp and u get good frame rates theres no question that vista will match them.
February 12th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Pilotgeek says:
I had to do a double take on that, i thought it said 20 seconds! I used to have a computer that slow, but it was a 200mhz laptop running xp. My 2003 1.8ghz computer boots up in about 50 seconds from the power button to the point that I have Firefox, aim, and msn all running. I know a friend who has a computer that should run circles around mine but it doesn’t because of unnecessary stuff he has. I’m not criticizing, im just saying that if you take the time you may realize that some system tray icons or updates might not be necessary.
June 21st, 2007 at 5:55 am
147eb9e00ca85b089645de4599630639 says:
147eb9e00ca85b089645de4599630639…
147eb9e00ca85b089645de4599630639…
June 26th, 2007 at 5:31 am
mixed up says:
I have both PC’s and apple,
My two favorites, My G4 and my Dell 745 cost me about the same, my 745 is faster.
Its amazing that apple only people read posts about Vista and call it down feverishly.
I thonk they are still trying to convince themselves that thier Apple was the right choice.
I have both, some are great for some stuff and others for other stuff, And I like it….
July 30th, 2007 at 11:56 am
A H says:
I have a 40 second power-button press to desktop boot speed with 6 seconds just devoted to the BIOS showing up. The problem is that I don’t want to “Work Immediately”…I want my startup programs to run immediately…not wait for 30 seconds then load.
November 22nd, 2007 at 1:44 am
Macintosh Vista OS X Infinite Edition says:
i thing the problem is on that files in the prefetch delete all them and then apply what others say to you
November 30th, 2007 at 10:07 pm
D says:
mate, if your machine boots with xp in 20 mins then with vista it will take it half an hour….
December 13th, 2007 at 1:57 am