15 second boot times in Windows 7: Microsoft

Send to a friend Print

Help more people find out about this story

Del.icio.us
StumbleUpon

Angus Kidman01 September 2008, 3:42 PM

Microsoft wants to dramatically improve boot times in Windows 7 after admitting that Vista has failed to meet its goal of providing high-speed booting for the majority of PCs.


Postings on Microsoft's Engineering Windows 7 blog have so far been notable largely for their ability to say almost "it depends" in response to almost any Windows-related issue, but a new post by engineer Michael Fortin does come close to making some promises about how boot performance — long a thorn in the side of Vista and its predecessors — might be improved.

"For Windows 7, a top goal is to significantly increase the number of systems that experience very good boot times," Fortin wrote. "In the lab, a very good system is one that boots in under 15 seconds."

Microsoft's own internal performance assessment shows that virtually no Vista systems are meeting that goal. Data collected from users via the Customer Experience Improvement Program suggests that only 35% of systems boot within 30 seconds or less. According to Microsoft, 75% of systems boot within 50 seconds.

In practice, you're unlikely to be able to use your machine at that point — this is a measure of 'System Responsive' time, so any applications that load during your startup process will probably hog the system for a while longer. Indeed, Fortin acknowledges that Microsoft's measure doesn't have much to do with actually using your computer: "We realize there are other perceptions that users deem as reflecting boot time, such as when the disk stops, when their apps are fully responsive, or when the start menu and desktop can be used."

Even with that huge caveat, some systems in the data Fortin published display boot times of several minutes, a factor Microsoft partly attributes to system updates which load after booting. As any Vista user knows, when patching is taking place you might as well take a walk to the nearest cafe.

Fortin admits this represents a problem: "From our perspective, too few systems consistently boot fast enough and we have to do much better."

One solution Fortin proposes is not switching off your PC at all. "We do encourage users to choose sleep as an alternative to boot," he writes. There's a certain irony in this approach given that virtually everyone is forced to reboot at least once a month to accommodate Microsoft's own updates and patches. Beyond passing the buck back to users, Windows 7 aims to improve boot times through a mixture of tactics, including parallel initialisation of device drivers and customising prefetching of data from the hard drive for individual systems.

For Microsoft, getting improved boot times is becoming a major competitive issue. Super-cheap systems such as the Xandros-based Eee PC consistently boot in less than 30 seconds, and Dell's 'Blacktop' project is essentially a way of booting a Windows PC quickly by not using Windows at all. With Windows 7 not expected until 2010, such alternative solutions will have plenty of time to gain market share.


Post your comment



Comments

RSS feed Email alert

Me In Oz (Advanced Forumologist):

Yay !
But it depends on what Fortin calls "a good system" in the lab ?
And at the moment, it is only a comment on a blog :S

01 September 2008, 3:51 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting Me In Oz:
Yay !


but its only a development system. :>


Better wait and see what is delivered eh?


You wouldn't want to be know as a premature yay-sayer. :>

01 September 2008, 5:34 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Me In Oz (Advanced Forumologist):

Quoting Raindog:
You wouldn't want to be know as a premature yay-sayer

I wouldn't want to be known as a premature ANYTHING ! ;-)




02 September 2008, 8:19 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

jake (User):

my visa boots in about 30 secconds but when i update or restore the system it could take form 5 to 30 mins. i should mention that gets to the boot screen then it takes about another 15 secconds to load the desktop and taskbar then all my apps start

01 September 2008, 4:20 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Chris (User):

My computer, which is new but nothing special boots vista in a total of about 30 seconds (time before login + time after) and at is to the point where it is ready to use. It's all about removing all those unnecessary things from startup. As such I think they're gonna struggle lowering the boot time. One easy way would be to give a nice easy way for the viewers to view what gets loaded at startup and change it. MSconfig is hidden and would scare most users.

01 September 2008, 4:22 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

alhutchings (New user):

for the vista users....windows defender?

01 September 2008, 11:17 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

alhutchings (New user):

for the vista users....windows defender?

01 September 2008, 11:17 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

agami (User):

Boots in 15 seconds, followed by several minutes of malaise and performance degradation as background tasks start, system-tray icons load, widgets load, various speech-bubbles from the system-tray are displayed and confirmed, desktop search index loaded...

01 September 2008, 4:28 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (Senior Forumologist):

Pretty much what I would expect. To be fair, MS can't be blamed for 3rd party apps and drivers...

On the other hand, why are they obsessing over getting it down to such a short time? Shouldn't they obsess over some of the more drastic issues? Like the almost totally broken parts...

01 September 2008, 9:10 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

CBR1100XX (Advanced member):

Mine takes about 90 seconds, but to be fair, there are loads of drivers and background apps to load. 15 second boot times are certainly feasible and do-able but I'm predicting that this will only apply to the actual Windows install boot only ! Drivers and background apps will still take time to 'start-up' and will start up at their designed 'leisure'

01 September 2008, 4:30 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

plutonium210 (Advanced member):

Quoting CBR1100XX:
Mine takes about 90 seconds

Man ! That is excessive, and if it is a standalone pc, that is atrocious !
Give OSX a whirl :)




01 September 2008, 4:43 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

djsflynn (APC staff):

Would I like to see Vista boot in 15 second? Absolutely. But considering that Microsoft made a LOT of promises about super-fast boot times for Vista (especially during the Longhorn development phase), I won't hold my breath waiting...

01 September 2008, 5:02 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

McBanjo (User):

Well if the Sleep Mode worked reliably and efficiently (like in Leopard), there is little need to improve boot times. I haven't restarted my Mac in weeks and it takes literally one second to come back after a sleep mode. Whenever I do reboot for updates, I can do it at my leisure, go and get a cuppa and it's back waiting for me on return.

Windows 7 is never going to cut it in my books unless it reaches beyond the Leopard/Snow Leopard standard. Unlike Vista's 'Windows Gadgets/WPF/3D App Switcher/Instant Search/Photo Browser/Windows Calendar/Windows Mail/IE 7 RSS'.....Anyone???

Well I guess if you can't innovate, just imitate. Get your checklists ready.

01 September 2008, 5:05 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting McBanjo:
Well if the Sleep Mode worked reliably and efficiently

or at all? Reliable Sleep mode with any form of communications running is a practical impossibility.


Quoting McBanjo:
Well I guess if you can't innovate, just imitate.


Imitation wouldn't be so bad if that imitation went beyond the bling. Some imitation in areas like up-time, stability and interoperability would be a very good thing.

There is no reason why future versions of windows could not be real innovations, but like Mr Flynn I'm not holding my breath waiting either.

01 September 2008, 5:46 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Dan Warne (Administrator):

Quoting Raindog:
or at all? Reliable Sleep mode with any form of communications running is a practical impossibility.

But surely that's an inherent limitation of the concept of sleep ... I mean, keeping communications running while you reboot your machine isn't possible either ;-)

One thing I am impressed about with my Mac's sleep ability is that I can load up a bunch of videos that have downloaded overnight and start them converting to an iPod-compatible format in the morning. Of course, that takes hours and hours to complete -- but I can just close the lid of my Mac and open it again when I get to work, and video conversion continues without skipping a beat. So the Mac OS is clever enough to arbitrate disk access so that if a process is writing to disk at the time the system goes to sleep, no data is lost.

Sleep mode on Mac is one of the many small but significant things about OS X that makes it clearly superior to Windows in my mind.

01 September 2008, 8:38 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting Dan Warne:
But surely that's an inherent limitation of the concept of sleep ... I mean, keeping communications running while you reboot your machine isn't possible either ;-)


Or when you switch users apparently. I've not extensively tested, but ICQ and MSN both log out when I switch user in Vista. I assume it disconnects the network for that user as a security (bandaid) measure.

01 September 2008, 9:04 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Raindog (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting Dan Warne:
But surely that's an inherent limitation of the concept of sleep ... I mean, keeping communications running while you reboot your machine isn't possible either

The concept isn't limited but MS's delivery of that concept is limited. Sleep mode works perfectly as long as your PC is doing nothing more than running word in a standalone fashion.

After umpteen successive releases, upgrades, new versions, hot fixes etc, you would think that sleep mode in a domain configuration could be bomb proof. You would also figure a DVD's worth of OS code would have had a few lines of code to detect running comms tasks on an active connection and shutdown and power reduced other components without interruption. Instead more often than not a full reboot is the only resume option that will work.


Quoting Dan Warne:
So the Mac OS is clever enough to arbitrate disk access so that if a process is writing to disk at the time the system goes to sleep, no data is lost.

That's it in a nutshell, it's not world beating code, it's far from sexy, but it's these kind of details that make using any OS more enjoyable. I'll take slick intuitive functionality over pop-ups and wizards any day.


01 September 2008, 9:06 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Bry (User):

Quoting Dan Warne:
Sleep mode on Mac is one of the many small but significant things about OS X that makes it clearly superior to Windows in my mind.

For me Mac OS X is a winning choice due to:

- Speedy load times; Even faster shut down
- User switching is fast, unlike Vista which is anything but fast
- Dock is an elegant means of quickly launching applications, only let down if you use heaps of apps
- Dashboard is better than Sidebar. I like that it auto hides when I'm done with it
- Disc burning is easier via Finder
- Finder multicolumn interface is so much easier to use than Vista's breadcrumbs (which I also like)
- I can have a different wallpaper per screen; I can rotate desktops on a schedule and they crossfade - yet to get anything as good on any version of Windows
- I've got the coolest screensaver on the Mac, LotsaWater. Everyone at work loves it. Nothing found on Windows yet that looks as good
- Plug in a USB device. It just works. Do the same in Windows and it needs to tell you it's adding the device. That each sub-device is individually installed. All takes a lot longer than it needs to.
- Oh, and the Apple hardware looks bloody excellent (I know that's not an OS!!)



02 September 2008, 12:24 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (Senior Forumologist):

Quoting Bry:
- User switching is fast, unlike Vista which is anything but fast

I've never really noticed anything much longer than the time it takes to get up from a seat and let someone else sit down. Which is really what most people would use it for.

Quoting Bry:
Plug in a USB device. It just works. Do the same in Windows and it needs to tell you it's adding the device. That each sub-device is individually installed. All takes a lot longer than it needs to.

Yes. I've never understood why Windows adds USB devices again for each port you plug them into either. Or why they insist on using USB IDs for devices that are class based (gotten better, but bluetooth still does this).

Quoting Bry:
- Oh, and the Apple hardware looks bloody excellent (I know that's not an OS!!)

Says you. I think about 90% is butt ugly.

02 September 2008, 12:35 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Hemma (User):

My last mac went to sleep and never woke up. Heh.

02 September 2008, 12:22 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Bry (User):

Perhaps they need to look at Mac OS X. It seems to be able to load quickly and be usable almost immediately upon login, and that's on my Dual G5 with 1GB. By contrast, work laptop with XP and 3GB ram, C2D 1.8GHz takes probably 90 seconds to load, a further 3-4 minutes to become usable.

02 September 2008, 12:07 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Hemma (User):

Ever tried Ubuntu?

02 September 2008, 11:57 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Bry (User):

Yep. Whilst the best, most easily used Linux out there it's still Linux and useless for my needs. One day, perhaps one day it'll be a real contender.

02 September 2008, 12:18 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (Senior Forumologist):

And what exactly is it that causes it to be completely and totally useless for you?

02 September 2008, 12:30 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Bry (User):

I live within Adobe applications. The OSS equivalents are crap for me, I've tried The Gimp a few times and I hate it.

02 September 2008, 1:45 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Me In Oz (Advanced Forumologist):

Quoting Bry:
I live within Adobe applications.

My wife will empathise. She says Adobe has no peers when it comes to corporate publishing. That's why we have a Apple/Mac in the house (Damn Her). I get zapped every time I walk close to it ...... Seems Vista and Leopard just don't play well together ;)




02 September 2008, 2:06 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Hemma (User):

Let alone that BSOD Network icon. But what goes around comes around.... Leopard can do a sexy blue BSOD too hahahahaha

04 September 2008, 5:16 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Eps (User):

You know they took gullible out of the dictionary right?

Hell I'm surprised APC bothered with a new write up for this old chestnut. Would have been easier to use any one of the last five of these and replaced Vista with Windows 7, or XP with Windows 7, or 2k with Windows 7. It's always the same promise.

02 September 2008, 10:08 AM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Ausman (Regular user):

Amazing... Microsoft prescribes the hardware, controls the vendors, penalises the retailers if they don't sell the systems ready-to-go with Windows and they still can't achieve basic goals. Maybe they should give up and make shiny drink coasters?

PS. DOS was their fastest system to boot and shutdown - Maybe they need to start from there again ;-)

12 October 2008, 6:50 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Bry (User):

Quoting Ausman:
PS. DOS was their fastest system to boot and shutdown - Maybe they need to start from there again ;-)

Oh for the love of god, no! Not DOS! Next we'll here they want to base the next version of Windows on Linux. Why can't they start from scratch, for real, and make that bugger boot in next to no time. If people need to run apps from the old days they just go in an emulation env.

Off to have a stiff drink now, DOS sends shudders up my spine.



12 October 2008, 8:08 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

The Big Baboo (Advanced Forumologist):

Quoting Bry:
PS. DOS was their fastest system to boot and shutdown - Maybe they need to start from there again ;-)
Saaaaaaaaay :) Does anyone want a brand new copy of "Windows NT Workstation" Huh Huh Do Ya Anyone :) I'll mail it wherever you want :)




23 October 2009, 5:05 PM (4 weeks ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

anonymous user Anonymous user


Tags