Windows 7 Called Slower than Vista

Microsoft's new Windows 7 operating system boots slower than its unloved predecessor, Windows Vista, a PC tune-up developer said today.

microsoft windows 7The claims by iolo Technologies, a Los Angeles maker of PC software, contradict Microsoft's boasts that Windows 7 starts up faster than Vista.

According to iolo's tests, Windows 7 starts up 42% slower than Vista -- one minute, 34 seconds versus one minute, six seconds -- on a brand new machine when the time trials are run to the point where the machine is usable, at least by iolo's standards.

Windows 7 does seem to start faster than Vista, said iolo, with its time-to-the-desktop measured as around 40 seconds. But iolo measured startup as the point where the computer is "fully usable," with a low load on the processor.

Microsoft has said it's dedicated significant resources to making Windows 7 boot, and resume from sleep and hibernation, faster than Vista, which has been panned since 2007 for starting slowly.

Other tests, however, have echoed iolo, and showed that in some cases Windows 7 does boot slower than Vista. PC World, a sister publication to Computerworld , for example, benchmarked the new operating system as starting about 10% slower than Vista when 32-bit versions of the two were compared, although it was 14% faster on 64-bit.

iolo also said its tests indicated that Windows 7's startup times, like Vista's, degrade over time. After several "commonly-used" applications have been installed on a new Windows 7 box, for instance, its boot time -- again, as measured by the company -- slows to two minutes, 34 seconds, an increase of 64%.

Over an even more extended span, Windows 7's boot times get more sluggish than that: By the end of a simulated two-year period, Windows 7's startup times increased more than 330%.

Boot times have become a hot topic. Last week, Chinese computer maker Lenovo said its new ThinkPad notebooks and ThinkCentre desktops will boot Windows 7 56% faster than when loading XP or Vista, thanks to operating system, driver, and power management tweaks it made.

iolo said it will release more details and results of its Windows 7 boot-time benchmarks on Monday.



source

Speed Showdown: Windows 7 vs. Windows Vista

With Windows 7 to be released tomorrow, this seemed like a perfect time to take a final look at how its performance compares with that of its much-maligned predecessor, Windows Vista. What we found probably won't surprise you very much, if you've been following the progress of Windows 7 since folks first started getting their hands on it around a year ago: Windows 7 beats Vista—just not always by a huge margin.

Given that—cosmetics aside—Windows 7 isn't really that different from Windows Vista, this was probably to be expected. Still, it was interesting to see the areas in which 7 really walloped Vista, and those in which there was little (if any) change. I'll turn the e-reins over to Michael Muchmore, who did the testing and wrote about his findings over on PCMag.com:

...The new OS starts up significantly faster than Vista on the same machine. And it's not just faster in boot time, but on a number of other benchmarks we ran, including video encoding, the SunSpider JavaScript benchmark, Geekbench, and PCMark Vantage. The only area in which the new OS didn't show at least a little improvement was in shutdown speed.

We tested on clean installations of 64-bit Windows 7 and Vista on the same machine: a Dell Studio 14z running a 2.4-GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor with 3GB of DDR3 RAM and Nvidia GeForce 9400M graphics...

In a new OS with a lot of new features, it's impressive that Microsoft has trimmed down and sped up the code.... Most of the tests showed about a 14 percent improvement—a pretty nice boost. Of course, your mileage will most definitely vary. I performed several of my tests on other laptops as well, including 32-bit systems, and got roughly similar results. Where there were differences, they were generally in Windows 7's favor. Overall, I'm confident that most users will experience noticeable performance improvement if they upgrade from Vista.

Be sure to read Michael's whole piece, in which he goes into greater detail about his tests and lists all of results—which pretty conclusively point to Windows 7 as the winner of this speed match-up.

I definitely agree with Michael that not everyone can expect comparable results. On my self-built home PC, which has a Core i7-920 CPU and 6GB DDR3 RAM plugged into an Asus P6T motherboard, I haven't seen an enormous performance difference after switching between a relatively new installation of Vista and a completely fresh installation of Windows 7. The new OS gets to the login screen maybe two seconds faster than Vista did, and to a usable desktop another three seconds sooner, but Vista was never distractingly slow in these areas for me.

Sure, even that little bit of extra time is nice, but the rest of Windows and most of my programs run just as well under 7 as they did under Vista—certainly not worse, but also not appreciably better. The biggest speed gains I've experienced have been incidental ones: Installing Windows 7 in the first place took about half the time Vista did, for instance, and thanks to Jump Lists, the new taskbar has made me a lot more organized and productive.

Have you observed major speed gains switching from Vista to Windows 7? How about (gasp) speed losses? Leave a comment or e-mail us at editor@extremetech.com to let us know your experiences.



source

Study: Vista Startup Time is Faster than Windows 7

Even if Windows 7 isn't proven by benchmarks to be the fastest, bestest version of Microsoft's operating system yet, it certainly feels a lot better. We'd use it over Windows Vista any day of the week, but new findings show that it's not the performance king – at least not yet.

Sure, there have been many tweaks under the hood to make it better than Windows Vista, but it seems that boot time is actually longer in Windows 7 – at least according to a certain standard.

LA-based iolo technologies, makers of System Mechanic PC tune-up software, sent Tom's Hardware some of its findings after spending time with Windows 7.

Windows 7 starts up slower than Vista (1:34 vs 1:06 on a brand new machine), when the actual time to usability is considered. While Windows 7 shows its desktop relatively quickly (time to desktop hovers around 40 seconds for fresh installations), its time to usability, defined as the length of time it takes for the computer to become fully usable, with CPU cycles no longer significantly high and a true idle state achieved, is significantly longer.

Windows 7 boot times slow down dramatically with the addition of common-used software and for a 0-3 month-old machine measure 2:34 (that’s a minute longer than out of the box).

The newer OS seems to keep its composure better after some real-world use, perhaps signalling a design that's better suited to perform for most computer owners.

Windows 7 only beats Vista start-up times on 3-month-old and 6-month-old machines, otherwise trailing the older version significantly.

Stay tuned early next week when iolo technologies will reveal more of its Windows 7 performance findings. We'll have the coverage first hand.




source

Windows Vista/XP Remote Desktop Review

Microsoft Windows XP and Vista both come with built-in remote access capabilities. Are these feature really adequate replacements for third-party remote desktop applications, or are they just more Windows bloatware? Read the full review to find out!

INSTALLATION & SETUP

Both Windows XP and Vista come with the Remote Desktop Protocol pre-installed, so there is no explicit installation involved with this utility. However, since Microsoft enjoys product differentiation a bit too much, it matters which version of Windows is installed on your computer. Any version of XP or Vista has the ability to connect to a host computer, but the target computer must have Windows XP Professional, Vista Business, Vista Enterprise, or Vista Ultimate installed. Surprisingly, users can even use Apple OS X and Microsoft's Remote Desktop Connection Client for Mac 2 to connect to target computers.

Today we will be testing Vista's Remote Desktop Protocol using a desktop with Vista Ultimate x64 and Vista Business x64. For all intents and purposes, RDP functions identically between these two versions.

Unlike the web-browser based competitors, Vista's RDP requires the user to either know the exact IP address of the target computer (in our experience, this never works well), or run some kind of VPN (Virtual Private Network) between the target computer and the local computer. Selecting a reliable and trustworthy VPN service is outside of the scope of this article, but we will at least mention that we've used LogMeIn Hamachi Free's VPN service for our needs in the past.

Be sure to check that the target computer has been configured to accept incoming RDP requests. Depending on the firewall and network configuration, some additional configurations may be needed. (Shameless plug: Our forum is visited by thousands of users that will be able to help should you have any questions!)

In order to enable remote access connections, right click on My Computer and go to the Properties screen. From there, select the Remote link (or the Remote tab in XP's case) and select the option to allow RDP connections.

INTERFACE & EASE OF USE

In order to open up Vista's Remote Desktop program, open up the Start Menu and click on the Accessories folder. From within XP you will need to open up the Start Menu, click All Programs, and then enter the Accessories folder to find the program link.

Remote Desktop Connection pops up to ask for the computer's network address or name. Either enter the IP address or name of the computer here; assuming the VPN or network is configured properly, this information should be all that is needed to connect. (Again, users are invited to post in our forums if there are any questions about this step.)

The target computer's user account information can also be entered into this window, but it is not required. Remote Desktop Connection will ask for the information when it is needed if you do not enter it in now.

Additional connection options are found in the tabs in the main window. Users can select the resolution for the remote session window (we prefer full-screen) as well as the color quality used during the session. The lower the settings used, the slower the network can be without an adverse viewing experience.

The guest computer's audio, keyboard, printer, clipboard, and drives can be shared with the target computer during the remote session. Audio sharing allows users to play media files on the target computer or hear system prompts, print on a printer nearby, copy and paste text and files between computers, and share hard drives during the session.

Additional settings are available that would affect the quality of the remote session. Generally speaking, each option offers more and more visual quality but requires more network bandwidth.

Once the remote session starts, a very minimalistic remote session window pops up. If the remote session is configured to use the full screen, a small pop up bar at the top of the screen provides the same functionally as the windowed session's top bar.

PERFORMANCE

During the evaluation period, the target computer was connected to the internet via a 6Mbit DSL connection. The computer used to access the target was connected to the same DSL connection for a high speed test, and then later connected to the internet using a public WiFi hotspot in the same city. We also connected the two computers using a gigabit Ethernet connection in a full-blown no-holds-barred performance test.

Just like the rest of the competition thus far, Remote Desktop had no impact on the target system's performance. Computational and memory usages were low, virtually unnoticeable.

Overall performance was quite impressive. Vista's Remote Desktop showed very little latency with the DSL or WiFi interfaces. So little, in fact, that minimizing or maximizing windows did not produce significant latencies at all. Moving windows around the screen did produce a little latency, but well within our expectations. Audio transmissions worked with few hitches as long as there was no bandwidth-hogging streaming video applications open on screen. Streaming video did produce stuttering images, much like the competition, but the interface did lock up once in a while when the streaming video overwhelmed the connection. Usually reconnection would fix the issue and in all honesty no user should expect streaming video to work well with any remote access product.

Accessing programs, email, applications, and files on the target computer worked almost as if we had been sitting at the target computer, rather than the local PC. We could do anything remotely that we could have done at the desk. File transmissions were as easy as copying the data from one computer and pasting it into another (drag and drop did not work however), and transfers worked both ways without any issues. While the program does not support multiple monitor use, Remote Desktop takes pains to prevent a host of errors from plaguing a two-monitor setup.

In our no-holds-barred gigabit Ethernet test, streaming video was better but still not workable -- suggesting that the program is performance-limited to save on computer resources.

Remote Desktop also allows the user to remotely access any number of computers, provided the right network infrastructure is available. As expected though, the target computer can only have one active connection running at any time.

CONCLUSION

Windows Vista/XP's Remote Desktop utility gives the user an excellent remote session experience. There are no limitations to the number of computers a user can connect to, and there is little to no latency. Using Remote Desktop really did feel like we were working at the target computer's desk. Since this tool is not controlled by a web browser, the connection was definitely a bit faster than some of the competition, though third-party VPN software is a must in order to use Remote Desktop outside of a home network. The only real drawback to Remote Desktop is that the host computer needs to run a one of the latest (more expensive) versions of Windows, but given how well this program works it just might be worth it.

Pros

• XP, Vista & Mac OS X support
• No latency in basic functions
• Intuitive, simple interface

Cons

• Requires third-party VPN
• Can't share remote session
• Streaming media unusable

source

Windows Vista Boot Recovery Made Easy

We all wish today’s PC technology could be as stable as, say, your microwave: when was the last time your microwave crashed or failed to start up? Unfortunately, because of the complex nature of hardware and software, there are too many variables and internal processes interacting with each other for things to go smoothly 100% of the time, all the time. Windows will suddenly reboot itself when you’re in the middle of an important e-mail or surfing the web, or simply won’t boot up at all. You may have experienced these annoyances from time to time with XP, and until Windows 7 becomes available for public consumption, you may be having a few of these issues with Vista.

Vista failing to boot up or inexplicably crashing may be related to a whole host of problems, hardware or software. The former possibly being a defective sound card or graphics card, the latter a bad software driver acting up or missing system files that are vital for boot time. The first thing you need to figure out is if it’s indeed a hardware or software issue. Also, almost everything in your toolbox that applies to fixing an XP boot/crash issue won’t jibe with Vista, so you’ll need a whole new set of tools. So read on, and let’s fill your Vista toolbox.

Vista Won’t Boot

Vista’s failure to boot up properly is a binary problem: hardware or software. Have you recently installed any new hardware into your PC lately? New graphics card, sound card, hard drive, more RAM, perhaps? Improperly installed or defective hardware can stop Vista from booting dead in its tracks. If you’ve recently installed new components, try taking them out and putting them back in. For example, maybe your new graphics card isn’t sitting right in its slot or your new hard drive isn’t tightly connected with its cables and ribbons. If that doesn’t work, take out the culprit piece of hardware (install a quick replacement if said hardware is needed for essential computer functionality) and give your PC a boot. Also, it may seem silly, but ensure that your computer’s power cable is properly plugged in and that your PC’s power switch is set to “|” (“O” is off, and “|” is on). The process is called divide and conquer, and if your PC boots up all right, then at least you’ve pinpointed the problem.

A software issue may halt Vista at boot time, too. Retrace your steps and determine whether you’ve installed any applications that may be acting up; uninstall and reboot. If that solves the problem, you’ll know there’s something wrong with the application. Software drivers for hardware are notorious for causing headaches. Make sure that all your software drivers are updated, or you may need to roll back to a previous version if a newer one is causing Vista to crash or fail at boot time.

Vista DVD Recovery

Vista’s crash recovery options can be accessed by popping in your Vista DVD and rebooting your PC. You’ll be asked to Hit Any Key To Continue, and you’ll be inside the Vista DVD menu. If your PC skips your optical drive during boot time and goes directly to your hard drive, you’ll need to make a setting change in your motherboard’s BIOS. Restart the computer, and hit either DEL or F2 (different PC makers use different function keys) and you’ll be taken to the BIOS screen. Navigate to your Advanced BIOS options, and select your optical drive as “the first boot device”. Save the setting and restart your PC.

Once you’re inside the Windows Vista Recovery Environment select Repair your computer. The recovery environment will go through the motions and attempt to detect a Vista installation on your hard drives. The Vista Startup Repair application is rather easy to use. It can be used as a sort of panacea if you don’t want to delve too deeply and get your hands dirty. The Vista Startup Repair is very adept at fixing damaged boot records, AWOL system files, software driver issues, and several other problems that may be preventing your computer from booting normally. Also, if you’ve set a system restore point, Startup Repair can access this in the case a rollback is required to make things right. If you didn’t store your files in the usual places—User folder, My Documents, etc.–then Startup Repair may delete them, so always make sure you back up all essential files on a regular basis.

source

Adding Memory to Vista

I upgraded the RAM on my Windows Vista Home Premium laptop to four gigabytes, but when I check the system information box to see how much memory I have now, it only says about three gigabytes. Could there be something wrong with the chips?

While Windows Vista’s specifications do state you can upgrade the computer’s random access memory (RAM) to a maximum of four gigabytes, the system doesn’t actually report the full amount when you check the amount of installed memory. This is because Windows hoards some of the memory for the computer’s hardware devices, like its graphics card and network components. The full technical explanation can be found at support.microsoft.com/kb/929605.

On many machines, however, installing Windows Vista Service Pack 1 will make the system report the full four gigabytes of memory. Microsoft explains how this works at support.microsoft.com/kb/946003.

While the four-gigabyte memory limitation holds true for the most common forms of Vista — the 32-bit versions of the operating system — the 64-bit editions can handle eight gigabytes to 120 gigabytes, depending on the specific Vista version. The 64-bit edition of Windows Vista Home Premium, for example, can support up to 16 gigabytes of memory and Windows Vista Ultimate can wrangle 128 gigabytes.

The terms 32-bit and 64-bit indicate how the computer’s processor handles data, and a 64-bit system can make use of much larger amounts of memory. The 64-bit version of Windows Vista, (which needs a processor capable of managing a 64-bit operating system, as well as compatible hardware drivers) is often used by people who need to have several programs open at once while bouncing among them. More information on 64-bit editions of Vista can be found on Microsoft’s site at bit.ly/GjypQ.

If you ever suspect that the computer’s memory chips could be causing erratic behavior like sudden crashes, Vista does include its own Windows Memory Diagnostics Tool. You can find detailed instructions for using it at bit.ly/2VU59g.



source

Take a closer look at Vista UAC prompts

Windows Vista has a built-in security feature called User Account Control (UAC for short) that is designed to reduce the potential for security breaches. UAC forces all users, even administrators, to request permission via the UAC prompt in order to perform tasks that require administrative privileges. Standard users must be able to provide an Administrator user name and password and Administrators must simply consent to the operation.

While this is all pretty familiar territory to Vista users, the fact that there are actually four types of UAC prompts, each with a different color scheme isn’t. Sure we’ve all encountered UAC prompts, but most of us think of them in generic terms. Seriously, who among us has actually taken the time to look at the color scheme of a UAC? We usually just click a button as fast as we can to move past the prompt. However, like the Homeland Security color levels, each of the successive UAC color-coding schemes is designed to convey a greater sense of warning.

I take a closer look at each type of UAC prompt in a TechRepublic Photo Gallery and point out the different color schemes. Check it out.

source