vista is slower in booting than xp?

K

kingdomwinds

Limp Gawd
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
406
I just built a new pc. Specs:

q9450
4gb ddr2 800mhz corsair
280 GTX
x-fi
620HX corsair
Vista premium

I noticed that it takes almost 1 min to boot into vista. Is it suppose to take this long? My other xp system boots alot faster.
 
Vista isn't XP, period.

There's a lot more going on during the boot process than with XP, and because of how Vista uses SuperFetch you can be sure that Vista boxes will always boot a bit slower than the same box with XP.

It's normal, nothing to worry about.
 
One of the reasons Vista defaults to sleep mode. Sleep mode does work quite well on most modern mobos. Uses hardly any more power than being shut down and comes back up in 10-15 seconds or so on my rig.
 
Sleep mode comes back up in 5 seconds on my rig. 10-15 sounds really long.
 
Cyrilix said:
Sleep mode comes back up in 5 seconds on my rig. 10-15 sounds really long.
Click to expand...

I have one rig that comes out of sleep that fast as well. But my main rig has 7 drives to spin up and 8 gigs of ram. I always just assumed that was why it took a little longer than the other one that has 4 gigs and only one drive.
By no means have I ever actually measured the time. Just feels like 10 seconds or so.

zupahwez0e said:
no.
Click to expand...

That is true. All that Vista "tweaks" are going to get you is a frame or two at best. And usually not even that.
But the placebo effect might be worth it to some. ;)
 
thanks for the answers. This is a bit unrelated but i installed COD4 after crysis and noticed that cod installed direcx. This does not overwrite the directx 10 right? Do i have to update the directx again?
 
DirectX checks the file versions of every one it's about to install: if the version is older, it's replaced. If newer then it's skipped, so no, no worries about DirectX installation. It won't overwrite newer files with older ones.

One thing Microsoft could have done better with are the driver file replacement dialogues. When they have an issue with installation, you get that box that says "An attempt is being made to overwrite a newer file with an older one" or words to that effect, then it shows you the driver version of the file in question and asks if you want to keep that file. The thing is, the wording makes it sound like if you click No then you keep the original one and don't replace it, where it's actually the other way around.

The driver version being shown is the one that's about to be replace so the proper response is "YES" because you do want to keep the file. This causes a lot of grief for people when it comes to updating drivers sometimes as they answer "NO" and end up with screwed up drivers.

The answer to that dialogue is always "YES" to make sure you have the newest and most current build versions of whatever driver is being replaced. "YES" means keep the most current one and don't overwrite it.

Wonder why they chose to make it so back-asswards...
 
Theres a tweak floating around.
1. winkey + r
2. msconfig
3. Boot tab
4. Advanced Options...
5. Check Number of processors
6. Select the optimal amount of processors
 
i heard that vista 32bit does not use all the 4gb of ram. Has this been changed since sp1? I see 4gb of ram in the system information panel.
 
Lifer43 said:
Theres a tweak floating around.
1. winkey + r
2. msconfig
3. Boot tab
4. Advanced Options...
5. Check Number of processors
6. Select the optimal amount of processors
Click to expand...


Not a tweak. By default Vista uses as many as it (has)can. That "tweak's" only real use is for debugging/troubleshooting. It is there to LIMIT the number of cores used.
 
The first thing I noticed after installing Vista is how much faster the start-up process is than XP. It may take 4 or 5 seconds longer to reach the desktop, but once it reaches the desktop it loads my start-up programs (firewall, anti-virus, etc) much faster than XP did.
 
OP your HDD makes a big difference. List the one you have.

P.S. my Vista is way faster than my XP
 
Joe Average said:
... and because of how Vista uses SuperFetch you can be sure that Vista boxes will always boot a bit slower than the same box with XP.
Click to expand...

I've found the opposite in my experience. After you let SuperFetch do its tuning, you can bet that booting Vista hauls ass. I can tell you because I have a dual boot of XP Pro and Vista x64: Vista x64 boots fully to desktop, with 24 system tray icons/programs and an open copy of Winamp, Windows Live Mail, and Firefox, in 2 full minutes. With XP Pro, system fully tweaked/tricked out, the exact same scenario with the exact same software takes 4 minutes. That's 2x as fast.
 
Hit that XP box with a Bootvis test and optimize pass or two (it's fair because SuperFetch and Vista's self-tuning do the same thing but more consistently). I'll bet that XP box boots pretty damned fast afterward.

24 icons in the Tray? SWEET JEBUS... and you call that tweaked/tricked out? :eek:

I'd have it booting in under a minute... ;)
 
Vista will get faster after about a week of use as superfetch kicks in. Nothing to worry about. You may notice increased hard drive usage for awhile.

kingdomwinds said:
i heard that vista 32bit does not use all the 4gb of ram. Has this been changed since sp1? I see 4gb of ram in the system information panel.
Click to expand...

All 32-bit operating systems are limited to 4 GBs of address space. That includes your system RAM as well as memory on the video card and other devices.

You need the 64-bit version of Vista if you want to use 4+ GB of RAM. It sounds like you're already using 64-bit Vista if you can see all 4 GB already.
 
GORANKAR said:
Not a tweak. By default Vista uses as many as it (has)can. That "tweak's" only real use is for debugging/troubleshooting. It is there to LIMIT the number of cores used.
Click to expand...
I always thought it was amusing to see how many people recommended this "tweak" for an OS that was designed for system with multi-core processors. That would be akin to buying a V6, and having to go under the hood to enable two of the cylinders before you drive the car.
 
Joe Average said:
Hit that XP box with a Bootvis test and optimize pass or two (it's fair because SuperFetch and Vista's self-tuning do the same thing but more consistently). I'll bet that XP box boots pretty damned fast afterward.

24 icons in the Tray? SWEET JEBUS... and you call that tweaked/tricked out? :eek:

I'd have it booting in under a minute... ;)
Click to expand...

Been there, done that. The problem is that since there's no mechanism in place to auto tune in XP, like in Vista, after a while, the entire system starts slowing down, and you'd have to run Bootvis again.

And yes, I use EVERY single one of the programs in my system tray, otherwise it wouldn't be there. :) Guaranteed.
 
Yah, I knew that was coming. :)

Only takes a minute to run Bootvis, yanno. Well, at least on my machine it's a minute, most times less. hehe And actually XP does self-tune the layout.ini files during idle periods but it only does it once every 3 days or so; you can force the tune up with a command line parameter that's fairly well known (the ProcessIdleTasks run32.dll call) and it'll do a quickie layout.ini adjustment and file re-ordering.
 
Joe Average said:
Yah, I knew that was coming. :)

Only takes a minute to run Bootvis, yanno. Well, at least on my machine it's a minute, most times less. hehe And actually XP does self-tune the layout.ini files during idle periods but it only does it once every 3 days or so; you can force the tune up with a command line parameter that's fairly well known (the ProcessIdleTasks run32.dll call) and it'll do a quickie layout.ini adjustment and file re-ordering.
Click to expand...

Ya, I hear you. I used to do that, but then I forgot it and got sick of doing it manually. I know there are ways around that where you can set it up to run every x number of days, but I never got around to it. Productivity gets in the way.

Bottom line, from an XP veteran, I can safely say that Vista, provided you are using a tough rig and are going to be using x64, is heck of a lot faster in everyday things than XP ever was. I don't know, maybe it's just the x64 part of it. I can't comment for the 32bit, because I don't have it.
 
You aren't supposed to shutdown vista, hibernate or suspend it only. That is what your problem is. That's why by default the orb is suspend when you click the power button. Vista doesn't need to be shutdown often if ever the way XP used to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top