[bdfunda]

In the Windows Vista vs. Windows 7 boot drag race, Microsoft proved the superior performance of the next iteration of the Windows client compared to its precursor. At the Windows hardware Engineering Conference this week, Jon DeVaan, Senior Vice President of the Core Operating System Division, together with Mike Angiulo, manager of the Planning and PC Ecosystem Team for Windows, revealed a comparison between Windows 7 and Windows Vista in terms of startup times. The conclusion was that Windows 7 managed to beat Vista by a few seconds in terms of startup performance.

DeVaan mentioned that one aspect of the evolution from Vista to Windows 7 was the introduction of a new mechanism designed to start services truly on demand. This improves not only the boot but also the shutdown performance for Windows 7. The evolution translates into the Trigger Start Services for Windows 7.

“Windows 7 supports the ability to start or stop a service when specific event triggers occur. These events include the first IP address arrival, the last IP address departure, the joining and disjoining of the system to a domain, the connection of a hardware device, and Group Policy changes. A service can be designed to start or stop whenever a particular trigger event occurs,” Microsoft revealed.

The Trigger Start Services feature is an integral part of a much larger evolution of the service control manager (SCM) in Windows 7. SCM in Windows 7 will reduce the number of services using Automatic Start which in its turn takes a load off RAM and I/O. In Windows 7, service can be set to start or to stop on demand, while at the same time being capable of killing itself if idle.

“Service triggers help enable services to start based on infrequent events and scenarios. The benefits of service triggers include the following: improved system boot performance. The service does not use Automatic Start, which results in faster system startup; and improved system shutdown performance. The service is not started unless the service trigger occurs, which results in faster system shutdown,” Microsoft added.


http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Gll6u97NLaM

[Liskiller]

Another version of this video:
Vista vs Windows 7 boot race

[bdfunda]

thanks dude for the nee info!!

[Syzygy]

Does anyone know what specs the computers had?

[CommonSense]

The Sidebar slows it down alot (for Vista)

This post has been edited by CommonSense: 09 November 2008 - 04:04 AM

[RickSOLET]

^ Windows 7 also starts with gadgets but without the sidebar.

[phoenix_abhi]

StickwithXP, on Nov 9 2008, 05:56 AM, said:

Does anyone know what specs the computers had?

The best available, but they will lie

[FalseAgent]

RickSOLET, on Nov 9 2008, 06:05 AM, said:

^ Windows 7 also starts with gadgets but without the sidebar.

irony: the gadgets in windows vista's sidebar perform alot faster when they're not attached to the sidebar. Try it for yourself.


nice boot drag race, lol. Windows 7 has a awesome boot screen IMO. They should keep it. and wow, I never knew the boot screen had a fade in effect.

This post has been edited by comedy_guy: 09 November 2008 - 09:13 PM

[henrydtv]

Windows 7 will OWN any other os

[endrit10]

comedy_guy, on Nov 9 2008, 09:07 PM, said:

RickSOLET, on Nov 9 2008, 06:05 AM, said:

^ Windows 7 also starts with gadgets but without the sidebar.

irony: the gadgets in windows vista's sidebar perform alot faster when they're not attached to the sidebar. Try it for yourself.


nice boot drag race, lol. Windows 7 has a awesome boot screen IMO. They should keep it. and wow, I never knew the boot screen had a fade in effect.

Disabling that bootscreen improves my boot time by like 3 - 4 seconds.
Having a no_gui boot is a lot faster on Win7.

This post has been edited by endrit10: 09 November 2008 - 09:25 PM

[timbertide]

And what about the sleep/resume time?

[uch_haiden]

Ok that's a good one, the problem is Microsoft had not been (real) successful in Vista then why are they comparing it to Vista. A lot of articles had been circulating and well most people believe it that Vista is slow and lags behind XP.

Is it not better if they compared it to XP instead?

Just my thought.

[endrit10]

Vista is slower on machines with less than 2 gig RAM.
Most people have like 3gigs now so its not really a problem.

SP1 also improved performance.

[FalseAgent]

vista is a sucker for RAM, I swear.