Vista/Tiger startup speed comparison

[ambience]

I did a quick comparison between the Vista and Tiger startup and shutdown speed. I thought you guys would be interested.

YouTube - Vista VS Tiger (Original - Vista PC VS Tiger MacBook)

I made a new video comparing the startup time of Vista and Tiger on my MacBook. The conclusion is shocking.
YouTube - Vista VS Tiger (Vista MacBook VS Tiger MacBook)

 

[Me1000]

I enjoyed it!

 

[robbieduncan]

It's hardly a scientific test. The machines are radically different. Whilst the PC may be faster it could contain a significant amount of additional hardware that takes longer to initialise.

If you installed Vista on the Macbook, now that might be an interesting test...

 

[Me1000]

do it, boot camp it, then time it!
either way we all know who the winner is going to be!

 

[holamiamigos]

thanks for sharing... i neeeeed to know mac boots up faster!

 

[ambience]

It's hardly a scientific test. The machines are radically different. Whilst the PC may be faster it could contain a significant amount of additional hardware that takes longer to initialise.

If you installed Vista on the Macbook, now that might be an interesting test...

I know it is not scientific, but in reality my Vista machine has considerably faster hardware than my MacBook. When I get time I'll install an unactivated (I only have one license key) copy of Vista on my MacBook and do this test again.

 

[robbieduncan]

I know it is not scientific, but in reality my Vista machine has considerably faster hardware than my MacBook. When I get time I'll install an unactivated (I only have one license key) copy of Vista on my MacBook and do this test again.

As I said it may be faster but boot time will be significantly effected by how long the individual hardware components take to initialise. A faster CPU will do no good if it's waiting for a slow ethernet PHY to initialise! That's why I suggested using the same hardware.

Clearly this will be impossible to film at the same time, perhaps film one after the other then cut them together side-by-side?

 

[ambience]

As I said it may be faster but boot time will be significantly effected by how long the individual hardware components take to initialise. A faster CPU will do no good if it's waiting for a slow ethernet PHY to initialise! That's why I suggested using the same hardware.

Clearly this will be impossible to film at the same time, perhaps film one after the other then cut them together side-by-side?

I know its possible something on my PC could be initializing slowly causing Vista to startup so slowly, but the PC has a considerably faster hard drive which would assist in reducing boot time. I have used Vista on other PCs so it makes me believe that its not my PC but Vista itself that is slow. I started installing Vista on the MacBook as we speak... after testing it I will have to roll back to XP since I wont be able to activated it.

 

[clevin]

lol, does OX ever need to spend time at booting to make sure the system is ok? its bundled to the hardware!

vista has auto login too, at least try to be fair, ok?

final words, if u think the booting speed is important, i wonder if u use photoshop, and if u think photoshop speed is important too, if so, i tell ya XP is faster than OSX, (tested by some guy here at MR, search for post, photoshop CS3, UB version.) happy now?

 

[ambience]

lol, does OX ever need to spend time at booting to make sure the system is ok? its bundled to the hardware!

vista has auto login too, at least try to be fair, ok?

final words, if u think the booting speed is important, i wonder if u use photoshop, and if u think photoshop speed is important too, if so, i tell ya XP is faster than OSX, (tested by some guy here at MR, search for post, photoshop CS3, UB version.) happy now?

As I said in the video: I cannot get auto login to work. The only way I can get it to auto login is by removing my password from my admin account. Also, I counted the amount of time from Vista booting to the login screen and counted OS X to the desktop. Vista had an advantage. I do use Photoshop for my job (web design) and I use it on XP (and on Vista) and never use it on OS X as the version we have is not native for OS X for intel. What does Vista's startup/shutdown speed have to do with photoshop being fast on XP? And how can you compare some beta version of photoshop performance on XP to it being on OS X? CS3 will be the first version of photoshop on intel OS X so it should be expected that its not highly optimized. This video was to demonstrate the fact that Vista is slow to startup and shutdown, and nothing else.

 

[Xyl]

lol, does OX ever need to spend time at booting to make sure the system is ok? its bundled to the hardware!

vista has auto login too, at least try to be fair, ok?

final words, if u think the booting speed is important, i wonder if u use photoshop, and if u think photoshop speed is important too, if so, i tell ya XP is faster than OSX, (tested by some guy here at MR, search for post, photoshop CS3, UB version.) happy now?

Seriously clevin, you complain about everything. As he said, he compared Mac OS X to desktop vs. Vista to login screen, so Vista has an advantage already. As the thread title states, this is a "Vista/Tiger startup speed comparison" and nothing else. If we followed your logic of talking about photoshop, I think ambience should test every single program that is available for both Vista and OS X - you know, only to be fair. Plausible? Not quite.

And by the way, I think boot up speed is more important than photoshop speed. Because including both Windows and Mac users, probably 5% (some number I made up, but it's probably less than that) use photoshop, and 100% of users boot up. .

 

[clevin]

well, first, I think ur comparison is not accurate and ur conclusion is not definitive. especially M$ windows Vista is not tied to a certain hardware as OSX does, so this comparison doesn't mean much for users

second, on my computers, XP IS slower than OSX at shutdown and startup. still, I have to think windows need more time during the booting to recognize, initialize and optimized for the hardwares, while OSX doesn't care about those very much. [for a simple example, linux startup process is slowest one, why OSX, which is build on the top of BSD would be drastically faster at startup? coz its tied to hardwares.]

Third, I just pointed out many apps, and the whole pace of OSX, is slower than XP.

Sorry, I can't say anthing about Vista, no first hand experience.

And by the way, I think boot up speed is more important than photoshop speed. Because including both Windows and Mac users, probably 5% (some number I made up, but it's probably less than that) use photoshop, and 100% of users boot up. .

huh, im just picking photoshop as an example, I hope u didn't think photoshop is the only situation.

I can't agree with your comparison, its about how much time u spend on the operation everyday, booting up, no matter how long, u only spend, say, at most, 20 minutes on it everyday, while u ormally use office, photoshop or any big software more than hours.

I didn't complaint about facts, i just complaint about ppl using unreasonable logic in trying to make a conclusion from their selective facts that may or may not be true.

 

[decksnap]

well, first, I think ur comparison is not accurate and ur conclusion is not definitive. especially M$ windows Vista is not tied to a certain hardware as OSX does, so this comparison doesn't mean much for users

Actually users wouldn't care WHY Vista starts up slower or not, They only care IF it does.

It's not just that you're negative in every thread, or that you post these negative comments SO much, it's that they're usually off on some tangent and really don't consist of a legitimate argument.

 

[benzslrpee]

so he just did a second video...what smart comment do you have for us now Clevin?

 

[clevin]

so he just did a second video...what smart comment do you have for us now Clevin?

lol, maybe u should read my reasoning clearly, does his second video solved my problems? not to mention apple's bootcamp doesn't officially support vista yet.

I have to think windows need more time during the booting to recognize, initialize and optimized for the hardwares, while OSX doesn't care about those very much.

smart? maybe im not that smart, just that u don't read.

or ur smart mind tells u M$'s software will skip hardware check especially for apple's hardware?

 

[stealthman1]

second, on my computers, XP IS slower than OSX at shutdown and startup. still, I have to think windows need more time during the booting to recognize, initialize and optimized for the hardwares, while OSX doesn't care about those very much. [for a simple example, linux startup process is slowest one, why OSX, which is build on the top of BSD would be drastically faster at startup? coz its tied to hardwares.]

Third, I just pointed out many apps, and the whole pace of OSX, is slower than XP.

Sorry, I can't say anthing about Vista, no first hand experience.

XP is slower for one, because it has to start 50+ processes that you don't need, while OS X starts like, eh, 2? Why is this important to anyone? Because restarting XP happens a LOT!!! XP wastes my time (and precious memory), that may not be important to you, but it's money to me.

 

[clevin]

XP is slower for one, because it has to start 50+ processes that you don't need, while OS X starts like, eh, 2? Why is this important to anyone? Because restarting XP happens a LOT!!! XP wastes my time (and precious memory), that may not be important to you, but it's money to me.

u really need to know more before making statement like that.

 

[SMM]

Actually users wouldn't care WHY Vista starts up slower or not, They only care IF it does.

It's not just that you're negative in every thread, or that you post these negative comments SO much, it's that they're usually off on some tangent and really don't consist of a legitimate argument.

Would you send my a PM I can respond back to?

 

[steve_hill4]

While there will always be a difference in what each does during boot up, I'd like to see it booting through EFI for a true comparison. Since Windows still doesn't support this, we'll have to wait.

My best guess, even with EFI on the same hardware, you'll probably still get maybe 10 seconds difference. If Leopard boots even faster, until that EFI service pack is released, OSX will always be seen as so much more stable and efficient with boot times helping a large way towards that. There's too many excuses around as to why this is slower, but at the end of the day it is slower and that's what consumers will notice.

On a side note, demoing a laptop yesterday, (busy day for people buying new Vista machines), and trying to get the webcam on a HP. First off, it wasn't installed, so I had to install the device through Control Panel>Scanners and Cameras, (which took a while to find since I forgot scanners and cameras are the same to MS). Once done, I clicked finish, several times, and eventually I got a response. Unfortunately it was a blue screen, which then restarted the system. The customer was fine about it though.

 

[stealthman1]

u really need to know more before making statement like that.

ok, you got me Clevin, it starts the dock, finder, a couple others, and one for each widget you're running.

 

[yg17]

I BootCamp'ed Vista on my iMac, and Tiger definitely boots faster. I think the biggest slowdown is that the Mac has to fake BIOS to get Vista to boot, resulting in about 5-10 seconds of a black screen, whereas Tiger works just fine with EFI.

 

[maxrobertson]

well, first, I think ur comparison is not accurate and ur conclusion is not definitive. especially M$ windows Vista is not tied to a certain hardware as OSX does, so this comparison doesn't mean much for users

What? That doesn't make sense. I don't think most users care whether Vista is "tied" to certain hardware or not, they care about how well they can get their work done, and startup time is a good indication of the overall speed of the operating system.

 

[robbieduncan]

so he just did a second video...what smart comment do you have for us now Clevin?

Well that seems to take care of my comments. Same hardware, Vista boots a lot slower.

 

[decksnap]

Would you send my a PM I can respond back to?

Sorry I don't PM.

 

[clevin]

ok, you got me Clevin, it starts the dock, finder, a couple others, and one for each widget you're running.

u still need to read more if those are all u can think of. u didn't see em doesn't mean they aren't there. Its not about "got u", its about what u said is false.

also, remember I m not that inexperienced as u might think in using windows, so i do keep my system as clean as possible.

What? That doesn't make sense. I don't think most users care whether Vista is "tied" to certain hardware or not, they care about how well they can get their work done, and startup time is a good indication of the overall speed of the operating system.

follow your logic, should we encourage photoshope users to switch to windows? since CS3 is faster on windows?

OP said this is a purely startup comparison, no matter u and i agree with his comparison or not, u can't extrapolate this to the whole system level. And I totally disagree your statement of " startup time is a good indication of the overall speed of the operating system", thats false.