none
Why is Windows 7 so slow? RRS feed

  • Question

  • Bearing in mind other 2009 built operating systems like PCLinuxOS, Fedora, Ubuntu, or Mandriva, why do Microsoft operating systems take so long to set up, run and do anything?

    I think since the building of Vista and now Windows 7, Microsoft builders have lost the plot completely.
    The Linux systems above all do the same things as Win 7, ie make a computer work, yet the MS offerings are really slow to install, update and use.

    Frankly, Linux is the way ahead and Microsoft can expect to lose more and more business since their operating systems are just not up to the competition.

    I work for a large employer who deals in building materials in the UK, America and most of Western Europe. The computer system they use is still Windows 2000 Pro just because XP, and Vista aren't stable enough and are filled with bloatware.

    WAKE UP, MS!
    Friday, May 8, 2009 5:52 PM

Answers

  • I wouldn't call a 20 minute install slow; compared to previous Windows versions both Vista and Windows 7 have really hit the ground running at install time. Yes linux makes a computer work; does it make it work 'better' than Windows - well in my opinion No it doesn't. Linux installs faster, well yes of course it does; it would, wouldn't it considering it is has approximately one quarter of Windows footprint. The bundled software that Linux provides is also, sadly, not even within the Windows operating systems league. In the end you get what you pay for that is why 95% or more of PCs available today run Windows, not Linux.

    I will just point out that this forum provides support for Windows 7 we do not cover other operating systems, such as Linux. I know that Linux causes some debate however, I will not be drawn into a Windows/linux debate.

    John Barnett MVP: Windows XP Associate Expert: Windows Desktop Experience: Web: http://www.winuser.co.uk; Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org; Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org;
    Friday, May 8, 2009 6:34 PM
    Answerer

All replies

  • I wouldn't call a 20 minute install slow; compared to previous Windows versions both Vista and Windows 7 have really hit the ground running at install time. Yes linux makes a computer work; does it make it work 'better' than Windows - well in my opinion No it doesn't. Linux installs faster, well yes of course it does; it would, wouldn't it considering it is has approximately one quarter of Windows footprint. The bundled software that Linux provides is also, sadly, not even within the Windows operating systems league. In the end you get what you pay for that is why 95% or more of PCs available today run Windows, not Linux.

    I will just point out that this forum provides support for Windows 7 we do not cover other operating systems, such as Linux. I know that Linux causes some debate however, I will not be drawn into a Windows/linux debate.

    John Barnett MVP: Windows XP Associate Expert: Windows Desktop Experience: Web: http://www.winuser.co.uk; Web: http://xphelpandsupport.mvps.org; Web: http://vistasupport.mvps.org;
    Friday, May 8, 2009 6:34 PM
    Answerer
  • I agree with John windows has really improved and windows 7 is very good operating system been a week i am using it since the RC came out had not many problems with it ....

    John there is onething tht i will agree with leatherbarrow windows os mostly vista and windows 7 they hog the system resources a lot installation is fine mine gave me 30 min to isntall windows 7 which is good but somehing that i will also like to tell i test a lot of operating systems and mostly on 1 machine and i installed mac leopard 10.5 and the same machine which is not running windows 7 gave me a way much better performance than vista or windows 7 a 11 sec startup and 8 sec shutdown which i have never seen in any windows system also the usb speeds the usb 2.0 it gives the accurate speeds in mac and xp but with windows vista and windows 7 it has taken a hit

    I have a 1TB external hdd and its a usb 2.0 and i used to get amazing speed when i connected it to the the mac installed machine and my broher's XP system .. only with windows vista and windows 7 this seems to be a problem it gives just a trasnfer speed of 5 MB/s and then keeps on dropping down and then stays on 1.5 or 2

    on my Mac it used to trasnfer 1 gb file under a min same with the xp but not with vista or windows 7 ... i have tried with a small file and have tried with a big file the results turn out to be the same . have checked in device manager and my ext hdd shows its connected to a hi speed usb hub ... i have tried safe mode and in the safe mode the speeds are little better it gave a max of 10MB/s but not as good as the mac or the xp it is not reaching the 25 MB/s to 30 MB/s which it used to

    I work for Dell and its not only a problem with my system there are thousands of users who face sluggishness of the systems even with a good configuration .... not only related to trasnfer rate but with graphics etc ... the games and all other softwares too ..

    users all around the world hated Vista for god knows what reason . i on the other hand had no issues with vista it took all the softwares i used worked fine with some glitches and the usb transfer rate problem i told you about but besides that it was fine....

    No doubt Microsoft has come a long way since windows 98 many good improvements and windows vista and windows 7 no doubt are good operating system but these small problems cant be left unaccounted for something needs to be done
    Friday, May 8, 2009 8:02 PM
  • Windows 7 is the future.  I have use Linux, windows xp basic, xp pro, xp32, xp 64, windows vista home ,vista ultimate and now windows 7 rc 64bit. 
    So what if windows 7 instal is a  bite slower than all the others.  It's becuase it have to unpack all of the raw data.  If it didn't compress you would be taking forever just to download windows 7.  My intel I7 intall it in about 10minute which is not bad. But my other intel quad 8200 took about 25min plus to install.  Once installation is complete I notice major change in windows 7 compare to the others.  It shine... Xp is stable it the user that don't know what they are doing that makes it unstable.  i have no problem with my windows xp prof 64bit for 4 years.  The boot time on windows 7 and xp I don't really notice any changes in it.  The shut down is a bit faster but they still need work it's not an instant shut down.  Every single one of my devices work right from the start of windows 7 that was a plus.  I didn't even need to update drivers and if I do windows up took care of it.  It's 10x faster than vista and no more memory hog.  I was able to play crysis max for the first time in an operating system.  Microsoft have strip alot of unneeded junk out of windows 7 and keeping it simple.  Finally windows 7 will the the first time that I actually will buy it when it comes out in store.
    Friday, May 8, 2009 8:19 PM
  • It is sometimes pointless to argue these issues. Personally I love Windows 7, so far least, It is brisk clean and smart.  It has to go down in history as one of the cleanest beta I have seen from Microsoft.  The RC version is just about perfect. 

    I have gotten involved in Linux install in the past and to be honest I did not have a pleasent experience at all.  For the most part is crapy software from the point of view features the chrome sucks and support well, you might as well go www.fatchance.com to get any.  I say to those who don't like it don't buy it. If you really that unhappy with Microsoft product why do you even bother.

    Give me a break!
    Friday, May 8, 2009 8:20 PM
  • Dude it's probably because your port is not usb 2.0 but the older version
    Friday, May 8, 2009 8:21 PM
  • Goodie. Another linux toadie.

    Dude...you wanna call an operating system that supports...well...almost NOTHING the average home user/families do and need on a day to day basis better than Windows? And businesses? Puh-leez. comparatively, less than 20 % of our several MILLION customers uses any linux product and of those that do, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that 90 % do it begrudgingly. 

     "..way ahead..?" I bloody think NOT. How about the fact the there are DAILY security fixes released for Linux flavored o/s? On an average week, I get between 40 and 90 security advisories for Sles, Redhat, Ubuntu, CentOs, Fedora, etc. (Yes, DAILY.) Know how many I get for MS software on the whole? 15 per MONTH. Yes, there are some folks who prefer linux based operating systems, but they will always be out numbered by those of us who are..y'know..SANE.

      As for Win7 being slow...I don't know about you, but I think the 18 minutes it took for a full install to complete on the test box from which I'm sending this message (2.4GHZ P4, 2gb ram, onboard video etc.) is pretty darned good compared to the nearly 45 minutes it takes to go through a general Redhat, SuSE, Fedora, Mandriva, etc installation. ('cuz y'gotta pick out all of the so-called options to install with each separate system. What a great time saving innovation THAT IS.)

     Admittedly, I am extremely hard to please when it comes to an operating system and lord knows Microsoft isn't perfect but honestly, speaking strictly for myself, I'd choose to eat liver before even considering using linux if it wasn't forced on me. (And I HATE liver.) The dark side may have cookies, but they buy them from us.

    -jay
    • Edited by jdj522 Friday, May 8, 2009 8:54 PM missed wording
    Friday, May 8, 2009 8:45 PM
  • Hi DaManWangsta

    my usb ports are 2.0 and it was working fine on XP, Vista (without updates) .......


    I have a 1TB external hdd and its a usb 2.0 and i used to get amazing speed when i connected it to the the mac installed machine and my broher's XP system .. only with windows vista and windows 7 this seems to be a problem it gives just a trasnfer speed of 5 MB/s and then keeps on dropping down and then stays on 1.5 or 2

    on my Mac it used to trasnfer 1 gb file under a min same with the xp but not with vista or windows 7 ... i have tried with a small file and have tried with a big file the results turn out to be the same . have checked in device manager and my ext hdd shows its connected to a hi speed usb hub ... i have tried safe mode and in the safe mode the speeds are little better it gave a max of 10MB/s but not as good as the mac or the xp it is not reaching the 25 MB/s to 30 MB/s which it used to

    I work for Dell and its not only a problem with my system there are thousands of users who face the same problem

    Not only that i have tried multiple pen drive multiple ports ...... i have checked the bios and all the setting for the usb controller are fine the drivers are up to date how ever i noticed something...

    i did a clean install of vista did not conect to the internet therefore no updates downloaded and now i tried the usb transfer .... i got speeds upto 25MB/s to 30MB/s which is good enough as a usb 2.0 theoretically provides 60MB/s

    BUT

    After downloading the updates from windows update the speeds took a hit now they do not go above 4 MB/s or 5MB/s so this is an issue with the updates some fix needs to be for this cause it is literally frustrating as to trasnfer a file of 1 gb it takes a long time.

    same problem with windows 7 RC the transfer rate is slow

    There are no softwares installed except an antivirus software so chances of some 3rd party programs causing the problem i dont think so.

    Friday, May 8, 2009 9:08 PM
  • Goodie. Another linux toadie.

    Dude...you wanna call an operating system that supports...well...almost NOTHING the average home user/families do and need on a day to day basis better than Windows? And businesses? Puh-leez. comparatively, less than 20 % of our several MILLION customers uses any linux product and of those that do, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that 90 % do it begrudgingly. 

     "..way ahead..?" I bloody think NOT. How about the fact the there are DAILY security fixes released for Linux flavored o/s? On an average week, I get between 40 and 90 security advisories for Sles, Redhat, Ubuntu, CentOs, Fedora, etc. (Yes, DAILY.) Know how many I get for MS software on the whole? 15 per MONTH. Yes, there are some folks who prefer linux based operating systems, but they will always be out numbered by those of us who are..y'know..SANE.

      As for Win7 being slow...I don't know about you, but I think the 18 minutes it took for a full install to complete on the test box from which I'm sending this message (2.4GHZ P4, 2gb ram, onboard video etc.) is pretty darned good compared to the nearly 45 minutes it takes to go through a general Redhat, SuSE, Fedora, Mandriva, etc installation. ('cuz y'gotta pick out all of the so-called options to install with each separate system. What a great time saving innovation THAT IS.)

     Admittedly, I am extremely hard to please when it comes to an operating system and lord knows Microsoft isn't perfect but honestly, speaking strictly for myself, I'd choose to eat liver before even considering using linux if it wasn't forced on me. (And I HATE liver.) The dark side may have cookies, but they buy them from us.

    -jay

    Dude i am not a linux toadie i test operating systems and i had isntalled mac leopard on my system..... i never liked ubuntu and red hat etc...... i am talking about apple .... windows is versatile but the differences i found in the performance cant be left unnoticed usb speeds , then memory usage , page file allocation ....and lots more....
    Friday, May 8, 2009 9:10 PM
  • Windows 7 is the future.  I have use Linux, windows xp basic, xp pro, xp32, xp 64, windows vista home ,vista ultimate and now windows 7 rc 64bit. 
    So what if windows 7 instal is a  bite slower than all the others.  It's becuase it have to unpack all of the raw data.  If it didn't compress you would be taking forever just to download windows 7.  My intel I7 intall it in about 10minute which is not bad. But my other intel quad 8200 took about 25min plus to install.  Once installation is complete I notice major change in windows 7 compare to the others.  It shine... Xp is stable it the user that don't know what they are doing that makes it unstable.  i have no problem with my windows xp prof 64bit for 4 years.  The boot time on windows 7 and xp I don't really notice any changes in it.  The shut down is a bit faster but they still need work it's not an instant shut down.  Every single one of my devices work right from the start of windows 7 that was a plus.  I didn't even need to update drivers and if I do windows up took care of it.  It's 10x faster than vista and no more memory hog.  I was able to play crysis max for the first time in an operating system.  Microsoft have strip alot of unneeded junk out of windows 7 and keeping it simple.  Finally windows 7 will the the first time that I actually will buy it when it comes out in store.

    i personally like windows 7 the features and the improvements ....but certain issues that come up which dont get fixed even after u have used all the resources available becomes very frustrating..... when on the same hardware configuration one device works perfectly on 3 diff operating system and cause problems with 1 then it is not the problme of the device it becomes a software issue...

    i know a user makes all the diff and personally i had never has issues with any operating system...... ppl tell vista has so many issues well i never had any issues with vista except the usb trasnfer speeds which started happ the day i installed updates on the system.....

    just try this connect ur usb 2.0 device to the system and copy files to it and let me know the speed u get... usb 2.0 shud theoretically give u 60 MB/s and practically 30 MB/s ... in XP i get the speed , in mac leopard i get the speed , in vista before installing updates i get the speed .... so why not in windows 7 .. now tell is this a device issue or a software issue...
    Friday, May 8, 2009 9:18 PM
  • Only thing you need to read on this is someone who thinks Windows 2000 is better than XP and more stable is living on another planet. Also out of the 500 employees here I would say 3 could figure out how to untar and install a program here on Linux and 99 percent of them could figure out how to insert a dvd to install an app on windows and the other 1 percent are disabled so what operating system is more advanced?


    Tim Comes
    Friday, May 8, 2009 9:52 PM
  • Only thing you need to read on this is someone who thinks Windows 2000 is better than XP and more stable is living on another planet. Also out of the 500 employees here I would say 3 could figure out how to untar and install a program here on Linux and 99 percent of them could figure out how to insert a dvd to install an app on windows and the other 1 percent are disabled so what operating system is more advanced?


    Tim Comes

    From our point of view Windows XP is the most robust Windows OS compared to Vista and Window 7.

    We have been developing an automated office application and it is interesting the performance difference between the OS 's.

    Here are some time differences to run an automated process using c# between OS and Versions of Office.

    XP - Office2003 - 43 secs
    XP - Office 2007 - 80 secs

    Vista - Office2003 - 63 secs
    Vista - Office2007 - 93 secs

    Windows 7 (Beta) - Office 2007 - 180 secs

    It appears that Vista increases the processing time by at least 60%

    But the Current Beta Release of Windows 7 Build 7100 increases this again by another 160%

    These are all clean build systems with all the latest service patches installed for OS and Office.

    I would struggle to recommend any client upgrade to Vista or Windows 7 unless performance can be improved.

    Throwing more hardware at the problem is not the answer ..


    Saturday, June 27, 2009 4:15 AM
  • Damian,

    Its been almost a month since you posted, have you found the dependancy in your code that makes it slower on vista and Win7?

    Reason I ask is your experience is 180 degrees opposite of mine.  Once booted, Vista was only slightly slower than XP, and Win7 boots, runs, and shuts down so much faster than XP for everything I've tried since Feb 18th 2009, its like night and day.  I did add one starup program that finally made Win7 as slow to boot as XP, but its function is one I fully expected to increase boot time, in fact I was expecting longer...

    Also, you might never expect something as lowly as a script to take advantage of 64 bit archictecture, but one of my parsers was taking 25 minutes to complete on XP-Prox86, and runs the exact same task in Win7x64 in only 57% of the time.  Nearly twice as fast.  Without one single change, and running on absolutely identical hardware.  In fact Win7 is purportedly hamstrung compared to XP since both machines only have 2GB of ram.

    I suspect you've got something going on you might not be aware of, I hope you isolate the cause.

    DAS

    Monday, July 26, 2010 4:09 PM